Conference of Defence Associations’ media round-up.  I’ve excerpted the F-35 pieces:

…
In the Globe and Mail, Harry Swain, former deputy minister of Industry Canada, examines the number of  F-35 Joint Strike Fighters that Canada intends to purchase. Swain contends that Canada will buy 65 because this is the exact number the CF requires to achieve this capability. He notes that the silence from senior brass who determined that number was needed suggests that, “$16-billion was the biggest number they could get away with, not the smallest number of planes we need.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/the-eco…

In Le Devoir, Alec Castonguay reports that the regional economic benefits that will come with the procurement of the F-35 are considerably overstated by the Conservative government. The government reports that there will be up to $12 billion in economic benefits, however American sources suggest that these benefits will be closer to $3.9 billion with a possible peak at $6.3 billion.
http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/311543/retombees-economiques-du-f-35…

In Vanguard magazine, Peter Burn argues that the procurement of the F-35 is sound and prudent policy both in terms of defence and industry. He suggests that the aircraft’s flexibility enables it to play multiple roles, while the regional economic benefits will prove to be profitable for Canadians.
http://www.vanguardcanada.com/F35CriticismWontFlyBurn…

The main problem with Mr Swain’s argument, which makes a great deal of overall sense about Canadian defence policy especially concentrating on the Army, is that Canadians are simply not prepared to turn over air defence and surveillance of our territory to the US–which would be the consequence of our not buying new fighters (whatever type).  And, pace Mr Swain, UAVs are not yet ready or able to perform that role and won’t be for some time to come.

Of course the problem with focusing on the Army is that contracts for its equipment do not provide the prospects of vast por(c)k–and hopefully votes, notably in la belle province (that’s why the Bloc joined the coalition supporting the F-35)–that Air Force and Navy ones do.  Army equipment is considerably cheaper.

Earlier:

The Canadian Forces’ future, or, why the Globe and Mail is not a newspaper

Mark
Ottawa

Headlines from the three most important US newspapers (WSJ, NYT, WaPo–not in that order); try to figure out which one each is in:

Pentagon Report Cites Gains in Afghanistan

Pentagon Reports Afghan Setbacks

Progress in Afghan war called ‘uneven’

Update: A good point at Milnews.ca’s daily news round-up, a must-read:

…
Remember way back, when Canadian politicians complained about European countries imposing caveats on their forces in Afghanistan, preventing their armies from contributing to the fight if it was at all risky?  Well, according to Toronto Star columnist Rosie DiManno (who has spent a fair bit of time in Afghanistan), let he who is without caveat cast the first stone: “Make no mistake. Dress it up as both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff might like: If this new stay-in plan is put to effect as advertised — and I have my doubts about that — Canadian troops, highly valued for their combat skills in everything from reconnaissance to sniper proficiency, will be little more than decorative tassels on the Afghanistan uniform, their primary value to pick up the mentoring slack left behind by other bolting allies so that Americans can carry on their terrorist-tracking pursuits.” Ouch!..

Upperdate: And from what used to be a great paper:

Pentagon offers grim status report on Afghanistan

Mark
Ottawa

Read all about us at Milnews.ca.  Plus a piece by David Ignatius in the Washington Post, based on some recent polling in Afstan (do check that out in conjunction with Ignatius):

How to win over the Afghans
…
The poll results convey a stark reality about this war: People in the Pashtun region of southern Afghanistan resent foreign fighters. Most don’t comprehend why they have come or how they might offer a better future than would the Taliban. They feel that America and its allies don’t respect their traditions…

NATO forces have done better over the past six months at winning “hearts and minds” in southern Afghanistan – but probably still not well enough to succeed without some changes in tactics…

Perceptions of the Afghan army and police are improving in Helmand and Kandahar, but not sufficiently that people are confident they can take control. Fifty-two percent say the Afghan army is effective, and 39 percent say that about the police. But on the big question of transferring power, 61 percent believe that the Afghan security forces will be unable to provide security in areas from which foreign forces are withdrawing…

Gen. David Petraeus has stepped up the “enemy-centric” side of counterinsurgency, tripling the number of U.S. Special Operations raids from a year ago. But MacDonald’s polling data make clear that the “protect the population” side isn’t succeeding yet. The trends are improving, but not enough.

