Stephane Dion is currently in or leaving Afghanistan -- a good place for him to be.
It's time for Canadian politicians to insist on a visit to the UN Security Council. Here is WHY. and if they don't, the Canadian citizen must lead the way.
This is the real news of the day on Afghanistan taken off Crooks and Liars:
Defense officials aren’t calling it a surge, but it sure looks like one. The Pentagon is poised to send more than 3,000 additional troops to Afghanistan — all of them Marines, ABC News learned Wednesday.
The plan is a sign that things are not going well in Afghanistan. Commanders say they simply do not have enough troops to deal with the increased threat.
More violence struck Kabul today.And in case you are too lazy to go look at the links, this is the "meat" of US government's (the Bush Administration) announcments (bearing in mind that ABC is the CIA in action)
The additional forces include a Marine expeditionary unit and Marine battalion -- a total of 3,200 additional troops. The units will include helicopters, combat forces, and trainers to work with the Afghan army. They will go to Helmand province, a Taliban stronghold where coalition forces have been engaged in heavy combat.
*snip*
Defense officials tell ABC News that General McNeill has said he needs a total of 7,500 additional troops in Afghanistan. But with the military stretched thin in Iraq, this is all he can expect to get for now, they said.
The Canadian Vandoo regiment has already been shipped into Afghanistan. This is the Canadian propaganda put out on 3 January ..
Weaker insurgency lets Van Doos focus on roadbuilding
The Canadian Forces will follow through with promises this year to pave roads and build new infrastructure in two volatile Kandahar districts, Brig.-Gen. Guy LaRoche said Wednesday.
Now I may be a "weak, little female" and my coverage of the first line war is incomplete, but it does not take a genius to figure out that the roads are being fixed cuz more tanks, guns, ammo and supplies are needed in fighting the "insurrengency" in Iraq, not much to do with stabilitization of the region. Any effective intelligence efforts would have let them know this. It's a war of .... logistics. So let's look at the Canadian logistical support based on what the US (and the coalition) actually need and contrast that with the current hyperbole and media hype.Take a look at what LaRoche said to the press:
So I wonder -- how many more lost Canadian soldiers is "way too many."
While observing that "seven (lost soldiers) is way too many," LaRoche attributed the drop in fatalities to new equipment, including the metal-detecting Husky vehicle, and a change in strategy toward more foot patrols.
Could the Afghanians actually defend "their own"?
From the US, Related Stories from ABC News today (don't expect US news sources to talk about NATO or Geneva):
Talking about 3,000 US troops for Afghanistan is meaningless. Other analysts suggest far larger numbers are needed, not to mention the looming requirement of the Afghans to start a draft.
However, even if a draft were started to day, Afghan forces would not meet their current-planned requirements until the end of next year, 2009. Neuman in NYT raised the issue of supporting a draft in Afghanistan. The editorial well outlines some of the challenges NATO has yet to address. This is a start.
Here is what Dion said to the press, via the Globe and Mail:
And here is what the inimitable Mr. Ignatieff has had to say:But what what does the Prime Minister (public servant, incidentally) have to say about Canadians gaining first hand knowledge of the situation in Afghanistan (and remember an election is looming ..), according to the Globe and Mail:
Ah! the old neocon SHAME racket. The very people who should be ashamed, point fingers and belittle people's efforts to get some sanity and try to meet their obligations as public servants.
But Canada is in a tricky position - it's a NATO and Geneva signatory AND a UN participant.
Whither Canada ..?? What's the plan??
The editorial in the NYT quoted above fails to consider NATO’s Geneva obligations: To provide stability as an occupying power. The record of NATO is unclear: Other than Bosnia, this is essentially the first “large scale” use of NATO ground forces outside the NATO theater: NATO remains untested; NATO’s record as an occupying power in Afghanistan has not met the test.
Why should NATO’s failures should be pawned off to the Afghans?
