Somehow I doubt this Senate committee (now with a Conservative majority and chair) report, in itself, will have much impact. Hope I’m wrong, it may just push the discussion along:
Some Canadian troops should stay beyond 2011 to mentor [and train] Afghans: Senate committee
The problem with that is that mentoring means going out in the field with the Afghans and, inevitably in many parts of the country, engaging in combat at some level. Which no longer seems acceptable in this country. A strictly non-combat training role is something else and may just be acceptable if the government gets some guts and if the Liberals play straight.
Text of the report is here, plus an op-ed by the committee’s chair and deputy chair–Conservative and Liberal respectively:
Our Afghan mission isn’t finished
Meanwhile, Tom Friedman of the NY Times explains why it’s all useless anyway.
Update: Terry Glavin issues a call to, er, arms:
…
The debate has been joined. We have miles to go before we sleep.
Allons-y.
Upperdate: Here’s the carefully fudged conclusion of a report (the first!) by the Common’s Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan, written after its recent trip to Afstan:
…
The Afghan National Army has taken on more of its expected share of security duties, but it will continue to need mentoring and training assistance for many years. The Afghan National Police are not as advanced as the army and are in greater need of mentoring and training assistance. Plans for the growth of the army and police are on track, but beyond quantity, the quality of leaders, soldiers and police requires further work. By July 2011, the requirement for military support may have shifted from one of combat partnership to one of training partnership, as the Afghan National Army moves beyond simple combat capability, to establish the professional development programs expected of an institutional army in a democratic society…
The Committee urges Parliament to consider carefully the progress made recently in the Canadian approach to our mission in Afghanistan. We therefore recommend that the Parliament and government of Canada enter into an intensive and constructive discussion as soon as possible about Canada’s work in Afghanistan and the region for the post July 2011 period. In particular, the Committee recommends that the focus of this discussion should continue to be on how to strengthen the ability of the Afghan government to provide basic services to its people: security, rule of law, health, social services and education. The end of the combat mission in Canada in 2011 should by no means be seen as the end of the engagement by Canada and Canadians. We have come too far, and sacrificed too much to abandon the people of Afghanistan. A final decision on this question should be reached before the end of 2010.
Parties, choose your options. Via Brian Platt at The Canada – Afghanistan Blog, a good site.
Mark
Ottawa
I have but two comments 1) Our forces are exhausted (ie last casuality on his fourth tour) and we need this small force to take a rest. Regroup and rearm. 2) Obama’s directives on the conduct of the war will lead to Canadians being used as cannon fodder as he instructs his troops to avoid the use of lethal force.
The reality we have a force strength that has limited in theatre capabilty and its way past that margin. We owe it to our partners to be realistic and rotate ours outand let others rotate in and re-evaluate annually. Yet, I believe that the the Obama Administration is looking for failure to strengthen its political optics of Bushs war!! mark my words Obama will be in the history books as the modern Benedict Arnold, a Quisling who orchestrated the destruction not only only the Untied States but the western world world!!
I’m with Tom. As long as Obama is set on losing — and I believe he is — it’s pointless.
Actually, too many people think that we need to stay there in a non-combat role for the sake of the women and girls (and such other feel-good poppycock).
As Kaffir Kanuck said (on my blog) in his most recent Dispatch:
“You can’t move from a combat role to any other role until you defeat the enemy. To keep or send any other Canadians after 2012 to that inhospitable land in a non-combat role will most likely send them to their deaths. At least in a combat role, there’s a fighting chance.”
Posting here — http://mooseandsquirrel.ca/2010/06/23/07:51/dispatch-11-%E2%80%93-waiting-to-go-part-8/
I recommend reading the whole thing — one of his best yet!
And, Tom, “cannon fodder” is a phrase Kaffir also uses in this particular post for the same reason.
Both the above comments have much nonsense. At the moment ANSF training without a combat role, including by a small number of the CF, is going on in the Kabul area and there is no reason why that situation should change in the next couple of years at least.
Read the post and comments at “something else” before you rant on in reply. I guess you don’t trust retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie either.
Moreover the US president cannot order the CF from a non-combat training role, should they take that on as their mission post-2011, to be “used as cannon fodder”.
Mark
Ottawa
Mark, please note that Kaffir Kanuck’s comments were not referring to Obama ordering the CF to do anything. I’m certain I didn’t express myself well (above), but I guess you didn’t trouble yourself to read his dispatch before you said the comment was “nonsense.”
[...] lacking the latter (so far). A post by Damian at SDA: Deeds, Not [...]
The last time a western nation left imbedded troops in a war torn naiton backing a group of people who really don’t believe in democracy (this time being Sharia) fighting a weaker, yet more determined enemy, they were wiped out and fled (see Vietnam).
I’ve got a friend in a PRT 150 Kms south west of Kandahar, and they’re losing people all the time, another one just in the last week. These are American casualties as our Canadian troops are working with them at this location.
The country is no where near secure to keep our troops back as instructors. It would be much cheaper to take these Afghans and bring them to Canada to train them and then send them back.
Dollars to doughnuts, next spring-summer, the Taliban will be at it again, pulling the same stunts in greater numbers. Ideologically, the Afghans are not fit for democracy as long as they insist on using Islamic relgious law as a basis for their constitution. That is what it really comes down to.
[...] For what it’s worth (politically): Continuing CF Afghan role post-2011 [...]
[...] looks like not much worth for the Senate Committee report: For what it’s worth (politically): Continuing CF Afghan role [...]