Here we go again. Since Oct. 2001 we have been involved in Afghanistan. Ten years later in 2011 we will no doubt be told that we have to stay and finish the job blah blah... with the usual unctious moralising tones. From the start we have been a junior helper for the U.S. our mission elevated to the godlike Apollo. This is from CTV.
Manley panel: Don't expect firm deadline for mission
Updated Tue. Mar. 11 2008 6:54 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Members of the Manley panel say the government should not expect a firm deadline for the Afghanistan mission, and that an extra 1,000 NATO soldiers in Kandahar should only be seen as a bare minimum for military support.
A crucial vote on the mission is expected Thursday in the House of Commons, and the Liberals have suggested they will likely support a motion to extend military operations until 2011.
But Canadians should not expect an exact date for when the mission might end, panel member Derek Burney told the Foreign Affairs committee Tuesday.
"We spent a lot of time debating this," he said.
"We knew Canadians would have loved to have heard from the panel that, you know, by December 31st in such and such a year our mission will be accomplished. But we found no operational logic that would lead us to a certain time for the completion of the mission."
Burney said the panel saw the mission as being "performance-based, not time-based," leaving it open when troops might complete their objectives of boosting local security forces and helping build infrastructure for local communities.
"We fully expect that the Afghan security forces will be taking the lead responsibility for security, to some extent, in the coming two to three years," he added. "But as for when they will be able to take full charge of security in Kandahar, there's nobody who could give a guarantee about that."
Fellow panel members Pamela Wallin, a former broadcaster; and John Manley, a former Liberal MP who headed the panel at the request of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, also spoke before the committee.
Manley said Canada should expect a bare minimum of 1,000 extra NATO soldiers in Kandahar, if it wants to continue operations in the war-torn country until 2011.
He said the panel arrived at that troop number after speaking with Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of defence staff, and Gen. Guy LaRoche, who commanded Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan last fall.
Opposition critics have said NATO needs to double its forces throughout Afghanistan, and adding 1,000 troops to Kandahar will not be enough to help Canadian soldiers.
With files from The Canadian Press
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Showing posts with label Manley Report. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Manley Report. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Manley Report
This article is perhaps a bit dated but it does summarise some of the problems with the mission and with the Report. As the article mentions no doubt some other NATO countries might take our conditions of getting more troops in the south and equipment as "blackmail" or threats rather than leverage!
Manley Report: Ottawa Gets Advice On Prolonging Afghanistan War
Roger Annis
Troubled by the failures of the U.S./NATO war in Afghanistan, the Canadian government commissioned a review last October of the war and Canada’s participation. A panel of five corporate and political figures was cobbled together in an effort to reach broader consensus among the war’s proponents.
Canada is an enthusiastic partner in the war, but there are growing concerns among the country’s elite over the failure to defeat the patriotic resistance in Afghanistan. Also, a slim but stubborn majority of the Canadian population remains opposed to what appears to be a futile and criminal war.
The governing Conservative Party chose a prominent figure in the opposition Liberal Party, John Manley, to head the panel. The Liberals took Canada into a more aggressive combat role in Afghanistan in May 2005, in the southern province of Kandahar, but some Liberals are getting cold feet and others are tempted to use the failure of the mission for short-term political gain at home.
The review panel’s report, delivered January 22, has sparked an intense political debate. It has also forged a new, bipartisan agreement between the Conservatives and Liberals.
What the report says
All five panel members had previously voiced support to the war, so their pro-war recommendations were no surprise. Among the proposals contained in their report are:
Continued commitment to the combat role in Kandahar until at least 2009.
Insistence on more support from other NATO countries as a pre-condition for Canada to extend its combat mission beyond 2009. The report says at least 1,000 more troops are needed. With such increased support, Manley says the war can be won “in less than ten years.”
Acquisition of helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles at an additional cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Currently, Canada relies on NATO allies for air support to its ground troops.
Gloomy outlook
The report has been welcomed enthusiastically by the war’s proponents. An editorial in the January 23 National Post urged Harper to use the report as a basis to launch a “reinvigorated mission” in Afghanistan.
But many supporters are less than enthusiastic about the war’s accomplishments to date.
Paraphrasing the report, National Post columnist Don Martin says Canada’s “too-few-by-half combat troops” are, “ill-equipped, poorly coordinated and losing the battle to the enemy while failing to deliver adequate humanitarian aid or reconstruction help to average Afghans.” Martin, who has traveled extensively in Afghanistan, says the failure of the U.S./NATO war is a “sad reality.”
A lengthy article in the Globe and Mail on March 1 painted a gloomy picture. Headlined, “Afghanistan: Facing the Ugly Truth”, the article quoted from a recent survey of the situation by the Atlantic Council of the United States, a prestigious American think tank. “Make no mistake,” read its survey, “NATO is not winning in Afghanistan. Unless this reality is understood and action is taken promptly, the future of Afghanistan is bleak, with regional and global impact."
The most vocal critic among backers of the war has been the Senlis Council, a European-based think tank that conducts extensive surveying as well as charitable work in Afghanistan. In a series of detailed studies of the Canadian role in Afghanistan issued in 2006 and 2007, it flatly states that the war will be lost unless new approaches are made to win friends among ordinary Afghans.
“The fact stands that Canada is losing its war in Afghanistan,” writes Martin. “It’s high time other nations measured up as worthy allies against global terrorism—without being blackmailed by our bluff.”
Focus on NATO
The “other nations” referred to by Martin are Canada’s European allies in NATO. Their role in Afghanistan is a central focus of Manley’s recommendations, and a controversial one. The report says Canada should vigorously pressure and shame its allies in Europe into committing more troops to Afghanistan and engaging more actively in combat.
In a January 23 editorial entitled, “Demand the help of NATO partners,” the Globe and Mail writes, “What Mr. Manley proposes is a game of diplomatic chicken, but it is one that Mr. Harper cannot avoid.”
The editorial continues, “…it is a pitiful abdication of responsibility for larger countries such as France and Germany to refuse to assign another 1,000 (soldiers)…”
But what if the “allies” are not persuaded, or if they don’t take kindly to being blamed for the war’s failings? It’s a dilemma that Manley and the government are acutely aware of. They are careful to avoid describing their demands on NATO as blackmail or threats. The preferred term is “applying leverage.”
Canadian aid
Two issues particularly troubled the review panel—the failure of Canadian “aid” in Afghanistan, and the failure of the government to effectively “communicate” the good news of the war to the Canadian population. The report makes some frank criticism on these two fronts.
“Talk to CIDA (The Canadian International Development Agency) and you will hear all manner of good things about the work it is contributing to in Afghanistan,” wrote the Globe and Mail on January 24. But those seeking specifics on what Canada’s “aid” has accomplished “are left exasperated.”
The newspaper echoes what the Senlis Council has reported for several years, which is that Canada has nothing to show for the more than one billion dollars in “aid” money it has spent in Afghanistan since 2002. Ordinary Afghans remained mired in a terrible poverty, and they are frequent victims of indiscriminate bombings and military offensives by Canada and other NATO forces.
By all accounts, humanitarian conditions are deteriorating. Malalai Joya, the suspended member of the Afghan parliament, recently gave a grim picture of ordinary life in her country to the British newspaper The Independent. “The economic situation is also terrible – official figures put unemployment at around 60 percent but in reality it is much closer to 90 percent. Hundreds died in the winter from hypothermia, and women were so poor that they tried to sell their babies because they could not feed them.”
Senator Colin Kenny, chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, says getting explanations from CIDA is like grasping at air. He told CBC Radio’s The Current on January 22, “We haven’t been able to find out what they (CIDA) are doing,” despite extensive research by his committee. When members of his committee went to Afghanistan to examine aid projects firsthand, they were prevented from doing so by the Canadian military, who said it was “too dangerous” to venture outside the barbed wire military compound where they were housed.
Kenny said that when his committee met the government minister for CIDA, Beverley Oda, last year, they heard nothing but “gobbledygook.” They “didn’t get a straight answer from her in an hour and half.”
Manley’s report proposes that CIDA create a “signature project” such as a school or hospital that could be used to showcase Canadian “aid” to the Afghan people.
The report comes down hard on the government’s mishandling of the information and propaganda side of the war effort. As criticism of the war has mounted, including from its supporters, the government has reacted by closing down access to information. Panel member Derek Burney, a highly placed official of the governing Conservative Party, said, “I’m not opposed to a more controlled message.” But he and the commission are concerned that a total clampdown on information does more harm than good.
Torture
By far the most serious political damage to the war effort has been non-stop revelations of the use of torture by Canada and NATO as a weapon of war. A damning editorial by the Globe and Mail on January 30 listed no less than seven occasions in 2006 and 2007 when the Conservative government lied about or misrepresented the Canadian military’s collusion with torture agencies of the Afghan government, police and armed forces.
The government’s latest subterfuge began with an announcement on January 23 that as of November 2007, the Canadian military is no longer turning over prisoners to Afghan authorities because they are then tortured. The announcement baffled observers who wondered why it was not announced when it supposedly came into effect. The government answered by saying that it was not told of the change by the military. But this story had to change because military leaders reacted angrily to the implication that they are operating outside of the control and direction of the government.
