Topic: Afghanistan: Why we should be there (or not), how to conduct the mission (or not) & when to leave

[Trinity]

Expert Advice

I'd love to know what makes this person an expert!

[Brad Sallows]

>With no easy answers available, I talked to two knowledgeable people, veteran diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi and Afghan Canadian filmmaker Nelofer Pazira.

With no easy answers available, he solicited the opinions of a sample set of people numbering two - that's the hallmark of a hardworking, serious researcher for sure.  If someone came to offer you "expert advice on Canada" based on a discussion with a foreign diplomat and a filmmaker born in Canada but no longer living there, what weight would you give his advice?  Coulda, shoulda, woulda, yadda.

[Centurian1985]

Haroon Siddiqui.  He's the man we love to hate...

[milnews.ca]

 Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

NATO's Afghan Body Count, Published in Press, Raises Skepticism
Associated Press, 15 Sept 06
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003123095

NATO's estimate of Taliban killed this month has created skepticism and worry in Afghanistan, with local officials saying that either the militant force has grown bigger than imagined -- or too many innocent Afghans are being killed.

NATO says its forces, backed by the Afghan army, have killed more than 500 Taliban militants near Afghanistan's main southern city of Kandahar in Operation Medusa, a sweep launched Sept. 2.

The figures, if accurate, make it the deadliest battle since U.S. warplanes bombed the extremist militia, host of Osama bin Laden, out of power in late 2001.

"If they kill that many, the Taliban must have thousands of fighters on that front," said Mohammed Arbil, a former Northern Alliance commander. In the recent past, Taliban units have been described in terms of dozens or hundreds at most.

But NATO has stood by its battle assessments as solid, even conservative.

One official with the military command, called the International Security Assistance Force, said internally circulated estimates of militant dead were more than double the tally released to journalists.

"We'd rather have a lower figure that we can back up than a higher one that stretches your willingness to trust us," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

NATO says the high toll is due to its superior firepower, including fighter jets and artillery, compared to the Taliban militia's roadside bombs and assault rifles. It says it avoids civilian casualties by warning residents to evacuate.

The inability of journalists to reach the area has made it virtually impossible to check the figures.

Hundreds of families displaced from the war zone, in the Panjwayi district, are also in the dark, and don't even know if their homes are still standing.

The onslaught has dispelled any doubts that NATO, which recently took over in southern Afghanistan, is willing to use overwhelming military force. But Afghans, while eager for the Taliban uprising to end, have mixed feelings.

In the capital Kabul, there's disbelief that so many guerrillas could be killed and citizens escape unscathed. In Kandahar city, closer to the battle, there's dismay over the intensity of the fighting, and calls for peace talks.

"Who are these Taliban? They are Afghans," said Mira Jan, a displaced 42-year-old grape farmer from Panjwayi. "NATO and the government must convene a ulema (Muslim clerics') council with tribal elders and convince the Taliban to stop fighting."

By all measures, the Taliban have stepped up their attacks this year. NATO forces that took charge of security in the south last month expected hit-and-run guerrilla tactics, but instead have often faced well-organized militant forces that stand and fight.

Nowhere has that been more apparent that in Panjwayi, a rural district of dried-mud houses scattered among orchards where hundreds of Taliban militants had massed, posing a threat to Kandahar city, the former stronghold of the hard-line Islamic regime, just 15 miles away.

NATO launched Operation Medusa to wipe out the militants.

When NATO announced by the second day of the offensive that its artillery and airstrikes had killed more than 200 militants, skeptical journalists without access to the action -- following a government warning that anyone straying off the main road could be shot as suspected Taliban -- pressed for details: where were the bodies and how are they counted?

"Your know what you can see through a telescope? We have those kind of capabilities all over the battle field," said NATO spokesman Maj. Scott Lundy. "We are reliant on every soldier on the battlefield to feed up the information that they have, from what they have seen through weapons' sights and with other surveillance assets. It all gets thrown into the mix."

Lundy said such estimates are "imprecise," but stressed that NATO makes every effort to make them as accurate as possible and usually goes with a conservative number. "We would be quite happy to speak about military success without going into the detail, but it's what the media want," he said.

To date, NATO has reported at least 517 militants dead compared to 20 from its force, 14 of them in an accidental plane crash.

The Taliban has denied suffering such high casualties. Neither side has offered details about how many militants have been wounded.

According to an Associated Press count based on reports from U.S., NATO and Afghan officials, 2,800 people have died so far this year in violence nationwide, including militants and civilians -- about 1,300 more than the toll for all of 2005.

Andrew Krepinevich, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, said that given the circumstances in which the Taliban had massed in one place, the figures given by NATO were plausible and could well be an underestimation, because of the effort the Islamic militia makes to bury their dead quickly.

He also said that given NATO's aim to create secure zones, they had little incentive to inflate the death toll.

