SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
From: Ichy Smith9/7/2006 1:25:51 PM
  Read Replies (1) of 37138
 
Nobody listened to Afghan warnings: analysts; Country told a year ago about difficult mission

John Ward / The Canadian Press
National - Thursday, September 07, 2006 @ 01:00

Recent combat deaths in Afghanistan have shocked many Canadians, but analysts say the country was warned a year ago this could happen.

Last fall, as the military prepared for its new mission in Afghanistan, both Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff, and Bill Graham, then the Liberal defence minister, delivered a number of speeches warning about a tough mission and telling Canadians to expect casualties.

"They certainly told people that this was going to be a different type of mission and people either weren't listening or didn't pay attention," said David Bercuson, director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.

"They both warned us to be prepared to accept casualties," said Lee Windsor, deputy director of the Gregg Centre for the Study of War and Security at the University of New Brunswick.

"Parliament was briefed, nobody was listening," said Jim Fergusson, director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba.

"What our forces are doing is exactly what Hillier said they should be doing," Bercuson said.

However, with 16 soldiers dead in the last two months - among 32 killed since 2002 - some people complain about mission creep, suggesting that the operation has somehow morphed from reconstruction to combat.

Not so, Fergusson said.

"When we agreed to send combat troops in, we didn't get ourselves trapped into it slowly by doing more and more," Fergusson said. "There was, by the former government, a conscious decision that we were now going into a combat role.

"They dressed it up at the time as providing security for provincial reconstruction teams, but to anyone listening, especially to Hillier, who was blunt, it was clear."

Yet opposition politicians, even Liberals whose party originally decided to send the troops in, are beginning to question the mission. NDP Leader Jack Layton has flatly called for a withdrawal of combat troops by February. Some Liberal leadership candidates are calling for a re-thinking of the whole mission and, perhaps, a withdrawal.

"What's going on is partisan politics, pure and simple," Bercuson said.

Windsor said this could mark a dangerous moment, as foreign policy - once considered largely a non-partisan matter in Canada - becomes a political football.

"It's unfortunate that this should become politicized."

He said Canadians are getting an eye-opener after years of ignoring military operations abroad.

Many Canadians remain attached to the blue beret ideal of peacekeeping, not realizing that traditional peacekeeping is long gone.

"What we're seeing in Kandahar looks like a radical shift to the average Canadian, but if you're a Canadian soldier this is only a subtle shift, because we've been killing people on peacekeeping missions to protect our mandate for years," Windsor said.

Layton said Canada should concentrate on development and reconstruction, but that can't be done in a vacuum, Windsor said.

"A lot of people have not been paying attention to the fact that, if you are going to help rebuild people in the aftermath of the Cold War, you're going to have to shoot, you're going to have to shoot the bad guys."

Bercuson agreed: "You can't reconstruct without the security."

The analysts all said the reconstruction teams are making headway. But their work is overshadowed by the fighting, which, in turn, is vital if their work is to go ahead safely.

"Our battle group that is in Afghanistan is there to create a protective shield around the provincial reconstruction team," Windsor said.

A quick withdrawal - as recommended by Layton - would have serious consequences for Canada and NATO, Bercuson said:

"What are you saying to NATO?

"You're saying, OK you guys, British, Dutch, German, French and others, you go out and risk your lives, we'll stay here and build schools.

"It seems to me that's very much counter to our interests. It will certainly get the rest of NATO very pissed off at us.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext