TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Losing the PR war at home and abroad (Afghanistan related)
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Losing the PR war at home and abroad (Afghanistan related)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...y/National/home

quote:

CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD From Monday's Globe and Mail TORONTO � If the Taliban are clobbering the Canadian Forces in the Afghan public relations war, as some fear, then bloody hell if the same thing isn't happening here at home. Over the weekend, modestly attended and utterly banal peace marches held in cities across the country led Saturday radio and TV newscasts and print websites (including The Globe and Mail's) and Sunday newspapers, but barely a scintilla of attention was paid to the awarding of prestigious Canadian military decorations and honours. The awards were announced midafternoon on Friday -- in plenty of time for newspaper deadlines -- but rated only a mention in some major Saturday papers, including The Globe (which ran only a brief, as we call minuscule stories, and then in only some editions) and the National Post. In Toronto, for instance, the only daily to run a proper story on Saturday was the Sun. In a world where the word "hero" has all but lost its meaning -- attached as it is to almost anyone who endures a mild trauma without mental collapse or meets the now low threshold of nominal good citizenship -- about 40 gallant Canadian soldiers went almost entirely unrecognized by the press, and thus by their countrymen. It is little short of disgraceful, and I have to say, when I saw my own newspaper on Saturday -- we managed to run four other Canadian Forces-related stories that day, including one which suggested that soldiers are low-achieving losers in flight from dead-end jobs -- I was ashamed. Virtually all those honoured are members of 1st Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry or those support and reserve units attached to them; they were the Canadian Battle Group in Kandahar during what the military calls Roto 1, the period from January-February this year through the end of August. Many of them are soldiers I got to know during my two tours as an embedded reporter in Afghanistan; a couple, including Sergeant Patrick Tower, the big dog among them all, I know well. Two of the awards -- for Captain Nichola Goddard, a 26-year-old from the 1st Royal Canadian Horse Artillery in Shilo, Man., who was given the Meritorious Service Medal, and 22-year-old Private Kevin Dallaire, who was mentioned in dispatches -- were made posthumously. Capt. Goddard and Pte. Dallaire were both killed in action, respectively, on May 17 and Aug. 3. Four of the decorations, including Sgt. Tower's, were awarded for the first time since 1993, when Canada created its own military honours, including a Victoria Cross, separate and distinct from the traditional British awards. So the announcement was momentous for two reasons -- first, the remarkable courage of those honoured, and second, because in four cases, the awards were historic. Sgt. Tower won the Star of Military Valour, in prestige behind only the Victoria Cross, which has never been awarded. The official citation reads as follows: "Sgt. Tower is recognized for valiant actions taken on Aug. 3, 2006, in the Pashmul region of Afghanistan. "Following an enemy strike against an outlying friendly position that resulted in numerous casualties, Sgt. Tower assembled the platoon medic and a third soldier and led them across 150 metres of open terrain, under heavy enemy fire, to render assistance. On learning that the acting platoon commander had perished, Sgt. Tower assumed command and led the successful extraction of the force under continuous small arms and rocket-propelled grenade fire. Sgt. Tower's courage and selfless devotion to duty contributed directly to the survival of the remaining platoon members." Three other soldiers were awarded the Medal of Military Valour. Sergeant Michael Denine's citation reads as follows: ". . . on May 17, while sustaining concentrated rocket-propelled grenade, machine gun and small arms fire, the main cannon and the machine gun on his light armoured vehicle malfunctioned. Under intense enemy fire, he recognized the immediate need to suppress the enemy fire and exited the air sentry hatch to man the pintle-mounted machine gun. "Completely exposed to enemy fire, he laid down a high volume of suppressive fire, forcing the enemy to withdraw. Sgt. Denine's valiant action ensured mission success and likely saved the lives of his crew." Master-Corporal Collin Fitzgerald, with B Company 1PPCLI out of Shilo, won his MMV for "outstanding selfless and valiant actions carried out on May 24, 2006, during an ongoing enemy ambush involving intense, accurate enemy fire. "MC Fitzgerald repeatedly exposed himself to enemy fire by entering and re-entering a burning platoon vehicle and successfully driving it off the roadway, permitting the remaining vehicles trapped in the enemy zone to break free. MC Fitzgerald's courageous and completely selfless actions were instrumental to his platoon's successful egress and undoubtedly contributed to saving the lives of his fellow platoon members." Private Jason Lamont, a medic, earned his MMV on July 13, when "an element of the reconnaissance platoon came under heavy enemy fire from a compound located in Helmand Province, and was isolated from the rest of the platoon. "During the firefight, another soldier was shot while attempting to withdraw back to the firing line and was unable to continue. Without regard for his personal safety, Pte. Lamont, under concentrated enemy fire and with no organized suppression by friendly forces, sprinted through open terrain to administer first aid. Pte. Lamont's actions demonstrated tremendous courage, selflessness and devotion to duty." On the day that Sgt. Tower performed so nobly, Aug. 3, four young Canadians were killed in combat -- first, Corporal Chris Reid, and shortly afterward, Sergeant Vaughn Ingram, Corporal Bryce Jeffrey Keller and Pte. Dallaire -- a number of others were badly wounded, and still more felled by the devastating summer heat. The scene, as it's been described for me in detail by participants from many corners of the battle, was nightmarish and horrific. Sgt. Tower was not only courageous, he remained calm enough to take care of his troops in ways great and small, and sufficiently devoted that once having led his men to safety, he was ready to go back out into the thick of the danger. As he told Commanding Officer Ian Hope and Regimental Sergeant-Major Randy Northrup, who themselves were awarded the Meritorious Service Cross, "Good to go, sir." Oh, and Sgt. Ingram was Sgt. Tower's best friend. The key to the SMV and MMV is a phrase I love, because it is so soldierly, so understated: The awards are given for an act of valour, self-sacrifice or devotion to duty "in the presence of the enemy." Well, the boys are back home now, minus their friends and mates killed in action or accident, and not all of the living have their limbs or their eyes, and all are changed. There are many days when they must wonder if somehow, they aren't still in the presence of some enemy even less readily identifiable than the Taliban. [email protected]