The announcement begged a series of questions. If the change in policy is real, what is the military now doing with those it detains? Releasing them? Has it created its own detention facilities in Afghanistan? Is it turning prisoners over to the U.S.? The answer to these questions may lie in a February 4 report in La Presse. The Montreal daily reported that the Canadian military is secretly opening its own detention facility in a wing of the notorious central prison in Kabul.
In December, after the supposed change of policy, army officials argued that any relaxation of the detainment policy would gravely compromise the safety and security of the Canadian mission. Speaking to a committee of the Canadian Parliament on December 14, Brigadier-General André Deschamps, army chief of staff to Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, declared, “The insurgents could attack us with impunity knowing that if they fail to win an engagement they would simply have to surrender.…”
The controversy over the torture policy will not go away. On February 1, the Globe and Mail reported that the governor of Kandahar province, Asadullah Khalid, has personally tortured prisoners; that the Canadian government knew of this since at least the spring of 2007; and that it has kept the information hidden. The following day, the newspaper reported that the head of Canada’s armed forces, Richard Hillier, praised Khalid as a good friend and ally of Canada and that it was up to the government of Afghanistan to investigate any allegations against him.
Government faces severe dilemma
The January 23 announcement stemmed from the government’s growing concern about a legal challenge in the federal court brought by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) and Amnesty International that would oblige the military to treat prisoners according to the post-World War Two Geneva conventions. Like the U.S., Canada says its operations in Afghanistan are not bound by the conventions.
The government was trying to negotiate an end to the legal challenge. But that was blown out of the water on February 29 when it announced a resumption of detainee transfers. Minister of Foreign Affairs Peter Mackay said that officials of the Afghan military had provided verbal assurances that torture excesses would end.
Ron Hoffmann, deputy head of the Canadian embassy in Kabul, said, "Our experience to date with the Afghans is they have taken all the allegations of mistreatment very seriously."
Amnesty and the BCCLA immediately applied for an injunction from the federal court to prevent the resumption.
In Parliament, the Conservatives and Liberals have signaled agreement on a motion to be voted in March that will extend the combat mission in Kandahar to 2011.
Manley believes that the best outcome to hope for is a shattered Afghanistan where imperialist interests are nonetheless preserved. “We’re not going to have a VE day here with parades in the streets,” he cautioned journalists on January 23.
The furor over his report can only increase the number of Canadians who question the war’s aims and rationale. Many more can be won to the view that the only principled and humanitarian end to the carnage is withdrawal of foreign occupation forces and recognition of the right of the Afghan people to freely determine their political future.
Roger Annis is a trade union activist in Vancouver BC and a member of that city’s Stopwar.ca coalition. An earlier version of this article appeared on the Socialist Voice website.
Manley Report: Ottawa Gets Advice On Prolonging Afghanistan War
Roger Annis
Troubled by the failures of the U.S./NATO war in Afghanistan, the Canadian government commissioned a review last October of the war and Canada’s participation. A panel of five corporate and political figures was cobbled together in an effort to reach broader consensus among the war’s proponents.
Canada is an enthusiastic partner in the war, but there are growing concerns among the country’s elite over the failure to defeat the patriotic resistance in Afghanistan. Also, a slim but stubborn majority of the Canadian population remains opposed to what appears to be a futile and criminal war.
The governing Conservative Party chose a prominent figure in the opposition Liberal Party, John Manley, to head the panel. The Liberals took Canada into a more aggressive combat role in Afghanistan in May 2005, in the southern province of Kandahar, but some Liberals are getting cold feet and others are tempted to use the failure of the mission for short-term political gain at home.
The review panel’s report, delivered January 22, has sparked an intense political debate. It has also forged a new, bipartisan agreement between the Conservatives and Liberals.
What the report says
All five panel members had previously voiced support to the war, so their pro-war recommendations were no surprise. Among the proposals contained in their report are:
Continued commitment to the combat role in Kandahar until at least 2009.
Insistence on more support from other NATO countries as a pre-condition for Canada to extend its combat mission beyond 2009. The report says at least 1,000 more troops are needed. With such increased support, Manley says the war can be won “in less than ten years.”
Acquisition of helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles at an additional cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Currently, Canada relies on NATO allies for air support to its ground troops.
Gloomy outlook
The report has been welcomed enthusiastically by the war’s proponents. An editorial in the January 23 National Post urged Harper to use the report as a basis to launch a “reinvigorated mission” in Afghanistan.
But many supporters are less than enthusiastic about the war’s accomplishments to date.
Paraphrasing the report, National Post columnist Don Martin says Canada’s “too-few-by-half combat troops” are, “ill-equipped, poorly coordinated and losing the battle to the enemy while failing to deliver adequate humanitarian aid or reconstruction help to average Afghans.” Martin, who has traveled extensively in Afghanistan, says the failure of the U.S./NATO war is a “sad reality.”
A lengthy article in the Globe and Mail on March 1 painted a gloomy picture. Headlined, “Afghanistan: Facing the Ugly Truth”, the article quoted from a recent survey of the situation by the Atlantic Council of the United States, a prestigious American think tank. “Make no mistake,” read its survey, “NATO is not winning in Afghanistan. Unless this reality is understood and action is taken promptly, the future of Afghanistan is bleak, with regional and global impact."
The most vocal critic among backers of the war has been the Senlis Council, a European-based think tank that conducts extensive surveying as well as charitable work in Afghanistan. In a series of detailed studies of the Canadian role in Afghanistan issued in 2006 and 2007, it flatly states that the war will be lost unless new approaches are made to win friends among ordinary Afghans.
“The fact stands that Canada is losing its war in Afghanistan,” writes Martin. “It’s high time other nations measured up as worthy allies against global terrorism—without being blackmailed by our bluff.”
Focus on NATO
The “other nations” referred to by Martin are Canada’s European allies in NATO. Their role in Afghanistan is a central focus of Manley’s recommendations, and a controversial one. The report says Canada should vigorously pressure and shame its allies in Europe into committing more troops to Afghanistan and engaging more actively in combat.
In a January 23 editorial entitled, “Demand the help of NATO partners,” the Globe and Mail writes, “What Mr. Manley proposes is a game of diplomatic chicken, but it is one that Mr. Harper cannot avoid.”
The editorial continues, “…it is a pitiful abdication of responsibility for larger countries such as France and Germany to refuse to assign another 1,000 (soldiers)…”
But what if the “allies” are not persuaded, or if they don’t take kindly to being blamed for the war’s failings? It’s a dilemma that Manley and the government are acutely aware of. They are careful to avoid describing their demands on NATO as blackmail or threats. The preferred term is “applying leverage.”
Canadian aid
Two issues particularly troubled the review panel—the failure of Canadian “aid” in Afghanistan, and the failure of the government to effectively “communicate” the good news of the war to the Canadian population. The report makes some frank criticism on these two fronts.
“Talk to CIDA (The Canadian International Development Agency) and you will hear all manner of good things about the work it is contributing to in Afghanistan,” wrote the Globe and Mail on January 24. But those seeking specifics on what Canada’s “aid” has accomplished “are left exasperated.”
The newspaper echoes what the Senlis Council has reported for several years, which is that Canada has nothing to show for the more than one billion dollars in “aid” money it has spent in Afghanistan since 2002. Ordinary Afghans remained mired in a terrible poverty, and they are frequent victims of indiscriminate bombings and military offensives by Canada and other NATO forces.
By all accounts, humanitarian conditions are deteriorating. Malalai Joya, the suspended member of the Afghan parliament, recently gave a grim picture of ordinary life in her country to the British newspaper The Independent. “The economic situation is also terrible – official figures put unemployment at around 60 percent but in reality it is much closer to 90 percent. Hundreds died in the winter from hypothermia, and women were so poor that they tried to sell their babies because they could not feed them.”
Senator Colin Kenny, chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, says getting explanations from CIDA is like grasping at air. He told CBC Radio’s The Current on January 22, “We haven’t been able to find out what they (CIDA) are doing,” despite extensive research by his committee. When members of his committee went to Afghanistan to examine aid projects firsthand, they were prevented from doing so by the Canadian military, who said it was “too dangerous” to venture outside the barbed wire military compound where they were housed.
Kenny said that when his committee met the government minister for CIDA, Beverley Oda, last year, they heard nothing but “gobbledygook.” They “didn’t get a straight answer from her in an hour and half.”
Manley’s report proposes that CIDA create a “signature project” such as a school or hospital that could be used to showcase Canadian “aid” to the Afghan people.
The report comes down hard on the government’s mishandling of the information and propaganda side of the war effort. As criticism of the war has mounted, including from its supporters, the government has reacted by closing down access to information. Panel member Derek Burney, a highly placed official of the governing Conservative Party, said, “I’m not opposed to a more controlled message.” But he and the commission are concerned that a total clampdown on information does more harm than good.
Torture
By far the most serious political damage to the war effort has been non-stop revelations of the use of torture by Canada and NATO as a weapon of war. A damning editorial by the Globe and Mail on January 30 listed no less than seven occasions in 2006 and 2007 when the Conservative government lied about or misrepresented the Canadian military’s collusion with torture agencies of the Afghan government, police and armed forces.
The government’s latest subterfuge began with an announcement on January 23 that as of November 2007, the Canadian military is no longer turning over prisoners to Afghan authorities because they are then tortured. The announcement baffled observers who wondered why it was not announced when it supposedly came into effect. The government answered by saying that it was not told of the change by the military. But this story had to change because military leaders reacted angrily to the implication that they are operating outside of the control and direction of the government.
