Did anyone really think that the Taliban could hold territory against a NATO onslaught--oh sorry I meant the Afghan forces! No mention here of US air support. If there is any trouble troops just call in the US to bomb.
Just to hedge their bets the official pronouncements warn that there could be more attacks. That is sure a good bet. The attacks may even be inside Kandahar. The casualty count cannot be verified by reporters. Who knows what casualties there were and who they were. If they remained in the villages they are just taken to be Taliban.
THE AFGHAN MISSION
Routed Taliban flee territory north of Kandahar
Despite Arghandab defeat, insurgents still capable of spectacular attacks in coming months, Canadian commander warns
GRAEME SMITH
June 20, 2008
KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- The Taliban's swift retreat from their newly conquered territory north of Kandahar city left Afghan officials triumphant yesterday, but a Canadian commander warned that the insurgents are capable of more spectacular attacks in the coming months.
Brigadier-General Denis Thompson, the top Canadian commander in Afghanistan, said Afghan forces and foreign troops pushed deep into the Arghandab valley on Wednesday night. A few hours after dawn yesterday morning, a Taliban spokesman confirmed by telephone that most insurgents were pulling out of the district.
"There is no doubt in my mind, however, that further insurgent attacks will take place in the months ahead," Gen. Thompson said.
In the past week, Taliban insurgents launched a spectacular attack on Sarpoza jail on the western outskirts of Kandahar city, freeing nearly all the prisoners, and briefly seized control of a dozen villages in Arghandab district, a strategic valley with no major Taliban presence until recently.
Speaking to reporters in Huntsville, Ont., Prime Minister Stephen Harper acknowledged that the Sarpoza raid was a "setback," and his senior commander in Kandahar said more such attacks can be expected.
Gen. Thompson said the Taliban remain capable of more attacks, even something on the scale of the prison break.
The latest crisis appeared to have passed, however. Kandahar police chief Sayed Agha Saqib said 50 to 60 insurgents were killed in the fighting, including two fleeing Taliban shot by police near the bridge that connects Arghandab with the district of Shah Wali Kot.
Many other insurgents escaped northward, officials said.
"The search is still going on," Kandahar Governor Asadullah Khalid told reporters. "Wherever they are, we will find them, and if they think what they've showed us is the tip of the iceberg, they can come back and they will get the same treatment that their insurgent brothers received in the last 24 hours."
NATO estimates that 700 families, or roughly 5,000 people, given the average size of an Afghan family, have fled Arghandab district in the past week. A military statement urged those people to go home, but the Afghan official responsible for the district, Haji Ghulam Farooq, said they should not be invited to return while Afghan and Canadian troops continue to sweep the area for insurgents and other hazards.
"We're not allowing the ordinary people back to their villages yet because we don't know if there are any land mines or Taliban left over," Mr. Farooq said. "We had fighting this afternoon, but it was only minor fighting."
One of those whose family was displaced, a 35-year-old farmer named Abdullah, said he is still waiting to be certain the Taliban have vanished. He moved his wife and four children from the village of Kohak on Tuesday, just before it was bloodily retaken from insurgents on Wednesday.
"We are happy the fighting is finishing now," Abdullah said. "But maybe the Taliban will come again to Arghandab. I thought the fighting would continue for a month or a year, like in Panjwai, so we will be lucky if this is the end of the fighting." Despite having received no assistance from the government or aid agencies, the farmer said he wants nothing but security.
"I have a good garden and pomegranate orchard at home, so I don't need anything. I just need my village back."
Some villagers had feared the fighting in Arghandab would resemble the kind of offensive launched by foreign troops in the Panjwai valley two years ago, when a large group of insurgents was routed by heavy bombing and many civilians were killed.
By contrast, the Arghandab operation appeared to rely on an influx of 1,400 Afghan soldiers instead of aerial bombings, and few civilian casualties were reported.
The Afghan military responded to the Taliban threat this week with signs of growing professionalism, the Canadian commander said.
Hundreds of troops from Kabul were relocated to Kandahar and incorporated into the local fighting force with a speed that Gen. Thompson said was impressive.
"From flash to bang we're talking about a two- to three-day period," he said. "That takes a lot of co-ordination."
The arrival of so many fresh Afghan soldiers also allowed Gen. Thompson to set up a new outpost in a soccer stadium inside the city, and request British paratroopers to patrol the streets, without leaving any outlying districts undefended.
"Nothing else was thinned out in the rest of the province," Gen. Thompson said.
But the presence of so many foreign troops inside the city limits has rattled some urban residents, who worry that the war is drawing closer.
"The soldiers must go to villages and stop the Taliban from coming to the city," said Said Ahmad, 25, a money changer. "They should not make their bases inside the city."
Showing posts with label Canada's Afghan mission.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canada's Afghan mission.. Show all posts
Friday, June 20, 2008
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Harper prepares final pitch for more help in Afghanistan
This is from the Star. This is all smoke and mirrors and made-up news. The NATO meeting will pay little attention to Harper and Canada and a lot of attention to Bush and his push to have Georgia and the Ukraine become members of NATO. The Canada commitment is a done deal and all that is left is useless whining and wringing of hands about NATO countries refusing to meet their obligations. Bush will not lose the opportunity to have Canadians serve as cannon fodder in his war against terror aka U.S. imperialism at work. He also will be happy for Canadian taxpayers to buy Boeing helicopters and whomever makes drones.
If no one else comes through the U.S. will send the troops to the south. Lets hope this does not mean even more friendly fire losses. Is it proper to fly the flag at half mast when a Canadian soldier is killed in friendly fire? In an accident? Because of some illness contracted in Afghanistan?
I can see the new policy. Ottawaians (or whatever they are) will say: Wow. How come the flag is not at half mast today?
Harper prepares final pitch for more help in Afghanistan
TheStar.com - World - Harper prepares final pitch for more help in Afghanistan
BUSH PLEDGE
U.S. President George W. Bush has made an "iron-clad commitment" to Prime Minister Stephen Harper to provide the 1,000 troops to bolster the NATO mission in southern Afghanistan, CTV News reported last night.
