Posted on 01/22/2008 9:12:31 AM PST by Clive
OTTAWA -- If Canada does not get more help from its NATO allies and new helicopters from its own government it should serve notice that the Canadian Forces will be withdrawn from volatile southern Afghanistan, says the blue-ribbon panel on the mission.
Those were the key findings of five-member panel headed by former Liberal foreign affairs minister John Manley, which handed down its final report to the Conservative government Tuesday morning.
"We are recommending a Canadian commitment to Afghanistan that is neither open-ended nor faint-hearted," says the report, adding Canada must gradually shift its efforts in Afghanistan from combat to training and place greater emphasis on diplomacy and reconstruction.
The report also criticized the Canadian International Development Agency, which oversees the disbursement of more than $100-million a year in aid spending, but whose staff are confined to the main NATO base in Kandahar.
"The status quo is not good enough; we need a different approach," panel chair John Manley told a news conference after the release of the report Tuesday morning.
Instead, he said, Prime Minister Stephen Harper must immediately assemble a special cabinet committee that would devote the attention to the mission that the mission needs.
"The prime minister must step up and make this mission a top priority with a cabinet committee to ensure co-ordination of Canada's efforts and, even more important, he must personally lead our diplomatic initiative, making our voice heard to a degree commensurate with our contribution," said Manley, a former Liberal deputy prime minister.
While there are no firm timetables for withdrawal, the recommendations mean that it will likely be business as usual for at least one more year for Canada's 2,500 troops stationed in Kandahar, until the country's current commitment expires.
The report notes that the evolving military situation Canada's troops find themselves in has created "a more violent and hazardous mission than was envisaged when they were first deployed to Afghanistan."
The report gives Prime Minister Stephen Harper more leverage heading into April's crucial summit of NATO leaders in Romania.
The panel also urges NATO to deploy at least one new battle group -- about 1,000 troops -- so Canada can concentrate more on training the Afghan Army.
The report's other recommendation is aimed at the Harper Conservatives -- giving them until February 2009 to "secure the latest new, medium-lift helicopters" and high-performance unmanned aerial vehicles.
The Harper government has continually lobbied NATO allies to do more in the south, with relatively little success.
"If these conditions are not met, the Independent Panel urges the government to notify Afghan and allied governments that Canada intends to transfer responsibility for security in Kandahar," said a statement by the independent panel.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay has said that getting transport helicopters is his top priority because of the threat to Canadian soldiers from improvised explosive devices on the ground, which have accounted for majority of the 77 deaths among Canada's military personnel in Afghanistan.
"We are recommending a Canadian commitment to Afghanistan that is neither open-ended nor faint-hearted," says the report.
Families of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan, are urging the government to stay the course there. Mr. Manley acknowledged Canada's work there is not done.
The report recommends extending the mission beyond 2009, saying: "The Panel could find no operational logic for choosing February 2009 as the end date for Canada's military mission in Kandahar -- and nothing to establish February 2009 as the date by which the mission would be completed."
The report says CIDA's "own administrative constraints" are hampering Canada's reconstruction efforts.
"Funding allocations aside, CIDA staffers in Kandahar do not often venture beyond their base, in part, we are told, because of restrictive regulations maintained by CIDA's headquarters in Ottawa," says the report.
"It makes little sense to post brave and talented professional staff to Kandahar only to restrict them from making regular contact with the people they are expected to help."
More than half of CIDA's spending flows through international bodies, such as the United Nations or World Bank, while about one-third is funneled through the Afghan government.
The report calls for "at least one "signature" project (a hospital, for example, or a major irrigation project) identified with Canada and led by Canadians." Such a shift in emphasis would be designed to apply a Canadian brand to the generation of local employment and benefits for Afghan communities.
Jim Davis, who lost is son in Afghanistan, said he "absolutely" hopes Canada stays the course in Afghanistan and allowing Canadian troops a combat role through to 2011.
"I know we're working with the Afghan army and the Afghan police in the training process," Mr. Davis said in a telephone interview from Bridgewater, Nova Scotia. "Well, you can't train soldiers without going out in theatre with them."
He said Canadians also have to go into areas of Afghanistan in a combat role to clear areas of the Taliban so infrastructure work can be done. Mr. Davis's 28-year-old son, Cpl. Paul Davis, died in an armoured car crash on March 2, 2006.
Jane Byers, whose son David, 22, was killed by a suicide bomber, said she wanted the Manley panel to recommend staying on in a combat role and finishing the job in Afghanistan.
"I'm hoping that we stay on or else my son died for no reason," Ms. Byers said in an interview from Espanola, Ont. "My son believed in what he was doing. We believed in what he was doing."