I am disappointed by most of Canadian media's reporting on Afghanistan, consistently focusing on the negatives in search of controversy that'll sell paper, yet disregarding the good things Canadians are trying to do.

Last Sat's 'day of protest' drew quite a bit of media attention, yet this award ceremony hardly received any.

It is as if the media wants Afghanistan mission to fail.
I am gratified that few journalists who have the balls to go against the media trend and give voice to the soldiers and others who want Afghanistan mission to succeed.

PM Harper needs to recognize that failing to win the PR at home does little good for the soldiers in Afghanistan.

the problem is not with harper. Its the left wing media that is bitter that their boys arent in office. The media never put the liberals through this kind of ringer yet the afghan mission was happening on their watch and they even initiated it. (including the current mission!). The somalia mess happened under their watch as well but you dont see the media crucifying the liberals for that either do you?

Shame on the media as you said, but kudos to harper for standing up for his principals whereas many others would sway whichever way the wind were blowing.

As ive always said, you may or may not agree with what harper says and does, but you have to admire a man who stands up for what he believes in and follows through on his word.

PS: i dont agree 100% with many of harper's views either but so far he has been true to almost everything he's promised and its only been 9 months.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 the problem is not with harper. Its the left wing media that is bitter that their boys arent in office. The media never put the liberals through this kind of ringer yet the afghan mission was happening on their watch and they even initiated it. (including the current mission!). The somalia mess happened under their watch as well but you dont see the media crucifying the liberals for that either do you? Shame on the media as you said, but kudos to harper for standing up for his principals whereas many others would sway whichever way the wind were blowing. As ive always said, you may or may not agree with what harper says and does, but you have to admire a man who stands up for what he believes in and follows through on his word. PS: i dont agree 100% with many of harper's views either but so far he has been true to almost everything he's promised and its only been 9 months.

Ref: left wing media I agree.

But Harper is not doing enough to fight against the left wing trend. I suppose he's still learning the PR ropes, esp. when one mistake means a media lynching (which he has so far avoided))

He who wins the propaganda battle, is he who wins the war.

but thats supposed to apply to foreign press, not your own. Not when it comes to war anyways.