The announcement begged a series of questions. If the change in policy is real, what is the military now doing with those it detains? Releasing them? Has it created its own detention facilities in Afghanistan? Is it turning prisoners over to the U.S.? The answer to these questions may lie in a February 4 report in La Presse. The Montreal daily reported that the Canadian military is secretly opening its own detention facility in a wing of the notorious central prison in Kabul.
In December, after the supposed change of policy, army officials argued that any relaxation of the detainment policy would gravely compromise the safety and security of the Canadian mission. Speaking to a committee of the Canadian Parliament on December 14, Brigadier-General André Deschamps, army chief of staff to Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, declared, “The insurgents could attack us with impunity knowing that if they fail to win an engagement they would simply have to surrender.…”
The controversy over the torture policy will not go away. On February 1, the Globe and Mail reported that the governor of Kandahar province, Asadullah Khalid, has personally tortured prisoners; that the Canadian government knew of this since at least the spring of 2007; and that it has kept the information hidden. The following day, the newspaper reported that the head of Canada’s armed forces, Richard Hillier, praised Khalid as a good friend and ally of Canada and that it was up to the government of Afghanistan to investigate any allegations against him.
Government faces severe dilemma
The January 23 announcement stemmed from the government’s growing concern about a legal challenge in the federal court brought by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) and Amnesty International that would oblige the military to treat prisoners according to the post-World War Two Geneva conventions. Like the U.S., Canada says its operations in Afghanistan are not bound by the conventions.
The government was trying to negotiate an end to the legal challenge. But that was blown out of the water on February 29 when it announced a resumption of detainee transfers. Minister of Foreign Affairs Peter Mackay said that officials of the Afghan military had provided verbal assurances that torture excesses would end.
Ron Hoffmann, deputy head of the Canadian embassy in Kabul, said, "Our experience to date with the Afghans is they have taken all the allegations of mistreatment very seriously."
Amnesty and the BCCLA immediately applied for an injunction from the federal court to prevent the resumption.
In Parliament, the Conservatives and Liberals have signaled agreement on a motion to be voted in March that will extend the combat mission in Kandahar to 2011.
Manley believes that the best outcome to hope for is a shattered Afghanistan where imperialist interests are nonetheless preserved. “We’re not going to have a VE day here with parades in the streets,” he cautioned journalists on January 23.
The furor over his report can only increase the number of Canadians who question the war’s aims and rationale. Many more can be won to the view that the only principled and humanitarian end to the carnage is withdrawal of foreign occupation forces and recognition of the right of the Afghan people to freely determine their political future.
Roger Annis is a trade union activist in Vancouver BC and a member of that city’s Stopwar.ca coalition. An earlier version of this article appeared on the Socialist Voice website.
Monday, February 11, 2008
The Manley Report: Great Northern Whitewash
This is by Eric Margolis. Margolis doesn't mince his words or simply stay within the prescribed frame that has most commentators mouthing moral platitudes and exagerrated claims about the dangers to our security, part of the ritualistic references to the needs of the war on terror. This is from Dandelion Salad. Actually, I recall reading somewhere that our mission in Kandahar was a quid pro quo for not joing in the Iraq invasion so there was reason for our foolishness.
Great Northern Whitewash Over Afghanistan by Eric Margolis
Posted on January 28, 2008 by dandelionsalad
Dandelion Salad
by Eric MargolisJanuary 28, 2008
The report on Afghanistan delivered by the Manley Panel to Canada’s government last Monday was deeply flawed and most disappointing. Its totally predictable findings could have been written without the panel of instant Afghan experts wasting millions of taxpayer money.
This whitewash was designed to provide political cover for the Conservative government of PM Stephen Harper, which has faithfully followed the Bush Administration’s party line on Afghanistan. PM Harper has hung his political hat on the failing war in Afghanistan. By threatening to quit the conflict if NATO does not provide more troops, the Manley report provided the government with a handy escape hatch if things go terribly wrong in Afghanistan and the 2,500 Canadian troops there are forced to cut and run.
The Manley report provides the latest doleful example of the opposition Liberal’s pathetic failure to demand Ottawa answer tough questions about the growing mess in Afghanistan. Canada’s opposition has done even worse than the Democrats in Washington. Both are petrified to oppose a war that no matter how futile and foolish risks provoking charges of ‘not supporting our boys,’ and ‘being soft on terrorism.’
Most disturbing, the report claimed continued military operations in Afghanistan, which had so far cost 79 Canadians dead and untold billions, were necessary to ‘enhance’ Canada’s international influence. Two days later, another Canadian soldier died in action, presumably reinforcing the report’s contention about enhanced image.
As one who spends half his time abroad, I can attest that Canada’s military role in Afghanistan is virtually unknown to Americans, save occasional pats on the back to the Harper government from Bush Administration officials. Many Americans can’t find Canada, never mind Afghanistan, on the map.
In Europe and Asia, most people regard the Afghanistan conflict as a 19th century-style colonial war over future oil pipeline routes, and NATO’s role there the result of severe arms-twisting by Washington. That’s why most NATO troops are kept out of combat. Canada, by contrast, foolishly sent its small troops contingent into one of Afghanistan’s most dangerous regions due to the ignorance of its military and political leaders.
Canada’s position as one of the world’s most respected, admired nations has nothing to do with its military role in Afghanistan. Quite the contrary. Ottawa’s rash blunder into a tribal civil war in Afghanistan, and one-sided policy in the Mideast, has put Canada squarely in the gun sights of violent anti-western groups, and makes it appear an eager spear carrier in the Bush/Cheney wars in the Muslim World. Every bombed Afghan village breeds new enemies for Canada.
Ottawa is hiding the full truth about Afghanistan from Canadians. Its flag-waving media has further obscured the facts. When did one last see a report filed from the side of Taliban and its growing number of allies? The North American media has done as lousy a job in reporting Afghanistan as it did Iraq.
The report’s claim that Afghanistan’s US-imposed regime is ‘democratic’ is absurd. CIA ‘asset’ Hamid Karzai was installed by Washington and is kept in power by US troops and a stream of cash payoffs to drug-dealing tribal chiefs. His rigged ‘election’ was supervised by US troops and bought with $100 bills.
Afghanistan’s so-called ‘national army’ is made up of US-paid mercenaries. The ‘army’ does not need more training, as Manley claims. It needs loyalty to a legitimate national government – which does not exist.
Half of Afghanistan’s population, the Pashtun tribes (the source of the Taliban religious movement), has been largely excluded from political power. Until included, there will be no stability, never mind democracy. But Washington and Ottawa, have painted themselves into a corner by so demonizing Taliban and making enemies of the Pashtun (half of Afghanistan’s population), that overt negotiations with the movement or its growing number of allies is impossible.
Ominously, the Afghan war is steadily spreading into Pakistan, threatening the kind of ‘mission creep’ seen in Vietnam. Meanwhile, Canada is hypocritically backing Musharraf’s ugly dictatorship in Pakistan while claiming to be fighting for ‘democracy’ in Afghanistan.
The Manley report also soft-soaped government corruption. It ignored the 800 lb gorilla in Kabul: senior government officials up to their turbans in the heroin trade. Canada, the US and NATO find themselves patrons of the world’s leading narcostate, which supplies 90% of the world’s heroin and runs on drug money. The drugs are exported through Pakistan, another key western ally being corrupted by billions in drug money. Taliban eliminated the drug trade before being overthrown in 2001.
Most important, Manley’s report completely ignored the biggest problem of all. Canada has no political objective in this aimless war beyond making high-ranking Ottawa officials feel self-important at NATO meetings.
The Karzai regime, which rules only Kabul, would not last a week without western troops. There is no prospect of national political consensus until Taliban and its allies are brought into the process. The reborn Afghan Communist Party (now known as the Northern Alliance) is again a dominant influence in Kabul, including running torture prisons to which the US and Canada have been sending captives.
If the Afghan conflict is a vital matter of national security, as Canada claims, then maintaining a mere 2,500 troops in Afghanistan is no more than a gesture that wastes the lives of its soldiers. If fighting Taliban is that important, then Canada should mobilize and send 100,000 troops, not a handful. If it’s not, then Canada should withdraw its troops and let the Afghan tribes get on with resolving their differences. One either wins a war or goes home.
Canada is not being ennobled by this sordid, ugly, drug-fueled war, as Mr. Manley wrongly believes. To the contrary, Canada’s honor and reputation are being injured, and its security endangered. The Manley report is the political equivalent of a sub-prime mortgage. It does the nation a disservice.
Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2007FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Great Northern Whitewash Over Afghanistan by Eric Margolis
Posted on January 28, 2008 by dandelionsalad
Dandelion Salad
by Eric MargolisJanuary 28, 2008
The report on Afghanistan delivered by the Manley Panel to Canada’s government last Monday was deeply flawed and most disappointing. Its totally predictable findings could have been written without the panel of instant Afghan experts wasting millions of taxpayer money.
This whitewash was designed to provide political cover for the Conservative government of PM Stephen Harper, which has faithfully followed the Bush Administration’s party line on Afghanistan. PM Harper has hung his political hat on the failing war in Afghanistan. By threatening to quit the conflict if NATO does not provide more troops, the Manley report provided the government with a handy escape hatch if things go terribly wrong in Afghanistan and the 2,500 Canadian troops there are forced to cut and run.
The Manley report provides the latest doleful example of the opposition Liberal’s pathetic failure to demand Ottawa answer tough questions about the growing mess in Afghanistan. Canada’s opposition has done even worse than the Democrats in Washington. Both are petrified to oppose a war that no matter how futile and foolish risks provoking charges of ‘not supporting our boys,’ and ‘being soft on terrorism.’
Most disturbing, the report claimed continued military operations in Afghanistan, which had so far cost 79 Canadians dead and untold billions, were necessary to ‘enhance’ Canada’s international influence. Two days later, another Canadian soldier died in action, presumably reinforcing the report’s contention about enhanced image.
As one who spends half his time abroad, I can attest that Canada’s military role in Afghanistan is virtually unknown to Americans, save occasional pats on the back to the Harper government from Bush Administration officials. Many Americans can’t find Canada, never mind Afghanistan, on the map.
In Europe and Asia, most people regard the Afghanistan conflict as a 19th century-style colonial war over future oil pipeline routes, and NATO’s role there the result of severe arms-twisting by Washington. That’s why most NATO troops are kept out of combat. Canada, by contrast, foolishly sent its small troops contingent into one of Afghanistan’s most dangerous regions due to the ignorance of its military and political leaders.
Canada’s position as one of the world’s most respected, admired nations has nothing to do with its military role in Afghanistan. Quite the contrary. Ottawa’s rash blunder into a tribal civil war in Afghanistan, and one-sided policy in the Mideast, has put Canada squarely in the gun sights of violent anti-western groups, and makes it appear an eager spear carrier in the Bush/Cheney wars in the Muslim World. Every bombed Afghan village breeds new enemies for Canada.
Ottawa is hiding the full truth about Afghanistan from Canadians. Its flag-waving media has further obscured the facts. When did one last see a report filed from the side of Taliban and its growing number of allies? The North American media has done as lousy a job in reporting Afghanistan as it did Iraq.
The report’s claim that Afghanistan’s US-imposed regime is ‘democratic’ is absurd. CIA ‘asset’ Hamid Karzai was installed by Washington and is kept in power by US troops and a stream of cash payoffs to drug-dealing tribal chiefs. His rigged ‘election’ was supervised by US troops and bought with $100 bills.
Afghanistan’s so-called ‘national army’ is made up of US-paid mercenaries. The ‘army’ does not need more training, as Manley claims. It needs loyalty to a legitimate national government – which does not exist.
Half of Afghanistan’s population, the Pashtun tribes (the source of the Taliban religious movement), has been largely excluded from political power. Until included, there will be no stability, never mind democracy. But Washington and Ottawa, have painted themselves into a corner by so demonizing Taliban and making enemies of the Pashtun (half of Afghanistan’s population), that overt negotiations with the movement or its growing number of allies is impossible.
Ominously, the Afghan war is steadily spreading into Pakistan, threatening the kind of ‘mission creep’ seen in Vietnam. Meanwhile, Canada is hypocritically backing Musharraf’s ugly dictatorship in Pakistan while claiming to be fighting for ‘democracy’ in Afghanistan.
The Manley report also soft-soaped government corruption. It ignored the 800 lb gorilla in Kabul: senior government officials up to their turbans in the heroin trade. Canada, the US and NATO find themselves patrons of the world’s leading narcostate, which supplies 90% of the world’s heroin and runs on drug money. The drugs are exported through Pakistan, another key western ally being corrupted by billions in drug money. Taliban eliminated the drug trade before being overthrown in 2001.
Most important, Manley’s report completely ignored the biggest problem of all. Canada has no political objective in this aimless war beyond making high-ranking Ottawa officials feel self-important at NATO meetings.
The Karzai regime, which rules only Kabul, would not last a week without western troops. There is no prospect of national political consensus until Taliban and its allies are brought into the process. The reborn Afghan Communist Party (now known as the Northern Alliance) is again a dominant influence in Kabul, including running torture prisons to which the US and Canada have been sending captives.
If the Afghan conflict is a vital matter of national security, as Canada claims, then maintaining a mere 2,500 troops in Afghanistan is no more than a gesture that wastes the lives of its soldiers. If fighting Taliban is that important, then Canada should mobilize and send 100,000 troops, not a handful. If it’s not, then Canada should withdraw its troops and let the Afghan tribes get on with resolving their differences. One either wins a war or goes home.
Canada is not being ennobled by this sordid, ugly, drug-fueled war, as Mr. Manley wrongly believes. To the contrary, Canada’s honor and reputation are being injured, and its security endangered. The Manley report is the political equivalent of a sub-prime mortgage. It does the nation a disservice.
Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2007FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Liberals look to defeat government over budget rather than Afghanistan.
This is from the Star. Other articles note that an election might be precipitated by the Afghan motion. I think that neither main party wants an election on Afghanistan. There might be problems controlling the debate. The relationship of the mission to US hegemony might be drawn out as well as the reactionary nature of the Karzai govt. Some might even point out the illegality and immorality of the mission from the first but that is doubtful. James Laxer presents some of the reasons to hope for an election on Afghanistan at his blog.
The Liberal party is also split on Afghanistan. Just listen to the weasel words of Ignatieff that as usual undercut his leader Dion:
Earlier in the day, deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff struck a more conciliatory tone than Dion. “This is the most important thing Canada’s done in 50 years. We are anxious to work with the government to find a respectable, honourable compromise that serves the national interest.” He questioned whether it is “in the national interest for us to plunge the country into a bitter election on an issue where Canadians, I think desperately, right across the partisan divide, want us to pull together and do our jobs as politicians.” (Canada.com)
This is unconscious humor of the same sort as when various vacuous pundits describe the Manley report as independent and bipartisan..Certainly it isnt multipartisan since it doesn't even countenance pulling out. Linda McQuaig points out the nature of the Manley panel:
The Manley panel may help deliver that — by putting pressure on Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, who has vowed to end the combat mission in 2009.
The Manley team will likely recommend continuing the mission. Manley himself is a pro-American hawk who, as foreign affairs minister in the wake of 9/11, famously struck a combative tone when he stressed the country's war-fighting past, telling reporters " Canada does not have a history as a pacifist or a neutralist country."
The rest of the panel, including former Washington ambassador Derek Burney and former New York consul-general Pamela Wallin, have been involved in efforts to convince Washington that Canada isn't soft on terror, the Star's Thomas Walkom noted.
Senior party figures look at defeating government over Flaherty’s blueprint rather than Afghanistan
Feb 07, 2008 04:30 AM ALLAN WOODS LES WHITTINGTON Bruce Campion-Smith ottawa bureau
OTTAWA—The Liberals are moving closer to defeating the minority Conservative government and forcing an election over the federal budget rather than waiting until a possible showdown over the future of Canada’s Afghan mission.The federal budget is expected at the end of the month or early March — before Prime Minister Stephen Harper will ask MPs to vote on a Conservative motion, to be introduced tomorrow, extending Canada’s military mission in Kandahar.Several senior Liberals made it clear that they are more inclined to defeat the Conservative government over its budget package, prompting an election that would focus on Canada’s increasingly troubled economy and the issue of how much Ottawa should be doing to help laid-off workers and struggling manufacturers.“Nobody is keen to fight an election over the war in Afghanistan, with questions about troop morale and all that,” Liberal Senator David Smith said yesterday, echoing the thoughts of many of his caucus colleagues yesterday.“The budget, we’re told, will be first, so the decision is: Yes or no, will we support the budget?” said Liberal MP and finance critic John McCallum.“You’d rather go into an election over the budget than the war in Afghanistan,” one senior Liberal said. Both the NDP and the Bloc Québécois have indicated they would vote against the budget. If all three opposition parties vote against the budget, the government would fall. This year’s budget is expected to be largely a steady-as-she-goes document that rehashes the personal and corporate tax cuts and the GST reduction announced in the October mini-budget. With the central Canadian economy flagging, the Liberals think a stand-pat budget could leave Harper vulnerable.The Conservatives, who won a minority government on Jan. 23, 2006, now hold 126 of the 308 seats in the Commons. The Liberals have 94, the Bloc 49 and the NDP 30. There are four independent MPs and five vacancies.Following a meeting with Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion on Tuesday, Harper decided to introduce a motion extending the mission beyond February 2009. While the motion is to be introduced tomorrow, the actual vote would not be taken until the end of March, just before Harper is slated to go to a NATO meeting in Romania, where he is planning to seek more troops to help Canada’s contingent of 2,500 soldiers in Afghanistan. Debate on the motion will begin next week. “The choice is clear. We either stay and do the job with our military in Afghanistan or we leave. We believe we should get more commitments from our allies and stay,” Harper said in question period yesterday.The motion is essentially an endorsement of a recommendation made by former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley in a report to the government last month. Manley said Canada should not stay beyond February 2009 unless it gets 1,000 more NATO troops and equipment to help in Kandahar province, where 78 Canadian soldiers have been killed. Dion told reporters yesterday the Prime Minister told him the vote on Afghanistan will be a confidence issue. Since both the NDP and the Bloc are demanding a withdrawal of troops before February of next year, if the Liberals did not support the Conservatives, the government would fall.Dion said Harper seemed unwilling to budge from his position that Canada’s current role stay the same.“I suggested to him that the Liberals were ready to contemplate a non-combat role for Canada ..... and he said he wants to continue the combat mission, so on that we have a big difference,” Dion said.Dion, who wants Canada to downplay its military role in Afghanistan in favour of more efforts to train local troops and spur economic development, said he’s ready to fight an election over the war.“I’m never afraid of anything,” he said after meeting his caucus. Liberal insiders worry that, in an election precipitated by a vote over the mission, Harper would try to paint the Liberals as unpatriotic.While Liberals say they would rather have a showdown over the budget, many are also saying they are prepared for a showdown on Afghanistan, too.“We don’t want to go to an election on Afghanistan especially, but he’s taking our soldiers hostage and he’s trying to manoeuvre and to provoke an election,” said one Liberal MP, speaking on condition of anonymity. “That’s what we’re facing now and he’s playing with fire.”In their meeting Tuesday night, Harper gave Dion a draft version of the motion that reiterated the government’s hope to extend the combat mission beyond February 2009, but was silent on the many challenges facing the mission.“There was nothing in the motion about the problems we have with the opium economy, the problems we have with the border (with Pakistan), the problems we have with development ..... and detainees,” Dion complained.The definition of Canada’s “combat” role in Kandahar lies at the heart of any potential compromise between Harper and Dion. While the Liberals seek an end to offensive military operations, they are open to soldiers remaining in Kandahar to take on “security” roles.Deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said Liberals “have been clear that we think the combat role should come to an end. The issue then is how you define a military and security role because we understand that you can’t build schools, you can’t get the irrigation flowing, you can’t do the good things. . . unless you have a military and security role,” he said.Parliament takes a break in the last two weeks of March, starting on the 14th, with MPs returning to Ottawa March 31. A late March vote would also come after four federal by-elections are held on the 17th. The votes are expected to give the Liberals at least three new MPs, including foreign affairs critic Bob Rae.
