Now That's An Apology

Canada Day "In Action"

We all know that Canada is in Afghanistan as part of an UN-mandated, NATO-led mission with more than 60 other countries and international organizations, supposedly at the request of the Afghan government. That's old news.

But this year, July 1st marked the official pull-out of our combat troops, the day marking the end of combat operations for the Canadian military.

So I got to thinking - what was Canada Day like for those members of the Canadian military in theatre in Afghanistan this year?

Was July 1st a time of celebration? Reflection? Fond wishes? A passive goodbye party? Or was it just cause to celebrate as one of the few occasions they are allowed two beers and barbecued hamburgers?  Maybe all of the above?

For what it's worth, here's the view from Canada’s top commander on July 2nd as he bid farewell to combat troops in Kandahar.

Gen. Walt Natynczyk, in his final address before the formal end of operations, urged returning soldiers to watch their "battle buddies" and take care of each other as they begin the long journey back to regular life at home.

His remarks had a poignant ring for the soldiers of the 1st Battalion Royal 22e Regiment, as two of the four deaths in the last combat tour were suspected suicides.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Natynczyk, the chief of defence staff, also spoke to the uncertainty most soldiers feel about the end of the Kandahar mission and what will become of an army that has evolved and takes enormous pride in being a fighting force.

The world is an unpredictable place and the general noted how no one would have expected at this time last year that CF-18s would be involved in a NATO-led bombing campaign over Libya.

"Who knows what the future will bring," he said.

And, of course, Peter MacKay had to chime in too.

His comments were echoed by Defence Minister Peter MacKay, who told troops during a town hall outside of the new Canada House at Kandahar Airfield that the mission in Afghanistan is not done, but simply evolving.

"We don’t leave tasks undone in Canada. We finish what we start," he said, referring to the training mission in the country’s north where up to 950 soldiers and support staff have started to deploy.

Says he.

Well, it may supposedly* be the end of "combat" for Canada but it's far from the end of Afghanistan.

From now until March 2014, our military is to be deployed in a non-combat role to train the Afghan National Army. And we are to be centred in Kabul instead of the "always volatitile Kandahar province" (which seemed to be its official media name). Up to 950 military personnel will be provided to train the Afghan National Army and up to 45 civilian police officers will be deployed to train the Afghan National Police.

That's nice. But Afghanistan remains a volatile and challenging environment - have we made any real progress over the past ten years?

Our key achievements so far are said to include building and repairing 50 schools in Kandahar province, rehabilitating the Dahla Dam and its irrigation system, and contributing to the eradication of polio across Afghanistan. 

And along with international partners we have helped train and mentor about 50,000 Afghan troops. The Afghan National Police now numbers almost 116,000, more than the 2010 goal of 109,000 set by the Afghan government and by the International Security Assistance Force. And, last but not least, our civilian and military police mentors have helped train and guide over 2,800 police officers since 2008.

We're told that through this work, we have provided necessary funding to build police stations, pay police salaries and equip officers. And as a result, a growing number of Afghans in Kandahar province say they feel safer in their communities. God, I hope so after all this.

But hey, as good as that sounds, we best not forget to add to our list of "accomplishments", finding and detonating (intentionally or not) a hell of a lot of IEDs. And routing out a lot of Taliban, some of whom later returned to the roost. After all, we paid dearly for that particular chunk of work.

But now we're told that our "new" role in that war-torn country will build on the accomplishments of our mission over the past 10 years. Our objective, we are told, remains the same: to help build a more secure, stable and self-sufficient Afghanistan that is no longer a safe haven for terrorists.

To do that we will focus on four key areas:

•investing in the future of Afghan children and youth through development programming in education and health;

•advancing security, the rule of law and human rights, including through the provision of up to 950 trainers for Afghan security forces;
•promoting regional diplomacy; and

•helping deliver humanitarian assistance.

Funny, they say that hindsight is always 20/20.  And yet I'm not so sure about that at the moment.  Or perhaps we're just not far enough removed yet to develop that focus. Not I, anwyay.

Oh well, I'm glad it seems to be working out well for Prime Minitster Harper, anyway. /sarcasm off/

Forgive me I seem to be rambling. It's just that I probably am.

But I started this post wanting to wish a belated Happy Canada Day to our troops in Afghanistan, those soon on their way home, those just arriving to help pack things up and those who will remain behind to continue training the Afghan army, engage in development programming in education and health, promote regional diplomacy and help deliver humanitarian assistance. You know, what they said.

So, anyway, like Happy Canada Day, guys (and gals), eh.**

* I say "supposedly" because, call me crazy, but I just can't see how we can focus on the training or development work without engaging in security, aka combat.  I mean, isn't that how we got here in the first place?