The Canadian Press
Mixed messages from NATO's Bucharest summit over Canada's demand for 1,000 additional soldiers
April 02, 2008
Mitch Potter
Allan Woods
Staff Reporters
BUCHAREST–Prime Minister Stephen Harper will today have a final opportunity to underline Canada's make-or-break policy in Afghanistan as NATO leaders gather in the Romanian capital in a summit to revive the flagging mission.
Even as his cabinet colleagues play down expectations for a breakthrough, Harper is to take centre stage alongside Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the secretary generals of both NATO and the United Nations in adiscussion titled "Afghanistan: Success Not in Sight, Failure Not an Option."
Harper's appearance alongside the three principal players in the Afghan effort – described by one NATO insider as "a gesture of respect for Canada" – comes amid deepening concerns the Bucharest summit will fall significantly short of its goal of levelling the burden borne by the 39 nations involved.
Mixed messages continued to cast doubts over what is to be announced tomorrow, when Harper and his fellow leaders hope to emerge from a closed-door session with a positive response to Ottawa's demands for a minimum 1,000 additional soldiers – plus transport helicopters and aerial surveillance drones – to extend to 2011 the mission in restive Kandahar Province.
France, the target of an intense diplomatic courtship by Ottawa in recent months, signalled again yesterday it would answer at least some of Canada's needs.
"There have been specific requests, notably from the Netherlands and Canada. It is impossible to shy away from our responsibilities. This commitment honours France," Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told the National Assembly in Paris.
Kouchner's comments come in the wake of media leaks indicating President Nicolas Sarkozy comes to Bucharest poised to announce the deployment of some 1,000 French soldiers to eastern Afghanistan, rather than the south, where Canada's needs are all too clear.
The matter was further clouded yesterday by Prime Minister François Fillon, who said Sarkozy hasn't made a final decision on the deployment and added that it could be "in the order of several hundred extra soldiers."
Uncertainty over the outcome at Bucharest – the 20th such gathering in the transatlantic alliance's 59-year history – prompted one senior NATO official to say he could not remember another summit where there were so many unanswered questions ahead of its formal opening.
New NATO memberships, missile defence for Europe, NATO's relationship with Russia and the overriding issue of NATO's future will be debated, and in some cases decided and formalized.
Apart from the divisive issue of burden-sharing in Afghanistan, much of the debate is expected to centre on the wording of two draft documents that grapple with the need to reconcile conflicting strategies on how to put the mission back on track.
"Right now there is tension over timelines and benchmarks, some still written in brackets, that spell out how NATO will move forward, in terms of the size and schedule for training and equipping the Afghan army and police to take over their own country," one senior NATO source told the Star.
"Some countries are uncomfortable committing to those details and the debate continues. They might be arguing this out behind the scenes until midnight. Or maybe until they start the actual meeting on Afghanistan (tomorrow)."
A second, less contentious document, described as "essentially a renewal of vows" on the mission in Afghanistan, is also expected after tomorrow's meeting.
Before landing in Bucharest, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said that, while the government has "done everything humanly possible" to win the support of NATO allies in Kandahar, the actual results of its efforts may not be known at Bucharest.
"Keep in mind we do have until February 2009 to fulfill those commitments," he told reporters aboard a government airplane shortly before he and Harper touched down.
"The sooner the better, the more the better. That's what we've been saying all along.
"But as far as getting those commitments for every single piece of equipment and personnel, that remains to be seen."
If no one else comes through the U.S. will send the troops to the south. Lets hope this does not mean even more friendly fire losses. Is it proper to fly the flag at half mast when a Canadian soldier is killed in friendly fire? In an accident? Because of some illness contracted in Afghanistan?
I can see the new policy. Ottawaians (or whatever they are) will say: Wow. How come the flag is not at half mast today?
Harper prepares final pitch for more help in Afghanistan
TheStar.com - World - Harper prepares final pitch for more help in Afghanistan
BUSH PLEDGE
U.S. President George W. Bush has made an "iron-clad commitment" to Prime Minister Stephen Harper to provide the 1,000 troops to bolster the NATO mission in southern Afghanistan, CTV News reported last night.
The Canadian Press
Mixed messages from NATO's Bucharest summit over Canada's demand for 1,000 additional soldiers
April 02, 2008
Mitch Potter
Allan Woods
Staff Reporters
BUCHAREST–Prime Minister Stephen Harper will today have a final opportunity to underline Canada's make-or-break policy in Afghanistan as NATO leaders gather in the Romanian capital in a summit to revive the flagging mission.
Even as his cabinet colleagues play down expectations for a breakthrough, Harper is to take centre stage alongside Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the secretary generals of both NATO and the United Nations in adiscussion titled "Afghanistan: Success Not in Sight, Failure Not an Option."
Harper's appearance alongside the three principal players in the Afghan effort – described by one NATO insider as "a gesture of respect for Canada" – comes amid deepening concerns the Bucharest summit will fall significantly short of its goal of levelling the burden borne by the 39 nations involved.
Mixed messages continued to cast doubts over what is to be announced tomorrow, when Harper and his fellow leaders hope to emerge from a closed-door session with a positive response to Ottawa's demands for a minimum 1,000 additional soldiers – plus transport helicopters and aerial surveillance drones – to extend to 2011 the mission in restive Kandahar Province.
France, the target of an intense diplomatic courtship by Ottawa in recent months, signalled again yesterday it would answer at least some of Canada's needs.
"There have been specific requests, notably from the Netherlands and Canada. It is impossible to shy away from our responsibilities. This commitment honours France," Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told the National Assembly in Paris.
Kouchner's comments come in the wake of media leaks indicating President Nicolas Sarkozy comes to Bucharest poised to announce the deployment of some 1,000 French soldiers to eastern Afghanistan, rather than the south, where Canada's needs are all too clear.
The matter was further clouded yesterday by Prime Minister François Fillon, who said Sarkozy hasn't made a final decision on the deployment and added that it could be "in the order of several hundred extra soldiers."