The Liberal party is also split on Afghanistan. Just listen to the weasel words of Ignatieff that as usual undercut his leader Dion:
Earlier in the day, deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff struck a more conciliatory tone than Dion. “This is the most important thing Canada’s done in 50 years. We are anxious to work with the government to find a respectable, honourable compromise that serves the national interest.” He questioned whether it is “in the national interest for us to plunge the country into a bitter election on an issue where Canadians, I think desperately, right across the partisan divide, want us to pull together and do our jobs as politicians.” (Canada.com)
This is unconscious humor of the same sort as when various vacuous pundits describe the Manley report as independent and bipartisan..Certainly it isnt multipartisan since it doesn't even countenance pulling out. Linda McQuaig points out the nature of the Manley panel:
The Manley panel may help deliver that — by putting pressure on Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, who has vowed to end the combat mission in 2009.
The Manley team will likely recommend continuing the mission. Manley himself is a pro-American hawk who, as foreign affairs minister in the wake of 9/11, famously struck a combative tone when he stressed the country's war-fighting past, telling reporters " Canada does not have a history as a pacifist or a neutralist country."
The rest of the panel, including former Washington ambassador Derek Burney and former New York consul-general Pamela Wallin, have been involved in efforts to convince Washington that Canada isn't soft on terror, the Star's Thomas Walkom noted.
Senior party figures look at defeating government over Flaherty’s blueprint rather than Afghanistan
Feb 07, 2008 04:30 AM ALLAN WOODS LES WHITTINGTON Bruce Campion-Smith ottawa bureau
OTTAWA—The Liberals are moving closer to defeating the minority Conservative government and forcing an election over the federal budget rather than waiting until a possible showdown over the future of Canada’s Afghan mission.The federal budget is expected at the end of the month or early March — before Prime Minister Stephen Harper will ask MPs to vote on a Conservative motion, to be introduced tomorrow, extending Canada’s military mission in Kandahar.Several senior Liberals made it clear that they are more inclined to defeat the Conservative government over its budget package, prompting an election that would focus on Canada’s increasingly troubled economy and the issue of how much Ottawa should be doing to help laid-off workers and struggling manufacturers.“Nobody is keen to fight an election over the war in Afghanistan, with questions about troop morale and all that,” Liberal Senator David Smith said yesterday, echoing the thoughts of many of his caucus colleagues yesterday.“The budget, we’re told, will be first, so the decision is: Yes or no, will we support the budget?” said Liberal MP and finance critic John McCallum.“You’d rather go into an election over the budget than the war in Afghanistan,” one senior Liberal said. Both the NDP and the Bloc Québécois have indicated they would vote against the budget. If all three opposition parties vote against the budget, the government would fall. This year’s budget is expected to be largely a steady-as-she-goes document that rehashes the personal and corporate tax cuts and the GST reduction announced in the October mini-budget. With the central Canadian economy flagging, the Liberals think a stand-pat budget could leave Harper vulnerable.The Conservatives, who won a minority government on Jan. 23, 2006, now hold 126 of the 308 seats in the Commons. The Liberals have 94, the Bloc 49 and the NDP 30. There are four independent MPs and five vacancies.Following a meeting with Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion on Tuesday, Harper decided to introduce a motion extending the mission beyond February 2009. While the motion is to be introduced tomorrow, the actual vote would not be taken until the end of March, just before Harper is slated to go to a NATO meeting in Romania, where he is planning to seek more troops to help Canada’s contingent of 2,500 soldiers in Afghanistan. Debate on the motion will begin next week. “The choice is clear. We either stay and do the job with our military in Afghanistan or we leave. We believe we should get more commitments from our allies and stay,” Harper said in question period yesterday.The motion is essentially an endorsement of a recommendation made by former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley in a report to the government last month. Manley said Canada should not stay beyond February 2009 unless it gets 1,000 more NATO troops and equipment to help in Kandahar province, where 78 Canadian soldiers have been killed. Dion told reporters yesterday the Prime Minister told him the vote on Afghanistan will be a confidence issue. Since both the NDP and the Bloc are demanding a withdrawal of troops before February of next year, if the Liberals did not support the Conservatives, the government would fall.Dion said Harper seemed unwilling to budge from his position that Canada’s current role stay the same.“I suggested to him that the Liberals were ready to contemplate a non-combat role for Canada ..... and he said he wants to continue the combat mission, so on that we have a big difference,” Dion said.Dion, who wants Canada to downplay its military role in Afghanistan in favour of more efforts to train local troops and spur economic development, said he’s ready to fight an election over the war.“I’m never afraid of anything,” he said after meeting his caucus. Liberal insiders worry that, in an election precipitated by a vote over the mission, Harper would try to paint the Liberals as unpatriotic.While Liberals say they would rather have a showdown over the budget, many are also saying they are prepared for a showdown on Afghanistan, too.“We don’t want to go to an election on Afghanistan especially, but he’s taking our soldiers hostage and he’s trying to manoeuvre and to provoke an election,” said one Liberal MP, speaking on condition of anonymity. “That’s what we’re facing now and he’s playing with fire.”In their meeting Tuesday night, Harper gave Dion a draft version of the motion that reiterated the government’s hope to extend the combat mission beyond February 2009, but was silent on the many challenges facing the mission.“There was nothing in the motion about the problems we have with the opium economy, the problems we have with the border (with Pakistan), the problems we have with development ..... and detainees,” Dion complained.The definition of Canada’s “combat” role in Kandahar lies at the heart of any potential compromise between Harper and Dion. While the Liberals seek an end to offensive military operations, they are open to soldiers remaining in Kandahar to take on “security” roles.Deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said Liberals “have been clear that we think the combat role should come to an end. The issue then is how you define a military and security role because we understand that you can’t build schools, you can’t get the irrigation flowing, you can’t do the good things. . . unless you have a military and security role,” he said.Parliament takes a break in the last two weeks of March, starting on the 14th, with MPs returning to Ottawa March 31. A late March vote would also come after four federal by-elections are held on the 17th. The votes are expected to give the Liberals at least three new MPs, including foreign affairs critic Bob Rae.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Dion "open to debate" on Afghan mission.
Translated into ordinary English "open to debate" means open to selling out to the Conservatives, especially if the polls do not look good. Manley rightly points out it was the Liberals who originally got Canadians involved in Canada. Of course he neglects to tell us that it was at the suggestion of the U.S. and sort of a quid pro quo for not involving ourselves in Iraq--well not directly.
Friday » January 25 » 2008
Dion "open to debate" on Afghan mission
James Cowan
Canwest News Service
Thursday, January 24, 2008
CREDIT: REUTERS/Chris Wattie
Liberal leader Stephane Dion
TORONTO - Liberal Leader Stephane Dion on Thursday reiterated his party's position on the Afghan mission - that Canada's involvement in combat must end in 2009 -_but added his party is "open to debate."
An independent panel led by John Manley, a former Liberal cabinet minister, this week released its report on Canada's mission in southern Afghanistan. The five-member panel called for Canada to remain in the region beyond the mission's scheduled end in 2009, provided NATO allies offer additional troops.
The report also called for the Conservatives to supply much-needed transport helicopters to minimize the dangers to Canadian troops from roadside bombs in Afghanistan, which are responsible for the majority of the country's 78 military fatalities there.
Cpl. Etienne Gonthier, 21, a Quebec-born combat engineer from the 5th Regiment, became the 78th soldier killed in Afghanistan after his light armoured vehicle struck an improvised explosive device early Wednesday afternoon.