** If I sound a bit ambivalent there at the last, it's probably because I am.  Not about wishing our troops a Happy Canada Day but about ... well, maybe it's kind of like how we speculate it might be for the troops, not sure if I'm feeling celebratory, reflective, or something else after writing this post. Perhaps a couple of beers coolers and a barbecued hamburger would help?

Stress Reliever

My apologies for the light blogging since my return from Boston but things have been more than a little ... shall we say stressful ... here in Free Falling land.

Although I had a blast in Boston, my body, apparently, had a different take on the subject.  Meaning that I, not unexpectedly, felt myself starting to crash shortly after my return home.  Which was okay, I was expecting that and more than willing to live with it.

What I wasn't prepared to live with (although apparently I didn't have much say in the matter) was my husband's completely unexpected dismissal from his employment shortly after my return.  And not just any employment, but the job he's been at for the past 15 years.  Dismissed as in walk in to work one morning and hear the words "You might as well go home". Go home. With no notice.  No pay.  No nothing.

And, yes, before you go there, you're absolutely right - his (former) employer can't do that.  And he won't be allowed to do that although that is exactly what is happening at the moment.   And, just to put the icing on the cake, that job loss also resulted in the loss of our health insurance.

Can you say Fun, Fun, Fun?  Well, I can't. 

In addition to the fact that I've grown rather partial to paying our bills, we have very high drug costs.  Mostly because of me.  And those same drugs are what allow me to keep working.  So now what?

Yeah, I did mention it's been a bit stressful around here, haven't I?

And so now we reach the point of this post ... yes, believe it or not, there almost is one.

Moseying back through the blog the other day, I came upon this post.   This, which I hadn't played since my return from Boston.  Something made me click the Play button.  And I was so glad I did.

I have just discovered what I'm sure is destined to be my prime stress relievor at the moment - and, yes, I do realize that might make me a very pathetic individual.  But whatever works, I say. 

There's something about just singing along and belting out "I just wanna get you out of Teterboro.  We want to leave but they won't let us go.  Just heard on the radio, we're stuck in Teterboro" which is very, very good for the soul.  Go ahead.  Try it.  I will wait.

It might help, of course, that the Kit Kat was initially as taken with the video as I was and comes a'running the moment she hears the music.  For to sing along with her dear mother.  We do rather enjoy laughing at ourselves.

And so, for now dear friends, I can't but leave you with Mike and his feelings on Teterboro.

Which will have to take the place, at least for the moment, of my other blogging - that which I can't quite convince myself to do at the moment.  There's the whole issue of the white versus red poppy on Remembrance Day (there's no doubt a place for both but not in the same month and certainly not on the same day, says I),  Canada's sudden surprise unexpected (that's sarcasm by the way) decision to stay on in Afghanistan in a "non-combat" role until 2014 and the Supreme Court of Canada's latest decision setting out the fact that that we have no right to counsel during police interrogation.

Such is life. For the moment I appear to be the proud holder of an open-ended multiple return trip to Teterboro. Until we meet again, then ...

A 'Long Telegram' From a Little to the Left

Hey, how cool is this ... I have my very first guest post?!

A real world friend of mine (yeah, I know, how astonishing is that?) ... actually, a close friend who is one of my few regular blog readers, sent me a private email with his thoughts on the "Passing Me By" post, below. I suggested that he place them in the comments section, but, alas, they were a little too long - much more deserving of their own post.

Now Jimmy James and I have been good friends for many a year and I suspect he fears that I have slipped somewhat to the right in some of my thinking over the past few years. Perhaps he is right. Or not. At any rate, his comments post speaks for itself.

With no further ado, I give you ...

With all due respect to those brave men and women of the Canadian Forces who are still in-theatre and to those unfortunate souls soon to join the dead, it might be a good idea to ask why the Canadian Forces are in Afghanistan in the first place ?? How did we get sucked into an American war ?? What specific Canadian national security interest is at stake in Afghanistan ?? What was the original mission we were tasked by the Americans to undertake ?? Has the nature of the Canadian Forces mission changed since their arrival, and if so, why ?? If the mission has changed, why did the mission change ?? Are the Canadian Forces well equipped to perform their "new" mission ?? When we pull-out at the end of 2011, what will they have died for ??

Here are a few of my own answers to those most fundamental questions:

First of all, I want to go on record as saying that I totally support the brave young men and women in the Canadian Forces 110 percent!! They answer the call to duty without hesitation and (aside from the Somalia Affair), they do an outstanding world-class job wherever they go. But I do not support the specific mission Canadian troops were asked to undertake in Afghanistan beginning in February 2006, nor do I support the decision of the politicians who sent them there.

There is a very real difference between supporting, in the broadest sense, Canadian troops serving at home or abroad, and supporting this specific mission they have been called upon to undertake in Afghanistan. Wars can sometimes achieve important national objectives but, sadly, this is not the case as it relates to Canada's current role in Afghanistan. Those who may argue that if you don't support the mission, you don't really support the troops. I would respond by saying that argument is based on a false choice, most likely designed to coerce the Canadian people into supporting this specific mission.

