Canada may end Afghan mission, Bush told

[troung]

Canada may end Afghan mission, Bush told
Posted on Wed, Jan. 30, 2008
Digg del.icio.us AIM print email
By ROB GILLIES
Associated Press Writer

TORONTO --
Prime Minister Stephen Harper told President Bush on Wednesday that Canada will end its military mission in Afghanistan if another NATO country does not put more soldiers in the dangerous south, officials said.

Harper's Conservative government is under pressure to withdraw its 2,500 troops from Kandahar province, the former Taliban stronghold, after the deaths of 78 Canadian soldiers and a diplomat. The mission is set to expire in 2009 without an extension by Canadian lawmakers.

The refusal of some major European allies to send significant number of troops to the southern front lines has opened a rift within NATO. Troops from Canada, Britain, the Netherlands and the United States have borne the brunt of a resurgence of Taliban violence in the region, with support from Denmark, Romania, Estonia and non-NATO nation Australia.

Harper talked to Bush about the recommendation of an independent Canadian panel that the country continue its mission only if another NATO country musters 1,000 troops for Kandahar, said Harper spokeswoman Sandra Buckler.

"He underscored that, unless Canada was able to meet the conditions specified by the panel of additional combat troops and equipment from NATO Allies, Canada's mission in Afghanistan will not be extended," Buckler said.

The White House said the two leaders discussed the need for more troops.

"The two leaders discussed the requirements to sustain the current mission and how to ensure its continued success, including needs for additional troops and equipment," said White House press secretary Tony Fratto. "The president noted the deployment of 3,200 additional U.S. Marines to Afghanistan, as well as his continued commitment to work with NATO to enhance its commitment to the Afghanistan mission."

The U.S. contributes one-third of NATO's 42,000-strong International Security Assistance Force mission, making it the largest participant, on top of the 12,000 to 13,000 American troops operating independently.

The U.S. this month said it will send an extra 3,200 Marines to Afghanistan from April, including 2,200 combat troops who will bolster the NATO-led counterinsurgency force in the south. However, they are only scheduled to deploy for seven months, so will not answer Canada's demand for more backing beyond 2009.

Opposition parties have threatened to bring down Harper's minority government if he does not end the increasingly unpopular combat mission.

Harper has promised to put the future of the mission to a vote in Parliament, where the opposition parties hold the majority of seats.

NATO urged Canada on Wednesday not to pull its troops and pledged to help find the 1,000 troops.

Canada may end Afghan mission, Bush told - 01/30/2008 - MiamiHerald.com

[T_igger_cs_30]

It would be a sad day if Canada does pull out of this mission. It is always hard to appreciate just what goes into preparing for and maintaining a sustained mission like Afghanistan. In the last 5 years I have witnessed just how much effort the Canadian military has put into this in terms of training and manpower, and to be honest I did not think they would pull it off given how they (the military) had been treated under the Liberal government (my opinion), but they did and if any WAB(bits) ever get the chance to visit the training area used for this mission and see just how much effort and hard work is being put in by the Canadian military, please take that oppotunity.
truthfully I am in awe of just what has been achieved in the last 5 years alone and the commitment shown by the Canadian military.
As my old Grandad told me a long time ago (re ww2......."thank god for the Canadians"

In summary, they are doing a "bang up" job and would be a sad and irraplaceable loss to the mission

[Officer of Engineers]

I don't think we're leaving. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals have agreed to stay. Whether the combat mission will continue or not is another question. What's not in question is that the killing and dying will continue albeit under another name, most likely the good old standby the Peacekeeping moniker.

[Ironduke]

Prime Minister Stephen Harper told President Bush on Wednesday that Canada will end its military mission in Afghanistan if another NATO country does not put more soldiers in the dangerous south, officials said.

Well, we're deploying 3200 additional Marines to Afghanistan this spring. Doesn't that count?

[Officer of Engineers]

The 3200 Marines would leave by Oct, so it won't meet the criteria of 2009.

[Ray]

February 8, 2008

Nato leaders launch rearguard action to stop alliance rupturing over Afghanistan

Jeremy Page in Kabul and Michael Evans, Defence Editor

The Nato mission in Afghanistan will not succeed unless more troops are sent to the south, where the Taleban is concentrated, defence ministers were told yesterday. The claim was made by Søren Gade, the Danish Defence Minister, at the start of a two-day meeting in Vilnius, the Lithuanian capital.

On a joint visit to Kabul and Kandahar, the birthplace of the Taleban and the main city in the south, David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, and Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, took up the same theme. Dr Rice said that more troops were needed “to give enough military power to do what needs to be done on the front end [the south] of the counter-insurgency effort”. At Kandahar airfield, Dr Rice told a gathering of troops that they were involved in a fight that would “transform history”.

After Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, said at a Senate hearing on Wednesday that the alliance was split between those nations “willing to fight and die to protect people's security and others who are not”, desperate efforts were made yesterday to prevent Nato breaking up into a “two-tiered” organisation. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the Nato Secretary-General, pleaded with the defence ministers to tone down their criticisms. It was also pointed out that in the previous 12 months the Nato force in Afghanistan had increased in size by 8,900 troops and that some countries, including France and Poland, had said that they were considering sending more soldiers.

Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, also tried to ease tensions. “Of the 25 [Nato] countries who have deployable forces, 12 of them are represented in the south and southeast of Afghanistan. So the sense that a small number of countries are doing this out of the alliance is not right,” he said, adding that France was also prepared to deploy in the south “in small but significant numbers”.

However, the ministers were aware that unless other alliance countries agree to send fighting troops to help out their colleagues in the three southern provinces of Helmand, Kandahar and Uruzgan, Canada and possibly the Netherlands may withdraw their soldiers from the south. Peter Mackay, the Canadian Defence Minister, said in Vilnius that the alliance had to return to an “all-for-one approach”. He repeated the threat to pull Canada's 2,500 troops out of Kandahar next year unless allies provided an extra 1,000 troop reinforcements.

In an hour-long session with President Karzai in Kabul, Mr Miliband and Dr Rice referred to recent criticisms made by the Afghan leader that the security situation in Helmand province worsened after the British troops arrived in spring 2006. However, at a press conference with his two visitors, President Karzai said that he had been misquoted. He said: “I'm terribly embarrassed that this has come up. That is not what I said. We appreciate the British role in Afghanistan.” He also expressed regret that Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon had not been appointed as United Nations special representative for Afghanistan, even though the Afghan leader personally blocked his candidacy, fearing that he would be too similar to a British colonial viceroy.

Nato leaders launch rearguard action to stop alliance rupturing over Afghanistan - Times Online

It is time for the NATO to look at this issue holistically. If Afghanistan fails, NATO fails and the world is handed over in a platter to the fundamentalist cause. It, obviously, would not be in the interest of the world including the Islamic governments, since the fundamentalists flushed with success will attack, destabilise and finally overthrow the Islamic govts. Thereafter, the real jihad will start i.e. the attempt to make the world Dar ul Islam!

What we are seeing currently is only a trailer to the main film!

Now that a plunge has been made in Iraq and Afghanistan and the hornet's nest has been stirred, the issue requires to be resolved to its logical conclusion!

[Ray]

From the La Grande Observer

Feb 8, 7:20 AM EST


France Mulls Increased Afghan Role

By PAUL AMES
Associated Press Writer

Afghanistan

NATO Urges Canada to Stay in Afghanistan


VILNIUS, Lithuania (AP) -- France is considering sending forces to southern Afghanistan amid U.S. and Canadian pressure to move more troops into the fight against the Taliban.

A reversal of France's refusal to deploy combat units to the southern front-lines would ease tensions within NATO. A rift has emerged in the alliance between nations such as the United States, Canada and Britain, who have troops in the south, and those like France, Germany and Italy, whose units operate in the relative safety of north and west Afghanistan.

France is to meet a Canadian delegation Friday on Ottawa's appeal for 1,000 extra troops to support its beleaguered force in volatile Kandahar province.

"They were very receptive to our message," Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay said of previous talks between French and Canadian officials. "We want to talk in more detail about logistics, and that's exactly what's happening in Paris today."................

More at:

La Grande Observer | Union and Wallowa Counties' News Leader - News

France is to move troops to Afghanistan.

[Officer of Engineers]

Sir,

What's left being unsaid is that the ANA is not stepping up, at least they're not stepping up fast enough.

[Ray]

Talk of time to turn and flee is wrong - as long as Nato is given a boost

Realpolitik and decency demand that we stay the course. But our biggest mistake is a disastrous prohibition policy

Polly Toynbee in Kabul
Friday February 8, 2008
The Guardian

" Our enemies have watches, but we have time," boast the Taliban. Waiting for Afghanistan's invaders to give up under relentless harassment worked in the past. Can they wear down the natural impatience of western democracies and drain their ability to commit to years of lost lives and cash in this unforgiving landscape?

This has been crisis week, with one authoritative expert report after another warning of imminent failure unless more is done better, right now. The unannounced dash to Kabul by Condoleezza Rice and David Miliband yesterday was designed to repair the damage done on both sides. British newspaper indignation at President Karzai's refusal to accept Paddy Ashdown as the UN envoy and, worse, his contemptuous remarks about British fighting in Helmand seriously risk public willingness to stay in Afghanistan. At lunch with Karzai strong words were exchanged on both sides, but he went to great lengths to apologise and, in the press conference afterwards, to complain vigorously that he was "misquoted" - which counts as a diplomatic retreat.

But Britain owed Karzai reassurances too. Karzai reads the UK and US press assiduously, watching for nuances and any signs of waning commitment. He knows Afghanistan only keeps Nato support for as long as voters consent. He read the battery of British columnists from right and left in the past week calling for immediate withdrawal, ranging from Matthew Parris and Simon Jenkins to Andreas Whittam Smith and Seumas Milne. The "out now" clamour includes those who take a Kissinger realpolitik view - let foreigners rot and sort out their own problems; do nothing unless it's in our own interest - and those who regard all intervention as latter-day colonialism and anything the Americans do as always fatally tainted. It's interesting that the armchair commentators are not supported by any of last week's alarming reports on the ground, which all warn of the danger of failure: none recommends a withdrawal that would certainly ensure that failure right now.

