No Means No. Maybe!

While there may be no longer any combat troops in Afghanistan after 2011, this does not mean that no troops will be there. There could very well be still quite a few non-combat troops devoted to training etc. and these troops could very well be involved in combat in self defense. The article makes no mention of this issue nor of course did Prime Minister Harper. This is from the Globe and Mail.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010 9:48 AM
No means no, PM tells Clinton
Jane Taber

Prime Minister Stephen Harper told U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this morning that Canada’s combat mission in Afghanistan ends in 2011.

Mrs. Clinton did not ask that Canada keep troops in Afghanistan past the 2011 deadline, a Harper official told The Globe. Rather, the issue came up as the two were speaking about issues in Iran and Afghanistan.
“In the discussion on Iran and Afghanistan the Prime Minister reiterated [Canada’s position],” a senior Harper official said.
Mrs. Clinton made headlines across the country yesterday when she said in an interview with CTV that the United States wanted Canada’s military to stay beyond its deadline.

Canada Rejects NATO call on Afghanistan.

This is from an Iranian website. I have not seen too much coverage in Canada but perhaps I just missed it. Of course it is still a long time before 2011 and the Conservative government if it is still in power could change its mind. If Ignatieff happens to be leading the country then NATO (read the U.S.) could be in luck. Ignatieff is a great supporter of the US empire lite!

Canada rejects NATO call on Afghanistan
Fri, 07 Aug 2009 07:34:10 GMT


Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon
Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon has dismissed NATO calls for extending his country's deployment in Afghanistan after 2011.

"Our government is abiding by the motion passed in parliament in 2008 - that is that our combat forces will leave by 2011," he told CBC on Thursday.

Cannon's remarks came after NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that he would like to see Canada stay beyond 2011.

The Canadian parliament in 2008 voted to withdraw the country's forces no later than 2011.

The minister also praised Canada's military personnel for their important role in the war-torn country.

"I would like to take this opportunity to express my strong appreciation of the significant Canadian contribution to our mission in Afghanistan," he said.

Ottawa has currently some 2,800 troops based in Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan, as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

Nearly 130 Canadians have been killed in Afghanistan since the US-led invasion of the country seven and half years ago.

U.S. trying to convince Canada to stay in Afghanistan after 2011

This is hardly a surprising development. What is surprising isk Brewster's claim that Harper personally does not want have Canada stay on after 2011. However, his views could change if the US actually formally makes requests but perhaps not. The mission is not popular and as casualties mount it will become even more unpopular.
Ignatieff on this issue is probably worse than Harper. He at one time supported the Bush invasion of Iraq and he is an intellectual cheerleader for U.S. humanitarian imperialism. Although the Liberal party is split on the issue many Liberals such as Harper's favorite John Manley are very much hawks on Afghanistan. Manley has served the Canadian business elite well and is now rewarded with a top job:

John Manley has been doing Tom d’Aquino’s job for years, says Council of Canadians
Ottawa - The appointment of former Liberal MP John Manley as president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) gives North America’s big business community a powerful new voice in Ottawa to push for deregulation, privatization and deep economic and security integration with the United States and Mexico, says the Council of Canadians.

This is from the Globe and Mail.


U.S. probing ways to keep Canada in Afghanistan
Murray Brewster
Ottawa —
Obama Democrats have quietly sounded out power brokers in Ottawa looking for advice on how to convince war-weary Canadians to keep military forces in Afghanistan after 2011.
Conscious of the deep political and public opposition to extending the mission further, American officials - political and military - are struggling to understand concerns and identify the right arguments to make to the Harper government to "keep Canadian boots on the ground," defence sources said.
The United States has not formally - or even informally - requested Ottawa extend the deployment of 2,850 combat troops, trainers and aircrew in volatile and bloody Kandahar, where 120 soldiers and one diplomat have died over seven years.
The questions being asked are meant to lay the groundwork for a potential request, which the administration could make late this year or in early 2010, said a source familiar with the process.
It's unclear whether the U.S. would ask Canada to stay on in Kandahar or elsewhere.
The sophisticated, below-the-radar effort reflects Washington's new approach to dealing with allies, and marks a sharp departure from the days when former U.S. president George W. Bush declared: "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."
The informal exercise comes as no surprise to seasoned diplomats, who say Canada's self-imposed pullout deadline of 2011, and a Dutch plan to withdraw its troops in July of next year, complicate the U.S.'s long-term strategy in the region.
President Barack Obama has made it clear Afghanistan is the central front in the war against al-Qaeda and terrorism.
Any discussion of Canadian involvement beyond 2011 will likely make Prime Minister Stephen Harper's minority government squirm because there's no appetite for extending such a costly war.
Contrary to the picture often painted by opposition parties, Mr. Harper is personally opposed to staying beyond the end date and has said privately that if Parliament "hadn't imposed a deadline" on him, he would have done it himself because an "open-ended war is not in the best interest of the country - or the army."