Uncertainty over the outcome at Bucharest – the 20th such gathering in the transatlantic alliance's 59-year history – prompted one senior NATO official to say he could not remember another summit where there were so many unanswered questions ahead of its formal opening.
New NATO memberships, missile defence for Europe, NATO's relationship with Russia and the overriding issue of NATO's future will be debated, and in some cases decided and formalized.
Apart from the divisive issue of burden-sharing in Afghanistan, much of the debate is expected to centre on the wording of two draft documents that grapple with the need to reconcile conflicting strategies on how to put the mission back on track.
"Right now there is tension over timelines and benchmarks, some still written in brackets, that spell out how NATO will move forward, in terms of the size and schedule for training and equipping the Afghan army and police to take over their own country," one senior NATO source told the Star.
"Some countries are uncomfortable committing to those details and the debate continues. They might be arguing this out behind the scenes until midnight. Or maybe until they start the actual meeting on Afghanistan (tomorrow)."
A second, less contentious document, described as "essentially a renewal of vows" on the mission in Afghanistan, is also expected after tomorrow's meeting.
Before landing in Bucharest, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said that, while the government has "done everything humanly possible" to win the support of NATO allies in Kandahar, the actual results of its efforts may not be known at Bucharest.
"Keep in mind we do have until February 2009 to fulfill those commitments," he told reporters aboard a government airplane shortly before he and Harper touched down.
"The sooner the better, the more the better. That's what we've been saying all along.
"But as far as getting those commitments for every single piece of equipment and personnel, that remains to be seen."
Friday, March 7, 2008
Canada's Muddled Afghan Mission
This is from antiwar.com. The quotes from the Manley report are not all that opaque although it is filled with a lot of rhetorical flatulence about Canadian values etc. It is clear enough that we are staying in Kandahar until 2011 and that of necessity we will be involved in combat. It is certain that we will have more heroes returned in caskets to military honors. It is clear that we will continue to be loyal allies of U.S. imperialism.
Canada's Muddled Afghan Mission
by Neil Kitson
Canada should have a federal election. The most urgent issue is Afghanistan, and the fundamental question is whether Canadians want to be governed by politicians interested in honesty and clarity, or by those who prefer focus groups and public relations. (Canadian soldiers exposed to "explosively formed penetrators" might have their own priorities.)
Afghanistan has cost about 80 Canadian lives and a lot of money. There's no end in sight, the Liberals have no discernible position, and the Conservative government says we're there so that little girls can go to school without fear. The truth: the world forgot about Afghanistan after 1989 (apart from the admirable Ottawa Convention), the country is still impoverished, Canadian involvement there is made up on the back of an envelope Rick Hillier got from the Pentagon, and nobody has a clue how to end this disaster.
We have recently had a "debate" in the House of Commons about the Afghanistan "mission," a debate conspicuously lacking all the right questions, namely: What are we doing there? What is the goal? Why is it worth Canadian soldiers' lives when other NATO countries don't believe the whole enterprise is worth dying for, whatever that enterprise is? The "debate" is in fact about when "it" will end, whatever "it" is. The Liberals started "it," Harper's pushing "it," Hillier's ready to die for "it," but nobody knows what "it" is.
The official, legal reason for any NATO country being in Afghanistan is the "collective right of self-defense" – we're making the world safe from terrorism; no more bin Ladens in Tora Bora plotting the end of civilization as we know it – the United Nations having "sanctioned" the operation under Article VII of the UN Charter. Give me a break. The Air India terrorist bombing of 1985 cost as many lives relative to Canada's population as 9/11 did relative to the United States', many warnings before that attack were ignored by the government, and some of the perpetrators are probably still living in Surrey, British Columbia, but Canadian politicians were far less hysterical in their response to that atrocity.
Furthermore, the Canadian government's pronouncements about the Afghan mission are models of opacity; for example, the Manley Report:
"The Panel proposes a new and more comprehensive Canadian strategy for Afghanistan – a strategy that honors the sacrifices Canadians have already made in Afghanistan, serves Canadian interests, gives expression to Canadian values, and corresponds realistically to Canada's capacity. These Recommendations are rooted in the logic of our preceding observations and assessments. The adoption of these Recommendations would commit Canada to a more coherent diplomatic engagement in the international partnership working for Afghanistan's security, better governance, and development. It would reorient Canada's military mission in Afghanistan more systematically from combat to the intensified training of the Afghan army and police. And it would improve the impact of Canada's civilian aid to the Afghan people."
Somebody show me a tribal map of Afghanistan that makes sense of the "Afghan National Army" and the "Afghan National Police." As George Orwell said:
"This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of WORDS chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of PHRASES tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house."
Then there's Thucydides:
"Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defense. The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected. To succeed in a plot was to have a shrewd head, to divine a plot a still shrewder; but to try to provide against having to do either was to break up your party and to be afraid of your adversaries."
Canada needs an honest debate about Afghanistan, in real words that have real meaning.
Canada's Muddled Afghan Mission
by Neil Kitson
Canada should have a federal election. The most urgent issue is Afghanistan, and the fundamental question is whether Canadians want to be governed by politicians interested in honesty and clarity, or by those who prefer focus groups and public relations. (Canadian soldiers exposed to "explosively formed penetrators" might have their own priorities.)
Afghanistan has cost about 80 Canadian lives and a lot of money. There's no end in sight, the Liberals have no discernible position, and the Conservative government says we're there so that little girls can go to school without fear. The truth: the world forgot about Afghanistan after 1989 (apart from the admirable Ottawa Convention), the country is still impoverished, Canadian involvement there is made up on the back of an envelope Rick Hillier got from the Pentagon, and nobody has a clue how to end this disaster.
We have recently had a "debate" in the House of Commons about the Afghanistan "mission," a debate conspicuously lacking all the right questions, namely: What are we doing there? What is the goal? Why is it worth Canadian soldiers' lives when other NATO countries don't believe the whole enterprise is worth dying for, whatever that enterprise is? The "debate" is in fact about when "it" will end, whatever "it" is. The Liberals started "it," Harper's pushing "it," Hillier's ready to die for "it," but nobody knows what "it" is.