In my opinion, the only reason Canadian troops were sent to Afghanistan by Paul Martin in February 2006 was to appease the Americans, who were very angry when PM Chrétien politely declined the American request to send Canadian Forces to Iraq in 2003. I strongly believe that Chrétien's decision was the correct decision -- why should Canadian soldiers be sent to Afghanistan to fight (and to die) in an "American" war which has little to do with Canada's national security interests ??

When Paul Martin agreed to send Canadian troops to Afghanistan in February 2006, the mission was very clearly defined as "humanitarian assistance & reconstruction," with only a minor combat role for operational security on the ground. Within weeks of their arrival, however, Canadian troops were savagely attacked by the Taliban and their supporters. As a result, the Canadian mission as it was originally conceived, was thrown into a cocked hat. Canadian troops were compelled by circumstance to shift their entire strategy to offensive military operations against the Taliban. By the Summer of 2006, the Canadian death-toll very gradually started to rise. Also, the original mission-statement called for a Canadian presence lasting two-years at the most. But once Stephen Harper was elected in January 2007, the Conservative government has decided to extend the mission beyond it's original two-year mandate.

From my perspective, there is one inescapable analogy between this war and the US war in Vietnam: brave young Canadian men and women in uniform are being sent to the other side of the world by our political leaders to serve, to fight (and to die) in the wrong war, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. I think it is a tragedy of epic proportions that our Canadian Armed Forces are fighting a war in Afghanistan which they can never win -- no one can "win" this kind of war. Afghanistan has a very long history of fighting and eventually defeating every foreign power that ever set foot in their country (the Mongols, the Brits, the Russians, the Americans, and now the Canadians). Not even Alexander The Great could defeat the warrior-tribes of Afghanistan -- sure, the Afghani's take a royal ass-kicking but they keep on ticking, and they never give up. NEVER...

I hope my words don't upset you -- I can assure you that is not my intent. I am simply sharing my point of view on this very important subject. Call me whatever pejorative epithet you wish to use, but I strongly feel that it's criminal for our political leaders to send our young men and women into harm's way unless they have a clearly-defined mission which is achievable, and Canada's national security interests are directly threatened. This is clearly not the case in Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan is actually the American's fight, not ours, and the only reason Canadian troops were sent to Afghanistan in the first place was to "make-nice" with George W. Bush after we angered him by not sending our troops to Iraq in 2003. Plus, it was never supposed to be a combat mission; it was designed to be a mission of "humanitarian assistance and reconstruction."

It is a "false choice" and intellectually dishonest for others to say, "if you don't support the mission, you don't support the troops." Pshaw!! The opposite is true -- it is precisely because I DO support the Canadian Armed Forces one-hundred percent that I oppose sending them on a combat mission which has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, and which does not directly affect Canada's national security interests. Coalition casualties have increased dramatically over the past several years, and the Taliban are once again massing on the outskirts of the Capital of Kabul. Sounds kinda like the North Vietnamese Army as they gradually advanced toward Saigon in 1973-74. The US could not possibly win the war in Vietnam, no matter how many American soldiers they sent or how many tons of bombs they dropped. Over 58,000 US Service Personnel died in that war, and for what? Because Lyndon Johnson and the Joint Chiefs of Staff mistakenly believed that a Communist takeover in South Vietnam would threaten US national security interests all over the world. Well, in the Spring of 1975 the Communist North Vietnamese Army did take over South Vietnam, and drove the Americans out. And less that 25-years later, the US and Vietnam re-established diplomatic relations, and Vietnam is a great tourist destination for American travellers.

It is painful in the extreme for the families of those brave Canadian men and women who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in Afghanistan to even consider the possibility that their loved ones may have died in vein. But that is the case, and I hold our political leaders responsible for the four-plus years of needless Canadian deaths in Afghanistan we have born witness to. Ask yourself the fundamental questions outlined above, and then read just a few paragraphs about the history, the people, and the political culture of Afghanistan on Wikipedia. When we look back twenty years from now on Canada's mission in Afghanistan, will the Canadian people regard it as a "Just War" that was worth fighting, or as a colossal strategic blunder ?? It may change your thinking on whether this mission has been worth the sacrifice in blood and treasure or not...

Peace & Love,

Jimmy James

Passing Me By ...

I haven't been blogging anywhere near as much as usual for quite a while now. And that's a problem for me on various levels.

Not the least of which is the fact that I still find stuff I want to blog about. And that stuff tends to pile up on my computer desk. Until, current events no longer being current, it gets dumped (with no small amount of guilt) into the recycle bin.

For example, the 100th anniversary of Canada's Navy. Halifax, being more or less a Navy town, it has special significance here.



But before I got my sorry butt around to commenting on that, the Canadian Navy experienced another significant first, this one much less happy.