How bad is it? Pretty terrible. Kabul is jittery after the latest attacks on the Serena Hotel: suicide bombs against civilians are a recent horror. Opium production has risen for the past two years, providing 90% of the heroin on Britain's streets. Away from democracy, the rule of law remains largely sharia administered: the young journalist sentenced to death for downloading material on women's rights is only one example. Everywhere women are in burkas. Crime is rampant, the police are corrupt.

Three times his enemies have nearly killed Karzai, who has no deputy, no planv B if they do get him. No wonder he keeps mainly to his palace compound. The wonder is that he has survived in power so long. Next year's elections oblige him to walk a tightrope - not to be the invaders' puppet, yet knowing the fragile peace in most of the country depends on Nato. Opinion polls suggest he reflects the same understandable ambivalence shared by his people: they want the foreigners gone, but they don't want civil war and the return of the Taliban that would follow within days of Nato retreat. They know what would happen next because they have lived it all before during 30 years of war.

Condoleezza Rice greeted troops in Kandahar with the obligatory hyperbole: "You will leave an extraordinary legacy of peace, prosperity and democracy for Afghan people and in doing so a legacy of peace for the world." That's what politicians must say; but the assembled US, Dutch, British, Canadian, Turkish and Slovakian troops must know the gap between the words and life on the streets.

What's the truth? In the north things are getting better; in the south the army is winning battles in an area never governed, where Kabul's writ never ran. New roads are built, there is a vigorous free press, five times more children are in school - a third of them girls - and fewer children are dying. Some projects work while others fail. The real question is: how do you judge success? This poorest, most desolate and ungoverned place will take years to improve a bit - just enough to be an improving, not a failing, state. What counts as success here? Realpolitik might say simply denying the ground to fanatics who will turn it back into a training ground for 9/11 attacks. Common decency says we can't walk away now, not until this stricken country can survive alone.

The current strategy of training up Afghan troops to fight, withdrawing our forces to a training and support role, building capacity in the civil service, paying the salaries of 100,000 teachers and the like is slowly improving life for many. The Taliban's change of tactics to suicide bombing is largely due to losing ground in pitched battles. Loose talk of the last days of Saigon, the end of the great game, time to turn tail and flee, is wrong. But unless Nato does more now, unless there is more money, more effort, more help, then it will be true. That's what the reports warn.

But one great blundering mistake may in the end destroy all the good done elsewhere. The opium economy will always be stronger than the real economy. Only 8% of GDP comes from commerce: the rest is aid. Off the books the real economy is all opium, more and more by the year. The US wants to spray and impoverish the poorest farmers, causing hatred. The US drives the disastrous prohibition policy imposed by the UN. Unless and until the drug is given as a medicine to registered addicts, cutting demand and cutting drug-driven crime in the west, illegal opium growing will always distort and corrupt everything else here in Afghanistan. Buy it to use for morphine, buy it to destroy, but buy it at a price above the relatively low price the narco barons pay to poor farmers. Agriculture in the EU and the US has always been a strange subsidised distorted market. But there never was a better reason for buying a crop than to bring Afghan farmers in from the world of crime that risks keeping the country lawless indefinitely.

As Nato defence ministers gathered in Vilnius yesterday, Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, grew increasingly contemptuous of the feeble contribution of many Nato members to Afghanistan, sending out letters this week to each defence minister and asking for more support. Jokes about German soldiers not allowed out at night abound. The Canadians have every right to threaten to withdraw from dangerous Kandahar unless Europeans do more. It's easy to understand America's long-term frustration with Europe's refusal to pull its weight, now or back in the cold war.

Europe replies thus: the world would be in a less perilous state now if only America had listened to us. Without the Iraq disaster, how different now Afghanistan would look. If those trillions wasted in Iraq had been invested in Afghanistan aid, this poorest place on earth might already have moved up a few notches on the development charts. The Taliban would not now be resurgent. The people of Europe would be far more willing to send troops and money had America and Britain not set out on a mindless "war on terror". One way or another, both sides need to recognise their own past failings with a little humility.

Politically, the easy option would be to cut and run. Gordon Brown and his new ministers came here and asked the hard questions last year. In the end, the hard answer was that we must stay - and for a long time. It may yet fail, but trying harder is the only answer now.

[email protected]

Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | Talk of time to turn and flee is wrong - as long as Nato is given a boost

Colonel,

This article is worth a check see.

[Officer of Engineers]

Sir,

There is supposedly an ANA brigade (1000 strong) in Khandahar. However, anecdote evidence suggests desertion rates of 5-10 percent, meaning that the replacements (once every 16-32 weeks) just about cover the desertion. Naturally, these boys are in no shape to take on a determined enemy, at least not without suffering the same casualty rates as the Taliban.

Sir, they can't hold or rather they will not hold. The Afghans don't have a sense of professional military service and until we can establish that, if we can establish that, well, Sir, we've lost.