I like Harper, I like the conservatives... But Afghan, is a mess. Far too much money being wasted half a world away. Its time Canada begins concentrating on fixing problems at home. This war on terrorism is a big load of bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by jazzyrj I like Harper, I like the conservatives... But Afghan, is a mess. Far too much money being wasted half a world away. Its time Canada begins concentrating on fixing problems at home. This war on terrorism is a big load of bullshit.

remember though that its the liberals that put us in the current mission. We already committed. You dont walk away from something once that promise has been made.

quote:

Originally posted by jazzyrj I like Harper, I like the conservatives... But Afghan, is a mess. Far too much money being wasted half a world away. Its time Canada begins concentrating on fixing problems at home. This war on terrorism is a big load of bullshit.

That's what American isolationists though during the 30s and beginning of WW2 too. (substitute terrorism with Nazis)

Ok listen, the typical Canadian attitude toward the Afghanistan mission bothers me big time. As a military historian in training, I don't understand why Canadians think our armed forces are all blue helmet wearing, school building peacekeepers! That is not the case and that is NOT what soldiers are trained to do. It's a recent invention that has its roots with Peason and Trudeau (who gutted our military by the way for 20 years)

The current administration did not send our boys over there; that was Chretien and I supported, and still support, the mission. When people join the army, they agree that their life is at risk. Everybody was gung ho at first and now that we have a few hundred casualties (42 dead), people start freaking out. What does everyone thinks SOLDIERS do? They fight and kill the enemy first, lend humanitarian aid second.

When you send our boys into the fray, some of them are going to get killed. That's war. I'd like to see today's media and public sentiment be transplanted to WW1 or WW2. I almost went to RMC (decided against it at the last minute) and if I had, I'd probably be over there right now. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan needed to be fixed.

But the minute you start pulling our soldiers away from their mission because we've sustained combat deaths, you're only helping those who they fight. It just boggles my mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20 Ok listen, the typical Canadian attitude toward the Afghanistan mission bothers me big time. As a military historian in training, I don't understand why Canadians think our armed forces are all blue helmet wearing, school building peacekeepers! That is not the case and that is NOT what soldiers are trained to do. It's a recent invention that has its roots with Peason and Trudeau (who gutted our military by the way for 20 years) The current administration did not send our boys over there; that was Chretien and I supported, and still support, the mission. When people join the army, they agree that their life is at risk. Everybody was gung ho at first and now that we have a few hundred casualties (42 dead), people start freaking out. What does everyone thinks SOLDIERS do? They fight and kill the enemy first, lend humanitarian aid second. When you send our boys into the fray, some of them are going to get killed. That's war. I'd like to see today's media and public sentiment be transplanted to WW1 or WW2. I almost went to RMC (decided against it at the last minute) and if I had, I'd probably be over there right now. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan needed to be fixed. But the minute you start pulling our soldiers away from their mission because we've sustained combat deaths, you're only helping those who they fight. It just boggles my mind.

couldnt have said it better myself. Furthermore calling soldiers "peacekeepers" is actually becoming offensive to many military families.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 couldnt have said it better myself. Furthermore calling soldiers "peacekeepers" is actually becoming offensive to many military families.

I think, since the western world hasn't really been affected by real war (total war) since WW2, people are forgetting what combat and war is all about. If we leave Afghanistan, who's next to leave? The Brits, the dutch? The Americans can't be everywhere at once. If everyone pulls out now, that country will be a complete mess. The only way I can see improving is to stay the course.

I don't mean to be insensitive for those who have died over there. My friend is in the RCR in Pettawa, has 1 year left on his contract and is expecting to be shipped over in March for a tour. But he knows the risks and he actually wants to go. This is why we have soldiers and a military. They engage and defeatenemies, not divy out sacks of wheat and build primary schools.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Smitty20

Bang on post.