Manley also urged Prime Minister Stephen Harper to "step up" and personally take the lead in a new diplomatic offensive to push NATO allies to provide at least 1,000 additional troops for southern Afghanistan so that Canadian troops there could focus more on training the Afghan army.
Manley said Thursday his party should be aware that it was the Liberals who first initiated the Kandahar mission.
"Quite frankly, I think the challenge for my party here is that this was a mission initiated by our party ... when Paul Martin was prime minister.
"That's what we undertook," Manley said during a taping of Focus Ontario, "and therefore it's going to be important in trying to differentiate, if that's what they want to do, from the government, on a basis that doesn't cause them even more trouble than they would have if they were simply to say we endorse what the government is doing."
Speaking in Toronto, Dion said he's waiting to see how the Conservative government will react to the report.
"The question is: Will the 1,000 troops make a difference? What will they do?" asked Dion. "This is certainly something that we are open to debate ... but our view has been very clear."
Members of Manley's panel have also suggested the government delay any debate in the House of Commons on the Afghan mission until after a meeting of NATO leaders in April.
This is a reasonable recommendation, according to Dion. "There is no rush to vote right away."
National Post
© National Post 2008
Copyright © 2008 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
Friday » January 25 » 2008
Dion "open to debate" on Afghan mission
James Cowan
Canwest News Service
Thursday, January 24, 2008
CREDIT: REUTERS/Chris Wattie
Liberal leader Stephane Dion
TORONTO - Liberal Leader Stephane Dion on Thursday reiterated his party's position on the Afghan mission - that Canada's involvement in combat must end in 2009 -_but added his party is "open to debate."
An independent panel led by John Manley, a former Liberal cabinet minister, this week released its report on Canada's mission in southern Afghanistan. The five-member panel called for Canada to remain in the region beyond the mission's scheduled end in 2009, provided NATO allies offer additional troops.
The report also called for the Conservatives to supply much-needed transport helicopters to minimize the dangers to Canadian troops from roadside bombs in Afghanistan, which are responsible for the majority of the country's 78 military fatalities there.
Cpl. Etienne Gonthier, 21, a Quebec-born combat engineer from the 5th Regiment, became the 78th soldier killed in Afghanistan after his light armoured vehicle struck an improvised explosive device early Wednesday afternoon.
Manley also urged Prime Minister Stephen Harper to "step up" and personally take the lead in a new diplomatic offensive to push NATO allies to provide at least 1,000 additional troops for southern Afghanistan so that Canadian troops there could focus more on training the Afghan army.
Manley said Thursday his party should be aware that it was the Liberals who first initiated the Kandahar mission.
"Quite frankly, I think the challenge for my party here is that this was a mission initiated by our party ... when Paul Martin was prime minister.
"That's what we undertook," Manley said during a taping of Focus Ontario, "and therefore it's going to be important in trying to differentiate, if that's what they want to do, from the government, on a basis that doesn't cause them even more trouble than they would have if they were simply to say we endorse what the government is doing."
Speaking in Toronto, Dion said he's waiting to see how the Conservative government will react to the report.
"The question is: Will the 1,000 troops make a difference? What will they do?" asked Dion. "This is certainly something that we are open to debate ... but our view has been very clear."
Members of Manley's panel have also suggested the government delay any debate in the House of Commons on the Afghan mission until after a meeting of NATO leaders in April.
This is a reasonable recommendation, according to Dion. "There is no rush to vote right away."
National Post
© National Post 2008
Copyright © 2008 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
On the Manley Panel Report
The Globe reports that Manley's per diem was up to 1,400 not too bad.
"Manley's per diem up to $1,400
ALAN FREEMAN
Globe and Mail Update
OTTAWA — Nice work if you can get it. Former deputy prime minister John Manley, who was appointed last week to head a five-member panel of eminent persons investigating the future of Canada's mission in Afghanistan, will be paid between $1,200 and $1,400 a day by the federal government for his trouble."
Liberal hawks are a hot item on the market even Conservatives are snapping them up. In spite of being well paid part of Manley's report, his foreword, is a recycling of portions of a paper from Policy Options. I listened to some pundits on the CBC one of whom claimed that the report was valuable as explaining why we are in Afghanistan.
I thought that I would actually read part of the report to see how it explains how we go into Afghanistan and why? This is from the report:
"After 30 years of strife—in Soviet occupation, civil war and the coercive
repression of Taliban rule—Afghan men and women are building a government
committed to the democratic rule of law and the full exercise of human rights.
To preserve and pursue the progress made, Afghanistan relies on others for
support. Canada is one of 51 countries committed to the 2006 Afghanistan
Compact, a comprehensive international program of aid to Afghanistan’s
security, governance and development. For the years 2002-2011, Canada has
authorized $1.2 billion in international assistance to Afghanistan. That
country now receives more Canadian aid than any other, about three per cent
of all Canadian aid during this period."
and this:
" A DECISION FOR CANADIANS
Afghanistan is at war, and Canadians are combatants. It is a war fought
between an elected, democratic government and a zealous insurgency of proven
brutality. The war has already exacted a terrible cost in Canadian lives—a
sacrifice to be mourned and honoured by every Canadian. But Canadians are
not alone in the conflict. Canada is one of some 39 countries (including most
of the great democracies we know as our friends and allies) with troops
deployed in Afghanistan. These forces are in Afghanistan at the request of the
Afghan government, under the express authority of the United Nations.
This is a conflict of ferocious complexity in a region of violent instability.
History proves how readily Afghanistan can fall victim to regional rivalries and
foreign invasion. The present crisis in Pakistan, which shares a lawless
borderland with Afghanistan, adds new danger and new confusion to
Afghanistan’s future. For Canadians, moreover, the news from Kabul and
Kandahar in the past two years has been more often bad than good. It is
natural for Canadians to reconsider the wisdom and rightness of Canada’s
involvement in a war that has been so difficult and inconclusive."
There is nothing about how we got in to the war. There is nothing about the role of the US and our own role as junior partners or the role of the warlords of the Northern Alliance. In effect this is not really a war but an occupation with a government installed with the guidance of the occupiers all along. The insurgents are resistance fighters. Of course when the jihadists were on the other side fighting the Soviets the mainstream press would always describe them as a resistance fighting the Evil Empire occupiers.
The picture painted for us is of a mission expressly sanctioned by the UN. Of course it is but so is the US and allies mission in Iraq! The original regime change orchestrated by the US with our willing participation Operation Enduring Freedom was not sanctioned. We are now with ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) as part of NATO with UN blessing.
However, the original occupation was illegal. See for example Mandel:
October 9, 2001
"This War is Illegal
By Michael Mandel
A well-kept secret about the U.S.-U.K. attack on Afghanistan is that it is clearly illegal. It violates international law and the express words of the United Nations Charter.
Despite repeated reference to the right of self-defence under Article 51, the Charter simply does not apply here. Article 51 gives a state the right to repel an attack that is ongoing or imminent as a temporary measure until the UN Security Council can take steps necessary for international peace and security.
The Security Council has already passed two resolutions condemning the Sept. 11 attacks and announcing a host of measures aimed at combating terrorism. These include measures for the legal suppression of terrorism and its financing, and for co-operation between states in security, intelligence, criminal investigations and proceedings relating to terrorism. The Security Council has set up a committee to monitor progress on the measures in the resolution and has given all states 90 days to report back to it.
Neither resolution can remotely be said to authorize the use of military force. True, both, in their preambles, abstractly "affirm" the inherent right of self-defence, but they do so "in accordance with the Charter." They do not say military action against Afghanistan would be within the right of self-defence. Nor could they. That's because the right of unilateral self-defence does not include the right to retaliate once an attack has stopped.
The right of self-defence in international law is like the right of self-defence in our own law: It allows you to defend yourself when the law is not around, but it does not allow you to take the law into your own hands.
Since the United States and Britain have undertaken this attack without the explicit authorization of the Security Council, those who die from it will be victims of a crime against humanity, just like the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Even the Security Council is only permitted to authorize the use of force where "necessary to maintain and restore international peace and security." Now it must be clear to everyone that the military attack on Afghanistan has nothing to do with preventing terrorism. This attack will be far more likely to provoke terrorism. Even the Bush administration concedes that the real war against terrorism is long term, a combination of improved security, intelligence and a rethinking of U.S. foreign alliances.
Critics of the Bush approach have argued that any effective fight against terrorism would have to involve a re-evaluation of the way Washington conducts its affairs in the world. For example, the way it has promoted violence for short-term gain, as in Afghanistan when it supported the Taliban a decade ago, in Iraq when it supported Saddam Hussein against Iran, and Iran before that when it supported the Shah.
The attack on Afghanistan is about vengeance and about showing how tough the Americans are. It is being done on the backs of people who have far less control over their government than even the poor souls who died on Sept. 11. It will inevitably result in many deaths of civilians, both from the bombing and from the disruption of aid in a country where millions are already at risk. The 37,000 rations dropped on Sunday were pure PR, and so are the claims of "surgical" strikes and the denials of civilian casualties. We've seen them before, in Kosovo for example, followed by lame excuses for the "accidents" that killed innocents.
For all that has been said about how things have changed since Sept. 11, one thing that has not changed is U.S. disregard for international law. Its decade-long bombing campaign against Iraq and its 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia were both illegal. The U.S. does not even recognize the jurisdiction of the World Court. It withdrew from it in 1986 when the court condemned Washington for attacking Nicaragua, mining its harbours and funding the contras. In that case, the court rejected U.S. claims that it was acting under Article 51 in defence of Nicaragua's neighbours.