Lowering expectations for Afghan progress.

This is from the Globe and Mail. It seems that the pig in a poke can be more easily marketed if the public doesn't expect much. The quarterly updates could include the following:
a) the profits generated to arms and equipment suppliers to the mission.
b) the costs of medical treatment for the wounded.
c) the number of private contractors associated with the mission and the quarterly cost of their contracts.
d) the costs of PR to sell the mission to Canadians.

The ideal benchmark would be reduce all these to zero.


OTTAWA -- The Harper government's top political manager for the Afghanistan mission tried yesterday to ratchet down expectations for what Canada can achieve before it leaves in 2011, but said the Tories will soon offer Canadians quarterly updates on progress.

Trade Minister David Emerson, an ex-CEO of one of North America's biggest lumber companies and former B.C. government mandarin, was given the task this year of using his managerial skills to increase political oversight of the Afghan mission.

Mr. Emerson, who assumed the chair of a new cabinet committee on Afghanistan in February, said the Canadian government has to be "realistic as to what we can achieve" in three years, adding the best that can be hoped for is that Afghanistan becomes a "viable state" on its own.

"I don't think any of us should be under the illusion that Afghanistan is going to be a thriving, prosperous democracy by 2011," he said.

Harper dampens expectations ahead of NATO summit

This is from the Globe and Mail.Actually the article makes it clear that there is no danger at all that the conditions set by Harper will not be met. If no one else will come through the U.S. will. They should since we are providing cannon fodder, and aid for their mission. We even are giving Boeing a big boost with Chinook helicopters. As a reward we will get them sooner than ordinary!


Harper dampens expectations ahead of NATO summit
MURRAY BREWSTER

The Canadian Press

March 28, 2008 at 5:03 PM EDT

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper appeared to dampen expectations Friday that all of Canada's demands on Afghanistan will be met during next week's NATO leaders summit in Romania.

While he remains confident the military alliance will come through with 1,000 reinforcements and extra equipment, Mr. Harper suggested it all might take more time to accomplish than the two-day meeting among 26 leaders.

“I anticipate in the weeks to come there will be additional commitments made in Afghanistan by some of our allies,” he said while visiting northern Quebec.

“I don't think we will necessarily finish that process at Bucharest but we will finish it in the very near future.”
It was widely expected that French President Nicolas Sarkozy would use the gathering of NATO leaders on April 2-4 to announce that his country was sending additional troops. Instead, he largely made his intentions known during a visit this week to Britain, prompting an immediate uproar back home.

It's not clear whether French troops would go to eastern or southern Afghanistan, but there is a strong suggestion they'll likely deploy to a province south of Kabul. Such a move would free American troops to bolster the Canadian positions in Kandahar.

The House of Commons recently voted to extend Canada's military mission in war-torn region, as long as NATO provided 1,000 more troops and the Defence Department came up with battlefield helicopters and unmanned surveillance planes.

The general expectation had been the matter would be settled during the meeting in Bucharest, the ancient capital of the former East Bloc country.

Federal Liberals, who helped Conservatives pass the extension motion over NDP and Bloc Quebecois opposition, have said they wanted an answer about reinforcements at the summit.

The lengthening of the mission to July 2011 was approved prior to the summit in order to strengthen Mr. Harper's hand with major allies who've thus far been reluctant to commit troops to the restive southern region.