Here's another editorial from one of my fav. blogs
http://www.ruxted.ca/index.php?/arc...sco-Juarez.html

quote:

Francisco Juarez In a recent Ruxted Group commentary, we pointed out that the Canadian Peace Alliance "has a right to express its views; it has no right to manufacture �facts� to support them." Now we see the NDP, the Canadian Peace Alliance, and fellow travelers touting their newest poster boy, Francisco Juarez - - Canada�s first "Afghan war resister" at various public events. Mr Juarez speaks passionately about his opposition to Canada�s present role in Afghanistan, as is the right of anyone in this country. Our problem is with casual disregard with which "facts" are being skewed to meet political agendas and the actions of an uncritical press corps in repeating these factual errors. Following service as a seaman in the Canadian Navy, Mr Juarez transferred to the Army Reserves and applied to be commissioned as an infantry officer. Merely a week into the Common Army Phase of his training, where one learns the very basics of soldiering, he expressed doubts about his military future. Refusing a command to complete a fitness obstacle course with his mates, his request for release from the Canadian Forces was granted. But now that he has become an orator for the various anti-Afghanistan factions, it appears that facts and fact checking by journalists are not about to stand in the way of a good story. Mr Juarez states that he left the Canadian Forces because he did not wish to serve in Afghanistan, indicating that he was to be sent there in 2007. Mr Juarez knows full well that the CF is not deploying untrained Reservist Officer Cadets to Afghanistan. Canada has NOT declared a military mobilization, and is NOT ordering part-time Reservists overseas. He would first have to complete his army and infantry-specific training. Following service at his unit to gain practical experience, he would then have to personally volunteer to deploy, and be selected for, this mission. If he was still in the running at this point, Mr Juarez would have had to compete with his peers to be selected. He would then undergo a minimum of six months pre-deployment training with the chance of opting out throughout the process if either he or the military deemed he was not suitable for deployment. This is not remotely the scenario being staged by Mr Juarez on behalf of the NDP and the CPA. Journalists should have known this; they would have known this if they had done even the most rudimentary fact checking. Journalists failed; they misled the Canadian public by repeating and rebroadcasting factual errors. Journalists, editors and publishers have thrown away all pretense of reporting the news � they have decided to propagandize for a point of view. The Ruxted Group thanks Mr. Juarez for his previous service to the country. We also sympathize with his decision to leave the military; not everyone is cut out for the profession of arms. The time has come for Mr. Juarez to come clean. As a former service member, however briefly, we are sure he is still familiar with the concepts of personal responsibility and honour. As such, he knows that we cannot quietly accept his blatant disregard for the truth.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 remember though that its the liberals that put us in the current mission. We already committed. You dont walk away from something once that promise has been made.

let the Afghans deal with it,

NATO, at least Canada should have pulled their troops out when the Afghan gov began behaving like so..

example:

http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=6878

You beg for international assistance to restore order. Yet when its provided to you by Christian (volunteers), you expel them because it could undermind your countries muslim believes. Fuck that!

quote:

Originally posted by jazzyrj let the Afghans deal with it, NATO, at least Canada should have pulled their troops out when the Afghan gov began behaving like so.. example: http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=6878 You beg for international assistance to restore order. Yet when its provided to you by Christian (volunteers), you expel them because it could undermind your countries muslim believes. Fuck that!

that's a good point actually. Missionaries, though a bit IN YOUR FACE sometimes, do selfless volunteer work like that, but they usually ahve their own agenda.

it reminds me when the so called "Lebanese Canadians" were bitching about the transport that our government arranged for them on such short notice to get them away from a war zone.

But that said, withdrawing our troops only taxes the Americans and British further and we're supposed to be staunch allies. If Afghanistan is left to itself, we'll end up with Taliban v.2. They're just waiting for the western armies to lose their nerve and pull out.

To get back to the media for a moment ; I have been to China 3 times in the last few years and watched the news there a lot. The best thing about their news? It's always good. No seriously, they show 90% good news. And you know what? I actually started feeling good again watching the news. They showed all the wonderful things that were happening in their country. Very refreshing for a change. Now I'm not saying we should do exactly the same but I believe it's time that the media is forced to show balance in their broadcasts. 50% good news and 50% bad news. If you think our media is neutral and objective think again. We only get to see what these profit motivated organizations think will make money for them. Not what the best news is for us. Remember, their only priority is their bottom line. Not quality journalism with balance.

Both strategically and tactically, it has been proven throughout history that it is impossible to win a war against guerillas in a landlocked Asiatic country.... especially with a foreign volunteer civilian force.

