MILNEWS.ca Blog

This just in from the Canadian Press (highlights mine):

“Al-Qaida and other hard-core terrorist groups are behind only a fraction of the attacks carried out in Afghanistan over a four-year period, says a recently completed U.S. intelligence analysis.  The study by the Washington-based Open Source Center paints a nuanced picture of the insurgency as violence reached a new crescendo in July.  The analysis shows that between 2004 and 2008, ethnic Pashtun Taliban were responsible – or most likely responsible – for 97 per cent of the bombings, ambushes and kidnappings …. “The data indicate that 64 per cent of the (Afghanistan) incidents were carried out solely by the Taliban, and 33 per cent of the incidents had unknown perpetrators,” said the 12-page analysis, compiled in April and recently released online.  “Because many incident reports omitted information on the perpetrator, it is likely that many of the perpetrators classified as ‘unknown’ are likely to be Taliban.”….”

“Recently released” appears to mean about three months ago – here’s where it first appeared 5 May 09, courtesy of anti-secrecy advocate and infosleuth Steven Aftergood at the Federation of American Scientists.

The report is an intriguing read, and presents an example of an interesting way to show where things are happening.  The techniques have been used for some time by law enforcement and the military, but it’s nice to see this sort of thing being shared publicly.

FYI, the Open Source Centre is a part of the U.S. intelligence community focusing on collecting and analyzing open source intelligence (OSINT) – from the public portion of its web page:

“OpenSource.gov provides timely and tailored translations, reporting and analysis on foreign policy and national security issues from the OpenSourceCenter and its partners. Featured are reports and translations from thousands of publications, television and radio stations, and Internet sources around the world. Also among the site’s holdings are a foreign video archive and fee-based commercial databases for which OSC has negotiated licenses. OSC’s reach extends from hard-to-find local publications and video to some of the most renowned thinkers on national security issues inside and outside the US Government.”

I’ve attended two open source intelligence (OSINT) conferences hosted by the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (2008 conference site here, and blog of proceedings here), and found the OSC folks I met passionately devoted to getting as much good intelligence from information that’s out there in the open.  In the words of a former commander of CENTCOM, Antohny Zinni:

“80% of what I needed to know as CINCENT I got from open sources rather than classified reporting.  And within the remaining 20%, if I knew what to look for, I found another 16%.  At the end of it all, classified intelligence provided me, at best, with 4% of my command knowledge.”

(Aside:  Is it worthwhile having a similar operation in Canada?  Do we have a critical mass of OSINT  expertise to be able to pull it together? While I let this idea stew a bit for a possible future post in more detail, I’ll leave it to greater minds than mine for the moment.)

Two tidbits caught my eye this week on how (maybe) politicians selling Canada’s mission more could have led to more public support to stay longer until more of the job is done.  All highlights are mine

This, from the Toronto Star:

“….Military historian Jack Granatstein says Canadians likely could have been convinced to keep more than 2,000 troops in Afghanistan, if Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other federal politicians had done more to tell the public about the goals of the mission.  “The government … has simply not been willing for the last two years to explain to people why we are there, what we are doing,” he said. “We should stay, but I think it’s very difficult to sustain a commitment to a military operation without public support. And the way you get public support is to have your political leaders tell you why you are there and why it’s important.” ….”

and this from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix (in spite of the fact that I disagree with the very general premise that Canada’s Afghan mission will eventually be looked back upon as a “failure” like Dieppe):

“…. In all the years Canada struggled with its mission in southern Afghanistan, Germany remained in what then was the quiet north, determined to avoid the fighting. This year, however, the Germans are discovering that war is never a spectator event. The fighting has spread north because there aren’t enough NATO troops willing to pay the price to actually defeat the enemy. This includes Canada, whose leaders were willing to put a few hundred troops in harm’s way but never wanted to risk their own political careers by trying to convince Canadians the war only could be won with an all-out effort….”

More, from the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada :

“Under the Canadian parliamentary system, ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister and to Parliament for presenting and explaining government policies, priorities and decisions to the public. Ministers, both individually and collectively as members of Cabinet, are the principal spokespersons for the Government of Canada and its institutions. It is their role to provide leadership in establishing the priorities and overall themes of government communications.