The official, legal reason for any NATO country being in Afghanistan is the "collective right of self-defense" – we're making the world safe from terrorism; no more bin Ladens in Tora Bora plotting the end of civilization as we know it – the United Nations having "sanctioned" the operation under Article VII of the UN Charter. Give me a break. The Air India terrorist bombing of 1985 cost as many lives relative to Canada's population as 9/11 did relative to the United States', many warnings before that attack were ignored by the government, and some of the perpetrators are probably still living in Surrey, British Columbia, but Canadian politicians were far less hysterical in their response to that atrocity.
Furthermore, the Canadian government's pronouncements about the Afghan mission are models of opacity; for example, the Manley Report:
"The Panel proposes a new and more comprehensive Canadian strategy for Afghanistan – a strategy that honors the sacrifices Canadians have already made in Afghanistan, serves Canadian interests, gives expression to Canadian values, and corresponds realistically to Canada's capacity. These Recommendations are rooted in the logic of our preceding observations and assessments. The adoption of these Recommendations would commit Canada to a more coherent diplomatic engagement in the international partnership working for Afghanistan's security, better governance, and development. It would reorient Canada's military mission in Afghanistan more systematically from combat to the intensified training of the Afghan army and police. And it would improve the impact of Canada's civilian aid to the Afghan people."
Somebody show me a tribal map of Afghanistan that makes sense of the "Afghan National Army" and the "Afghan National Police." As George Orwell said:
"This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of WORDS chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of PHRASES tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house."
Then there's Thucydides:
"Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defense. The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected. To succeed in a plot was to have a shrewd head, to divine a plot a still shrewder; but to try to provide against having to do either was to break up your party and to be afraid of your adversaries."
Canada needs an honest debate about Afghanistan, in real words that have real meaning.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Senlis: Canada not recognising Afghan deterioriation
Senlis seems to be changing its emphasis or maybe the donors to the private think tank want the emphasis changed. Their earlier emphasis was to critique the war on drugs and suggest that opium could be grown for legal medical use. Now the group seems to be beating the drums for a military buildup and even giving the military power to distribute aid. Of course this would involve in all probability using aid itself as a direct weapon in the battle against the Taliban. Aid would be used as a carrot and a stick. Many analysts think this is a recipe for disaster and turns even more against the occupation. The presumption that the Taliban have no claim to Afghanistan and that the occupation is there for the good of the Afghans is typical tripe pedaled in the western media. While Senlis often has some good criticisms of certain aspects of the occupation it is still a dyed in the wool humanitarian liberal think tank full of itself and of unanalysed presuppositions about the morality of its role. None of this is to deny that the Taliban are a barbaric reactionary group of religious zealots of course. But if that is a reason for invading and occupying a country why are we not in Saudi Arabia?
Actually if the occupying forces left Afghanistan there would probably be a deal between the Karzai government and the Taliban.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Canada not recognizing Afghan deterioration: think-tank
Senlis says Taliban controls half of country
Mike Blanchfield, CanWest News Service
Published: Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Finbarr O'Reilly/Reuters
OTTAWA -- The Canadian government is "shirking" its responsibility to the Afghan people by dismissing reports of the Taliban's growing strength in the war-torn country, the Senlis Council think-tank charged Wednesday.
Norine MacDonald, the Senlis founder and its lead researcher based in Kandahar, was rebutting the dismissive comments by Defence Minister Peter MacKay and others towards its latest study that says the Taliban have influence in more than half of the country and that NATO should respond to that threat by doubling its troop strength.
Mr. MacKay has called the Senlis assessment "not credible" while NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has deemed their most recent proposals unrealistic.
On Wednesday, Ms. MacDonald brandished a map, prepared for United Nations staff and leaked to the Times of London in Kabul that shows half of Afghanistan -- and nearly all of the south -- is a virtual no-go area for UN officials and other aid workers because it not considered safe enough.
"The difficulty with the minister and our government in not accepting the reality of what's going on in southern Afghanistan is that they're shirking their duty to the Canadian people," MacDonald told reporters in Ottawa. "We're also shirking our duties to the people of Afghanistan, so I urge the minister to review not only our report but other reports."
Ms. MacDonald returned to Canada from Kandahar, where she has mainly lived for the last three years, to give her group's submission to the government panel, headed by former deputy prime minister John Manley, that is examining Canada's future role in Afghanistan.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said Parliament will vote on whether to extend Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan after the Manley commission makes its recommendations.
While opposition parties want Canada's combat role in Kandahar to end by February, 2009 or sooner, Ms. MacDonald said that position is untenable because the security situation has deteriorated so dramatically in southern Afghanistan and because the Taliban have a wider presence in the area.
"We don't have the luxury of leaving southern Afghanistan at this moment. If a lot of the other countries stepped up in a very significant way to put more ground troops in the south, we could talk about Canada leaving," she said.
The Senlis Council is urging Mr. Manley to recommend that Canada stay the course in Afghanistan.
It also wants Canada to convene an emergency meeting of NATO countries to find a way to increase troop levels and remove some of the caveats, or restrictions, that prevent some countries from deploying to the front lines of fighting in the south, where Canada, Britain, the Netherlands and the U.S. have borne the brunt of heavy combat.
Senlis is calling for the Canadian Forces to be given full control of the purse strings of the aid budget controlled by the Canadian International Development Agency.
Ms. MacDonald acknowledged this was a controversial proposal that would anger non-governmental agencies that firmly hold to the position that humanitarian assistance and military power should never be mingled.
"Until the development and aid community can come up with their own capacities to deliver some aid to those people, in the short term we have to let the military do it," she said.
"The development and aid community has no plan."
Ottawa Citizen
Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
Actually if the occupying forces left Afghanistan there would probably be a deal between the Karzai government and the Taliban.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Canada not recognizing Afghan deterioration: think-tank
Senlis says Taliban controls half of country
Mike Blanchfield, CanWest News Service
Published: Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Finbarr O'Reilly/Reuters
OTTAWA -- The Canadian government is "shirking" its responsibility to the Afghan people by dismissing reports of the Taliban's growing strength in the war-torn country, the Senlis Council think-tank charged Wednesday.