Whilst from Terry Glavin:

Clarity and Cluelessness on Canada’s New Mission in Afghanistan.

…I would bet a dollar to a dime that most Canadians believe the lie that most Afghans want NATO forces to leave their country. The primary function of Canada’s so-called “anti-war” activists is to make you to believe that lie, and Canada’s punditocracy has encouraged you to believe it.

I would also bet a dollar to a dime that if most Canadians knew the truth, which is that the overwhelming majority of Afghans have consistently supported and continue to support NATO’s efforts in their country, Canadian support for a robust Afghan mission would be overwhelmingly favorable, and we’d be closer to the relative sophistication of Indians, Kenyans and Nigerians. And then we could move the Canadian debates out of the weeds, to questions that really matter.

Here’s just one question we should be debating: How can Canadians best put their backs into the cause Prime Minister Harper articulated in Lisbon – the cause of Afghan democracy, the rule of law and fair elections, human rights, and good governance?

Mark
Ottawa

Earlier:

Missile defence: Canada mans up–but only for Europe

…the government is actually giving its support–though still Eurocentric only–and the usual suspects have noticed and are howling…

Now even the Bear is chilling:

Russia to aid NATO on antimissile network in Europe

But I bet our government will continue to do nothing about North American missile defence. Too controversial to try and take on the fanatical, irrational and misguided opponents who infest this country.

Mark
Ottawa

Excerpts from a very useful post at Milnews.ca (worth checking every day):

…
• What does this mean for the Canadian-led and run Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team (PDF copy of page here if link doesn’t work?  This from the Globe & Mail:  “Canada is slashing aid to Afghanistan and abandoning any presence in Kandahar by withdrawing not only troops but civilian aid officials next year. Despite the approval of a new training mission, the moves mark a turning point where Canada is significantly disengaging from Afghanistan: dramatically reducing the outlay of cash, reducing the risk to troops, and quitting the war-scarred southern province where Canada has led military and civilian efforts. There will be a deep cut to aid for Afghanistan. International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda said Canada will provide $100-million a year in development assistance for Afghanistan over the next three years, less than half the $205-million the government reported spending last year ….”
• According to Postmedia News, late decision on new mission = rush to get ready for it...
• Who’s happy?  “The White House and the NATO military alliance applauded Canada’s plan for a military training mission in Afghanistan Tuesday as Prime Minister Stephen Harper assured opposition parties that the armed forces will work safely “in classrooms behind the wire on bases.” ….” Here’s what NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen had to say: “I warmly welcome Prime Minister Harper’s announcement that Canada will deploy a substantial number of trainers to the NATO Training Mission in Afghanistan. Canada has contributed substantially, over many years, to the operation in Afghanistan. Canadian forces have made a real difference in the lives of the Afghan people, often at a high cost ….” More from the Canadian Press on that…
• Meanwhile, the transition continues on the ground in Afghanistan:  “A scouting party from the NATO unit that could replace Canadian troops in Kandahar will be touring the area over the next few days. Planning for the departure of Task Force Kandahar is underway and a proposal on how the transition will take place is still being finalized, a senior U.S. officer with the alliance’s southern headquarters said Tuesday. The Canadians “are in a critical location,” said the officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was authorized to discuss the situation on background only. “We’ve got to make sure that area is still covered, and covered well.” ….”

What will strike readers of the NY Times:

Canada to End Combat Role in Afghanistan at End of 2011

Does the world need more Canada? As far as I can find the British media ignored the government’s decision rather completely. Typical.