There needs to be NATO presence in war-torn Afghanistan, this I agree with. The Taliban kept tight repressive reins on that nation. But my opinion is that Canada needs to shift the mandate from aggressive military "sweep and clear" missions to primarily and exclusively those of rebuilding and feet-on-the-ground diplomatic relations.

It's impossible to win the hearts and minds of the people when there's collateral damage. The Taliban are regaining a foothold with the Afghani common people because after so many years, there hasn't been any appreciable improvement - quite the opposite, in fact. Under the Taliban regime, sure they were repressed and restricted from growing their mainstay cash crop (opium), but they were relatively out of the way from stray crossfire and unexploded cluster bombs.

Until the NATO forces, led primarily by Canada, change and adapt the military mandate, the Afghanistan occupation will remain a bleed on resources, both human and otherwise. It's just bad strategy; with the current execution of the occupation and rebuilding, the war is unwinnable and unending. You can't win a guerilla war against imbedded insurgents with a conventional military force.... especially against a people who have a history of resisting foreign occupiers since the Mongol Invasion in the thirteenth century.

I'm not saying pull out, I'm saying we need to re-examine the currently-vague mission objectives.

quote:

Originally posted by Shug Both strategically and tactically, it has been proven throughout history that it is impossible to win a war against guerillas in a landlocked Asiatic country.... especially with a foreign volunteer civilian force.

Oh really? Ask the Brits how they did it against Malay communists in the 50s.

quote:

There needs to be NATO presence in war-torn Afghanistan, this I agree with. The Taliban kept tight repressive reins on that nation. But my opinion is that Canada needs to shift the mandate from aggressive military "sweep and clear" missions to primarily and exclusively those of rebuilding and feet-on-the-ground diplomatic relations.

So who's going to do the 'aggressive military sweep and clear missions'?

Either case, there will still be IEDs, ambushes, suicide bombers no matter what role Canadians take. (BTW, Canada does have a Provincial Reconstruction Team which has a main purpose of humanitarian and reconstruction tasks w/ its own military component assigned just for security purposes and they take plenty of hit from Taliban)

quote:

It's impossible to win the hearts and minds of the people when there's collateral damage. The Taliban are regaining a foothold with the Afghani common people because after so many years, there hasn't been any appreciable improvement - quite the opposite, in fact. Under the Taliban regime, sure they were repressed and restricted from growing their mainstay cash crop (opium), but they were relatively out of the way from stray crossfire and unexploded cluster bombs.

Shit happens. It shouldn't, but humans make mistakes. If NATO is found negligent, those responsible should be punished, but there are rigid Rules of Engagement in place to prevent and to minimize Afghan civillian casualties as much as possible.

It doesn't help that Taliban hides among local population because you're right, NATO fucking up means more support for them, so of course they'll do their best to maximize civillian casualties.

As for whether life is better than Taliban than current Karzai govt, well, time is too short to judge that right now. 5 yrs is a blink in history.

But consider the fact that Taliban wants to repress Afghans as much as possible, incl. destruction of Afghan infrastructure, execution of Afghan govt, military and police, not to mention their version of society which incl. strictest of Sharia laws.
But at least with Karzai govt which was democratically elected by the Afghan people, you have beginning of genuine women's rights, democractic representation, etc. Does Karzai come with his own baggage, of course he does. But remember that not until early 90s did South Korea became a fully democratic country. It's hard for a nation with no democratic tradition to fully realize, and enjoy democracy.

quote:

Until the NATO forces, led primarily by Canada, change and adapt the military mandate, the Afghanistan occupation will remain a bleed on resources, both human and otherwise. It's just bad strategy; with the current execution of the occupation and rebuilding, the war is unwinnable and unending. You can't win a guerilla war against imbedded insurgents with a conventional military force.... especially against a people who have a history of resisting foreign occupiers since the Mongol Invasion in the thirteenth century. I'm not saying pull out, I'm saying we need to re-examine the currently-vague mission objectives.

Oh dear. Few misinterpretation of facts here.
1. Canada is part of NATO, and currently yes, Canada is leading contributor to mission in Afghanistan, but only one of few leaders, not the primary

2. NATO is operating in Afghanistan under UN resolution and has been invited to extend its mandate in Afghanistan by democratically elected Karzai govt and approved by further UN resolution.