Norine MacDonald, the Senlis founder and its lead researcher based in Kandahar, was rebutting the dismissive comments by Defence Minister Peter MacKay and others towards its latest study that says the Taliban have influence in more than half of the country and that NATO should respond to that threat by doubling its troop strength.
Mr. MacKay has called the Senlis assessment "not credible" while NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has deemed their most recent proposals unrealistic.
On Wednesday, Ms. MacDonald brandished a map, prepared for United Nations staff and leaked to the Times of London in Kabul that shows half of Afghanistan -- and nearly all of the south -- is a virtual no-go area for UN officials and other aid workers because it not considered safe enough.
"The difficulty with the minister and our government in not accepting the reality of what's going on in southern Afghanistan is that they're shirking their duty to the Canadian people," MacDonald told reporters in Ottawa. "We're also shirking our duties to the people of Afghanistan, so I urge the minister to review not only our report but other reports."
Ms. MacDonald returned to Canada from Kandahar, where she has mainly lived for the last three years, to give her group's submission to the government panel, headed by former deputy prime minister John Manley, that is examining Canada's future role in Afghanistan.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said Parliament will vote on whether to extend Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan after the Manley commission makes its recommendations.
While opposition parties want Canada's combat role in Kandahar to end by February, 2009 or sooner, Ms. MacDonald said that position is untenable because the security situation has deteriorated so dramatically in southern Afghanistan and because the Taliban have a wider presence in the area.
"We don't have the luxury of leaving southern Afghanistan at this moment. If a lot of the other countries stepped up in a very significant way to put more ground troops in the south, we could talk about Canada leaving," she said.
The Senlis Council is urging Mr. Manley to recommend that Canada stay the course in Afghanistan.
It also wants Canada to convene an emergency meeting of NATO countries to find a way to increase troop levels and remove some of the caveats, or restrictions, that prevent some countries from deploying to the front lines of fighting in the south, where Canada, Britain, the Netherlands and the U.S. have borne the brunt of heavy combat.
Senlis is calling for the Canadian Forces to be given full control of the purse strings of the aid budget controlled by the Canadian International Development Agency.
Ms. MacDonald acknowledged this was a controversial proposal that would anger non-governmental agencies that firmly hold to the position that humanitarian assistance and military power should never be mingled.
"Until the development and aid community can come up with their own capacities to deliver some aid to those people, in the short term we have to let the military do it," she said.
"The development and aid community has no plan."
Ottawa Citizen
Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Canadians Still Want Canada Out of Afghanistan
This poll illustrates one thing: the answers depend upon the question asked. On the environment the question was:
a reaction to the Tory pledge to implement a national strategy to reduce Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions.
Of course this is almost a motherhood (pace radical feminists) issue. The question is by how much and within what time frame. Environmentalists and other critics would soon shoot down Tory hot air on the environment during a campaign. If Tory strategists take heart from this they are deluding themselves.
The Tories have managed to neutralise the Liberals on Afghanistan so they probably do not worry too much about that no matter if public opinion is against staying it cannot have any effect unless the dissenters decide to vote en masse for the NDP which is unlikely.
We have quite a bit of pro-military and patriotic clap trap about the Afghan mission a la US but it seems not to have worked well. It isnt working in the US either re the Iraq US mission. However in both cases the effect is almost nil on the ground. Canada is still in a combat role in Afghanistan and will be for over a year at least.
Canadians still want Canada out of Afghanistan
Updated Sun. Nov. 4 2007 2:46 PM ET
The Canadian Press
OTTAWA -- Soon after the Conservatives took office, government insiders fretted over potential political problems in two areas: Kyoto and Kandahar.
A new public opinion poll suggests they may be successfully neutralizing the former issue but are still struggling with the latter.
The Harris/Decima survey, released exclusively to The Canadian Press, found public reaction to those two issues at opposite ends of the spectrum when respondents were asked for their impressions of the recent throne speech.
People were asked to respond to 23 different aspects of the speech -- and the climate-change component garnered the best response, while the desire to extend the Afghan mission drew the worst reaction.
"The government has succeeded quite well in positioning itself as a government that wants to make some progress on the climate-change issue,'' said Harris/Decima president Bruce Anderson.
"On Afghanistan, it remains the case that people are uncomfortable with that mission.''
Ninety per cent of respondents expressed approval of the Tories' commitment to fight climate change -- 70 per cent said they approved and considered it a priority, while 20 per cent said they approved but felt it wasn't a top priority.
It is worth noting that the poll question did not mention two factors that would likely have driven those numbers down.
The new throne speech explicitly stated that Canada will never meet its Kyoto accord targets, and it also glosses over the fact that little is known about how the government actually intends to reduce greenhouse gases.
Respondents to the survey were simply asked for a reaction to the Tory pledge to implement a national strategy to reduce Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions.
Still, the reaction bodes well for the Tories and suggests there has been no public uproar over their environmental policies.
"I think the government's succeeded in giving people the sense that it wasn't just determined to walk away from Kyoto and not replace it with something else,'' Anderson said.
"The numbers are telling us that people are open-minded and hopeful that the government is going to show a strong set of environmental credentials going forward. To some degree, the negative that was attaching itself to the Conservative brand has been dissipated.''
Afghanistan could be more complicated.
Respondents were massively opposed to the preference stated in the throne speech: remaining in Afghanistan until 2011 in order to complete certain goals, rather than withdrawing in February 2009.
Only 15 per cent approved and called it a priority while another 19 per cent approved and called it a non- priority.
Another 60 per cent either mildly or strongly disapproved.
"While people would in some respects like an earlier exit even than February 2009, public opinion seems resigned to the fact that it'll be at least (until then),'' Anderson said.
"The numbers are telling us that for any government to try to push much beyond that -- there's going to be resistance. It's still probably the single biggest challenging issue that the Conservative party faces.''
The Tories have taken steps to protect themselves on the issue.
They have repeatedly promised that the final say on the mission will not belong to them but to Parliament -- which will be able to vote sometime in the next few months.