Last week, Defence Minister Peter MacKay confirmed that Washington had assured Ottawa that it would backstop the Canadian demand for extra troops if no European member of NATO came forward.

Mr. Harper said Friday he had a “high level of certainty” Canada would get what it wanted.

“It's all moving along very well,” he told reporters.

The Defence Department has already put in requests for unmanned reconnaissance drones.

It has also asked the U.S. Army if Canada can slip ahead of an American order in the Boeing production line and obtain quick delivery of six CH-47-D Chinook helicopters.

In Halifax on Friday, Mr. MacKay said a deal wasn't completed yet.

“We're very close,” he said, responding to questions at an announcement on the 2011 Canada Games.

“I just want to put on the record, the time frame that was initially envisioned was February '09, but we hope to have those helicopters in theatre well in advance of that deadline.”

The February 2009 deadline was set down in the Manley commission report, which Mr. Harper used as a starting point for the government's motion.

The five-member independent panel, which reported in late January, said Canada's involvement in Kandahar should cease within a year unless the allies committed extra troops and equipment.

Afghan mission cost raises questions

This is from the Star. The costs may raise questions but be assured that the Liberals and Conservatives will duly pass the Afghan motion before they are questioned. Perhaps when the figures eventually come out the Liberals will baa baaa like the meek little lambs they are.
It is interesting that there is very little criticism of spending on Afghanistan. Not only is there a huge military expenditure but much of our reconstruction aid is going into a situation where corruption could very well steer much of the aid into politicians and warlords pockets.


Afghan mission cost raises questions
TheStar.com - Canada - Afghan mission cost raises questions


. But motion to extend participation to 2011 expected to pass today

March 13, 2008
Allan Woods
Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA–Parliament will not learn the estimated cost of extending Canada's Afghanistan mission to 2011 until well after voting today on a government motion, a senior military official says.

The official, speaking to reporters on background, said the Canadian Forces are examining the incremental costs of the mission from February 2009 to December 2011, but final figures will remain under wraps for some time.

"Part of the business of putting this before the government is that there's a cost analysis being done," the official said. "I would suspect that once the mission is approved, if it is, that those figures would then become available."

The motion appears set to pass with the support of a majority of MPs from the Conservative government and the Liberal opposition. The Bloc Québécois opposes staying in Kandahar past February 2009 when the current commitment ends, and the NDP has advocated an immediate pullout.

The suggestion that the military has already planned the six-month troop rotations through 2011 without a fairly specific idea of the total costs of a prolonged stay in Kandahar is not credible, NDP defence critic Dawn Black said.

"The military is very good at planning. They plan everything," said Black (New Westminster-Coquitlam).

Heading into the vote without an estimated price tag is like asking parliamentarians to send a "blank cheque to the military," she said.

The issue of military costs in Afghanistan became an issue this week when Montreal's La Presse reported that the Canadian Forces appear set to overshoot their budget for the NATO mission by $1-billion this year, according to military estimates released under the Access to Information Act. That would be the largest cost overrun since Canadian soldiers deployed to Afghanistan in the 2001-02 fiscal year, the government figures show.

Also yesterday, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier expressed confidence Canada would receive the 1,000 additional troops from a NATO country to bolster efforts in Kandahar province – a key condition of the mission extension.

He said he received assurances in Brussels last week at a meeting of NATO foreign ministers.

McQuaig: Dion Caves, Harper Raves.

Some commentators think that it was Harper that caved. However, Harper did achieve an extension of the mission to 2011 and it will include combat and staying in Kandahar. No doubt the required extra troops and equipment will be found. As McQuaig points out we will be helping the military-industrial complex. Why we should sacrifice for what is basically a U.S. war and one that is illegal in the first place

Dion caves, Harper raves

Harper trumpets plans to divert ever-larger sums to armaments.

Dateline: Tuesday, February 26, 2008

by Linda McQuaig

In a defining moment for Canada, Jean Chrétien resisted US pressure and kept Canada out of Iraq.

Now Liberal leader Stéphane Dion, in another historic moment, has shown that Chrétien's display of backbone was a one-time Liberal offering.

We're supposed to believe that the Taliban are incited to violence by our wavering, rather than by our military presence in their country.