"I have no suspicion they are trying to widely inflate the casualty numbers. They are not trying to measure success that way anyway," Krepinevich said in a telephone interview.

"They would be trying to measure success in terms of the population feeling secure, is reconstruction proceeding, is commerce growing."

Insecurity has clearly prevented any progress on those counts. And the alliance's success in battle has induced little optimism among Afghans that NATO -- struggling to marshal enough forces for its mission -- is close to defeating the resurgent Taliban.

"All these bombardments leave behind a bad name for the international community for killing Afghans," said Taj Mohammed Wardak, a former Afghan interior minister. "It will only create more motivation for revenge."

[E.R. Campbell]

This article, by Christie Blatchford, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, is from today’s (15 Sep 06) Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060916.COBLATCH16/TPStory/TPComment/ 

We debate, with guns blazing
But is it informed debate? There is a serious lack of understanding about Canada's mission to Afghanistan

CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD

I spent yesterday morning at the Canadian Forces College in Toronto, where I was one of four journalists on a media panel that was part of a senior officers' course.

It was more time "in the company of soldiers," to borrow the title of the latest book from U.S. Pulitzer Prize-winning author Rick Atkinson, and I confess I tried to put my audience at ease with a brief rendition of the chorus from The Prick of Steel, one of my late father's air force songs.

(Well, I do love any opportunity to sing the thing.)

I don't think I am betraying any secrets by saying that for all that the relationship between the press and military is sometimes confrontational, and is always fraught with the potential for peril (both real and imagined), the soldiers in the crowd and reporters on the panel have one thing in common.

I don't purport to speak for my colleagues -- least of all for the CBC's Carol Off, whom I got to meet yesterday for the first time after years of admiring her work and who is one of this country's most accomplished journalists and the author of, among others, The Ghosts of Medak Pocket.

But I think it fair to say that to varying degrees, most of us on the panel are frustrated by the lack of understanding about Canada's mission to Afghanistan; by the paucity, not of debate, but of informed debate; by the large and self-serving political apparatus that stands between our two groups; and by what appears to be our collective and separate inability to do very much about any of it.

The press in this country is, for the first time in decades, actually covering, in significant numbers, the Canadian Forces in action, and from my informal reading and viewing, are doing at least a reasonable -- if, as always in our business, uneven -- job of it. Some of us have been embedded with the troops based at Kandahar Air Field; a smaller but growing number of us have been on the front lines, such as these are in the modern war; I think it safe to say that, in the main, this has been a hugely successful venture.

Ordinary soldiers are more available to the press than ever before in my lifetime, and they are, in my experience, not at all shy about speaking forthrightly about what it is they're doing and why they're there. And for the most part, I think, we in my business are fairly faithfully painting the picture as it is in southern Afghanistan.

Yet we are failing miserably, somehow, in getting the message across.

Public opinion polls repeatedly show that Canadians are confused about why we are in Afghanistan, that they fear young soldiers are dying in vain, and that they have difficulty distinguishing between Afghanistan and Iraq and, more generally, among Afghanistan, Iraq and the countries of the larger Middle East.

Anecdotally, most reporters have had experiences that echo what the polls say, as have most soldiers, I think. For all the words and miles of tape the former have produced, for all the intelligent comments the latter have made from the lowliest private all the way up through the ranks to colonels, many of our fellow citizens do not appear to know that Afghanistan is a mission approved by the wider international community, with about three dozen NATO and non-NATO countries contributing to the effort (including the likes of plucky Romania, whose troops fearlessly muck about in Cold War-era vehicles) and specifically sanctioned by the United Nations.

Those who do know, and who, in the normal course, give their knee-jerk blessing to such UN-approved ventures, pay the UN stamp of approval here little heed -- even suggesting in one breath that Canada pull out of this UN mission and, in the next, that Canada should be sending troops to another UN mission, such as Lebanon. It makes little sense.

This problem is not of the military's creating and, while I feel we in the press are somewhat responsible -- I feel I fail the soldiers damn near every time I write about them because I've yet to properly capture their marvellous ability to switch gears, for instance -- the real culprit is Ottawa, that is, the elected leaders.

It was the Liberal government that first sent the troops to Afghanistan, a decision reaffirmed, the mission extended, by the Stephen Harper government.

There was little debate, even in the House of Commons, but then the House of Commons rarely hosts what could be properly called debate; instead, there is grandstanding, sniping and posing.

And since then, the Harper government has done a simply dreadful job of explaining the mission. As Ms. Off noted yesterday, when Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor recently deigned to utter a few words about it, he was in Australia. And when Mr. Harper spoke this week on the Sept. 11 anniversary, he made the correct link -- Canada is in Afghanistan because the 9/11 terrorists trained there -- but failed to deliver anything resembling a statesmanlike or ringing explanation of the good we are doing by being there.