For its part, Canada cannot duck complicity in this lawlessness by relying on the "solidarity" clause of the NATO treaty, because that clause is made expressly subordinate to the UN Charter.
But, you might ask, does legality matter in a case like this? You bet it does. Without the law, there is no limit to international violence but the power, ruthlessness and cunning of the perpetrators. Without the international legality of the UN system, the people of the world are sidelined in matters of our most vital interests.
We are all at risk from what happens next. We must insist that Washington make the case for the necessity, rationality and proportionality of this attack in the light of day before the real international community.
The bombing of Afghanistan is the legal and moral equivalent of what was done to the Americans on Sept. 11. We may come to remember that day, not for its human tragedy, but for the beginning of a headlong plunge into a violent, lawless world.
Michael Mandel, professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, specializes in international criminal law. "
The resulting democratic government of Karzai aside from harboring former warlords and producing much of the world's opium already contains elements that are much like the Taliban as far as religious and civil rights were concerned. A Muslim who converted to Christianity had to be spirited off to Italy to avoid the death penalty. Now a journalist is threatened with the same penalty for distributing material offensive to Islam--not even his own writing. A female member of the legislature is kicked out for criticising the government. Even David Orchard has written about the Afghan mission.
"In reality, Iraq and Afghanistan are the same war.
That's how the Bush administration has seen Afghanistan from the start; not as a defensive response to 9/11, but the opening for regime change in Iraq (as documented in Richard A. Clarke's Against all Enemies).That's why the Security Council resolutions of September 2001 never mention Afghanistan, much less authorize an attack on it. That's why the attack on Afghanistan was also a supreme international crime, which killed at least 20,000 innocent civilians in its first six months. The Bush administration used 9/11 as a pretext to launch an open-ended so-called "War on Terror" --in reality a war of terror because it kills hundreds of times more civilians than the other terrorists do.
That the Karzai regime was subsequently set up under UN auspices doesn't absolve the participants in America's war, and that includes Canada. Nor should the fact that Canada now operates under the UN authorized International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mislead anyone. From the start, ISAF put itself at the service of the American operation, declaring "the United States Central Command will have authority over the International Security Assistance Force" (UNSC Document S/2001/1217). When NATO took charge of ISAF that didn't change anything. NATO forces are always ultimately under US command. The "Supreme Commander" is always an American general, who answers to the American president, not the Afghan one.
Canadian troops in Afghanistan not only take orders from the Americans, they help free up more American forces to continue their bloody occupation of Iraq.
When the U.S. devastated Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia (1961-1975), leaving behind six million dead or maimed, Canada refused to participate. But today Canada has become part of a U.S. war being waged not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in a network of disclosed and undisclosed centres of physical and mental torture, like Guantanamo Bay in --let's not forget --illegally occupied Cuban territory. And what we know about what the U.S. government calls terrorism is that it is largely a response to foreign occupation, and what we know about American occupation is that it is a way the rich world forces the rest to surrender their resources.
General Rick Hillier bragged that Canada was going to root out the "scumbags" in Afghanistan. He didn't mention that the Soviets, using over 600,000 troops and billions in aid over ten years, were unable to control Afghanistan. Britain, at the height of its imperial power, tried twice and failed. Now, Canada is helping another fading empire attempt to impose its will on Afghanistan.
Canadians have traditionally been able to hold their heads high when they travel the world. We did not achieve that reputation by waging war against the world's poor; in large part we achieved it by refusing to do so."
The Manley panel did its job and deserves its generous per diems. They successfully issued an extensive report without ever bringing up any of the issues that Orchard and Mandel do. The mainstream media and the talking heads on CBC and elsewhere will avoid them like the plague as well.
We send more aid to Afghanistan than any other country. This simply props up the Karzai government and helps the US agenda although it seems to be ours as well. That aid could be spent much better elsewhere or at home. Aid cannot be separated out from the military role both have the same function. One is the carrot, the other the stick. The NDP is clueless about this no doubt because they share the arrogant moral hubris that says that we (the West to paraphrase the general's manifesto) have the duty to create an Afghan nation that is free and democratic---and it goes without saying capitalist. It is the Afghans that must create their own state of whatever sort. We can help but we cannot force them to embody our ideals and certainly the Afghan mission is designed only to create a state that does not interfere with western interests and power the present rights situation in Afghanistan shows that.
The idea that we can force tolerance and stamp out corruption in Afghanistan is an arrogant pipe dream.
"Manley's per diem up to $1,400
ALAN FREEMAN
Globe and Mail Update
OTTAWA — Nice work if you can get it. Former deputy prime minister John Manley, who was appointed last week to head a five-member panel of eminent persons investigating the future of Canada's mission in Afghanistan, will be paid between $1,200 and $1,400 a day by the federal government for his trouble."
Liberal hawks are a hot item on the market even Conservatives are snapping them up. In spite of being well paid part of Manley's report, his foreword, is a recycling of portions of a paper from Policy Options. I listened to some pundits on the CBC one of whom claimed that the report was valuable as explaining why we are in Afghanistan.
I thought that I would actually read part of the report to see how it explains how we go into Afghanistan and why? This is from the report:
"After 30 years of strife—in Soviet occupation, civil war and the coercive
repression of Taliban rule—Afghan men and women are building a government
committed to the democratic rule of law and the full exercise of human rights.
To preserve and pursue the progress made, Afghanistan relies on others for
support. Canada is one of 51 countries committed to the 2006 Afghanistan
Compact, a comprehensive international program of aid to Afghanistan’s
security, governance and development. For the years 2002-2011, Canada has
authorized $1.2 billion in international assistance to Afghanistan. That
country now receives more Canadian aid than any other, about three per cent
of all Canadian aid during this period."
and this:
" A DECISION FOR CANADIANS
Afghanistan is at war, and Canadians are combatants. It is a war fought
between an elected, democratic government and a zealous insurgency of proven
brutality. The war has already exacted a terrible cost in Canadian lives—a
sacrifice to be mourned and honoured by every Canadian. But Canadians are
not alone in the conflict. Canada is one of some 39 countries (including most
of the great democracies we know as our friends and allies) with troops
deployed in Afghanistan. These forces are in Afghanistan at the request of the
Afghan government, under the express authority of the United Nations.
This is a conflict of ferocious complexity in a region of violent instability.
History proves how readily Afghanistan can fall victim to regional rivalries and
foreign invasion. The present crisis in Pakistan, which shares a lawless
borderland with Afghanistan, adds new danger and new confusion to
Afghanistan’s future. For Canadians, moreover, the news from Kabul and
Kandahar in the past two years has been more often bad than good. It is
natural for Canadians to reconsider the wisdom and rightness of Canada’s
involvement in a war that has been so difficult and inconclusive."
There is nothing about how we got in to the war. There is nothing about the role of the US and our own role as junior partners or the role of the warlords of the Northern Alliance. In effect this is not really a war but an occupation with a government installed with the guidance of the occupiers all along. The insurgents are resistance fighters. Of course when the jihadists were on the other side fighting the Soviets the mainstream press would always describe them as a resistance fighting the Evil Empire occupiers.
The picture painted for us is of a mission expressly sanctioned by the UN. Of course it is but so is the US and allies mission in Iraq! The original regime change orchestrated by the US with our willing participation Operation Enduring Freedom was not sanctioned. We are now with ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) as part of NATO with UN blessing.
However, the original occupation was illegal. See for example Mandel:
October 9, 2001
"This War is Illegal
By Michael Mandel
A well-kept secret about the U.S.-U.K. attack on Afghanistan is that it is clearly illegal. It violates international law and the express words of the United Nations Charter.
Despite repeated reference to the right of self-defence under Article 51, the Charter simply does not apply here. Article 51 gives a state the right to repel an attack that is ongoing or imminent as a temporary measure until the UN Security Council can take steps necessary for international peace and security.
The Security Council has already passed two resolutions condemning the Sept. 11 attacks and announcing a host of measures aimed at combating terrorism. These include measures for the legal suppression of terrorism and its financing, and for co-operation between states in security, intelligence, criminal investigations and proceedings relating to terrorism. The Security Council has set up a committee to monitor progress on the measures in the resolution and has given all states 90 days to report back to it.
Neither resolution can remotely be said to authorize the use of military force. True, both, in their preambles, abstractly "affirm" the inherent right of self-defence, but they do so "in accordance with the Charter." They do not say military action against Afghanistan would be within the right of self-defence. Nor could they. That's because the right of unilateral self-defence does not include the right to retaliate once an attack has stopped.
The right of self-defence in international law is like the right of self-defence in our own law: It allows you to defend yourself when the law is not around, but it does not allow you to take the law into your own hands.
Since the United States and Britain have undertaken this attack without the explicit authorization of the Security Council, those who die from it will be victims of a crime against humanity, just like the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Even the Security Council is only permitted to authorize the use of force where "necessary to maintain and restore international peace and security." Now it must be clear to everyone that the military attack on Afghanistan has nothing to do with preventing terrorism. This attack will be far more likely to provoke terrorism. Even the Bush administration concedes that the real war against terrorism is long term, a combination of improved security, intelligence and a rethinking of U.S. foreign alliances.
