Posts Tagged ‘Canada’s mission in Afghanistan’
MILNEWS.ca News Highlights – 2 Mar 11
- CF to Libya (1) HMCS Charlottetown on its way (Prime Minister’s statement in the House of Commons, CF statement (1), CF statement (2), CTV.ca, Postmedia News, Globe & Mail, Toronto Star, Canadian Press, CBC.ca (1), CBC.ca (2), Agence France-Presse)
- CF to Libya (2) JTF 2 headed downrange? (Twitter from Le Devoir-iste Alec Castonguay, Agence France-Presse)
- CF to Libya (3) CF military plane turned back from Tripoli because there was nowhere to land, park (CP via Globe & Mail, Times of Malta)
- Canada Grabs Libya by the Assets Canada freezing Libyan assets (~$2 billion): “The Canadian government has frozen more than $2 billion in Libyan assets so far, and continues to target holdings of embattled ruler Moammar Gadhafi and his family, CBC News has learned. The move to freeze the assets came after Canada learned the Libyan regime was planning to withdraw the funds from as-yet-unidentified Canadian banks ….” More from FINTRAC, Canada’s agency for tracking suspicious money movements, here, and from Reuters.
- The Commentariat on Libya (1) Bad news for Libya could be good news for Canada? “…. Canada is likely to be one of the few western beneficiaries of the uncertainty that is sweeping the Arabian Peninsula and North Africa. The reason is, of course, oil. For decades to come the tarsands are going to be Canada’s trump card every time there is volatility in international energy markets …. The events of the past two months, and dramas still unfolding in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan and oil-rich countries such as Libya, Oman and a few of the Gulf sheikdoms, make it more and more obvious that there is going to be a keen demand for Canada’s so-called “dirty oil” for years to come. Viewed through this prism, if the U.S. does not want the kind of oil that Canada has to offer, China and India, with huge economic ambitions to fuel, almost certainly will ….”
- The Commentariat on Libya (2) Help out, by all means, but be careful about too much military “help”. “…. For Western powers to involve themselves more deeply in Libya would be counterproductive. It would suggest to pro-democracy elements in the Middle East that, if their opposition becomes violent, they will get help from the West. It would put non-Libyan lives at risk in a situation that is extremely difficult to assess from outside – without any clear benefit to Libyans themselves. Indeed, military intervention might eventually provoke an anti-Western reaction that could end up discrediting the democrats that the West rightly wishes to encourage and help. By seizing assets abroad and imposing diplomatic sanctions, the West should indeed tighten the vise on Col. Gadhafi. But it should not use its military forces to depose him, in what is ultimately a matter that must be decided by Libyans.”
- More news on the latest in Libya here (Google News), here (EMM News Brief: Libya), here (NewsNow), here (BBC) and here (Al Jazeera English).
- More on Canada’s upcoming mission in Afghanistan (highlights mine): “The government’s plan to keep 1,000 Canadian troops near Kabul after their mission in Kandahar ends this year is looking increasingly unlikely after comments from the military’s second-in-command last week. “There will be no Canadian Forces units located in Kandahar province after 2011,” Vice-Admiral Bruce Donaldson, the vice-chief of the defence staff, told the Conference of Defence Associations in Ottawa on Feb. 25. “Rather, our training mission will be Kabul-centric, meaning that the main effort will be centered in and about the city of Kabul. “That said, a small number of CF personnel may be assigned to other areas of Afghanistan where the risks to our personnel is assessed to be no greater than that found in Kabul.” ….” Hmm, wonder where that might be? And how safe, really, is Kabul these days?
- One Canadian Corrections staffer’s story from working in Kandahar.
- Taliban Propaganda Watch: Taliban claims to have RPG’ed a transport plane in Helmand.
- Ooopsie. “A Tutor jet, the plane assigned to the military’s aerobatic flying team known as the Snowbirds, was damaged during a landing at 15 Wing Moose Jaw Tuesday afternoon around 3 p.m. CT. Its two crew walked away from the plane and were to be evaluated by medical staff ….”
- “Accused terrorist Hassan Diab failed Tuesday in a last and crucial attempt to get handwriting evidence being used against him disallowed. The handwriting analysis by French forensic expert Anne Bisotti has been called the “smoking gun” by prosecutors, meaning that it is key to the French case. Paris authorities say Diab was a key player in a terrorist bombing outside a synagogue in October 1980 and that handwriting comparisons prove his involvement. A former University of Ottawa professor, Diab says he is innocent and the victim of mistaken identity ….”