I mentioned that flat address the next day to a Canadian officer I know.

I think I said, "Someone should be offering a robust defence of this mission. It's defensible." He corrected me: "It's advocate-able."

Mr. Harper has in Rick Hillier, the Chief of the Defence Staff, the best natural salesman in the country. Yet the CDS appears to have been muzzled and, in his absence, neither Mr. Harper nor Mr. O'Connor is stepping up to the plate.

This brings me, in a roundabout way, to an event tomorrow in Toronto.

The polls do reveal one heartening result, that whatever ambivalence Canadians may have about the mission and despite their confusion, they appear to at least grasp what a tremendous group of soldiers we have there. And tomorrow, on the lawn of Queen's Park in Toronto, a memorial to Canada's veterans, all of them, will be unveiled. Veterans and the public alike are welcome.

Best of all, there's a parade first -- an old-fashioned military parade, with bands and pipes and horses and marching troops, starting about noon at the Fort York Armoury. I was in Ottawa last week, where the political animals reign. No wonder I crave the company of soldiers again.

cblatchford@globeandmail.ca

As an initial aside I regard the CBC’s Carol Off as a polemicist, and I suspect, from reading between the lines of Blatchford’s article that she demonstrated that in Toronto – being more concerned with where O’Connor said something that what he actually said.

It seems clear enough to me that Stephen Harper and his circle of hacks and flacks need to read more – maybe, especially, the recent Army.ca editorial.  Blatchford is right: Canadian are confused and the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister of Canada are doing little to clear the air.

I have wondered elsewhere in these fora if Harper et cie really have a coherent view on this mission.  I fear that, for the (some? many?) Conservatives, Afghanistan is nothing more than a political stick with which they can beat the Liberals.  If that’s the case then we, Canadians, are being ill served.

[zipperhead_cop]

NATO's estimate of Taliban killed this month has created skepticism and worry in Afghanistan, with local officials saying that either the militant force has grown bigger than imagined -- or too many innocent Afghans are being killed.

I wonder if there is any way to tell when one is a Taliban, or if one is a drug dealer?  There is so much focus on the Taliban, and the Al Qaeda connection that the drug industry gets forgotten in the static.  Drug dealers have virtually unlimited resources in money and arms.  In all likelyhood, there is some collaboration between the Taliban and the local drug cartels.  I also strikes me as very possible that the drug lords would arm and organize a bunch of hapless locals.  Give them a few hundred dollars, some heroin and say "go attack those guys.  We'll pay you $100 for every helmet you collect" or something to that effect.  Dude sees an opportunity to make a years salary after one successful attack, and has listened to the Taliban propaganda (they are weak, they will run, they have no heart, etc).  Thus creating a disposable mercenary force.  Not really Taliban, but still needing to be taken out when they come at you with guns-a-blazin'. 
So the Taliban numbers may have been accurate all along, but more guys are getting killed for being opportunist, pushing the numbers up. 
Just speculation.  Not being offered up as actual knowledge.

[boondocksaint]

good point zipperhead- atleast  1 of our Tic's was against druglord fighters, big numbers and well armed, and busted 15 million in black tar herion once they'd been wiped out

they are all in it together especially as zipperhead mentioned, when the opportunity rises to combine efforts

[zipperhead_cop]

good point zipperhead- atleast  1 of our Tic's was against druglord fighters, big numbers and well armed, and busted 15 million in black tar herion once they'd been wiped out

they are all in it together especially as zipperhead mentioned, when the opportunity rises to combine efforts

Nice grab.  At least you can feel good that if any of them got away, they probably got killed for losing that much product.  Win/win.   

[big bad john (John Hill)]

http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=2&nid=42797

GG Defends Canada's Mission in Afghanistan
Josh Pringle
Monday, September 18, 2006

Governor General Michaelle Jean says withdrawing from Afghanistan would be "refusing to help a people in danger."

Jean is defending Canada's role in Afghanistan.

Jean told Canadian Press that given the recent spike in violence, it is important for Canadians to show solidarity with the Afghan people, adding "at this time, now, when it's difficult, we're seeing the human cost of our commitment."

32 Canadians have died in Afghanistan since 2002. 25 Canadian soldiers have been killed this year.

Jean says she never imagined that she would have to attend so many funerals for Canadian soldiers.

But the Governor General says she sees no other way of ending the Taliban's violence in Afghanistan, "these confrontations in the Kandahar region are one thing, but we also know what the power of the Taliban was like."

[Technoviking]

I am actually glad to hear that our head of state (or her representative here in Canada, I can never figure that one out) is coming out so strongly in this case.


 

[GAP]

It actually is her responsibility, but given her former affiliations and such, everybody was of the mind that she was a virtual princess and not at all supportive. It's nice to see, even if a little late.