3. While there are sizable minority opposed to NATO and Karzai, most of Afghans either approve of NATO presence (why not? because they're building roads, wells, schools, clinics, whatever and generally making their lives a bit better) or don't care. Now you can disagree with me on this, but my sources are from first hand accounts of soldiers who currently serve, or have served in Afghanistan since 2002.

4. Operations such as Medusa while came at high Canadian cost (considering we think 1 Canadian dead is high), but in effect, Canadians and fellow NATO members kicked a lot of ass. I don't know exact figure and there are still a lot of firefights that does not get reported for whatever reason, but the ratio is quite high and no matter how many virgins you get promised for dying for Taliban cause, it's going to give any potential new recruits a pause. (And indicators suggest a lot of Taliban recruits are coming from Pakistan)
Considering if you take high casualties, you're going to lose a lot of experienced fighters, Taliban is getting weaker, even if they can somehow fill all their casualties with recruits. (You can't conjure up experience from thin air)

5. All Canadian soldiers (well, at least the combat arms troops) are well trained in the concept of Full Spectrum Warfare (or sometimes known as 3 Block War) meaning, they are capable of doing a humanitarian mission in one block, next block do a 'peacekeeping' mission and in 3rd block capable of engage in a full firefight.
The continuous evolution of warfare since the collapse of Soviet Union meant that Canadian military had to adapt and evolve to changing nature of warfare. So while Canadian military is still capable of engaging in conventional warfare, it is capable of doing its job in any other environment as well.

6. I personally love this analogy.
It is not NATO or Canada that'll be solving Afghan problems. It will be the Afghan ppl through Karzai govt or whatever form they decide they want.
Afghanistan is like a boat with lots of holes right now and Canada, NATO and the world community is helping to bail out the water that is coming in, so that the Afghans can plug in the holes. (like lack of infrastructure, Taliban, etc)
If Canada and NATO goes away from Afghanistan, then the Afghan ppl have less 'bailing buckets' to keep the water out and that means Afghanistan goes back into anarchy again.

Of course there are improvements required in Canada and NATO presence in Afghanistan.
But I still think this is something worth putting in resources and Canadian lives at risk.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbitus To get back to the media for a moment ; I have been to China 3 times in the last few years and watched the news there a lot. The best thing about their news? It's always good. No seriously, they show 90% good news. And you know what? I actually started feeling good again watching the news. They showed all the wonderful things that were happening in their country. Very refreshing for a change. Now I'm not saying we should do exactly the same but I believe it's time that the media is forced to show balance in their broadcasts. 50% good news and 50% bad news. If you think our media is neutral and objective think again. We only get to see what these profit motivated organizations think will make money for them. Not what the best news is for us. Remember, their only priority is their bottom line. Not quality journalism with balance.

its called communist propeganda and looks like it works LOL

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree Oh really? Ask the Brits how they did it against Malay communists in the 50s.

Here you are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_emergency

quote:

Although the conflicts in Malaya and Vietnam differed on many points in so far as the details of their wars, it has been asked time and again by historians as to how a British force of 35,000 succeeded where over a half million soldiers of the U.S. and others failed. One of the main points that differentiated the two was that the MRLA never had a dependable ally close at hand like the Viet Cong did with the North Vietnamese Army. Another key point was the effectiveness of the Malayan Police Special Branch against the political arm of the guerilla movement.[3] . The MRLA was also, as mentioned above, a political movement almost entirely limited to ethnic Chinese; support among Muslim Malayans and smaller tribes was scattered if existent at all. The British war effort never suffered from anything approaching the criticism that hammered the U.S. in Vietnam, and the USSR and China were too involved in Korea to give serious aid to the MRLA. Also, many Malayans had fought side by side with the British against the Japanese occupation in World War II, including Chin Peng. This is in contrast to Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) where French colonial officials often operated as proxies and collaborators to the Japanese. This factor of trust between the locals and the colonials was what gave the British an advantage over the French and later, the Americans in Vietnam; Commonwealth troops saw ordinary civilians as allies, not enemies.

For each of the points above, think about how similar (or maybe not so similar) the current situation is.

Now draw your conclusions on when the current "insurgency" will end.