Dion's capitulation to the Conservatives and to the pro-war wing of his own party means that Canada will continue to fight America's war in Afghanistan until 2011 — despite clear public sentiment against the war.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper showed last week how he plans to use this Liberal acquiescence to advance a hawkish agenda that goes well beyond extending the mission in Afghanistan.

A triumphant Harper trumpeted the emerging "bipartisan consensus" on Afghanistan to a gathering of the Conference of Defence Associations, an influential military group that would warm the frozen heart of Dick Cheney.

The military men and defence contractors attending the event were delighted as Harper outlined plans to divert ever-larger sums of Canadian taxpayer dollars towards military spending, and to further Canada's transformation from peacekeeper into big-stick-carrying war maker.

The Liberal capitulation also seemed to embolden the military brass in their efforts to convince Canadians to be done with this annoying business of debating the war, once and for all. Both top Canadian general Rick Hillier and US Admiral William Fallon suggested that Canadian wavering risked inciting more Taliban violence.

Strangely, we're supposed to believe that the Taliban are incited to violence by our wavering, rather than by our military presence in their country. Indeed, we're supposed to believe that Afghans — renowned for centuries for their fierce resistance to foreign occupiers — would somehow lose their resolve, if only we'd forego the Canadian parliamentary debate.

Hillier's attempt to stifle debate seemed like a textbook example of what former US president Dwight Eisenhower had in mind when, in his famous parting address, he warned that the "unwarranted influence" of a military industrial complex risked endangering the democratic process.

Back at the Conference of Defence Associations, Harper thrilled Canada's own mini military industrial complex with talk about how countries without big militaries "will be ignored by everyone," and how military clout is the key to influence in the world.

Really? If swaggering around with a big stick was the way to impress others, George W Bush would be a respected world leader. Odd that Harper thinks we're keen to jump into those cold footsteps — even as Obama warms up off-stage.

The military crowd was also delighted by Harper's promise to top up his huge military spending increases by raising the annual automatic increases from 1.5 percent to 2 percent, starting in 2011.

So, even as we're finally pulling out of Afghanistan, we'll be ratcheting military spending higher still.

That's because Harper is already envisioning more wars after Afghanistan. As he told the gathering, peacekeeping won't be enough, since "it covers only a limited portion of the security challenges we face in today's international environment."

All this signals the deepening of the tentacles of a military industrial complex into the soft haunches of Canadian democracy, as increased spending on the military and on the production of military hardware tie our economy more deeply to war, just as Eisenhower warned.

Perhaps Dion will find an issue he can win an election on. In the meantime, he's helping Harper transform Canada from a respected player on the world stage into a stick-wielding loudmouth, braying at the world from a protected perch inside the American empire.

Journalist and best-selling author Linda McQuaig has developed a reputation for challenging the establishment. As a reporter for The Globe and Mail, she won a National Newspaper Award in 1989 for writing a series of articles, which sparked a public inquiry into the activities of Ontario political lobbyist Patti Starr, and eventually led to Starr's imprisonment. In 1991, she was awarded an Atkinson Fellowship for Journalism in Public Policy to study the social welfare systems in Europe and North America

Support for withdrawal from Afghanistan declines, but divisions remain.

This is from Canada.com. In spite of the headline the report has not caused any change in the numbers in favor or opposed to the mission as the article also notes. The poll questions themselves are a bit weird and almost bound to skew the answers in favor of the report. There are three grades of "goodness" that you can choose from but only one grade of "badness". Perhaps "fair" is meant to be a negative grading but it connotes to me passing but not by much.

