Norman spectates acutely at the Globe and Mail online:

In the House of Commons on Thursday, Conservative MP Jim Abbott had some harsh words for Canadian news organizations:

A few days after returning [from Afghanistan], I was at a social event where MPs, senators and the national news media were mingling, and as I walked by some reporters, one of them asked me about my impressions from the trip. I told him, first, I was blown away with the complete enthusiastic dedication of the Canadian soldiers, aid workers and diplomats in Afghanistan … second, the coverage of Afghanistan by our national news media has been at best inadequate … the news coverage, or lack of it, on Afghanistan has actually distorted the impressions that most Canadians have, or many Canadians anyway. Canadian media coverage of Afghanistan for 10 years has been the equivalent of covering news in Canada and Canadian events by having three reporters driving around in a Vancouver police cruiser on Vancouver’s east side. What would that coverage tell Canadians about Canadians’ aspiration or the beauty of our land or our potential? This parallel is appropriate, because news organizations from Canada have had an average of three people in Kandahar, driving around in LAVs or confined to the air base.

Mr. Abbott, who is a strong supporter of Canadian involvement in Afghanistan, offered these observations during debate of a Bloc motion condemning the Government’s duplicity in extending the mission to 2014. Given the paucity of coverage of that debate today, you’d have to extend his remarks about the media from Kandahar to Ottawa, and include opponents of Canadian participation in Afghanistan as well.

While most of the points raised yesterday by Conservative and Bloc MPs were predictable (and sometimes disingenuous), two interventions stood out and are well worth reading. From the Liberal side, Bob Rae explained why Canada is in Afghanistan – and why we must remain there – with an eloquence and intelligence that we’ve seldom if ever heard from the Conservative Government. Virtually nothing of what he said is reported in today’s papers. On the NDP side, Jack Harris tore through the Conservative and Liberal positions with devastating facts and logic. I could find nothing of what he said in today’s papers…

So first we had that Conservative coalition with the Bloc and now one with the Liberals; the prime minister sure seems to be considering them coalitions a pretty Good Thing after all.

Earlier:

Media out! Of Afghanistan/People’s Daily Online Update

Update: An exception to Mr Spector’s strictures: John Ivison, in the National Post’s “Full Comment”, is also impressed by Bobbety in the Commons:

Why Canada is in Afghanistan, and has to stay

We in the Press Gallery rarely report on parliamentary debates – usually for the very good reason they are so dull that if you don’t knit, you’d be advised to bring a book.

But there are exceptions and Bob Rae’s speech in the House Thursday must rank as one of those. There are no Churchills in the current Canadian parliament — a politician who, according to his friend F.E. Smith “devoted the best years of his life to preparing his impromptu speeches”  — but Mr. Rae has no peers when it comes to eloquence on the floor of the House. During the debate on the future of the Afghan mission Thursday, he explains his own thinking and why he arrived at the conclusion Canada could not simply pull out…

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

BruceR. at Flit, unlike most of our journalists, does some real analysis (I’ve omitted the numerical details, do check them):

I hear Mazar in spring is even nicer than Kabul in winter

Matthew Fisher continues to perform the sin of actual journalism by trying to pin down people on where Canadian troops in Afghanistan post-2011 will be going and what they’ll be doing. This was telling:

As Canada is insisting that most of its trainers will be in or near the capital, which is already awash with trainers from other countries, there is immense interest in what specific training tasks Canada is to be assigned by NATO and how its trainers will be shoehorned into already-crowded bases in the capital.

If only these answers were on the web somewhere… oh, yes, they are*. Now, first off, it seems I was off on my previous SWAG [Scientific Wild Ass Guess--see Update here] of the “behind the wire” strength of NTM-A, but not by a huge number: total current planned number according to Fig. 13 is about 1800, with the hope of rising to 2800 over the next year. Assuming most of that increase were Canadian in the end, that would mean we would be increasing the strength of the trainer force single-handedly by about 50%.

But where are the jobs, actually, and what would they be doing? Ah, for that you’ll have to click on the link.

The key figure here is figure 14, which breaks down the 442 most critical deficiencies by location and trade. Cross-referencing that with the training locations on pages 30 and 31 gives, as a provincial breakdown…

If that kind of breakdown [by type of trainer] persists, it’s going to be difficult to answer the call with an existing unit, like an infantry battalion. Sure, combat arms soldiers can cover Afghan police training easily enough, but 38% of the shortfall are in specialist trades not found in the line units.

Put the two together, and the demand for what could be readily offered becomes rather small. So in the Kabul area, there were only 106 critical jobs in police and army training that could be filled by “regular” soldiers as of the NTM-A annual report, dated three weeks ago… far less than what Canada is now offering.

(What’s not defined are the locations and trades of the 450+ “non-critical” positions. One should expect a significant number of those will be in logistics, though, where according to the NTM-A report, exactly 0 (out of an undefined total number) have so far been secured.)

*I’m grateful to ANSF freelance researcher Anand Choudhuri for the pointer.