EvilTree, I think you misunderstood my point. I'm wondering if that misinterpretation was actually innocent, or instead a concerted attempt to set up a straw man argument.

In any case, I'm not arguing for the the moral differences between Talibani vs. Kurzai rule. Nor for the withdrawl of NATO or Canadian forces (as I explicitly stated). Nor against the validity of current humanitarian efforts by Canadian et al forces.

I'm saying that the current mandate and focus on aggressive clearing (before you disagree, note that there's a heavy imbalance between humanitarian vs. military spending... something like 1:10 or 1:20 - :source:) is strategically a poor move, given precedent in military history.... aside from the Malay Emergency. Although that seems too far removed to be considered a direct parallel. When engaging an embedded insurgency (or more generally, any weaker force), it's important to win decisively and completely, as quickly as possible. The longer a conflict of this type lasts on a timeline, the chances of the foreign success dramatically decreases. And the Afghan situation is five years old, with NATO now actually losing ground in the South - one step forward, two steps back.

Yes, Taliban is bad. Yes, giving power back to the Afghan is good. Yes, NATO and Canada belong there. I never disagreed with any of those points. I'm saying that given historical precedent, with the current direction taken with missions like Medusa, the conflict is doomed to be long, expensive, and bloody... with very little measurable returns and few quantitative milestones.

To carry your anology, instead of bailing out water, why doesn't NATO help the Afghans plug the holes with boat-cement, to fix it ASAP?

But, time will tell, won't it? :P

quote:

Originally posted by Shug EvilTree, I think you misunderstood my point. I'm wondering if that misinterpretation was actually innocent, or instead a concerted attempt to set up a straw man argument. In any case, I'm not arguing for the the moral differences between Talibani vs. Kurzai rule. Nor for the withdrawl of NATO or Canadian forces (as I explicitly stated). Nor against the validity of current humanitarian efforts by Canadian et al forces. I'm saying that the current mandate and focus on aggressive clearing (before you disagree, note that there's a heavy imbalance between humanitarian vs. military spending... something like 1:10 or 1:20 - :source:) is strategically a poor move, given precedent in military history.... aside from the Malay Emergency. Although that seems too far removed to be considered a direct parallel. When engaging an embedded insurgency (or more generally, any weaker force), it's important to win decisively and completely, as quickly as possible. The longer a conflict of this type lasts on a timeline, the chances of the foreign success dramatically decreases. And the Afghan situation is five years old, with NATO now actually losing ground in the South - one step forward, two steps back. Yes, Taliban is bad. Yes, giving power back to the Afghan is good. Yes, NATO and Canada belong there. I never disagreed with any of those points. I'm saying that given historical precedent, with the current direction taken with missions like Medusa, the conflict is doomed to be long, expensive, and bloody... with very little measurable returns and few quantitative milestones. To carry your anology, instead of bailing out water, why doesn't NATO help the Afghans plug the holes with boat-cement, to fix it ASAP? But, time will tell, won't it? :P

The thing about Taliban is that they are still active and IMO the pressure needs to be kept up so that they don't regroup and be strong again as they have been this year.
IMO this happened because of shift of focus from Afghanistan to Iraq by Bush administration and other major US allies shifted focus accordingly and left fighting the Taliban effort shorthanded, giving them time to regroup and refocus, and they've gotten stronger.

Without a major effort to finish off the Taliban, any humanitarian effort will be target of Taliban attacks and it just means wasted money.

If Taliban wants to get into a pitched battle with NATO, it just makes the job easier.

NATO is helping the Afghans to plug the holes in the boat, but like I said, it's got to be an Afghan solution to an Afghan problem. Means Afghans will have to find a way to create a workable and responsible govt with working civil and social infrastructure. We're just along the ride to give them a hand as they need, train them, so that they have the tools to create their own society.

We do not want to create an Afghan society that will continuously require Western aid in order to survive. We want them to slowly get off the Western aid and be functional on their own.

Afghanistan is not a short term project, but a long term project.

Haha, I just realized from your sig that you're into WH40k. All your points are rendered moot. :P Jokes.