Canada’s Post-2011 Mission in AFG: A Senator Speaks
After Liberal Bob Rae says, out loud, it might be worth keeping more than just a CF military attache in Afghanistan post-2011, we hear from one of his senatorial colleagues, Hugh Segal – this via Hansard, following the visit of the Special Committee to Afghanistan:
Members of Parliament Kevin Sorenson, Byron Wilfert, Jim Abbott, Claude Bachand, Bob Dechert, Jack Harris, Laurie Hawn, Deepak Obhrai, Bob Rae and Pascal-Pierre Paillé, who made the trip, deserve our appreciation and gratitude, as do those who facilitated their movements on both the military and civilian sides.
When I rose in this place on March 30 to express hope that there would be a full parliamentary debate on next steps in Afghanistan after 2011 and my strong view that, whatever the configuration of the post-2011 Canadian contingent, Canadian Armed Forces be part of that presence, I was hopeful that our colleagues in the other place would have a chance to see the context for themselves.
There is now an opportunity for a full parliamentary debate in both chambers — not a narrow partisan debate, but a broad, multi-partisan, national interest debate — where proposals for the mix of forces and civilians deployed to Afghanistan can be openly and frankly discussed ….
Well, it could be openly and frankly discussed if it wasn’t for one thing – this via CanWest/National Post:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper may represent the biggest stumbling block to such a deal. He has repeatedly stated that all Canadian soldiers would leave Afghanistan next year.
Still we wait for an end to the hints, innuendo and rumours.
Canada’s Mission in AFG: The Epiphany, the Tease and the Lie
What a difference seeing what’s happening at the business end of a war can make. This from Liberal members of the committee that’s supposed to be looking into Canada’s future mission in Afghanistan, following a visit to Afghanistan:
“We have an obligation to see this thing through,” opposition Liberal MP Bob Rae said at the end of a five-day fact-finding mission to Kandahar and Kabul by the Commons Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan. “The door is open to serious discussion in Canada and between Canada and NATO about what the future looks like,” he said.
And what does the PM have to say about this? This from the Canadian Press:
“I note those words with some interest,” Harper told a news conference, in English. He later added, in French: “I took note of the statement. It’s interesting.”
Still, he said, Canada’s position hasn’t changed.
”I think we’ve been very clear,” Harper said.
“We’re working according to the parliamentary resolution that was adopted in 2008, by which Canada’s military mission will end and will transition to a civilian and development mission at the end of 2011.”
Mark over at The Torch hits the nail on the head about the last bit:
He’s not telling the truth
Remember the 2008 Parliamentary motion? It says we’re leaving KANDAHAR, not AFGHANISTAN.
If we’re going to go, why throw in tidbits like?
“I note those words with some interest,” Harper told a news conference, in English. He later added, in French: “I took note of the statement. It’s interesting.”
If we’re staying, someone please say out loud that we’re staying.
If we’re going, someone please say out loud that we’re going.
If we’re still sorting out exactly what to do, someone please say that we’re sorting out exactly what to do.
Canada’s Post-2011 Mission: So, Which’ll It Be?
Let’s see, if I had to guess, what will the House of Commons Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan be focusing on (and drawing the public eye to) now?
A:
The U.S. government will ask Canada to keep as many as 500 to 600 troops in Afghanistan after this country’s military deployment in Kandahar ends in 2011.
Sources inside and outside the government say the formal request is expected toward the end of this year through NATO. The troops would act as military trainers and would most likely be located in Kabul. The deployment would not involve putting Canadian troops in harm’s way, but could nonetheless set off a rancorous national debate among Canadians and especially within the Liberal Party.
No specific request has been raised in meetings between Defence Secretary Robert Gates and Defence Minister Peter MacKay. But officials in the departments of State and Defence have advised their Canadian counterparts that an “ask” is coming …. (Globe & Mail, 25 Mar 10)
or B:
Facing the risk of a ruling saying it’s broken fundamental parliamentary rules, the Harper government has relented and released 2,500 pages of documents on the Afghan detainee controversy.
The catch, however, is the reports, briefings and memos are heavily censored. Opposition parties and journalists have yet to discern if there is anything to be gleaned from them because the government failed to make copies before tabling the papers in Parliament …. Tom Lukiwksi, parliamentary secretary to Government House Leader Jay Hill, couldn’t resist taking a swipe at opposition parties as he tabled the documents in the Commons today.
“Given that the opposition seemingly believes that the treatment of Taliban prisoners is a top priority for Canadians, and given the high volume of documents, we are asking for unanimous consent to table related documents,” Mr. Lukiwski said.