Critics of the Bush approach have argued that any effective fight against terrorism would have to involve a re-evaluation of the way Washington conducts its affairs in the world. For example, the way it has promoted violence for short-term gain, as in Afghanistan when it supported the Taliban a decade ago, in Iraq when it supported Saddam Hussein against Iran, and Iran before that when it supported the Shah.
The attack on Afghanistan is about vengeance and about showing how tough the Americans are. It is being done on the backs of people who have far less control over their government than even the poor souls who died on Sept. 11. It will inevitably result in many deaths of civilians, both from the bombing and from the disruption of aid in a country where millions are already at risk. The 37,000 rations dropped on Sunday were pure PR, and so are the claims of "surgical" strikes and the denials of civilian casualties. We've seen them before, in Kosovo for example, followed by lame excuses for the "accidents" that killed innocents.
For all that has been said about how things have changed since Sept. 11, one thing that has not changed is U.S. disregard for international law. Its decade-long bombing campaign against Iraq and its 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia were both illegal. The U.S. does not even recognize the jurisdiction of the World Court. It withdrew from it in 1986 when the court condemned Washington for attacking Nicaragua, mining its harbours and funding the contras. In that case, the court rejected U.S. claims that it was acting under Article 51 in defence of Nicaragua's neighbours.
For its part, Canada cannot duck complicity in this lawlessness by relying on the "solidarity" clause of the NATO treaty, because that clause is made expressly subordinate to the UN Charter.
But, you might ask, does legality matter in a case like this? You bet it does. Without the law, there is no limit to international violence but the power, ruthlessness and cunning of the perpetrators. Without the international legality of the UN system, the people of the world are sidelined in matters of our most vital interests.
We are all at risk from what happens next. We must insist that Washington make the case for the necessity, rationality and proportionality of this attack in the light of day before the real international community.
The bombing of Afghanistan is the legal and moral equivalent of what was done to the Americans on Sept. 11. We may come to remember that day, not for its human tragedy, but for the beginning of a headlong plunge into a violent, lawless world.
Michael Mandel, professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, specializes in international criminal law. "
The resulting democratic government of Karzai aside from harboring former warlords and producing much of the world's opium already contains elements that are much like the Taliban as far as religious and civil rights were concerned. A Muslim who converted to Christianity had to be spirited off to Italy to avoid the death penalty. Now a journalist is threatened with the same penalty for distributing material offensive to Islam--not even his own writing. A female member of the legislature is kicked out for criticising the government. Even David Orchard has written about the Afghan mission.
"In reality, Iraq and Afghanistan are the same war.
That's how the Bush administration has seen Afghanistan from the start; not as a defensive response to 9/11, but the opening for regime change in Iraq (as documented in Richard A. Clarke's Against all Enemies).That's why the Security Council resolutions of September 2001 never mention Afghanistan, much less authorize an attack on it. That's why the attack on Afghanistan was also a supreme international crime, which killed at least 20,000 innocent civilians in its first six months. The Bush administration used 9/11 as a pretext to launch an open-ended so-called "War on Terror" --in reality a war of terror because it kills hundreds of times more civilians than the other terrorists do.
That the Karzai regime was subsequently set up under UN auspices doesn't absolve the participants in America's war, and that includes Canada. Nor should the fact that Canada now operates under the UN authorized International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mislead anyone. From the start, ISAF put itself at the service of the American operation, declaring "the United States Central Command will have authority over the International Security Assistance Force" (UNSC Document S/2001/1217). When NATO took charge of ISAF that didn't change anything. NATO forces are always ultimately under US command. The "Supreme Commander" is always an American general, who answers to the American president, not the Afghan one.
Canadian troops in Afghanistan not only take orders from the Americans, they help free up more American forces to continue their bloody occupation of Iraq.
When the U.S. devastated Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia (1961-1975), leaving behind six million dead or maimed, Canada refused to participate. But today Canada has become part of a U.S. war being waged not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in a network of disclosed and undisclosed centres of physical and mental torture, like Guantanamo Bay in --let's not forget --illegally occupied Cuban territory. And what we know about what the U.S. government calls terrorism is that it is largely a response to foreign occupation, and what we know about American occupation is that it is a way the rich world forces the rest to surrender their resources.
General Rick Hillier bragged that Canada was going to root out the "scumbags" in Afghanistan. He didn't mention that the Soviets, using over 600,000 troops and billions in aid over ten years, were unable to control Afghanistan. Britain, at the height of its imperial power, tried twice and failed. Now, Canada is helping another fading empire attempt to impose its will on Afghanistan.
Canadians have traditionally been able to hold their heads high when they travel the world. We did not achieve that reputation by waging war against the world's poor; in large part we achieved it by refusing to do so."
The Manley panel did its job and deserves its generous per diems. They successfully issued an extensive report without ever bringing up any of the issues that Orchard and Mandel do. The mainstream media and the talking heads on CBC and elsewhere will avoid them like the plague as well.
We send more aid to Afghanistan than any other country. This simply props up the Karzai government and helps the US agenda although it seems to be ours as well. That aid could be spent much better elsewhere or at home. Aid cannot be separated out from the military role both have the same function. One is the carrot, the other the stick. The NDP is clueless about this no doubt because they share the arrogant moral hubris that says that we (the West to paraphrase the general's manifesto) have the duty to create an Afghan nation that is free and democratic---and it goes without saying capitalist. It is the Afghans that must create their own state of whatever sort. We can help but we cannot force them to embody our ideals and certainly the Afghan mission is designed only to create a state that does not interfere with western interests and power the present rights situation in Afghanistan shows that.
The idea that we can force tolerance and stamp out corruption in Afghanistan is an arrogant pipe dream.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Green Party on the Manley Report
This is from the Green Party Website.22.01.2008 As I recall the Manley report made continuation of any combat mission contingent upon more contribution of troops from other NATO countries and also improved equipment and helicopter support. Of course no Muslim country is likely to volunteer more troops for the very reason that many of their citizens unlike Canadians see the whole Afghan occupation is part of an attempt to establish US hegemony in the area.
I am surprised that the Green Party did not demand that the opium be grown organically and with no GM poppy seeds.
Green Party rejects Manley Report conclusions
OTTAWA – The federal Green Party shares a vision of a stable and secure Afghanistan, but today challenged the newly-released Manley Report’s premise that Canada’s troops must remain in Khandahar beyond February of 2009 to achieve this objective.
“The Manley Report fails to consider that the recommendation of more ISAF forces from a Christian/Crusader heritage will continue to fuel an insurgency that has been framed as a ‘Jihad’. This, in turn, may feed the recruitment of suicide bombers and other insurgents,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. “Better human security is certainly needed in the South but it should be provided by a different cultural mix of UN countries as well as the Afghan army and police. Even if this proves challenging to accomplish, this key objective should have been included.”
The Green Party also questioned the Report’s recommended indefinite exit date for the Canadian Forces from Kandahar, citing concern that an open-ended departure date could significantly prolong the training time of the Afghan military and police. The continuous availability of external personnel and logistical support in a poor country like Afghanistan risks creating a structural disincentive to rapid military preparedness, especially in an ongoing conflict situation.
Green Party International Affairs critic Eric Walton also raised concern about the Report’s cursory reference to poppy plant cultivation, which helps fund the insurgency and worsens government corruption.
“It was critical that the Manley Report strongly advanced the Poppies For Medicine (P4M) program, but what we saw was little more than a lukewarm endorsement,” said Mr. Walton. “The Green Party would advance the P4M plan while strongly rejecting US proposals for widespread chemical spraying of poppy fields this spring. This pivotal choice could very soon determine the ultimate success or failure of the mission. It should also be a factor when determining if Canada stays in Afghanistan at all.”
I am surprised that the Green Party did not demand that the opium be grown organically and with no GM poppy seeds.
Green Party rejects Manley Report conclusions
OTTAWA – The federal Green Party shares a vision of a stable and secure Afghanistan, but today challenged the newly-released Manley Report’s premise that Canada’s troops must remain in Khandahar beyond February of 2009 to achieve this objective.
“The Manley Report fails to consider that the recommendation of more ISAF forces from a Christian/Crusader heritage will continue to fuel an insurgency that has been framed as a ‘Jihad’. This, in turn, may feed the recruitment of suicide bombers and other insurgents,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. “Better human security is certainly needed in the South but it should be provided by a different cultural mix of UN countries as well as the Afghan army and police. Even if this proves challenging to accomplish, this key objective should have been included.”
The Green Party also questioned the Report’s recommended indefinite exit date for the Canadian Forces from Kandahar, citing concern that an open-ended departure date could significantly prolong the training time of the Afghan military and police. The continuous availability of external personnel and logistical support in a poor country like Afghanistan risks creating a structural disincentive to rapid military preparedness, especially in an ongoing conflict situation.
Green Party International Affairs critic Eric Walton also raised concern about the Report’s cursory reference to poppy plant cultivation, which helps fund the insurgency and worsens government corruption.
“It was critical that the Manley Report strongly advanced the Poppies For Medicine (P4M) program, but what we saw was little more than a lukewarm endorsement,” said Mr. Walton. “The Green Party would advance the P4M plan while strongly rejecting US proposals for widespread chemical spraying of poppy fields this spring. This pivotal choice could very soon determine the ultimate success or failure of the mission. It should also be a factor when determining if Canada stays in Afghanistan at all.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)