[Thucydides]

It actually is her responsibility, but given her former affiliations and such, everybody was of the mind that she was a virtual princess and not at all supportive. It's nice to see, even if a little late.

HRH Elizabeth II is the Head  of State (as Queen of Canada), the GG is HRH's representative in Canada and our Commander in Chief, her public support is always apprieciated.

Gen Mackenzie weighed in with an interesting comment about the polls and selective use of questions:

http://talkcanada.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_talkcanada_archive.html#115863593505294469

Polling on Afghanistan
Ret'd General Lewis Mackenzie was interviewed on Canada AM this morning and he made a great point when asked about the polls showing weak support for the Afghanistan mission.

You can watch the interview here.

He basically said that he'd like to see what the results of a poll would be if Canadians were asked whether or not they supported the Taliban returning to power in Afghanistan.

What do you think the results would be?

And further - what do you think the headlines in the paper would be? ONLY 5% OF CANADIANS SUPPORT NDP POSITION!

Once you ask the right questions, the issue comes into sharp focus.

[MCG]

I'd be interested to know the same.  I'd also like to know the result of a poll question in which Canadians were asked if  humanitarian efforts should be abandon in Afghanistan.

[MarkOttawa]

Afstan: The truth will out.

Letter today in the Edmonton Journal:
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/letters/story.html?id=01a819d8-eb52-41fd-ba54-51b409d2993b

'U.S. not in control

The Edmonton Journal
'Published: Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Re: "Fighting won't provide solution to morass in Afghanistan," Opinion, Sept. 17.

The column states that "the U.S. is still running the Afghan campaign." That is not accurate. Canadian troops are serving under NATO's International Security Assistance Force. The U.S. is not running ISAF.

ISAF's mission is mandated by the UN Security Council. On Sept. 12 the council voted unanimously to extend ISAF's mandate, and specifically called "upon member states to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to ISAF."

Mark Collins, Ottawa'

Mark
Ottawa

[MCG]

It will be interesting to see how these to stories develop & contribute to the debate:

Harper to defend Afghanistan mission in first United Nations speech
Beth Gorham, Canadian Press
Published: Tuesday, September 19, 2006

WASHINGTON (CP) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper will be promoting Canada as a key global player at his first United Nations speech Thursday, while trying to mollify critics at home who say the Afghanistan mission is exacting too high a price.

Observers also expect Harper to appeal for more help from the international community, especially top European allies, as he highlights Canada's contributions in the war-torn country and defends the switch from peacekeeping to active combat.

It's a delicate line for the Conservative leader, who has been accused of aligning his foreign policy, even some of his phrasing, too closely with President George W. Bush.

And the prime minister is under other pressures at home, especially after announcing a new contingent for the fight and the deaths Monday of four Canadian soldiers killed by a suicide bomber while they were handing out candy to kids.

New Democrats are calling on him to bring the troops home and the Bloc Quebecois is demanding an emergency parliamentary debate.

Harper can't afford, though, to appear to be wavering at the UN, said David Bercuson at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute in Calgary.

Harper may, however, talk about redeploying elsewhere in Afghanistan after the current mission ends in January 2009.

"He also needs to find a better way of selling it to Canadians than simply repeating the maxims of Washington," said Bercuson. "They're getting that message from the highest levels of the armed forces - that the case has to be presented much better and more widely."

And while it's true that Canada is losing soldiers partly because the United States diverted much of its attention from Afghanistan to Iraq before the Taliban was truly crushed, there are other factors, he said.

"Are we picking up their chestnuts for them? It's a yes and a no. They took a lot of their resources out of Afghanistan or just never sent them."

"But there's as much of an argument to be made that NATO should have gone in earlier," said Bercuson.

"The Americans and the Brits paid the price in the first years. We came along relatively late in the game and now we're taking the heat."

As Harper addresses the UN General Assembly, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay will be meeting with NATO colleagues at a Manhattan hotel to drum up more support for the mission.

...

Surveys suggest Canadians are split on the mission. A recent Strategic Counsel poll conducted just before the lastest casualties found 42 per cent support it, compared with 49 per cent opposed.

Support was up since August, including in Quebec. The highest level of suport for the conflict has been about 55 per cent.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=6eb9695b-cc74-416a-9b7f-401ed106d75b&k=73165

and

Karzai hopes to convince Canadian politicians of need for Afghan mission
Alexander Panetta, Canadian Press
Published: Tuesday, September 19, 2006

OTTAWA (CP) - Afghanistan's president hopes to convince Canadian skeptics about the need for this country's continued involvement in Afghanistan during a speech to Parliament on Friday.

Hamid Karzai will not make specific references to the NDP, which has called for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan, nor will he target other MPs who personally oppose the mission.