Petty Officer 2nd Class Craig Blake was the 143rd member of the Canadian military to be killed in Afghanistan, but the first sailor. The navy clearance diver, who was based in Halifax, was sent to Afghanistan as an explosive ordnance disposal operator. And it was after disarming an improvised explosive device that he was, ironically enough, killed by an IED while walking back to camp.

Being based in Halifax, Petty Officer Blake returned here yesterday to have his ashes scattered in the Atlantic. The husband and father of two boys was only one week away from his 38th birthday.

But wait, before I could even get to that, yet another Canadian soldier was killed in Afghanistan. 24-year-old Pte. Kevin McKay. # 144.

Which makes me wonder ... is it better if I write about it? Or if I don't?

Sleight of Hand

Over at Lex's yesterday, Quartermaster opined that there was no valid reason for President Obama not to give McChrystal the 40K troops he asked for.

I mused that maybe he had a reason. Perhaps he was just trying to show the Democrats and the American people that he would not be bullied pushed around by the military.

And then today, it all came into sharper focus when I read this comment in a discussion about what role Canada might play in Afghanistan post-2011.

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon met in Brussels this past week with Canada’s NATO allies as the alliance cobbled together 7,000 additional troops from 20 countries, but not Canada. The number was short of the 10,000 the Obama administration wanted after committing an additional 30,000 U.S. personnel to the mission earlier in the week.

Cute.

Let's recap then. General McChrystal asked for 40,000 more troops for Afghanistan. Obama offered 30,000. And then looked to NATO make up the remaining 10,000.

I wonder how well that's going to work for him.

The British government is facing opinion polls showing that around 70 percent of the public favors an early withdrawal. That figure has nearly doubled in the past six months, as the country has sustained its worst casualties — 97 killed so far this year — since it first deployed troops to Afghanistan after the Taliban were toppled in 2001.

Germany and France have balked at committing any more forces to a war that has so little public support that they can barely maintain current troop levels.

The Netherlands and Canada have begun discussing plans to pull out. Canadian defense officials told reporters traveling with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in Halifax last week that they had no intention of sending troops in the future, and that they remained committed to withdrawing by the end of 2011.

Even if the allies make commitments for 5,000 or more new troops after the president’s address on Tuesday at West Point, NATO officials say, those commitments will include troops already in Afghanistan to provide security for recent elections and trainers for the Afghan Army and the police.

And it remains unclear whether several thousand NATO and other foreign troops are really the equal of a similarly sized American force in terms of military capacity. Some countries may continue to restrict how their forces may be employed. In addition, a force that is cobbled together from too many nations — a few hundred here and a thousand there — might not have the unit cohesion of an American force, military analysts said.

But don't you worry your pretty little head about it. I'm sure the President had a real good reason for waiting over 2 months to announce a decision to send 10,000 less troops that McChrystal asked for. And then asking his allies to make up the slack.

Which I suppose might just make it *our* fault when if the non-surge surge isn't successful. Seeing as how the United States is giving it all in the "good war". Alas, if only the those allies could be counted on to do their part.

The End of the Waiting Game?

This past Sunday, I expressed my feelings on the waiting game so many of us seem to be stuck in thanks to President Obama's decision not to decide on General McChyristal's request for more troops in Afghanistan.

Apparently I'm not the only one who feels stuck.

WAITING for Obama. Waiting for leadership. Waiting for effective aid. Waiting for a sign NATO is in for the long haul. Waiting for a reason not to bet the Taliban will outlast the Westerners and take over when they’ve had enough and leave.

Afghanistan is one big waiting game now and there isn’t much time for game-changing action.

. . .

The favourite candidate was U.S. President Barack Obama. U.S. Senator John McCain and Pakistani journalist Najam Sethi, editor-in-chief of Lahore’s Daily Times, were among those rightly calling upon President Obama to end the uncertainty about sending a "surge" of 40,000 troops to Afghanistan. Rick Hillier, Canada’s former chief of defence staff, went even further in saying Mr. Obama possesses the position and the ability to articulate a broader vision for rescuing Afghanistan, to touch people beyond the U.S. and to rally Western nations, including Canada, to renew their commitments rather than focus on exit strategies.

The president clearly is the crucial waiting-game changer. But there are others. Canada, the U.K. and the Netherlands have all been bulwarks against Taliban violence, but their long-term commitments, like those of other Western allies, have gone cloudy. A policy brief circulated at the conference makes a devastating case that development aid has been ineffective because donors didn’t build up managerial competence within the Afghan government and failed to co-ordinate aid efforts themselves. The country is still waiting for a "pilot" to steer aid where it’s most needed and most effective.

And yet, thankfully, according to Lex, there might just be signs of hope.

Then again, despite the use of the term "delusional" "decisional" to describe this latest meeting, for me, at least, it still retains the some of the same feel as before ... deciding not to decide.