The more appropriate solution would before NATO to outline the NATO-plan to provide security; then transition that stability to the local Afghans. Afghanistan may need a draft; but NATO needs to provide leadership, and now-implement a plan for NATO troops to provide stability.
Brussels Needs To Outline A NATO Plan
Before we talk seriously about “What Afghanistan should do” it’s more appropriate to talk about what NATO has a responsibility to do, now:
Implement a plan, and first discuss in Brussels a military draft within NATO countries.
Current NATO ground forces are insufficient. The post-2001 assumptions need to be revisited. NATO leaders need to discuss whether they want to remain relevant as an alliance in responding to an attack on one.
If NATO seriously discusses and implements a draft; then provides stability for Afghanistan, then the Afghans will see there is something they can do, and that their draft would contribute to something that is real, not something NATO imagines, but cannot provide. NATO needs to first stand up; and as the Afghans are prepared to fill-in, then NATO can take a smaller role.
How does Canada respond to the US political situation??Congress and Pelosi Cannot Rubber Stamp, as Was Done With FISA, POW Treatment Issues
Congress with the AUMF, the Authorization for Military Force permitted the Bush Administration to use forces. However, the US steadfastly refuses to follow Geneva.
It’s time for the US Congress, in concert with the legislatures of NATO, to discuss funding requirements to conduct drafts in NATO countries; and provide the security Geneva requires. Then we can talk about transitioning the NATO-led stability to the Afghans.
Anything else, asks us to reward incompetent planning relative to Geneva; not forcing NATO to meet its Geneva obligations; and expecting the Afghans to do what NATO has not been able to do: Provide stability.
As a recognized and respected signatory to Geneva, Canada needs to be wary of its allies' political agendas.So here is the point, as the world (including Canadian citizens!) read of the nuclear threat the US is making on Iran in the press daily (or watch it on TV) ...
The restoration of stability in Afghanistan will take time and resources; and despite the saber-rattling, it is premature for the US to credibly attack Iran.The rebuilding of Afghanistan is going to take many decades, as it did in Germany.
The problem has been, unlike Germany’s WWII, the US has not led the effort to provide security in Afghanistan, but removed the troops.
Imagine that the US won WWII, but moved combat forces out of Berlin, and marched against Russia. Patton’s dream then of using the Allied forces to confront Russian Communism was imprudent, just as BuZh's s foolish invasion of Iraq has proved to be.
Shall we go back to "logistics"?
Resource constraints must be embraced and managed, not pawned off to the occupied peoples of Afghanistan.
The US Congress and Canada Need to Engage With Russia and India
The right forum isn’t just NATO, but the UN Security Council. Indeed, the problems from Pakistan will be challenging, and this requires getting the Indians, Chinese, and Russians on board to get their support in a regional stabilization effort.
Let’s make NATO and the UN work as intended, unlike what happened during the run up to the illegal US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Canada can provide the leadership to that will provide the focus on showing the world that NATO and the UN Security Council can provide stability for Afghanistan; and help meet its Geneva obligations as it helps the Afghans provide for security.
NATO does not hold all the cards. It is unfair, and may prove politically imprudent to expect the Afghans to pick up an incomplete deck.
Your move, Mr. Dion .... I think we can safely say Mr. Harper doesnt' have the balls to admit his mistakes or say his NATO commanders are WRONG.
So Mr. Layton may be right:
As for the people of Canada with these people as leaders, who needs a military foe? From one we get a bunch of cronies supporting the Bush Administration (and lieing about it), from another a dangerous set of delusions and a sense of responsibility based on FACT, and from the other a "give up" attitude.
I guess, that as in the United States, the Canadian people must speak up as they are left in a leaderless vacuum, with only the bills to pay for unbridled war fever. We deserve far better leadership. Go to the security council, join with others who have concerns about stability in the Middle East, and make a real NATO plan based on Geneva. Too tough for Canadian leaders? I guess so.
Here is the google search link to Canada Afghanistan news.