He wants to avoid being dragged into domestic politics - but he does want Canadian politicians to hear his message, said Afghanistan's top envoy to Ottawa.

"He is going to explain the Afghan perspective and convey the wishes and hopes of the Afghan people," said Omar Samad, Afghanistan's ambassador to Ottawa. "And hopefully, maybe, somebody in the audience will realize that reality lies somewhere other than where they thought."

The speech to Parliament will be a highlight of Karzai's two-day trip beginning Friday.

He will also meet with the families of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan, as well as Prime Minister Stephen Harper and interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham.

Karzai has no current plans to meet privately with NDP Leader Jack Layton, whose party massively endorsed a troop pullout during their recent convention.

Karzai is aware of the growing controversy over the mission, and he has expressed some surprise about the nature of the debate in Canada.

"He thinks there is probably excessive focus on the military aspect when Canada's role is more than just military," Samad said.  Karzai will emphasize the humanitarian role Canada plays in his country and how it can continue to help in several areas, including human rights, governance and developmental work.

Karzai's visit comes on the heels of a suicide attack that killed four Canadian soldiers and brought Canada's death toll in Afghanistan to 37.

Armed with a bomb so powerful it killed a cow 70 metres away, an attacker plowed into a group of soldiers while they dispensed candy to local children.

The attack Monday signalled a Taliban shift back to guerilla tactics after scores were slaughtered in head-to-head warfare against Canadian-led NATO troops.

The NDP and several international observers have suggested that pro-Taliban insurgents should be consulted in peace negotiations.

NATO officials admitted that such high-stakes talks were already under way with some insurgent groups in the Panjwaii region last month.

However, a subsequent international assault on insurgents in the area appeared to have scuttled any negotiations.

Samad said ex-Taliban sympathizers have been welcomed with open arms into the new, democratic Afghanistan.

But he said that invitation does not include what he described as Taliban war criminals and foreign fighters who have entered the country.

"You won't see any negotiations taking place with Mullah Omar," he said.

"The door has been open for (Taliban supporters) all along, and thousands of them have given up on militancy and extremism.   "I'm not talking about non-Afghans who are supportive of terrorism, violence and extremism."

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=d72bd09b-c980-4892-9433-8467524abfdc&k=4394

[big bad john (John Hill)]

People continue to ask, some come here to this site for the answer.  We have had a few threads on this, now continuing on the vein.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0919/p07s02-wosc.htm

from the September 19, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0919/p07s02-wosc.html
In Kabul schools, fear of Taliban return
Students learning English in co-ed schools that proliferated since 2001 view the US skeptically.
By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN
Glory and service to country seem to drive the students taking private English lessons in one of the many foreign language schools that have opened here since the Taliban fell. They aspire to be doctors, engineers, and journalists - to elevate themselves above the decrepitude and insecurity they see all around them.

"I want to be an astronaut!" announces 14-year-old Arsalan. So does his little brother. Their friend, Seeyar, is determined to be president.

"He's on the land," says Arsalan. "We'll go to the stars!"

But those youthful dreams - expressed boisterously by these boys and more shyly inside a classroom of a dozen male and female students in their late teens - give way to details of fear about a Taliban resurgence and heartfelt concern about the US intent regarding the Muslim world.

Tamana's family returned to Kabul from Pakistan after US-led forces toppled the Taliban in 2001. "When I came, everything was destroyed, and people were destroyed," recalls Tamana, who wants to become a television journalist. "People couldn't say their opinion. They were fighting their brothers."

A pervasive fear is that the string of Taliban suicide attacks, and fighting between NATO and US forces in south and east Afghanistan, is a prelude to the Islamist militia again regaining control.

This recently opened school - along with many other language and computer schools in the capital - would be closed; women would be forced again to wear burqas.

"My family has decided they should remain in Afghanistan for the time being, because we can get an education," says Espozhmai, her hands covered in traditional henna, who was secretly home-schooled by her mother during the Taliban era. "We will decide what to do, if the Taliban takes Kabul."

Afsoon's family is also staying. "We don't want to live like refugees again," she says of the 11 years her family lived in Isfahan, Iran.

"We decided to stay, because my mother said: 'Afghanistan needs people like us to rebuild. If we don't reconstruct it, who will?' " Afsoon recalls of the dinner table conversation.

"I want to fight, to save my country," vows Fareshda, whose gentle face and slipping headscarf belie her desire to take on the Taliban and their uncompromising rules. "My family is happy, because they are in their own country."

"Our problem is our people. They are uneducated. They all the time are used as a tool by someone else," says teacher Shayan. "The first time the Taliban took control of Afghanistan I stayed. But if they come again, I will leave Afghanistan. I can't stand a second time."

So what do these students say are Afghanistan's three greatest needs today?

"Security," says Fareshda.

"Solidarity," says Tamana, the aspiring journalist.