The administration's plan contains "off-ramps," points starting next June at which Obama could decide to continue the flow of troops, halt the deployments and adopt a more limited strategy or "begin looking very quickly at exiting" the country, depending on political and military progress, one defense official said.

. . .

The plan adopted by Obama would fall well short of the 80,000 troops McChrystal suggested in August as a "low-risk option" that would offer the best chance to contain the Taliban-led insurgency and stabilize Afghanistan.

It splits the difference between two other McChrystal options: a "high-risk" approach that called for 20,000 additional troops and a "medium-risk" option that would add 40,000 to 45,000 troops.

There are 68,000 U.S. troops and 42,000 from other countries in Afghanistan. The U.S. Army's recently revised counterinsurgency manual estimates that an all-out counterinsurgency campaign in a country with Afghanistan's population would require about 600,000 troops.

Let's just hope it's not too little. Too late.

"This war is going to be decided," he told the conference, "over the decisions of athers of Pashto young men who are being asked by Taliban commanders to give them their sons to go out and fight against the Afghan government." These fathers, he says, need reasons to resist the Taliban line that "we’re going to chase the Americans out" and they "need to feel good about being on the right side."

"Anything we can do to change the tenor of that discussion will help, so that fathers of those Pashto young men say, ‘That’s what you said last year when you took my other son and he’s dead and the Americans still haven’t run away.’"

We should not keep them waiting for reasons to say no.

Dis Connect

The International Security Forum is being held in Halifax this weekend.

Building on the model of GMF’s successful Brussels Forum, the Halifax International Security Forum will feature a mix of plenary sessions and smaller breakout sessions, with emphasis on intimate and interactive exchanges between panelists and participants. On-the-record panels will cover broad themes such as international law, nuclear proliferation, and global transatlanticism. Breakout sessions held under the Chatham House Rule will explore challenges associated with North Korea, development, climate change, and counter terrorism, among other topics. The agenda reflects the growing diversity of issues at the core of the transatlantic security relationship as well as the increasing geographic reach of transatlantic cooperation. Finally, the Saturday night dinners, also under the Chatham House Rule, give every participant a unique opportunity to further discuss key issues in a more intimate setting and at the same time sample local cuisine.

This puts Canada in a "very exclusive club of countries who are tasked with this important role of peace and security", donchya know.

Uh huh.

Canada is scheduled to pull its troops (or the majority of them anyway) out of Afghanistan in 2011. That date is supposedly set in stone. And yet at the International Security Forum, some are publicly saying that President Obama needs to "weigh in" on Afghanistan and use some of famous eloquence to rally western nations and provide a clear articulate vision to win the war.

My first response being, "Yeah, right"; I don't think anyone is going to change the mind of what appears to be the majority of Canadians on this issue. Then again, on second thought, perhaps he could. If he really wanted to. Given his cult of personality.

But forget about putting half as much effort into the oratory on the idea of hope and change and winning the war in Afghanistan as he has into the debate about healthcare. First he would actually have to step up and, you know, make a decision. Walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

Just how long will it take Obama to decide on how to respond to General McChrystal's request for increased troops? I mean, this has been going on for quite a while, hasn't it? Like at least two months?

And during that time I've been noting the obvious - it's not just American troops dying while Obama fiddles. So too are Canadians. And. Others.

Which begs the question - if one of the reasons America's allies are fighting in Afghanistan is to help the US finish what it started, doesn't the US have an obligation to those same allies?

Doesn't Obama realize his actions and inactions affect not just his country, but many others?

And might some consider it a mite disingenuous that he ran on a plank of America needing to get out of Iraq but increase resources in Afghanistan, what he referred to as "the good war" given what appears to be the White House's current attitude?

So, yeah. Maybe, just maybe, President Obama needs to stop fiddling and dithering and make a decision on where the US stands on the war in Afghanistan. Before anyone even considers the possibility that he could convince the ROW to stay the course.

Armed Only With A Bayonet

I'm thinking it would be quite enough of a job just to be an "explosive ordnance disposal operator" in Afghanistan. But how would you like to tackle one of those IEDs without the benefit of your military-issued dismantling gear?

After surviving the first explosion which ripped through the Bison armoured vehicle he was riding in and destroyed his gear on September 28, 2006, Petty Officer (second class) Jim Leith faced the second IED armed only with his wits, training (obviously not to be underestimated) and a bayonet.

The Dartmouth [Nova Scotia]-based specialist wanted to dismantle the second improvised explosive device so he could get evidence against the insurgents who planted it and the first bomb.

He crawled to the IED. Leaning over, he gently brushed away the hot, sandy dirt from the device meant to kill him and his comrades.

"You’re thinking a hundred thoughts," Petty Officer Leith said Monday, remembering that dawn morning, a third of the way into the group’s 72 bomb-clearing missions in the hard-fought Pashmul district.