(….)

Ministers are the principal spokespersons of the Government of Canada. They are supported in this role by appointed aides, including executive assistants, communication directors and press secretaries in ministers’ offices, and by the senior management teams of government institutions, which include deputy heads, heads of communications and other officials. Ministers present and explain government policies, priorities and decisions to the public. Institutions, leaving political matters to the exclusive domain of ministers and their offices, focus their communication activities on issues and matters pertaining to the policies, programs, services and initiatives they administer.”

Plain English translation: politicians explain “why,” officials (including military ones) explain “how”.

7 Aug 09 Update: Is it too late?  More here.

The Talib Info Machine has cranked out a statement (Arabic online – .pdf of Arabic at non-terr site – Arabic to Google English – .pdf of official English at non-terr site) calling for a boycott of the upcoming elections.

Joshua Foust at Registan.net calls this “wonderful news”:

“Seriously, I was worried when the Taliban hadn’t contested any of the voter registration drives, not even in insurgency-ridden areas like Ghazni or Kunar. To me, that indicated they felt so unthreatened by the election that it was fine to let it proceed—and even worse, the inevitability of Hamid Karzai to lose win could be easily spun into “democracy doesn’t work.””

Well put.

I guess the Taliban can be happy now – they’ve reportedly shot down a helicopter in Kandahar Province:

“Mujahideeen of the Islamic Emirate shot down an American military helicopter at Chinar naw area of Shah Wali Kut district. As Mujshideen closed Kandahar –Uruzgan highway, the enemy tried to open the highway but faced resistance from Mujahideen. Severe fighting erupted which continued for three hours. Shells of mortars destroyed two tanks of the enemy while two tanks were destroyed by mine explosion. All the crew of the tanks has been killed. The report adds, the crashed helicopter is still in the area.”

A .pdf version of the statement is also viewable at a non-jihadi page here.

What Taliban mouthpiece Q.Y. Ahmadi DOESN’T mention is that they were shooting at a medical helicopter – this, from ISAF:

“Earlier this afternoon, an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) convoy, in southern Afghanistan, struck an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) resulting in the wounding of soldiers. When helicopters arrived to evacuate the wounded soldiers the insurgents opened fire on the medical evacuation operation, damaging one of the helicopters.

An attack on clearly marked evacuation aircraft is in clear violation of international accords for the protection of medical personnel.

One helicopter left the scene with all the wounded personnel whilst the damaged helicopter remains on the ground.”

A .pdf version of ISAF’s statement is available here.

It’s always possible the Taliban will say the ISAF statement is a lie, but this posting from Frostnipped Elf at Army.ca indicates the chopper would have been clearly marked:

“Medevac choppers are the only military platform that still use the Red Cross emblem outside the wire.  The ground ambulances ceased having Red Cross panels facing out several years ago because they were found to be too attractive as a target. “

Maybe the meaning of the Red Cross didn’t make it into their new manual?  In the same post, Frostnipped Elf also brings up another interesting point:

“I (the medical evacuation chain and the helo squadron commander) would be more concerned that an evacuation chopper was directed to and attempted to land in a non-secure helicopter landing site.”

Good point (although I could imagine situations where, potentially, it’s safe one minute, and not so much the next).

A few comments:

1)  I guess the Taliban High Command’ll be all over the troops on this one – after all, they have a new code of conduct, right?

2)  I’m sure the Taliban will also issue an update said code of conduct to expain  what the Red Cross (or Red Crescent or Red Diamond) mean.

3)  I await with interest media coverage of this transgression of “international accords for the protection of medical personnel” (as well as the fact that the Taliban are not signatories to said accords).

I’m not holding my breath.

Just logged on, and find one of my regular sources of English-language Taliban and other propaganda, Anti-Imperialist Muslim Forums, is back up and running.

Enjoy the lies!

Remember my concerns, and those of others, regarding Canada’s increasing focus on protecting Kandahar City while pulling out of the hinterlands?

Well, it seems to be almost official – this, from CanWest News Service:

“The marriage between Canadian and American troops in war-plagued Kandahar is still some weeks away from consummation, but the two forces have settled on a division of labour for Canadian-American military and civilian efforts in the battle-plagued Taliban heartland.

