At least some Canadian soldiers will remain in Afghanistan after the 2011 pullout from Kandahar. CTV reports that top brass say Canada will keep trainers in Afghanistan but that they'll operate "behind the wire." Maybe if we can keep the Afghan recruits behind the wire we can keep them from deserting.
Nato hopes to have a viable Afghan army trained, equipped and detoxed by no later than 2076.
14 comments:
And not a mention of the desertion rate did I hear yesterday, from numerous media reports. Wouldn't you think this would have a direct correlation to our 'mission' to stay?
The leadership in this war, military and civilian, across the board, has been so inept that it must ignore reality in policy making. We can't even accept that Afghanistan is in a state of civil war, not merely pestered by some insurgency. We conveniently ignore that the government we serve there is a criminal enterprise. We don't mention that there has never been a stable Muslim nation that did not first overcome the scourges of warlordism and tribalism. We ignore the corrosive influences Afghanistan endures from its surrounding "Stan" neighbours, particularly Pakistan. We pretend that our lead partner's geopolitical interests in the region are divergent from our own. This whole miserable business only makes sense from the perspective of simply banging away at Afghans.
The issue of democratic legitimacy is sadly overlooked by many (especially politicians in Ottawa) in this debate. The results of the most recent presidential and parliamentary elections do not reflect the will of the Afghan people. The Karzai government bribes, kills or otherwise neutralizes anyone who challenges its power. It wages war on its own people. It is among the worst governments in terms of human rights and public sector corruption. Worst of all, it appears completely unrepentant and unwilling to change. Should the Canadian government be providing military and financial assistance to such a government?
If yes to financial assistance to Afghanistan, why not yes to Burma? Or Somalia? Or North Korea?
double nickel, Afghanistan will provide some route for natural gas from former Soviet states.
Burma,Somalia,North Korea offer nothing in return.
LD is right on the energy motive. The long dreamed of Trans-Afghan Pipeline is intended to transmit Caspian Basin oil and gas through Afghanistan and into Pakistan and India and south to waiting tankers - keeping it safely beyond Russian control. Halliburton was busy lobbying the Taliban for pipeline rights while Cheney was CEO. Cheney even pushed the Clinton government to lift sanctions on the Talbis.
These geopolitical interests remain invisible to our national dialogue about Afghanistan and that's unfortunate.
The Americans built their biggest embassy in the world in Baghdad. It's roughly the same size as Vatican City. Now they're building an embassy almost as large in Islamabad. Does that sound like a country interested in hobbling together an Afghan army so it can bail out?
Had to laugh today when reading an editorial from Pamela Walling stating the Afghanistan is “winnable” (National Post)... What does she offer as proof?
“We reached 100% of our goal for training and of corrections officers and managers”
“Twenty-three thousand and five hundred Afghans had received literacy training compared to the 2011 target of 20,000”
She goes on to state:”Canadian Forces have made much of this possible by training and mentoring Afghan National Security Forces...”
Harpecons are floating trial balloons, likely to be helped by Iggy... I wonder what this once journalist got paid for this...
Anon, now you know how she and Duffy got the Senate seat. They're brilliant butt kisser.
Ass kissers, yes. Brilliant? Not so much.
I wonder how Wallin defines "win." You'll recall when this grand adventure began almost a decade ago, 'win' meant 1) defeating the Taliban, 2) capturing bin Laden and eradicating al Qaeda, 3) establishing a viable, democratic government in Kabul, 4) recruiting, equipping and training an Afghan National Army, and 5) instituting Western liberal notions of human rights including, in particular, women's rights.
Looking back on the past 9+ years, the Taliban are resurgent; bin Laden is apparently alive and busy in Pakistan; al Qaeda has spread throughout the Middle East and North Africa; we have a criminal enterprise in lieu of a viable government in Kabul operated by a totally corrupt bureaucracy, judiciary and security service; the country has morphed into a narco-state; Afghan soldiers desert at roughly the same rate as we manage to train them; and the warlords we empower have restored Islamist fundamentalism to the countryside crushing all the nonsense about women's and human rights.
Now, beyond that there might be something I missed that Senator Wallin perceives as 'winnable.' Or maybe she is, as LD suggests, just another Harper butt kisser.
The South Koreans are in Afghanistan like a dirty shirt. Their motive? To help rebuild Afghanistan by providing schools, hospitals and roads. What are the rewards? Why....all the natural materials they can send back to South Korea to produce products to send back to us to purchase. Is Canada anywhere near this. By the way, South Korea has taken Canada's place in the UAE. Anyong
That's interesting Anyong. Are the Koreans confined to civil work or are they involved in the military side? I assume if they got our slot in the Emirates they must be moving military personnel and equipment.
Anon, 11:42 AM (November 08, 2010), you have a point. I was sarcastic about "brilliant" but what about “shameless” butt kissers.
Anon @ 5:43 am - "The Karzai government bribes, kills or otherwise neutralizes anyone who challenges its power." Reminds me of the path the Cons have taken here. Our PM fires, silences or otherwise neutralizes anyone who challenges the PMOs power - with the help of a complaisant media. H/T EFL Pro-War Pundits: Completely Incoherent, Completely Absurd, for the media connection. LK.
Post a Comment