Meanwhile Maj.-Gen. (ret’d) Lew MacKenzie explains clearly, to enlighten those who scream otherwise, the future non-combat role of our forces (as I have tried to do):

Our trainers won’t be ‘Omleteers’

Regarding our civilian presence at Kandahar, I wrote this ten days ago:

…I have heard from someone well up on Canadian activities in Afstan that the government is currently planning to remove all or almost all Canadian civilians and civilian police from Kandahar as the CF withdraw, and have our civilians based in Kabul. So there goes Canadian participation in the PRT…

Yesterday:

Fighting the good fight for Afghans–and all of us

Update: A very good Nov. 9 story (via Defense Industry Daily) on what’s happening in the Canadian sector of Kandahar Province now that the US surge has peaked:

Afghanistan: Before fighting season ends, one last push
Photos: Coalition troops sweep through remaining Taliban strongholds.

A month ago:

Canadians work to corral Taliban as major operation begins
U.S., Afghan forces launch air assault in Horn of Panjwaii stronghold

Mark
Ottawa

Further to this post,

Afstan: US not cutting and running…

an excerpt from Foreign Policy’s “AfPak Daily brief”:

…
Afghan President Hamid Karzai gave an interview to the Washington Post over the weekend in which he called for the reduction in military operations in Afghanistan and the end of night raids (Post). Excerpts of the interview are here (Post). NATO officials said Karzai’s remarks frustrated Gen. David Petraeus, top commander in Afghanistan, and that NATO had received assurances that Karzai was on board with the coalition’s strategy (AP, AFP). Karzai’s spokesman said the comments were a sign of a “maturing partnership” (Post).

At the NATO summit in Lisbon at the end of this week, the Obama administration will reportedly present a plan to begin transferring control of certain areas of Afghanistan to Afghan security forces over the next 18 to 24 months, with the aim of keeping U.S. combat forces there until 2014, a date originally set by Karzai (NYT, Post). By the end of 2014, though combat forces could be withdrawn if conditions permit, “tens of thousands” will likely remain in training roles [emphasis added] (NYT). Obama administration envoy to the region Amb. Richard Holbrooke said, “From Lisbon on, we will be on a transition strategy with a target date of the end of 2014 for Afghanistan taking over responsibility for leading the security” (Reuters).

Gen. Petraeus is reportedly upping efforts to increase Afghan police forces drawn from local villages in southern Afghanistan, with the help of former mujahideen commanders to aid the recruiting efforts [in other words local militias] (NYT). NATO commanders hope to raise at least 30,000 local officers in the next six months. The Obama administration is also seeking to halt the flow of ammonium nitrate, the main ingredient in roadside bombs in Afghanistan, into the country, though is facing trouble from Pakistan, “where the police routinely wave tons of ammonium nitrate shipments across the border into Afghanistan despite that country’s ban on imports of the chemical” (NYT)…

Update: Canadian angle:

Teaching Afghans more important than combat: army trainer [see this also]

Upperdate: The German government, for its part, doesn’t want to change its mission for a while:

…
The German government does not plan to start reducing German troop levels in Afghanistan until 2012, a decision which could result in a dispute with the center-left Social Democrats, the largest opposition party in Germany’s parliament.

Chancellor Angela Merkel, Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg and the interior and development ministers agreed in a meeting at the Chancellery to renew the existing parliamentary mandate for an upper limit of 5,000 troops plus a flexible reserve of 350 at the start of 2011…

The Bundeswehr moreover has been seeing more action recently:

Blitzkrieg in Kunduz

Mark
Ottawa

One particular reason why moving the Canadian military mission to Kabul will be a Good Thing: without the prospect of fairly frequent deaths and ramp ceremonies to obsess over (which coverage has only undermined support for the mission), and with the much greater costs of being based in Kabul, the Canadian major media will rapidly lose interest in what the Canadian Forces are doing in Afghanistan.  The media will then bring almost all their people home.

That indeed can only be a Good Thing.  Those media, television above all and it has by far the greatest public impact, have done a generally miserable job reporting and explaining the Kandahar mission and all its aspects (though there have been some exceptions, most notably Matthew Fisher and Brian Hutchinson of Postmedia News).

Besides which our media’s almost exclusive focus on the CF and Kandahar has left Canadians miserably ill-informed about the war, and the country, as a whole.

In the name of God, go!  Without you the public, politicians, and punditocracy will rapidly lose interest in the mission.  Leaving the forces just to get on with their work. As was the case for by far the greater part of the CF’s some twelve years deployed in various major Balkan missions, first under the UN, then NATO.