"If it goes off, I’ll never feel it," he said, thinking he would just be a puff of "pink mist" if the bomb did its job.

He was also thinking about his number two operator, Cpl. Jim Lightle, who had been medevaced out within a couple of minutes of the first explosion. The corporal’s leg had been "shattered," remembered Petty Officer Leith, a navy clearance diver and explosive ordnance disposal operator.

Fortunately, his friend was rushed into surgery at the hospital at Kandahar Airfield and was later airlifted to a forces hospital in Germany.

For Petty Officer Leith, the task of dismantling the double-stacked IED remained. He had to see if it was booby-trapped.

Sometimes, insurgents aren’t content with one or two bombs, they’ll add a grenade underneath for good measure, he said.

"I’d just got my bell rung 40 minutes ago," he said. "You’ve got to make the lonely walk (to the IED). Somebody’s gotta do it."

Dirt brushed away, he cut a wire connected to the IED that had been buried under the dirt.

The earlier blast had destroyed his sophisticated dismantling gear, so he turned to his bayonet.

Using the "nice, sharp pointy end," Petty Officer Leith rendered the Taliban’s IED useless.

He won’t reveal exactly how he did it.

"We’re all . . . trained to do certain things with certain tools. We can’t let them in on our playbook."

It took a full day before the ringing in the Petty Officer's head subsided. To say nothing of his aches and pains from the blast.

In June, 2008, Leith was awarded the Star of Courage which is awarded to those who perform acts of "conspicuous courage in circumstances of great peril."

Well done, Petty Officer. And on behalf of your fellow Canadians, may God bless you.

The Beginning of the End?

* Updated Below*

I fear that we are in danger of losing our mission. I really think that at this point Canada could be in danger of completely losing popular support for its mission in Afghanistan.

It's not like the polls were looking stellar before this.

Last month, an Angus Reid poll found that almost half of Canadians would end our role in Afghanistan before 2011 (the scheduled pull-out date) if the choice were up to them. In the online survey, 48 per cent of respondents wanted the bulk of the troops currently deployed in Afghanistan to be withdrawn before 2011, 35 per cent would continue until the end of the mission in 2011, and only seven per cent believe Canadian soldiers should remain in Afghanistan after 2011.

And now?

Now, even I, in the die-hard 7% group apparently (which, by the way, I don't quite buy, I think the actual number of Canadians who would support Canada staying in Afghanistan after 2011 would be somewhat higher than that) have begun to question what, exactly, we think we are doing there.

The way I see it, we went to Afghanistan for both selfish and humanitarian reasons. To prevent the country from becoming another hot-bed for terrorists who threaten not just our way of life, but our very lives. And, equally as important, to help the Afghan people rebuild and gain control of their country. To help put them in a position to live a better life. To help improve the life of women who have lived for years in conditions that Canadian women can barely fathom.

Not to perpetuate a society where it would be illegal for women to refuse to have sex with their husbands. Not to perpetuate a society which requires women to get approval from a male relative in order to leave the house.

You've got to be kidding.

Yes, I understand there are "cultural and religious differences" between life in Canada and life in Afghanistan. I equally understand that "cultural and religious differences" can easily be used as a cover for other intents and purposes. Intents and purposes which Canada simply cannot, in good conscience, be part of.

Yes, it's complex. We said we would give them democracy. And shouldn't democracy include the right to make their own decisions, form their own laws? Maybe so, but it doesn't mean that we have to be a part of it.

If that is the choice their 'democratically elected' government makes, then we need to seriously consider our continued presence in Afghanistan and take a serious look at what options are open to us. I don't see how staying and supporting such a government can result in anything less than tainting our soldiers, our government, ourselves. Making us equally guilty.

Apparently, my fellow Canadians agree.

A survey by The Canadian Press/Harris-Decima suggests 40 per cent of Canadians support the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan. But should the family law code be enacted, the poll suggests opposition to the mission would rise to roughly 75 per cent.

I am well aware that international outrage has forced the Afghan government to promise a review of the proposed law. A review that is expected to take two to three months, likely postponing the law's enactment until after the presidential election in August. And then?

Then, if such a law is still "on the table", so to speak, Canada must take a stand. I may not be entirely sure what the *right* thing to do is but I do know that we cannot simply keep doing what we are doing. Not in those circumstances.

Update: It's nice to see that it's not just us *foreigners* protesting the passage of this law. And that Afghan women are actually willing to speak truth to power.

Although I must say that taking the position that the legislation, which has already been approved by both houses of Parliament and signed by the President, is not yet law because it has yet to be published in the government’s official register is a bit of stretch, don't you think?

H/T to Neptunus Lex for the update

Kandahar

I've never been a big fan of Matt Minglewood. But after hearing this song, for the first time today, I could just change my mind.

Matt wrote this after spending six days with the Canadian troops in Kandahar.