The Conservatives say today’s surprise document dump documents does not represent its formal response to a House of Commons order to produce all relevant material on the detainee controversy. They say Justice Minister Rob Nicholson is expected to formally respond to the Commons order next week ….” (Globe & Mail, 25 Mar 10)
My guess?
Update (1): I guessed right.
Canada’s Post-2011 Mission: “Survey Says” and “We’re REALLY Outta Here”
Two tidbits jump out at me today.
1) Canadians appear to be split down the middle with respect to support for Canada’s mission in Afghanistan (with about 1/2 saying they want to know more).
Ya think?
- Guess Who Else Says People Should Know More About AFG Mission?
- Time to Explain Why, What Happens Next
- Selling Canada’s Mission in Afghanistan
2) This, from CanWest News Service:
The general responsible for all Canadian troops overseas was emphatic this week that his forces will not provide security for Canada’s Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar City beyond next summer.
“It is cease operations across the board in July, 2011,” Lt.-Gen Marc Lessard said in an interview. “The (operational mentor and liaison team), the battle group, the PRT, helicopters. Operations cease.”
However, the parliamentary order that Canada’s soldiers come home next year has put diplomats and aid workers at the PRT in a quandary because Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently said that Afghanistan is to become “a strictly civilian mission” after 2011 and would continue to be a huge recipient of Canadian aid.
The difficulty with the prime minister’s stance is that public servants and police that Ottawa has sent to Kandahar City to oversee aid projects and to counsel local authorities on such issues as education, medical care, water management, policing and governance are entirely dependent upon several hundred Canadian infantrymen and combat engineers for their safety and transport.
“There is a political decision that we are awaiting guidance on and when we get it, the civilians will know what they are doing,” said Ben Rowswell, Canada’s representative in Kandahar (RoCK), when asked about the apparent contradiction in the Harper government’s positions on the withdrawal and a continuing civilian mission ….
I guess the Government didn’t see this coming, right? >>insert eyeroll here<<
MISSION MESSAGING MAMBO: The Final Word?
A hat tip to to Mark at The Torch for beating me to it, but here’s what the Prime Minister told CanWest News this week about the future mission in Afghanistan:
We have been working on those answers but the bottom line is that the military mission will end in 2011. There will be a phased withdrawal, beginning in the middle of the year. We hope to have that concluded by the end of that year. As you know the Obama administration, not coincidentally, is talking about beginning its withdrawal in 2011, at the same time we are. We will continue to maintain humanitarian and development missions, as well as important diplomatic activity in Afghanistan. But we will not be undertaking any activities that require any kind of military presence, other than the odd guard guarding an embassy. We will not be undertaking any kind activity that requires a significant military force protection, so it will become a strictly civilian mission. It will be a significantly smaller mission than it is today.
About nine weeks ago, the PM had this to say:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, speaking at the conclusion of a Commonwealth leaders’ summit in Trinidad, said he doesn’t see any enthusiasm among Canada’s 308 MPs for prolonging or expanding this deployment. “I don’t sense any desire on the part of Parliamentarians to do that,” he said …. “We will want to have some Parliamentary input but I don’t sense a desire on the part of any party to extend the military mission.”
Well, it appears the PM’s gotten whatever “Parliamentary input” he feels he needs and, if you believe the “competing camps” read of the Mambo, the PM has “won”. No surprise, really, since he is where the buck stops.
Where will the “humanitarian and development missions” be carried out? I can’t think of too many places in Afghanistan where such work doesn’t require “any kind of military presence”?
As a follow-up, who’ll be protecting those carrying out the “humanitarian and development missions”? Other military forces? Private security forces? The goodwill of the Taliban? Barring any change of heart on the part of the Taliban, I’d be pretty uncomfortable with doing this kind of work given Mullah Omar’s team’s track record on this (more here and here).
More, as we hear it piecemeal.
Mission Messaging Mambo: MacKay Confirms No Mo’ Troops Post-2011
Since the PM was enroute to China, Defence Minister Peter MacKay took the latest question in the House of Commons on the post-2011 mission in Afghanistan. Here’s what was said:
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, earlier in question period, the Minister of National Defence refused to answer a very simple question. I will ask him once again. Given that NATO announced today that Canadian soldiers will be leaving Kandahar in early 2010 and going to a neighbouring district, can the Minister of National Defence confirm that this redeployment will not change the July 2011 end date of the mission for all Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC): Yes, I can confirm that, Mr. Speaker.
I suppose now, the Bloc Quebecois can complain if there’s even ONE Canadian soldier left in Afghanistan, right? I guess he didn’t get the PM’s memo about still figuring out what happens next.
The mambo continues…