Sunday » January 27 » 2008

Support for withdrawal from Afghanistan declines, but divisions remain

Juliet O'Neill
Canwest News Service
Saturday, January 26, 2008
OTTAWA -- The portion of Canadians who want Canadian troops to withdraw from Afghanistan has dropped seven points to 37 per cent in the aftermath of John Manley's report recommending a conditional extension of the military mission in Kandahar, says an Ipsos Reid poll released Friday.
The portion willing to extend the mission if the role shifts from combat to non-combat, such as training Afghan soldiers or police officers, has risen five points to 45 per cent since October.
The poll for Canwest News Service and Global National, conducted as Canadians digested the Manley recommendations earlier this week, suggests Canadians are open to an extension of a mission for non-combat purposes, said pollster John Wright. The 14 per cent of Canadians willing to extend the mission as is remained unchanged.
The pollsters found the majority of Canadians regard the Manley panel recommendations as fair (36 per cent) or good (29 per cent) or great (six per cent). Nearly a quarter (22 per cent) said Manley's proposals are a "bad plan" while seven per cent had no opinion.
Manley recommended an extension of the deployment of the 2,500 troops in Kandahar only if it is bolstered by 1,000 extra soldiers from another NATO country and the troops are equipped with medium-lift helicopters and unmanned aerial surveillance vehicles. He proposed a "significant reduction" in combat work in favour of training Afghan forces to handle their own security.
Ipsos Reid reported that Canadians received the Manley report "cautiously," given that regardless of the panel's recommendations, the country remains split - 50 per cent in support and 46 opposed - to the current counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan. Those numbers were virtually the same in August.
"This is a report that has not fundamentally altered the underlying support of Canadians for their current positions," Wright, vice-president of Ipsos Reid, said Friday in an interview. "They've basically maintained the same thing for the last couple of years. But what it's done is opened the door to us staying there in another capacity."
The fundamental questions to most Canadians are whether to pull the troops and whether to change their combat role, Wright said.
"Only 14 per cent believe we should be doing the combat mission as we currently are," he noted, "but when you add them to the people who say we should stay and maybe do something different, then you have a full majority of the people in this country believing that to be the case."
The Manley report has not been enthusiastically embraced by the public, he said. People seem to be waiting for further details on what the government plans to do.
"It's not hard against, it's not hard for," he said. "There's no mandate given here for anything except discussion about more details as to what they may do."
The future of the mission, a question which could trigger the defeat of the government and an election this year, has divided Parliament. While the government appointed the Manley panel to find a non-partisan path to political consensus, the New Democratic Party and Bloc Quebecois continue to advocate troop withdrawal and the Liberals want a shift from combat to civilian protection, training Afghan forces and reconstruction of the country.
Ipsos Reid canvassed 1,001 adults by telephone over three days, starting Tuesday, the day Manley delivered his report. The results are considered accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Support for the Manley plan was highest in Atlantic Canada. Albertans were most likely to support troops remaining but shifting to a less combative role. Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec residents showed highest support for troop withdrawal.
Residents of Atlantic Canada were the most likely (47 per cent) to say the Manley plan is good or great, followed by those in Ontario (39 per cent), British Columbia (37 per cent), Alberta (32 per cent), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (31 per cent) and Quebec (27 per cent). Residents of Ontario (26 per cent) and Quebec (22 per cent) were most likely to say that this is a bad plan for Canadian troops.
Fifty-three per cent of Albertans were the most likely to say that Canada's troops should remain in Afghanistan but be redirected to a less combative role, followed by those in Atlantic Canada (49 per cent), Ontario (47 per cent), British Columbia (46 per cent), Quebec (42 per cent) and Saskatchewan and Manitoba (35 per cent).
Residents of Saskatchewan and Manitoba (42 per cent) and Quebec (41 per cent) were more likely than those living in B.C. (38 per cent), Atlantic Canada (36 per cent), Ontario (36 per cent ) and Alberta (25 per cent) to say that the troops should come home after February of next year.
A majority of residents of Alberta (61 per cent), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (59 per cent), Ontario (56 per cent), Atlantic Canada (54 per cent) and British Columbia (53 per cent) supported the current mission in Afghanistan. Quebec support (33 per cent) was lowest.
Albertans (18 per cent) were the most likely to want an extension to the current mission, followed by those in British Columbia (15 per cent), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (15), Quebec (14), Ontario (13) and Atlantic Canada (nine).
Men (54 per cent) were significantly more likely than women (47 per cent) to support the mission in Afghanistan.
Ottawa Citizen
© CanWest News Service 2008

Copyright © 2008 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
=0)document.write(unescape('%3C')+'\!-'+'-')
//-->