"Peace. We need peace," says Assiya, who wants to be a doctor.

"If the situation stays like this, I'm sure the Taliban will come," says Ahmad, a recently graduated pharmacist who claims the US is supporting the Taliban with cash, because otherwise they "could not fight against the 25 countries of NATO.

"If they come, they will put rules on people," he says, adding that the US should build a wall along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban draw much support. "If they come by force, what can people do?"

Indeed, the Taliban may already be trying to cause harm in Kabul, according to a letter sent recently by the Ministry of Interior to top Afghan education ministers, warning that the Taliban has imported writing pens with a special gas mechanism that will "render people unconscious and clean [erase] their memories."

The Taliban, the letter said, planned to specifically distribute the pens to private foreign language and computer schools where men and women learn side by side.

But the Taliban - and problems of electricity shortages, insecurity, and weak government - are not the only things weighing on these young minds. The class quickly turns into a session in which an American visitor is peppered with questions.

"Why do the Americans attack Islamic countries?" asks teacher Farid. A chorus erupts from the class as students demand an answer.

Shayan tries to explain the reason for Afghanistan: "They attacked to save us from the Taliban and Al Qaeda," he says.

"The US government, especially Bush, is against Islam. He attacks Muslim countries," says Tamana, the journalist-to-be. She dismisses the examples of US-led airstrikes against Bosnian Serbs in 1995, to save Muslims in Sarajevo, and bombing of Serbia in 1999 to relieve pressure on Kosovar Muslims, as "minority" cases.

"Why did the Americans attack Iraq?" asks Farid.

"Why do the Taliban do suicide bombs?" asks Wais, who works in a trendy clothes shop. "Do you think this time the Taliban will be democratic?" he asks sarcastically, prompting muted laughter. "If they come back, we'll have to escape again to Pakistan."

"Why didn't the Americans eliminate the Taliban?" asks Farid, shaking his head.

"We appreciate the role of the US in Afghanistan," says Shabana, a shy girl who hopes to become a doctor. "We want the US Army to be here for a long time. We need your help."

"Apparently they are here to help us reconstruct, to help us stand on our own feet. But we'll be happy if they fight the Taliban now and stop them," says Afsoon. "Unless civilians are harmed by their attacks. They should be very careful."

[NavyShooter]

Well,

My wife asked me why we're in Afghanistan the other day.

My explanation was a little complex I guess.

I look at it this way.  Canada is the one nation that has not yet been hit from Al Queda''s "big 6" hitlist. 

If the talliban was still in control of Afghanistan, and providing a locale of support for AQ, what is the likelyhood that we would have had a terrorism incident in Canada by now?  Seeing as the other 5 have been hit, I'd say probably pretty good (or bad?)

If we examine the other terrorism attacks, from the London Bus attacks, WTC, Spain's Trains, etc, how many people are likely to die in one of these attacks on average?  Several hundred?

If our presence in Afghanistan aids significantly in preventing such an attack that would potentiall kill hundreds of innocents on our soil, then it is worthwhile.

I guess it's not really along the theme of the article posted above, but it's my perspective on why we're doing things.

NavyShooter

[Nieghorn]

I was just thinking this morning why it is that whenever one of our brave soldiers gets killed in Afghanistan, does the media and the people they interview ask why we're there.  I thought it was quite clear from when our troops moved into Kandahar that it was to root out the Taliban.  Several times it's been made quite clear to me from certain experts, the troops on the ground, and by my own reading that if they are not destroyed this failed state, with the potential to succeed, will go back to the oppressive regime it once was.  No human being deserves to live under conditions such that the Taliban maintained before 2001. 

I can't speak for our troops, but this looks like a noble cause worth fighting for.  Unfortunately for those on the extreme left, the Taliban  and al-Q don't seem to be the type of people who'll come to the table to discuss a peaceful end, understanding only 'diplomacy' by the gun and bomb.  I'm currently reading a book about modern military approaches to battling insurgencies, and two main elements seem to be the way of not only winning the battles, but also getting the local people on your side.  Unfortunately for safety's sake, this doesn't involve sitting around in bases and means patrolling far and wide, hitting insurgents where they live.  It also importantly means interacting with locals, helping them rebuild and establish infrastructure that will make their lives better.  It's really interesting to read how typical NGO work is being done by the military, but despite what the NDP thinks, this can only be done with a show of force.  This form of the old 'hearts and minds' strategy seems to be working from what I've read and not only are many people happy with our presence, those 'in the know' are willingly coming forward to help make the job of finding the 'bad guys' a lot easier.

For the sake of all concerned, I hope an end comes sooner than later, but I think our action in Afghanistan has a chance to really make a difference where history has seen similar cases in the past spiral into death and oppression of the innocent when the world ignored them.