The government has also set up a task force, headed by Liberal John Manley, to offer advice on the mission.
Despite all that, the Liberals will certainly not refrain from campaigning on the issue if there's an election over the coming months.
They're already pointing out that, if the Tories had a majority government, any parliamentary vote would be sure to result in a mission extension.
Harris/Decima conducted the online poll of 2,044 respondents, from Oct. 19 to 28. The poll has a margin of error of two percentage points, 19 times out of 20
a reaction to the Tory pledge to implement a national strategy to reduce Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions.
Of course this is almost a motherhood (pace radical feminists) issue. The question is by how much and within what time frame. Environmentalists and other critics would soon shoot down Tory hot air on the environment during a campaign. If Tory strategists take heart from this they are deluding themselves.
The Tories have managed to neutralise the Liberals on Afghanistan so they probably do not worry too much about that no matter if public opinion is against staying it cannot have any effect unless the dissenters decide to vote en masse for the NDP which is unlikely.
We have quite a bit of pro-military and patriotic clap trap about the Afghan mission a la US but it seems not to have worked well. It isnt working in the US either re the Iraq US mission. However in both cases the effect is almost nil on the ground. Canada is still in a combat role in Afghanistan and will be for over a year at least.
Canadians still want Canada out of Afghanistan
Updated Sun. Nov. 4 2007 2:46 PM ET
The Canadian Press
OTTAWA -- Soon after the Conservatives took office, government insiders fretted over potential political problems in two areas: Kyoto and Kandahar.
A new public opinion poll suggests they may be successfully neutralizing the former issue but are still struggling with the latter.
The Harris/Decima survey, released exclusively to The Canadian Press, found public reaction to those two issues at opposite ends of the spectrum when respondents were asked for their impressions of the recent throne speech.
People were asked to respond to 23 different aspects of the speech -- and the climate-change component garnered the best response, while the desire to extend the Afghan mission drew the worst reaction.
"The government has succeeded quite well in positioning itself as a government that wants to make some progress on the climate-change issue,'' said Harris/Decima president Bruce Anderson.
"On Afghanistan, it remains the case that people are uncomfortable with that mission.''
Ninety per cent of respondents expressed approval of the Tories' commitment to fight climate change -- 70 per cent said they approved and considered it a priority, while 20 per cent said they approved but felt it wasn't a top priority.
It is worth noting that the poll question did not mention two factors that would likely have driven those numbers down.
The new throne speech explicitly stated that Canada will never meet its Kyoto accord targets, and it also glosses over the fact that little is known about how the government actually intends to reduce greenhouse gases.
Respondents to the survey were simply asked for a reaction to the Tory pledge to implement a national strategy to reduce Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions.
Still, the reaction bodes well for the Tories and suggests there has been no public uproar over their environmental policies.
"I think the government's succeeded in giving people the sense that it wasn't just determined to walk away from Kyoto and not replace it with something else,'' Anderson said.
"The numbers are telling us that people are open-minded and hopeful that the government is going to show a strong set of environmental credentials going forward. To some degree, the negative that was attaching itself to the Conservative brand has been dissipated.''
Afghanistan could be more complicated.
Respondents were massively opposed to the preference stated in the throne speech: remaining in Afghanistan until 2011 in order to complete certain goals, rather than withdrawing in February 2009.
Only 15 per cent approved and called it a priority while another 19 per cent approved and called it a non- priority.
Another 60 per cent either mildly or strongly disapproved.
"While people would in some respects like an earlier exit even than February 2009, public opinion seems resigned to the fact that it'll be at least (until then),'' Anderson said.
"The numbers are telling us that for any government to try to push much beyond that -- there's going to be resistance. It's still probably the single biggest challenging issue that the Conservative party faces.''
The Tories have taken steps to protect themselves on the issue.
They have repeatedly promised that the final say on the mission will not belong to them but to Parliament -- which will be able to vote sometime in the next few months.
The government has also set up a task force, headed by Liberal John Manley, to offer advice on the mission.
Despite all that, the Liberals will certainly not refrain from campaigning on the issue if there's an election over the coming months.
They're already pointing out that, if the Tories had a majority government, any parliamentary vote would be sure to result in a mission extension.
Harris/Decima conducted the online poll of 2,044 respondents, from Oct. 19 to 28. The poll has a margin of error of two percentage points, 19 times out of 20
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Trouble with Hillier
Our relations with the US are obviously a big part of our commitment in Afghanistan. Most reports about the mission hardly even mention this. Instead of helping out in Iraq we agreed to take a leading role in Afghanistan. Hillier obviously pushed this in spite of resistance by Martin. Now it has become a mess but Harper certainly supports his role as a partner in US attempts to become world hegemon.
Trouble with Hillier
Defence chief may stand between Harper and majority government – and PM can do nothing about it
Oct. 11, 2007
Is Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier staying or going?
CTV News Ottawa bureau chief Robert Fife recently said an undisclosed source had told him that Hillier was not long for his job. Hillier, Fife said early in October, would be gone by February '08.
Fife implied that Hillier was getting his walking papers because he had undermined his political bosses and had failed to change public opinion on the war in Afghanistan.
But in a press conference on the Hill on Oct. 3, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the reports were wrong and he gave Hillier a ringing endorsement as "an outstanding soldier."
"I just approved a pretty good rating for the Chief of the Defence Staff," Harper said.
The next day, Fife was back with his Hillier story. Then on CTV's Question Period, Craig Oliver could not stop talking about the Hillier story.
Eugene Lang's and Janice Gross Stein's book, The Unexpected War: Canada in Kandahar, sheds some light on what exactly is happening.
Lang, a former chief of staff for two Liberal defence ministers, and Stein, director of the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto and one of Canada's top academics, paint quite a portrait of Rick Hillier. Hillier, they say, is the main man responsible for the present mess in Afghanistan.
Stein and Lang say in the first weeks of Hillier's 2005 appointment as the new chief of defence staff, he "had secured from Martin's government the largest funding increase in a generation."
"Hillier had also persuaded the Martin government to set Canada on the path to a war in Afghanistan which no one, least of all Paul Martin, wanted or expected," Lang and Stein also say.