I think we're running circles around our mutually agreed points; where we disagree is at the methods of execution. I don't think that the situation is 'winnable' in any quantitative measure in its current incarnation, whereas you do. I don't think this is an enemy that can be beaten with military might alone, whereas you do. I think that the war on the Taliban is an expensive and unending war, whereas you see an end - however far away and costly you concede it to be.

It all comes down to opinion, since no matter how much stats and sources we throw at each other, neither of us can predict the outcome. It's just too bad that I can't specifically choose what parts of the government spending my taxes go.... but then again, too much democracy isn't a good thing.

quote:

.... but then again, too much democracy isn't a good thing.

My point exactly with my 'media post earlier'.

1)'Media says : 105 soldiers die in worst month'. I say: This is war. And what you're really telling me is more people die in car accidents here in a week.
2) These wars are winnable. But we're not fighting a real or traditional war here. We're policing. If it was a real all out war it could be done in a few days if the U.S. really wanted too....
3) But then there's 'media' and the following (media tainted) public outcry.(Our own form of propaganda due to lack of balance and direction of the media)
4) The radicals in this world know how to exploit our democracy and media to great effect. They know how weak and directionless they can be. (Too much democracy?)
5)Hopefully people will learn to respect each others beliefs and let them practice them freely. (As long as they don't harm others.)

quote:

Originally posted by Shug Haha, I just realized from your sig that you're into WH40k. All your points are rendered moot. :P Jokes.

You must be a Chaos heretic

quote:

I don't think this is an enemy that can be beaten with military might alone, whereas you do. I think that the war on the Taliban is an expensive and unending war, whereas you see an end - however far away and costly you concede it to be.

Actually, I don't think you can beat the Taliban on military might alone. You're right. Humanitarian efforts (aka 'hearts and minds') in the end will be the decisive factor in defeating Taliban by turning the general Afghan population away from them.
The Afghan ppl and its govt will be the decisive factor in defeating the Taliban.

But, I also believe that you gotta stop the Taliban and put a cork on them to the point that where humanitarian efforts can succeed, without Taliban coming back to destroying them.
We just differ on what should come first.

If you think Canada has very little to gain from being in Afghanistan, then why do you agree that Canada should be there still?

(Nothing personal, just having a debate)

quote:

Originally posted by Shug Both strategically and tactically, it has been proven throughout history that it is impossible to win a war against guerillas in a landlocked Asiatic country.... especially with a foreign volunteer civilian force. There needs to be NATO presence in war-torn Afghanistan, this I agree with. The Taliban kept tight repressive reins on that nation. But my opinion is that Canada needs to shift the mandate from aggressive military "sweep and clear" missions to primarily and exclusively those of rebuilding and feet-on-the-ground diplomatic relations. It's impossible to win the hearts and minds of the people when there's collateral damage. The Taliban are regaining a foothold with the Afghani common people because after so many years, there hasn't been any appreciable improvement - quite the opposite, in fact. Under the Taliban regime, sure they were repressed and restricted from growing their mainstay cash crop (opium), but they were relatively out of the way from stray crossfire and unexploded cluster bombs. Until the NATO forces, led primarily by Canada, change and adapt the military mandate, the Afghanistan occupation will remain a bleed on resources, both human and otherwise. It's just bad strategy; with the current execution of the occupation and rebuilding, the war is unwinnable and unending. You can't win a guerilla war against imbedded insurgents with a conventional military force.... especially against a people who have a history of resisting foreign occupiers since the Mongol Invasion in the thirteenth century. I'm not saying pull out, I'm saying we need to re-examine the currently-vague mission objectives.

You don't think for a second, given Canada's history for negotiation, that wouldn't have been thought of?

Secondly, this isn't going to happen overnight or with the snap of a finger. To me, this is the biggest PR obstacle in our Western, "Gimmie-Now-Insta-Gratification" mindset.
People like instant results these days and the thought of slow, methodical, purposeful steps is causing their ADD symptoms to flair up. The MSM (Main Stream Media), of course, doesn't help in all this either...

There's no easy way around this and yes lives will be lost, however I have faith in our Canadian troops in that they know what they're doing.
I've read several articles in major Canadian magazines regarding our troops in Afghanistan; how they actually talk to the locals, have tea with them, respect the fact that we're in THEIR land but that we're there with a purpose.
I'm very proud of them and so should you.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.