Which country will be responsible militarily for what parts of Kandahar is not something Canadian or American officers have wished to discuss in precise detail, but the rough overlay is expected to have the Canadians concentrating their effort against the Taliban insurgency primarily in heavily populated areas such as Kandahar City and its southern and western approaches.

The 3,000 or 4,000 fresh U.S. troops from a cutting edge, light-armoured Stryker Brigade will cover the rest of the province, including a few distant places that Canada has until now usually maintained a presence.

(….)

“The opportunity for us is that where we have had forces deployed in very small numbers, conducting very important operations, we can bring them back into our main effort,” (Canada’s Joint Task Force Afghanistan Commander Brigadier General John) Vance said. “Where we normally had a company-sized element, they will put in a battalion-sized element and enablers. It is an order of magnitude of difference in capability in those areas and we get to concentrate our force.” “

Good for Kandahar as a whole ONLY:

1)  as long as Canadian troops remain in K’Har City, and
2)  as long as US troops remain in the rest of K’Har Province.

Time will tell.

Also, there was some MSM hand-wringing about the potential need for private sector security to protect Canada’s work on the Dahla Dam.  Now, this, in the same article, from General Vance:

“Just because it happens that the headwaters will exist within an American AO does not mean the project will stop,” Vance said of the $50-million undertaking, which is slated to be completed by the end of 2012. “It will be serviced by Canadian civilians, but some of the prima facie military support will come from Americans.”

No need for opponents of the war to dust off their boilerplate “private military contractors=mercenaries” letters to the editor.

In a speech to NATO this week, England’s Foreign Secretary David Miliband made the case for Afghanistan to start talking to “moderate” Taliban elements as a way to start reconciliation:

“Taliban commanders and foot soldiers face an increasingly debilitating struggle. From this position, we need to help the Afghan government exploit the opportunity, with a more coherent effort to fragment the various elements of the insurgency, and turn those who can be reconciled to live within the Afghan Constitution.”

Although including the right caveats:

“Any future peace deals to reconcile militants should have clear red lines: they need to be prepared to shut out Al Qaida, and not use violence against troops or citizens in Afghanistan.”

some don’t think now’s the time to talk.  Notwithstanding the lack of robustness of recent deals with Talibs,  I have to agree with Registan.net

“Militants are fighting in Afghanistan for many reasons, but not one of them is planting bombs and shooting at NATO because he doesn’t have sufficient opportunities to vote.”

and Prairie Pundit

“The Taliban are not honorable people. There word is no good and they have a religious belief that it is their duty to lie to people of other faiths in order to achieve their objectives. They also have expressed no interest in any such talks, which makes the exercise look desperate and ridiculous.”

Win, THEN offer to talk.

The Taliban is reportedly handing out a new manual for the troops, reminding them to fight nicer.

Read the rest of this entry »

This recently from MERX, Canada’s public tender posting page (bolding mine):

“….Defence Research & Development Canada (DRDC) have a requirement to retain the services of a contractor to provide support for DRDC Toronto’s data collection and collection involving a series of behavioural science experiments with human subjects. The experiments described in this Statement of Work (SOW) are motivated by DRDC Toronto’s Applied Research Program (ARP) project, entitled “Understanding and Augmenting Human Capabilities for Intelligence Production,” which is under the project management of Dr. David R. Mandel, Group Leader of the Thinking, Risk, and Intelligence Group within DRDC Toronto’s Adversarial Intent Section. The overarching objectives of the ARP project and the experiments described herein for which contractor support is sought are: (a) to identify systematic biases in human performance that may effect the quality of intelligence analysis; (b) to identify factors that may attenuate or amplify such biases or otherwise influence judgmental performance; and (c) to examine the viability of counter-measures aimed at reducing or eliminating them….”

More details in Statement of Work here (.pdf download).

There’s news of a “truce” between the Taliban and the Afghan government as a way to allow elections to go ahead in a northern province.

Ask the Brits about truces with the bad guys – been there (in late 2006), done that, Taliban broke the deal (in early 2007).

More from Joshua Foust at Registan.net.

27 Jul 09, 9:08pm EDT/01:08 UTC Update:

Well, THAT didn’t take very long…