Hillier had been in office for only one month when he developed a plan for what he thought should be the nation's top defence priority — Afghanistan. He wanted a deployment that would get Canada deeper and deeper into the most troubled parts of the country, Lang and Stein say.
Martin did not want to fight in Afghanistan. That was Chrétien's war and Martin wanted no part of it. Martin wanted Canada in Darfur and Haiti. Hillier and the Defence Department thought that was a dumb idea and a waste of resources.
Martin was a strong proponent of the "responsibility to protect" doctrine of the United Nations. Martin also believed in peacekeeping and felt that Hillier's combat tactics in Afghanistan would make Canada lose the hearts and minds of ordinary Afghans.
The Department of Defence and Hillier fought Martin on Darfur and the "responsibility to protect" all the way. Defence and Hillier wanted combat troops in Afghanistan.
Hillier told Martin that when Martin said no to the ballistic missile defence scheme, he had ticked off the Americans, already unhappy about Chrétien saying no to a Canadian military operation in Iraq. Hillier said the Pentagon and the Americans would like his plans for Afghanistan.
It seems that Lang and Stein are saying that Canadian history will designate Hillier as the father of the Afghanistan mission. Hillier made a one-man push for an Afghanistan mission, Lang and Stein say. Hillier's charm and charisma gave him the tools to make Martin cave in to the U.S. military and give up on Darfur and Haiti.
Hillier outfoxed Martin on Afghanistan. Hillier didn't have to outfox Harper. Harper was pro-Pentagon and pro-Bush. Stephen Harper agreed with Hillier.
Now, says Lang, Hillier has turned Afghanistan into a bitter war with no end in sight. The heavy Canadian casualties in Afghanistan will continue because of Hillier, Lang and Stein say.
Rick Hillier as the father of the Afghanistan war is a pretty important thesis. It's plausible. It also makes the war in Afghanistan an even trickier problem for Harper than it already appeared.
The war in Afghanistan is the only thing standing in the way of a majority government for Harper. Quebec wants no part of the Afghanistan war, nor do Ontario, nor Canada's big cities. The Hillier story is not really helping Harper with Afghanistan.
It is fair to say that Hillier has wielded too much power in the Harper government. Hillier does not know how to respect his political bosses and Hillier undermined former defence minister Gordon O'Connor. This same O'Connor was recently praised by J.L. Granatstein, the historian, as the defence minister who revived the Canadian armed forces. This lavish praise for O'Connor was a Granatstein rebuke for Hillier.
It's interesting to note that when Martin said Canada wouldn't support the U.S. ballistic missile defence system, Hillier came up with his Afghanistan plan to make the Pentagon happy. Martin wasn't worried about the Pentagon, but Hillier was. If Harper is the most pro-American prime minister Canada has had in years, Hillier is the most pro-Pentagon chief of defence staff Canada has ever had.
Harper has to be careful with Hillier, who is loved by the troops in Afghanistan and the media. A wrong move by Harper could pull the whole Afghanistan mission down.
This Hillier story is the most remarkable story to come down the pike for Harper in years.
Hillier refuses to talk to the media about the Fife story. Hillier is not granting any interviews. The father of the Afghanistan war is unusually quiet.
Hillier is too popular to be touched by Harper — the soldiers and the public like Hillier far more than they like Harper. That could explain the new quirky relationship between Hillier and the Prime Minister. Letting Hillier go on the brink of an election campaign would be real folly. Hillier's popularity could stop Harper from getting a majority government.
Trouble with Hillier
Defence chief may stand between Harper and majority government – and PM can do nothing about it
Oct. 11, 2007
Is Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier staying or going?
CTV News Ottawa bureau chief Robert Fife recently said an undisclosed source had told him that Hillier was not long for his job. Hillier, Fife said early in October, would be gone by February '08.
Fife implied that Hillier was getting his walking papers because he had undermined his political bosses and had failed to change public opinion on the war in Afghanistan.
But in a press conference on the Hill on Oct. 3, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the reports were wrong and he gave Hillier a ringing endorsement as "an outstanding soldier."
"I just approved a pretty good rating for the Chief of the Defence Staff," Harper said.
The next day, Fife was back with his Hillier story. Then on CTV's Question Period, Craig Oliver could not stop talking about the Hillier story.
Eugene Lang's and Janice Gross Stein's book, The Unexpected War: Canada in Kandahar, sheds some light on what exactly is happening.
Lang, a former chief of staff for two Liberal defence ministers, and Stein, director of the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto and one of Canada's top academics, paint quite a portrait of Rick Hillier. Hillier, they say, is the main man responsible for the present mess in Afghanistan.
Stein and Lang say in the first weeks of Hillier's 2005 appointment as the new chief of defence staff, he "had secured from Martin's government the largest funding increase in a generation."
"Hillier had also persuaded the Martin government to set Canada on the path to a war in Afghanistan which no one, least of all Paul Martin, wanted or expected," Lang and Stein also say.
Hillier had been in office for only one month when he developed a plan for what he thought should be the nation's top defence priority — Afghanistan. He wanted a deployment that would get Canada deeper and deeper into the most troubled parts of the country, Lang and Stein say.
Martin did not want to fight in Afghanistan. That was Chrétien's war and Martin wanted no part of it. Martin wanted Canada in Darfur and Haiti. Hillier and the Defence Department thought that was a dumb idea and a waste of resources.
Martin was a strong proponent of the "responsibility to protect" doctrine of the United Nations. Martin also believed in peacekeeping and felt that Hillier's combat tactics in Afghanistan would make Canada lose the hearts and minds of ordinary Afghans.
The Department of Defence and Hillier fought Martin on Darfur and the "responsibility to protect" all the way. Defence and Hillier wanted combat troops in Afghanistan.
Hillier told Martin that when Martin said no to the ballistic missile defence scheme, he had ticked off the Americans, already unhappy about Chrétien saying no to a Canadian military operation in Iraq. Hillier said the Pentagon and the Americans would like his plans for Afghanistan.
