Majeres' Musings

Mood: laughing
Listening to: variety of news stations on two tvs

So some Pundit who is not an investigative journalist insists that Afghan needs more input.

As I recall correctly, I have stated twice why the Afghan mission would fail......no-one listened.

My comments embedded throughout this piece in italics as majere:

Canada has come under pressure to "stay the course" in Afghanistan (majere: of course, lets keep Vietnam-izing this conflict with soldiers paying the price for senior incompetents while not holding any land other than the Base Proper) during meetings over the last several days in Ottawa and Victoria between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's top military officers. Concern is building that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government, faced with flagging public support, may pull Canadian troops out of the country altogether, not just out of the tough Kandahar region where the troops are now deployed.  (majere;  good move in an unwinnable conflict)

Gen. Ray Henault, the Canadian who heads NATO's military committee, says Ottawa has shown "enormous leadership"  (majere; "enourmous leadership" at not holding ground, not gaining ground and losing a few good soldiers along the way)   and hopes that Canada will hang in for the long term. Allies such as Germany are publicly echoing that sentiment.

While a wholesale Canadian military pullout from Afghanistan is unlikely, Parliament will have to weigh some kind of reconfiguration when Harper brings down his Speech from the Throne on Oct. 16. The government's survival may hang on his vision for what comes next when our combat mission in Kandahar ends in February, 2009.  (majere;  when the mission ends watch Harper trump the keeping of pseudo construction soldiers left behind along with some police for training purposes)

By then, Canada's contingent of 2,500 troops will have served for three years in a volatile region, at a cost of some $4 billion and of at least 70 lives. Barring Parliament's assent to keep them there, all or some of the troops will be rotated out. That need not be a crisis. NATO has 26 member states, including well-armed nations such as Germany, France and Italy. Yet for years, the Americans, British, Canadians and Dutch have faced most of the risk. It's time others did their part.  (majere:  the 4 billion quoted could buy quite a few of the most modern CT Scanners in the world at 500k per unit, so much for Health Care)

In the meantime, Parliament must weigh what our troops might usefully do next. If the decision is to stay in Afghanistan, a reconfigured Canadian contingent might bolster security in Kabul or other quieter regions, train the Afghan army or provide backup for other NATO/Afghan forces, to cite a few examples. And more focus should be put on delivering our $1.2 billion in aid.  (majere;  here Harper shows that with a minority, he can Play The Blame Game on the Opposition, some Leadership)

But for Parliament to have that debate, it must have the facts.  (majere;  Harper is hiding facts now from the public but will express these facts later to make his unsound argument)  In Ottawa this week Harper rolled out Canada's ambassador to Afghanistan, Arif Lalani, and other officials to counter criticism that Canadian aid is not getting to those who need it most. They insisted Afghans are receiving food relief, medical help, schooling and other benefits. While the details are sketchy, at least Ottawa finally acknowledges the need to hold these projects up for critical scrutiny.  (majere;  from my expierance, the Construction Teams have their hands tied with lack of materials albeit monies, and Harper technicaly lied because we know at least 2 Afghan people might have recieved help, but the majority?)

The same scrutiny must be given Afghan President Hamid Karzai's security forces. The army claims to have 37,000 troops in nine "combat brigades," and aims for 70,000 troops in the next year or two. But only 500 are in Kandahar. Where are the other 36,500? And police, supposedly 62,000 today and building to 82,000, are equally shadowy.  (majere;  dealing with incompetents who are just in it to make a fast buck to feed their family cannot be blamed.  Where are the audit control points - every auditor understands the various control points and their utmost importance)

When Col. Gary Rice prepared a report last year on Canada's military mission for the Conference of Defence Associations, he found "the actual deployed strength of the Afghan national security forces, army and police, could not be determined from available open sources."  (majere;  so its a secret from our troops and Canadian Public)

Why not? How can Parliament have a serious debate when it does not even know how many Afghan troops are mobilized to fight the Taliban, and what turf, exactly, they are expected to police and hold?

In Washington last week, Sen. Hillary Clinton and other senior Democrats urged U.S. President George Bush to set up a bipartisan "Afghanistan Study Group" to provide credible information and advice on training the Afghan forces, reconstruction, co-operation with Pakistan against the Taliban, and reducing corruption.   (majere;  instead of a committee, why not tell the Generals and below to do their darn jobs!)

It is a good idea, and one that Parliament should copy. A Canadian study group (majere; so now two study groups instead of action)  could provide our lawmakers with the hard data and policy options they now lack. And it is clear that the Afghan debate needs less rhetoric, and more fact-based analysis.

majere:  fact based analysis will prove they were wrong in the first place..........absolutely tragic. 

cheers :) majere