Update: Mildly related, at the National Post’s “Full Comment”:

Bob Rae on partisan politics and Afghanistan gamesmanship:

Upperdate: The Toronto Star likes the new mission too. Talk about a, er, coalition.

Mark
Ottaw

A quick media review from the Conference of Defence Associations:

New Canadian Commitment to Afghanistan

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

Earlier:

Afstan is about more than assembling “a coherent narrative”

Now I congratulate the efforts of the Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee (disclosure: I am a founding member but not involved in their actual work); I believe they really had an effect. I congratulate those politicians, Bob Rae in particular, who put purpose over partisanship. And I congratulate the government for finally doing the best that could be done given Canadian politics (though I do regret their lying for many months when they said that Canada’s military–not combat–mission must end in 2011 because the 2008 Commons’ motion said so; it did not). Canadian politics are desperately debased all around.

Terry Glavin expresses both passion and reason on how things have developed:

‘If Ye Break Faith With Us Who Die, We Shall Not Sleep.’

The two-year paralysis that so utterly enfeebled Canada in the matter of this country’s post-2011 re-dedication to Afghanistan is now officially over. Ottawa has come out of its coma, and now rejoins the company of the grown-ups in the 43-member International Security Assistance Force. With today’s announcement, we take our place once again as a leader in the international cause of a sovereign and democratic Afghan republic…

We should recall that for two full years the House of Commons Special Committee on Afghanistan refused to discharge its duties, in contempt of the Parliament by which its duties were assigned. Instead, it turned itself into a lurid chamber for the most foul (and groundless) “torture” allegations against members of the Canadian Forces. It had become like some kind of celebrity television show where the contestants were challenged to find ways to put the name of a cabinet minister in the same sentence with the words “war criminal.”

It’s finally over.

The Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee spent much of the past year running a national campaign to try and help break the Parliamentary paralysis with a new vision for Canada’s role in Afghanistan. Our work took us back and forth from Kabul, Ottawa, Toronto, Kabul, Mazar-e-Sharif, Ottawa, Toronto, Halifax, Montreal, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary, Ottawa, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Ottawa again. Hundreds of Afghans and Canadians (especially Afghan-Canadians) were directly involved in the effort. Among them were Canadian soldiers and the parents of dead soldiers, Canadian and Afghan journalists, Afghan MPs, women’s rights activists, academics, diplomats, Afghan Opposition leaders and not a few cookie-baking United Church women.

I would like to think we made some small contribution to keeping the debate alive at least, but no matter. All credit goes to Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic Bob Rae, Defence Minister Peter MacKay, House Special Committee on Afghanistan leader Laurie Hawn, Pamela Wallin and Romeo Dellaire of the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, and not a few other Parliamentarians from all parties who would probably prefer that their names be left unmentioned for the moment…

It is right and proper that Canada’s first “key area” of post-2011 engagement refers to investments in education and health. But it is worrisome in the extreme that Canada’s new 950-trainer contribution has been merely tacked on to what was first articulated as a priority for “advancing the rule of law and human rights.” This is the thing that should be galvanizing our attention now. One purpose cannot be put at the expense of the other. It is not clear whether the “training role” will be funded at least partly by robbing Peter to pay Paul.

It is more than just a good thing that Canada’s military will continue to put its broad shoulders to the wheel of building up the capacity, competence and professionalism of the Afghan National Security Forces. But we must not allow this to come at the cost of the covenant that has been written in the blood of so many Canadian soldiers already. This is the solemn covenant that binds Canada to the Afghan people. It is the heart of the whole bloody, grisly matter…

If you need further proof of why Canadian public debate on Afstan is so debased, see what pathetic pundit Greg Weston has been up to economizing with words and thus the truth (and he’s just got a paid gig at the CBC; go figure, it ain’t that hard). From the invaluable BruceR. at Flit (to whom one should pay close attention on things Afghan; he’s been there with the Army, done that, and knows more about the country and counterinsurgency than all our punditocracy stuffed together inside a television studio):

…
On the flip side, you have the CBC’s Greg Weston doing a real drive-by on the subject, gutting a key phrase out of a Gen. (retd.) Rick Hillier piece, apparently only to score cheap points.

In a recent interview with Maclean’s magazine, retired general Rick Hillier said: “You can come up with all kinds of schemes to hide away in camp and train people for the Afghan army, but they lack credibility. If you try to help train and develop the Afghan army … you are going to be in combat.”

Nice ellipses, Greg. The full quote, with the piece that makes all the difference:

If you try to help train and develop the Afghan army or police in southern Afghanistan you are going to be in combat.

As a former Afghan army trainer in southern Afghanistan, I would tend to agree. But this simply isn’t what was being floated by the government, which was quite clearly all about exploring an expanded role outside the south. Given that it’s a web piece where length doesn’t matter, there’s no real reason Weston and the CBC couldn’t have been honest with their readers…

And if you think Kabul is some kind of death-ridden combat zone, please, please take a look at these very recent posts and photos by Brian Platt at the Ubyssey–a fellow completely outside any wire. One can only wonder why almost all journalists from our major media have ignored and misrepresented reality for so long. And still do.

Afghanistan is about more than Canadian domestic politics.  Really.  We do need to grow up.

Update thought: What was most sadly reflective about this country’s chatterers is that on the politics shows on television early this evening there was nothing, rien de tout, nichts, ništa said about the Afghans or developments in the country except in relation to Canada, or about how the Afghan and ISAF military efforts are going. All Canada, all the time. We must have the world’s most capacious bellybutton at which we endlessly gaze; and far too many brains have been stuffed with its lint.

So long as the Canadians fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people…

Mark
Ottawa

Our government for several years has done an desperately dismal job in providing that coherent narrative for Canadians.  But the war is about much more than that.  It’s about people: the Afghans (see here and here), foreign troops, and the publics in the countries sending those troops.  And ultimately it’s about long-term national interests.

Our government at the ministerial level has never really focused on the substance of getting the job done; rather it’s been trying desperately to find a way out for some time.  Thankfully it has been unable for now to do that.

Meanwhile the Obama administration also seems bent on confusing optics with substance.  The conclusion of a post at The Captain’s Journal:

…Even as a Milblogger, I have grown weary of the strategic narrative(s) coming from Washington. I focus now on a full court press for more troops, more resources, more support, and patience. I also focus on the bravery of our men under fire. I focus mainly now on the tactical level rather than the strategic. There is nothing to cover on strategy.

Isn’t it sad to see the convolution of words, the twisting of stories, and the belief that if all they do is get the narrative right, everything else will follow? If you’re looking for leadership in this administration, you won’t find it. Instead, they are working hard to “assemble a coherent narrative.”

Via Thucydides at Milnet.ca.  Earlier today:

Afstan round-up/Obama’s 2011 withdrawal going, going…/Canadian angle Update/German Upperdate

Mildly related to that narrative, a Conference of Defence Associations’ media round-up:

Afghanistan: Transition Strategy – 2014

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

What is strange is the way it has been announced.  It has been a central principle of the Westminster system of Parliamentary government that major government decisions are made collectively by the cabinet and that cabinet members are collectively responsible for those decisions.  It has been apparent for at least two decades that the prime minister, whatever the party, has increasingly been usurping that power of decision.  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Laurie Hawn, has now made this changed reality completely clear.

This is what he has just had to say about the prime minister’s decision (not, it is very apparent, the cabinet’s) to shift the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan from Kandahar to Kabul and to change its role to solely non-combat training:

1) On CBC News Network’s Power & Politics, Nov. 12, at 6:40 on the clip:

…The prime minister is empowered to make this kind of decision…

2) And more fully on CBC Radio One’s The House, Nov. 13, at 8:35 on the clip:

…The prime minister is the head of our government and he is empowered to make these kinds of decisions…The prime minister is within his authority and mandate to make this kind of call…

So the Canadian federal government is de facto headed by a powerful presidential figure; there is no de jure to prescribe the powers of the cabinet vis-à-vis the prime minister, just accepted convention which is most definitively not what it was.  One wonders when our politicians, punditocracy, and professoriat will remark upon the constitutionally rather startling statements by Mr Hawn.

One pundit, Chantal Hebert, does make these rather telling observations on how the prime minister’s decision was presented to the public:

…Stephen Harper’s communications director, Dimitri Soudas, did the media rounds.

The sight of an unelected partisan staffer apprising Canadians of their government’s thinking on a top-of-mind defence and foreign policy issue that involves committing hundreds of Canadian men and women to a war theatre for an extra three years was unprecedented.

The power of the PMO has been in ascendancy at the expense of the federal cabinet for a number of decades, but that evolution has rarely been as blatantly obvious as over the past two weeks…

The Crown may still have ministers but they no longer are of any real account. The prime minister indeed rules the executive alone.  And, with a majority government, the legislature too–unlike in the United States where the two branches of government are firmly separated.

Update: A response of mine in the “Comments”; this post was not making a partisan political point:

I was not criticizing this prime minister in particular. I was merely pointing out what an odd way in which a fundamental change in the Canadian constitution was effectively made public (significant parts of our constitution are still unwritten: neither “cabinet” nor “prime minister” appears in the Constitution Act, formerly known as the BNA).

I would point out that PM Chretien was in practise equally presidential. I have seen no indication that he took his announcement in early 2003 that the CF would return to Afstan (so they would not be available in any strength for Iraq) to cabinet, nor that shortly thereafter he took to cabinet the announcement in the House that Canada would not take part in the invasion of Iraq.

Prime ministers for some time have become ever more presidential. The present difference, for good or ill depending on how you look at it, is that until 2004 those PMs could also control Parliament.

Rather scary, regardless of the party the PM heads.

Upperdate: Version of the post is also at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute’s 3Ds blog.

Mark
Ottawa