Update: Once again our media media not on the job; as far as I can see none of them bothered to run this CP (AP) story rather relevant to extending our military mission:

Dutch government to investigate possibility of new Afghanistan mission

Now why might that be? Hell, the People’s Daily Online covered the news. How bizarre, and sad, that the controlled Chinese Communist media do a better job than ours on this.

Upperdate: By the way, the Dutch had attack helicopters in Afstan, a type that our Air Force does not possess useful though they might be–and is most unlikely to get given the pressures on the defence budget:

Adieu Apaches

Uppestdate: Please see Thucydides’ comment (he served at Kandahar) which is very revealing about our media’s general approach.

Mark
Ottawa

Well, well, well:

White House moves away from 2011 Afghanistan withdrawal timeline
The Obama administration is walking away from what it once touted as key deadlines in the Afghanistan war in an effort to de-emphasize the president’s pledge that he would begin withdrawing U.S. forces in July 2011.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has decided to walk away from what it once touted as key deadlines in the Afghanistan war in an effort to de-emphasize the president’s pledge that he would begin withdrawing U.S. forces in July 2011, administration and military officials said Tuesday.

The new policy will be on display next week during a NATO conference in Lisbon, Portugal, where the administration hopes to introduce a timeline that calls for the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan by 2014, according to three senior officials and others speaking anonymously as a matter of policy. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said Afghan troops could provide their security by then.

The Pentagon also has decided not to announce specific dates for handing security responsibility for several Afghan provinces to local officials and instead intends to work out a more vague definition of transition when it meets with its NATO allies, the officials said.

What a year ago had been touted as an extensive December review of the strategy now will be less expansive and will offer no major changes in strategy, the officials said. U.S. Central Command, the military division that oversees Afghanistan operations, hasn’t submitted a withdrawal order for forces for the July deadline [emphasis added], two of those officials said.

The shift, begun privately, came in part because U.S. officials realized that conditions in Afghanistan were unlikely to allow a speedy withdrawal…

This change of course obviously put the US in a much better position to pressure on us to keep troops in Afstan.  Meanwhile back home, the Crvena Zvezda’s prime pundit is desperate ideed for Canada to cut and run (number 2 pundit, Doubting Thomas Walkom, is equally ignorant; he too just does not understand anything about how military training is done–see Update below):

The Star’s Travesty Weighs In

For a very good overview of our role, take a look at this new background paper from the Library of Parliament:

Canadian Policy Towards Afghanistan to 2011 and Beyond: Issues, Prospects, Options

Update: Why CF trainers at Kabul would be a very Good Thing:

…
Total ANSF growth, starting from November 2009 to present increased from 191,969 to 255,506, an increase of 63,537 (33 percent). The Afghan army has grown from 97,011 to 136,164, an increase of 39,153 (40 percent) and the national police from 94,958 to 117,342, an increase of 22,384 (24 percent).

In November 2009, only 35 percent of all soldiers met the minimum qualification standards with their personal weapon. There was an unworkable 1:79 trainers to troop ratio at the firing ranges where Afghan soldiers were attempting to learn. Ten months later, the average unit has a 97 percent qualification rate at the range and the instructor to troop ratio has decreased to 1:29, thanks to increasing support from coalition partners.

The quality of the troops may in some way be reflected through public trust. The Afghan Minister of Defense, Abdul Rahim Wardak, mentioned that the Afghan National Police (ANA) is perceived as the most trusted public institution in Afghanistan during a Rehearsal of Concept drill in Kabul in October. According to the results of an Afghan nation-wide survey (sample 6,700), 71 percent of Afghans feel a favorable impression toward the Afghan National Police (ANP) and 74 percent feel favorably towards the ANA. (By comparison, only 23 percent of Americans surveyed in a Gallup poll this month felt favorably towards the U.S. Congress.)