[Lockness]

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing"  ...
...  Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/20/opinion/20hafvenstein.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Op-Ed Contributor
Afghanistan’s Drug Habit
Sign In to E-Mail This Print Single Page Save
 
By JOEL HAFVENSTEIN
Published: September 20, 2006
London
 
Jeffrey Smith
AS if there hadn’t been enough bad news from Afghanistan of late, now the country’s drug dependency is back in the headlines. On Sept. 2, the head of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reported that the shattered country is now producing 92 percent of the world’s supply of illegal opium, up from 87 percent in 2004. This deplorable new record will not be reversed by more belligerent counternarcotics measures. Instead, America, NATO and the Afghan government must reform a vital but neglected institution: the local police.

In 2004, for the first time in history, farmers in every province of Afghanistan chose to cultivate opium poppies. The American and Afghan governments promised a major poppy eradication campaign. Aid agencies scrambled to create an economic alternative for the thousands of Afghans who depended on poppy farming to survive.

Thus in November 2004, I traveled to Lashkargah, the capital of Helmand Province, the opium heartland of Afghanistan, as the deputy leader of an “alternative livelihoods” project financed by the United States Agency for International Development. Our core team was made up of six Western aid workers, and we hired some 80 Afghan staff members.

In the long-term plan, alternative livelihoods meant helping Afghan farmers export high-value crops like saffron and cumin. It meant restoring the orchards and vineyards that had once made Afghanistan a power in the raisin and almond markets. It meant providing credit to farmers who had relied on traffickers for affordable loans.

In the short run, however, with the first eradication tractors already plowing up poppy fields, we had no time for those approaches. Instead, we created public-works jobs. Like a New Deal agency, we handed out shovels to thousands of local Afghans and paid them $4 per day to repair canals and roads. We found plenty of work on Helmand’s grand but dilapidated irrigation system, a legacy of early cold-war American aid. By May 2005, we had paid out millions of dollars and had some 14,000 men on the payroll simultaneously. The program buoyed the provincial economy, and would have made a fine launching pad for long-term alternatives to poppy.

Security was our Achilles’ heel. There was a new American military base by the graveyard on the edge of town, but the few score Iowa National Guard members there lacked the manpower and the local knowledge to protect us. We could not afford the professional security companies in Kabul, most run by brash veterans of Western militaries. Then, just before Christmas, some of our engineers were carjacked. We resorted to the only remaining source of protection: the provincial police.

We soon found that at their best, the Helmand police forces were half-organized militias with charismatic leadership and years of combat experience. At their worst, the policemen were bandits, pederasts and hashish addicts. Our local guard captain was one of the better ones, but he was still far from reliable.

Once I asked him what he earned as a district police commander. “The governor paid us no salary,” he curtly replied. “The people gave us money. To thank us for solving their problems.” I was never sure if we were paying him enough to solve our problems.

When the attacks came, our security was useless. On May 18, five of our Afghan staff members were murdered in the field. The next morning, one of the funeral convoys was ambushed, leaving six more of our workers and their relatives dead. The police responded with indiscriminate arrests and bluster, but they lacked the investigative skills to catch the killers.

We heard rumors that the attackers were Taliban troops — and indeed, the attacks were harbingers of the Taliban resurgence that Helmand has seen in the last year. We also heard that the Taliban had been paid by local drug barons to attack our project. All we knew was that we were targets, and that we could not protect ourselves. Within days, we had stopped all our projects and most of the staff went home.

more on link

[MarkOttawa]

Harper to defend Afghanistan mission in first United Nations speech

A typically misleading Canadian headline, with a subtle implication that the mission has to be defended to the UN itself when if fact the mission is UNSC-mandated.  A truer headling would have been:

"Harper to seek domestic support for Afghanistan mission with UN speech".

Mark
Ottawa

[Lockness]

Support our troops - Bring em home! So the Taleban can once again take over Afghanistan.  See below for the Taleban's track record and make up your own mind on whether its right we should stay and help the international community or go.

Amnesty International - Afghanistan - Feb 28, 2001
Massacres in Yakaolang
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/afghanistan/document.do?id=D33D75136CB017EC80256A1C00664835
For several days Taleban forces massacred over 300 unarmed men and a number of civilian women and children. The victims were either summarily executed or deliberately killed.

Eyewitnesses told Amnesty International: "Some people in Kata Khana ran to the mosque for shelter thinking the Taleban would respect the sanctity of the mosque, but they were wrong!" They said they saw Taleban guards deliberately firing two rockets at the mosque where some 73 women, children and elderly men had taken shelter. The building collapsed on them but the Taleban guards would not allow anyone to go to their rescue for three days, by which time all those in the mosque had died except for two small children.

