Bossnass,
I don't like the Conservatives, no. I'll admit that. However, I also believe a minority parliament demands compromise between the various parties in order to come to a solution that represents the interests of all Canadians, not just the ones that put Conservative MP's in office during the last election. By flat out rejecting any amendments to their confidence motions, the Conservatives are just asking for an election, passing up any real opportunity for constructive input on the issue in favour of a troop "surge".
I can't make any real conclusions about what the Afghan people want, because I'm not over there, and Ipsos-Reid doesn't exactly go there and poll their opinions. What I can appreciate is the opinion of the Afghan in the latter part of that article I posted that says our current strategy is alienating us further from the Afghanis, and doesn't address the changing nature of the war in Afghanistan, which has shifted from the Taliban to the corruption and strife that has stepped into the power vacuum.
I've read the Manley Report, have
you? I will highlight some of the most telling sections for your review:
Quote:
|
COMBAT - In the face of a serious and potentially strengthening Taliban insurgency, the Panel observed harmful shortcomings in the NATO/ISAF counterinsurgency campaign. The most damaging shortfalls include an insufficiency of forces in the field, especially in high-risk zones in the South; a top-heavy command structure at ISAF headquarters in Kabul; an absence of a comprehensive strategy directing all ISAF forces in collaboration with the Afghan government; limitations placed by some NATO governments on the operations of their units, which effectively keep those forces out of the conflict; and inadequate coordination between military and civilian programs for security, stabilization, reconstruction and development. ... Too many NATO governments have failed to contribute significant numbers of troops in the regions of Afghanistan most vulnerable to insurgent attack and destabilization. Others have placed caveats on their military activities—prohibiting night fighting, for instance, or refusing to authorize helicopter flights that might expose pilots to combat.
|
Quote:
|
GOVERNANCE - Parts of the Afghan National Police (ANP) remain notoriously corrupt and ill-disciplined— perceived by many Afghans to be more a threat to public security than a source of protection. The judiciary is reportedly subject to interference from government officials and militia commanders; judges, lawyers and police are poorly paid and generally under-trained. The security and justice sectors overall—police, courts and prisons—display persisting inadequacies. The rights and security of ordinary Afghans are thereby undermined. In some districts, militias in the pay of chieftain-warlords menace local populations with protection rackets and other crime.
|
Quote:
|
DEVELOPMENT - The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in 2007 ranked Afghanistan 174th out of 178 countries on its global Human Development Index (a composite of education, health and economic indicators). Why the low score? UNDP says 6.6 million Afghans do not meet minimum food requirements. Gender discrimination remains pervasive; the illiteracy rate among women has been put at 87 per cent, as against 57 per cent among men. And Afghanistan reports one of the world’s highest rates of tuberculosis infection, another common marker of severe poverty.
|
The whole spirit of the mission in Afghanistan is collaboration; the mission is authorized by the UN. And NATO allies are equally bound to the task. The problem is that NATO countries are NOT taking their fair share of the combat role that Canada is ill-equipped to handle on our own. We need help! And while I whole heartedly agree that leaving Afghanistan at this point would be disastrous, I maintain that Canada is not properly equipped to continue fighting the insurgency in the manner they have chosen, while being complicit in the establishment of a corrupt government, police, and industrial development sectors.
I am not of the opinion that "I don't like the party in power, but I don't want an election because my party or an alternative party won't win the next election". I am of the opinion that you shouldn't ignore the will of Canadians in a minority parliament just because you crave an election so badly you can taste it. These issues should not be glossed over or used as bait to force the opposition to topple your government. The Conservative strategy is selling short the potential if what we can do in Afghanistan, while possibly locking us into two more years of an Iraq-esque black hole of failed counterinsurgency efforts.
From the Manley Report:
Quote:
Canadian policy approach should include the following elements:
First, the Government should take concerted diplomatic action to establish clearer, more comprehensive strategies and better coordination of the overall effort in Afghanistan by the international community, Afghan authorities and other governments in the region.
|
I retract my earlier sentiments that Canada should cease combat operations. Training the ANA clearly requires joint combat operations between NATO countries and the ANA, and that includes Canada. What I propose however is that we dramatically increase our efforts to ensure we are investing as much as we possibly can to promoting the sustainable development of Afghanistan's commercial and industrial sectors, while actively promoting the establishment of a competent independent judiciary to handle complaints of corruption and deceit by the Afghan government and police.
Any way you hack it, we need more support. We also need to immediately shift our focus away from chasing insurgents through poppy fields in the remote areas of the country and focusing on developing a competent Afghan army that can do the job themselves.
Finally, I will point to the final recommendation of the Manley report:
Quote:
|
The Government should provide the public with franker and more frequent reporting on events in Afghanistan, offering more assessments of Canada’s role and giving greater emphasis to the diplomatic and reconstruction efforts as well as those of the military.
|
This is something that is the antithesis of the Harper government: transparency. He has such a stranglehold on his ministers that they might as well not even exist. They are not allowed to comment outside of established Harper doctrine, and are not allowed to speculate on affairs they are qualified to comment on. They are generally just conduits for talking points coming out of the PM's office. This is not a healthy government, it is Harperville. [section edited out because it was a tangent]
This is about far more than what government is in power. The Conservative government seems more concerned about going to the polls than about negotiating a sound and competent strategy for Canada's future in Afghanistan.
... AAAAAND I'm spent.
I apologize for the length of my post, but it is required to adequately address your comments towards my previous post.