Words of Wisdom

Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan are offering two words of advice to the expected incoming surge of 17,000 American troops.

"Bring Tanks"

And while many of those supposedly "in the know" apparently feel that the war in Afghanistan is already a lost cause, I dearly hope they are wrong. Very, very wrong.

One Hundred

A nice round number, it is.

It might be considered large, might just be considered small. It all depends on the context, I suppose.

But it just happens to be the sad milestone reached this past Friday as the number of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan. I hesitate to admit that I have been "waiting" for this day to come. Not wanting it, of course, but awaiting it.

Here's the thing - it's such a small number compared to the losses of other countries. In both Afghanistan and Iraq. Or compared to the number of Iraqi and Afghans civilians killed or even just the numbers of American military who have died.

How does one go about even making sense of these numbers?

And admittedly it's miniscule compared to the number of Canadian soldiers lost in WW II ~ 45, 300 dead from a populating of only 11,267,000 ~ or WW I ~ 69,944 dead from a population of only 7.2 million.

Yet, for whatever the reason, and despite the references to "combat fatigue", it's a large number to Canadians. A number that weighs heavily on the Canadian psyche.

Personally, I believe wholeheartedly in what we are doing in Afghanistan. Many Canadians feel the same way. Many don't. And many, I would venture, are tremendously swayed by either way whatever the current news coverage might be on a given day.

Either which way, I doubt too many would argue that it is time to bring this one to a close. If it can and could and has been done in Iraq, than surely we can turn such a corner in Afghanistan. And the way I see it, there is only one way to do that.

We keep hearing that more American Marines have been or will be redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Please.

Make it happen.

Already.

And my condolences.
To the families of those last three soldiers killed this past Friday.

And to the families of all the soldiers who have lost their lives in this cause, from whatever country.

'Don't Let Them Down'

Although this video was clearly made for the American military, it applies equally to our own brave Canadian soldiers. And it seems even more appropriate when we consider that we are only a few short days away from voting for the future of our country.

I found this video deeply touching. Hope you do, too.


H/T to Fuzzilicious Thinking

From Social Justice To 'Taliban Jack'

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away ... okay, maybe not quite that long ago and not that far away ... I was a firm supporter of the NDP.

For my American friends, that's about as far left as the Canadian political spectrum goes. Although for the sake of clarity, I would have to say is not quite as far left as American Democrats go.

Anyway, as I was saying, I could pretty well be counted on to vote NDP. Because basically I believed in what they believed in. 'Social justice', I suppose I would label it, for lack of a better term. Sure, I foraged a little closer to the centre occasionally, with a few votes for the Liberals sprinkled here and there (which generally happened when I particularly liked the Liberal candidate in my riding), but for the most part, I sided with the NDP.

And although I remain a big NDP supporter provincially, it's more than a bit of a different story federally. I lost faith with the federal NDPs a long time ago. I can't say for sure exactly when but it was probably sometime around the end of Alexa McDonough's time as leader of the federal party.

Prior to Alexa taking over as leader of the federal party in 1995, she had been the leader of the Nova Scotia NDP party. I had really liked Alexa in her provincial stint, so I was pleased to see her take over leadership of the federal party. But it must have been sometime shortly before Alexa's retirement in 2003 that I felt my faith with the federal NDP start to wain.

Criticism. All criticism. All the time.

That they were good at. But at some point they seemed to start losing their ability to come up with constructive alternatives, constructive solutions. While in her stint as leader of the Nova Scotia NDP (where she was by the way the first woman in Canada elected to lead a major party in a provincial legislature) Alexa coined the phrase "shocked and appalled," which eventually became synonymous with her. And, when she moved on to the federal party, the phrase, at least in my mind, became synonymous with that party. Because it seemed like they were, you know, "shocked and appalled" by just about everything.

For part of her time in Nova Scotia, Alexa was the lone NDP member in the house, a one-man woman party, as it were. And in her own words:

"I was often pretty obnoxious in terms of flying by the seat of my pants and in some ways living up to the worst stereotype of kind of a holier-than-thou ‘I know what’s right here and what’s wrong with the rest of you.’ I can understand how that would happen, and somehow ‘shocked and appalled’ seemed to be the label they put on it."

Alexa was followed federally by Taliban Jack Jack Layton in 2003. He remains the leader of the federal party today and quite frankly, he has rubbed me the wrong way from the get-go. Initially it was the constant carping, the negativity, the apparent disagreeing just for the sake of disagreement and the nothing positive to offer in return posture. Later, it was often issue-based, as well. So, no, not a big fan.

And now, it looks like Layton is up to his usual shenanigans. Earlier this week, Layton (quite predictably) seized upon the comment of British Brig-Gen. Mark Carleton-Smith that "we're not going to win this war" in Afghanistan. He was also quite happy to tag team the General's comments advocating negotiations with the Taliban.