It seems that Lang and Stein are saying that Canadian history will designate Hillier as the father of the Afghanistan mission. Hillier made a one-man push for an Afghanistan mission, Lang and Stein say. Hillier's charm and charisma gave him the tools to make Martin cave in to the U.S. military and give up on Darfur and Haiti.
Hillier outfoxed Martin on Afghanistan. Hillier didn't have to outfox Harper. Harper was pro-Pentagon and pro-Bush. Stephen Harper agreed with Hillier.
Now, says Lang, Hillier has turned Afghanistan into a bitter war with no end in sight. The heavy Canadian casualties in Afghanistan will continue because of Hillier, Lang and Stein say.
Rick Hillier as the father of the Afghanistan war is a pretty important thesis. It's plausible. It also makes the war in Afghanistan an even trickier problem for Harper than it already appeared.
The war in Afghanistan is the only thing standing in the way of a majority government for Harper. Quebec wants no part of the Afghanistan war, nor do Ontario, nor Canada's big cities. The Hillier story is not really helping Harper with Afghanistan.
It is fair to say that Hillier has wielded too much power in the Harper government. Hillier does not know how to respect his political bosses and Hillier undermined former defence minister Gordon O'Connor. This same O'Connor was recently praised by J.L. Granatstein, the historian, as the defence minister who revived the Canadian armed forces. This lavish praise for O'Connor was a Granatstein rebuke for Hillier.
It's interesting to note that when Martin said Canada wouldn't support the U.S. ballistic missile defence system, Hillier came up with his Afghanistan plan to make the Pentagon happy. Martin wasn't worried about the Pentagon, but Hillier was. If Harper is the most pro-American prime minister Canada has had in years, Hillier is the most pro-Pentagon chief of defence staff Canada has ever had.
Harper has to be careful with Hillier, who is loved by the troops in Afghanistan and the media. A wrong move by Harper could pull the whole Afghanistan mission down.
This Hillier story is the most remarkable story to come down the pike for Harper in years.
Hillier refuses to talk to the media about the Fife story. Hillier is not granting any interviews. The father of the Afghanistan war is unusually quiet.
Hillier is too popular to be touched by Harper — the soldiers and the public like Hillier far more than they like Harper. That could explain the new quirky relationship between Hillier and the Prime Minister. Letting Hillier go on the brink of an election campaign would be real folly. Hillier's popularity could stop Harper from getting a majority government.
What is the logic behind Canada's Afghan Mission?
This is from http://www.jameslaxer.com/blog.html.As I understand it, there are already "reformed" Taliban in the Karzai government. "Reformed" means simply that they support the Karzai government not that they have changed their views in any other way. Already the old Taliban style Department of Virtue and Vice has been restored and an unfortunate Muslim who converted to Christianity was whisked away to asylum in Italy before he was executed.
The Karzai offer is meant simply to split the Taliban. By the way the US, that makes a regular practice of claiming there should be no negotiation with terrorists applauds the Karzai offer. These guys aren't supposed to make sense.
Laxer makes the excellent point that those favoring the mission say that we are promoting democracy etc. and keeping the country from being over-run by these Taliban terrorists while Karzai bribes them with offers to become part of that "democratic" government!
Uh….what is the Logic behind Canada’s Military Mission in Afghanistan? Please, Run that Past Me Again
The members of the Harper government have argued that Canada needs to fight in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban and to sustain the government of Hamid Karzai. While the Karzai government upholds the rule of law, is committed to democracy and the rights of women, the Taliban is the implacable enemy of civilization, on these and a host of other matters, according to the Harper government.
Recently, the Karzai government has been negotiating with elements of the Taliban, and Hamid Karzai has said he wants to bring Taliban leaders into his administration.
What the hell is going on?
The head of the government we are fighting for, the man who is supposed to symbolize all that is decent in Afghanistan, wants members of the terrorist insurgency to join with him in ruling the country. Representatives of the Harper government have made it clear that Canada does not approve of negotiations with the Taliban, but that it’s up to the Karzai government to decide on its own policies. (Having dispatched troops to help Afghans uphold the government they really want, we could hardly try to dictate to the government in Kabul, could we?)
So, what are we doing in Afghanistan? Hamid Karzai does not seem to regard the members of the Taliban as beyond the pale of civilization the way Stephen Harper does.
Are our troops fighting and dying to improve the bargaining power of Hamid Karzai in restructuring his government with members of the Taliban in it? How is this conflict worth the life of even one more Canadian soldier?
The Karzai offer is meant simply to split the Taliban. By the way the US, that makes a regular practice of claiming there should be no negotiation with terrorists applauds the Karzai offer. These guys aren't supposed to make sense.
Laxer makes the excellent point that those favoring the mission say that we are promoting democracy etc. and keeping the country from being over-run by these Taliban terrorists while Karzai bribes them with offers to become part of that "democratic" government!
Uh….what is the Logic behind Canada’s Military Mission in Afghanistan? Please, Run that Past Me Again
The members of the Harper government have argued that Canada needs to fight in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban and to sustain the government of Hamid Karzai. While the Karzai government upholds the rule of law, is committed to democracy and the rights of women, the Taliban is the implacable enemy of civilization, on these and a host of other matters, according to the Harper government.
Recently, the Karzai government has been negotiating with elements of the Taliban, and Hamid Karzai has said he wants to bring Taliban leaders into his administration.
What the hell is going on?
The head of the government we are fighting for, the man who is supposed to symbolize all that is decent in Afghanistan, wants members of the terrorist insurgency to join with him in ruling the country. Representatives of the Harper government have made it clear that Canada does not approve of negotiations with the Taliban, but that it’s up to the Karzai government to decide on its own policies. (Having dispatched troops to help Afghans uphold the government they really want, we could hardly try to dictate to the government in Kabul, could we?)
So, what are we doing in Afghanistan? Hamid Karzai does not seem to regard the members of the Taliban as beyond the pale of civilization the way Stephen Harper does.
Are our troops fighting and dying to improve the bargaining power of Hamid Karzai in restructuring his government with members of the Taliban in it? How is this conflict worth the life of even one more Canadian soldier?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)