Last fall, the daily ISAF training capacity for the ANA was 6,000 seats, resulting in a backlog of the Afghan troops in the pipeline. Today, the ANA daily training capacity has increased to 20,000 seats (up 233 percent) and the ANP training capacity has increased 38 percent, from 7,740 to 10,661 seats. In 2009, there were zero Afghan trainers. Today, there are 1,800 Afghan trainers in the ANA and 800 in the ANP, and those numbers are growing. A critical assumption here is the continued support of coalition trainers [emphasis added]…

Education of this force is also critical to professionalization, but it takes time as we can see in western professional development pipelines for NCOs and officers. NTM-A has developed a “backbone” of NCOs, from 1,950 to 9,300, an increase of 7,350 (376 percent). The National Military Academy of Afghanistan had 300 applicants in 2005 for 120 spaces, and 3600 applicants this year for 600 spaces…

Hopefully, the upcoming Lisbon Summit will allow some time for COIN math homework. While they’re balancing equations on the chalkboard, attendees there should be sure to note that while the surge of ISAF forces are on the offensive in Kandahar, there is also another important silent surge occurring in the country. Attendees will also hopefully realize that coalition forces must meet their promised trainer contributions [emphasis added] for the conditions-based transition process to work and the ANSF to ultimately receive a passing grade on its report card.

Paula Broadwell is a Research Associate at the Harvard University Center for Public Leadership. She is the author of the forthcoming book, All In: The Education of General David Petraeus (Penguin Press, 2011).

Mark
Ottawa

From my previous post today:

Extended Afghan mission to involve 1,000 troops

Now from AP:

NATO says 900 trainers needed for Afghan forces

One wonders how long it will take the dim bunnies in our major media to connect certain dots. The end of my post mentioned above:

…
Update thought: I suspect the arrangement, given the large number of CF personnel, will be that Canada effectively takes over the NATO Training Mission – Afghanistan–which will be great relief for the alliance. The NATO mission works alongside the separate (sort of) US Combined Security Transition Command – Afghanistan and has the same commander.  CSTC-A engages, I imagine, in rather more robust (sometimes combat) things than the NATO training side of things. As might be expected.

Update thought: “War if necessary but not necessarily war”, or, PMSH=WLMK? Still, Mackenzie King was this country’s most successful prime minister. Gotta go figure.  About the country I think.

Upperdate: The Globe and Mail, to its credit, got the dots pretty well:

…
If approved, the large training mission would see Canada almost completely fill a NATO shortage of trainers in the country, jumping in to fill a needed gap as the Canadian Forces withdraw combat troops next July…

Uppestdate: Brits hanging tough:

David Cameron concedes: no Afghan withdrawal in 2011
David Cameron has accepted the advice of Britain’s senior military commander that it will not be possible to withdraw British troops from Afghanistan next year.

Via daftandbarmy at Milnet.ca.

Mark
Ottawa

Wow!  Assuming this CBC story is close to the truth; earlier estimates had been 400-600 CF personnel:

Extended Afghan mission to involve 1,000 troops

Canada would keep as many as 1,000 troops in Kabul as part of a plan to extend the country’s mission in Afghanistan and convert it into a non-combat role after 2011, CBC News has learned.

Up to 750 trainers and at least 200 support staff would work outside the combat zone at a training academy or large training facility for Afghan soldiers and police officers, the CBC’s James Cudmore reports. They would remain in Afghanistan until 2014 at the latest.

This is the first time specific numbers related to the proposed mission extension have been made public…

I just hope the story, which looks to me more like a true leak than a government trial balloon, does not cause the prime minister to re-think the numbers, which certainly will get a lot a criticism: e.g., they will make it harder to take a significant part in those blessed UN peacekeeping missions.

But our allies will be especially pleased; and the Dutch may get serious encouragement to come  back to Afstan in a similar role.

Earlier today:

The world does need more Canada–in Afstan/State of the battle/Danish note

Update thought: I suspect the arrangement, given the large number of CF personnel, will be that Canada effectively takes over the NATO Training Mission – Afghanistan in Kabul–which will be great relief for the alliance. The NATO mission works alongside the separate (sort of) US Combined Security Transition Command – Afghanistan and has the same commander.

Mark
Ottawa