More on link

Amnesty International - Afghanistan - Feb 28, 1999
Detention and killing of political personalities
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/afghanistan/document.do?id=1794673D05436A638025690000693441
Up to 200 Afghan political personalities have been arrested in the past year apparently on account of their peaceful political activities and opposition to the continued armed conflict in the country. Those arrested include Afghan intellectuals, community leaders, former army officers or civil servants. The vast majority of the detainees are reportedly non-combatants arrested solely for their activities in support of peace and a broad based government in Afghanistan. Most of these detainees have reportedly been severely tortured. Over a dozen of them have been killed after their arrest. Some of the detainees have been released but as of February 1999, around 100 still remain in detention.

More on link

Amnesty International - Afghanistan Mar 31, 1998
Flagrant abuse of the right to life and dignity
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/afghanistan/document.do?id=B75FE8B21E581DC88025690000693223
In recent months, at least five men convicted of sodomy by Taleban Shari'a courts have been placed next to standing walls by Taleban officials and then buried under the rubble as the walls were toppled upon them. At least four alleged murderers have been executed in public by the family members of the murdered persons. At least five men have had their hands amputated on allegation of theft, and at least one man and one woman have been flogged by Taleban officials on allegation of adultery.

More on link

Amnesty International - Afghanistan Aug 31, 1997
Continuing atrocities against civilians
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/afghanistan/document.do?id=935B899FE372E31B802569000068A275
Amnesty International has recently received testimonies from the survivors of a massacre in the Afghan village of Qezelabad, near the northern city of Mazar-e Sharif. These testimonies reveal that about 70 civilians, including women and children were deliberately and arbitrarily killed on 14 September by armed Taleban guards as they were retreating from some of the positions they had captured in the area. All of the victims reportedly belonged to the Hazara minority which in recent years has frequently been targeted by the Taleban.

More on link


Amnesty International - Afghanistan May 31, 1997
Women in Afghanistan: The violations continue
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/afghanistan/document.do?id=E0380F6A0A485DDA8025690000692F85
...
Taleban restrictions imposed on women deny them some of their most basic and fundamental human rights, including the right to freedom of association, freedom of expression and employment. Similar restrictions imposed by any other group would equally amount to a violation of these rights;
Women in Taleban controlled areas of Afghanistan continue to be beaten by Taleban guards for defying orders about dress or for working outside their home;
Women detained or otherwise physically resticted under Taleban codes solely by reason of their gender would be considered by AI to be prisoners of conscience.

More on Link

[George Wallace]

In case the "Loyal Opposition" needs justification for Troops in Afghanistan, this breaking news ought to open up their eyes (Especially Jack Layton):   (Posted according to the Fair Dealings Act.)

Afghan workers killed in ambush

Nineteen construction workers have been killed in southern Afghanistan when their bus was hit by a bomb and then fired on by insurgents, officials say.
Three other workers were hurt in the attack in southern Kandahar province, the interior ministry said.

Meanwhile police say they have killed 20 suspected Taleban in central Uruzgan province. One policeman also died.

A spokesperson for the Taleban said that they had killed 14 policemen in the incident and denied losing any men.

More on the linked site.

[probum non poenitet]

Well, you see what you want to see, and hear what you want to hear ...

according to the NDP, President Karzai gave a "stern condemnation of the military operation" yesterday.

It's politics. Truth is secondary, you just need to twist the facts to score points, like a bad day in divorce court.

http://www.ndp.ca/page/4357

QUOTE from the NDP's website:

Within minutes of finishing his speech to the United Nations defending the unbalanced military mission in Afghanistan, Prime Minister Harper was contradicted by none other than President Karzai of Afghanistan.

Harper says:

" ... approximately 20,000 troops from 37 countries — roughly 2,500 Canadians included — are contributing to military efforts to help stabilise Afghanistan and eliminate the remnants of the Taliban regime once and for all."

—Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Speech to the United Nations General Assembly, 21 September 2006.

How Mr. Harper's take on things differs from that of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Karzai says:

"Bombings in Afghanistan are no solution to the Taliban. You do not destroy terrorism by bombing villages. You do not destroy terrorism by launching military operations in areas where only the symptoms have emerged."

—Afghan President Hamid Karzai, speaking at the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, CBC Newsworld, 21 September 2006

Harper told the UN, that "the democratically elected government of Afghanistan — led by President Karzai — requested the assistance of the United Nations and its member states in the struggle against terror, intimidation, violence and oppression." Given Karzai's stern condemnation of the military operation today, it's clear that the highest levels of the Afghan government are less supportive of this unbalanced military mission than the Conservatives are letting on.

[cplcaldwell]

Okay....

Looks like it's time for another letter to ndp.ca.

Talk about over the top!!!

Juvat, Infidel-6, you're assessment was quite right, and it took what? Twenty minutes?

"In war the first casualty is Truth"

[Yrys]

and it took what? Twenty minutes?

Probably less, the page of the npd web site is yesterday...