The Manley panel received hundreds of submissions, from organizations, academics and other experts. Some say Tuesday's report is presaged in an October essay that Mr. Manley contributed to Policy Options magazine after his May 2002 visit as a CARE Canada board member.
"What became very plain to me, however, was that there is no possible way to separate the development or humanitarian mission from the military one. There can be no meaningful progress on development without an improved security environment," Mr. Manley wrote. "Whenever we asked Afghans what they thought ISAF or Canada should do, they did not hesitate to say that we must stay."
The House of Commons is to vote on the future of the military mission soon after politicians return to Ottawa later in the month. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois are opposed to any extension of the combat mission beyond the year remaining in the current commitment.
The Conservatives are hoping the Manley report will elevate the debate on the future of the mission above partisan political concerns.
In an attempt to stay above the domestic political fray, Mr. Harper's office insisted Monday that it would not receive an advance copy of the report, nor was the prime minister planning to comment on it Tuesday.
"It will take some time to examine the report," said one senior Harper aide.
The Harper government has said it would be guided by what Mr. Manley recommends.
Mr. Manley first visited Afghanistan in 2002 as the Liberal foreign affairs minister and returned late last year as head of the five-member independent panel. The panel heard submissions from organizations, academics and other experts.
The panel also includes former Canadian ambassador to Washington Derek Burney, former cabinet minister Jake Epp, former broadcaster Pamela Wallin and former Privy Council clerk Paul Tellier.
-
-
Also, does the recently announced USMC deployment count toward satisfying the requiremenf for an additional battle group? Or does the panel want an additional NATO battle group in addition to the Marines?
The Canadian beef about other NATO members not doing enough doesn’t relate to the US, so far as I know.
Panel: Canada should stay in Afghanistan if conditions met
By KATHLEEN HARRIS -- Sun Media
OTTAWA - Canadian troops should remain in Kandahar past the current February 2009 mandate, but only if certain conditions are met by allied partners, a panel studying the fate of Canada's role in Afghanistan has recommended.
The team of experts, led by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley, recommended a Canadian commitment to Afghanistan that is "neither open-ended nor faint-hearted," according to a release from the panel issued this morning. The report also recommends a gradual shift in focus from active fighting to more reconstruction and development.
"We owe is to the Afghans, to our allies and to our own future security needs to give this mission every possible chance to succeed," wrote Manley. "What is evident is that the commitment to Afghanistan made by successive Canadian governments has not yet been completed. The ultimate objective is to enable the Afghans to manage their own security."
But the panel put two conditions on extending the mission past 2009: that a new battle group be deployed by the International Security Assistance Force partners to provide support in the dangerous Kandahar region, and that the government secure new helicopters and high-performance aerial vehicles by within one year. If those conditions are not met, the panel urges the Conservative government to notify Afghan and allied countries that Canada will pull out as scheduled.
The panel also recommends a grand diplomatic push by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has "substantial influence" on the Afghan people, and to call for stronger action to tackle corruption and smooth aid delivery problems. The government must also do a better job of selling the mission to Canadians, the report says.
We need another battle group at Kandahar. Canada and the US have been pushing NATO to get them to come forward with it, and without caveats.
With a conservative now in charge in France perhaps it can be persuaded to deploy the Legion d'etranger.
Projects that are too hazardous for civilian project administrators usually have to be handled by military personnel, similar to the US Army’s Civil Affairs division. It is a simple fact that we are executing projects in areas that are no-go-areas for anyone who is not well armed. You can’t ask civilians to do that work, and yet it is work that needs to be done. That speaks to the need for a military version of CIDA.
“What became very plain to me, however, was that there is no possible way to separate the development or humanitarian mission from the military one...”
PRECISELY—someone whould tell that to Layton and Dion
Overall, I am quite pleased with the report, now lets see what Harper decides.
*the only part I am slightly confused about is the additional battlegroup—did he mean from Canada, or somewhere else?
We have needed helicopters for a long time—I wonder if the Liberals will remember why we dont have them.
I take from the story that we should stay in Kandahar but there are some definite changes to be made.
We need some real help from those NATO countries that are just holding our coat.
But IMO this sentence is important:
“What became very plain to me, however, was that there is no possible way to separate the development or humanitarian mission from the military one...”
It is clear that this commission contemplates a continued combat role is still necessary to enable to the main job of getting Afghanistan able to defend its own sovereignty.
And with the US deploying Marines and Poland deploying 100 troops without caveats, perhaps one of the conditions have already been met.
In any event, Harper is today better able to face the House with this issue than he was last week.
Glad to hear that. God Bless PM Harper and the Canadian Troops.
OOPS I should have said 1000 troops, not 100.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.