Did I ever mention how the Conservatives had given Layton the handle "Taliban Jack" a few years ago for his suggestion that all would be well if we would just sit down and "talk" with the Taliban? Yeah, my reaction exactly.

At any rate, I imagine we could have renamed Layton 'Happy Jack' earlier this week as it seems as if he has been spouting how horrid, wrong and immoral the actions of Canadian troops in Afghanistan have been for at least a couple of years now. And how they need to come home. Now. Did I mention how that better be right now?

Yes, once again, Layton acted in predictable style. In his own words:

"I'm heartened by the words of this senior military commander who is adding his voice to those many, many Canadians and others around the world who believe that the prosecution of the continued war effort has got to be changed,” Mr. Layton said.

“The New Democrats came out very early with this view and we've continued to argue respectfully with those who disagree that there's got to be a new path ... Let's hope that more and more people are reaching this conclusion.”

Well, Jack, you might want to check your facts a little more carefully before you try jumping on that particular bandwagon. Make sure there actually is a bandwagon, like, and who might actually be on it.

Apparently, what the senior British military commander actually said was that troop levels need to be sufficient to contain the insurgency to a level where it does not threaten the survival of the country's democratically elected government.

And by the by, Mr. Layton, just to be clear, the key to negotiating with any Afghan tribes which might be persuaded to switch sides, much like disgruntled Sunni tribes did in Iraq, is that any such negotiation must come from a position of strength.

As pointed out in an editorial in Wednesday's edition of the Chronicle Herald,

Ultimately, Mr. Layton’s policies would only weaken the Afghan government’s hand. If all NATO countries were to follow his lead – declare the war unwinnable, then pull out their contingents ASAP – what precisely would there be left to negotiate with the Taliban on the ground?

Surrender?

Damn. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Ending The Debate About The Debate and Not Going To War Over The War

Amid mounting public outrage over their exclusion of Elizabeth May from the televised election debates, Conservative leader, Stephen Harper, and NDP leader, Jack Layton, have backed down. The big boys will now let the new kid on the block into the room.

Or, in the words of Layton, "This whole issue of debating about the debate has become a distraction to the real debate that needs to happen".

So right that, we wouldn't want to be distracted by the whole debate over the debate, would we? And it's not like this decision would have anything to do with the very real fear that you might just actually pay for those 'business as usual' 'old boys club only' tactics this time around, would it?

In other news, Harper has set 2011 as the 'end date' for Canada's participation in the war in Afghanistan. Although the Afghanistan mission had been extended to 2011 earlier this year, with a shift to emphasizing priorities of reconstruction and development in the region, Harper had never clearly come out with accepting that as a troop pullout date. In fact, he refused to do so. Until now that is.

And although some might consider announcing such intentions to the world at large at this point to be irresponsible, we must remember that we are currently in the midst of an election campaign.

"I think people have to realize that there's an election going on, and there's going to be a lot of promises," said Steven Staples, president of the Ottawa-based Rideau Institute, a public policy think-tank.

"He's likely to say whatever he can to win a majority," he told CTV.ca.

No. Really?
Who would have thunk it?

Calling A Spade A Spade

I have a bit of a 'thing' about something ... okay, in all honesty, I probably have a bit of a 'thing' about a few things but one thing that really irks me is the indiscriminate use of the word "evil".

It's not that I object to the casual use of the word because of some Pollyanna belief that no person is actually evil; that all men have good to be found in them. Although I might believe that about many of my fellow humans, I have no doubt that evil exists in this world. And that we need not look far to see it. Be it at home or abroad.

No, I object to the casual use of the term because for me it simply serves to downplay what really is evil. Perhaps I give the word a stronger connotation than many. Not merely 'morally wrong' or 'morally objectionable', for me 'evil' is the ultimate antithesis of everything it means to be human ... intentional, callous acts perpetrated on the innocent that are cruel, sickening and disgusting.

And we use the term indiscriminatley, when we apply it merely to things we disagree with or dislike, how will we know and acknowledge true evil when we really see it?

But in the same way as I object to the casual use of the term, I also object to our failure to use it when it really does apply. When it cries out to be uttered.

• The hanging by his feet and shooting of a 16-year-old boy for the 'crime' of being an apprentice truck driver whose job was to bring humanitarian food shipments to Kandahar
• The killing of 23 aid workers this year in Afghanistan, an increase from the total of 15 killed in 2007.
• The targeting of humanitarian workers and non-governmental organizations – all of which are deemed part and parcel of the "foreign invader forces"
• The use of the mentally challenged, the mentally ill and the homeless as 'suicide bombers'

To me, these examples personifiy evil.

And should you have any doubt, consider this - an open letter addressed to "the Canadian people" imploring us to convince our government to pull out of Afghanistan or face more attacks like the one that killed two Canadian aid workers last week. Because although the Taliban doesn't want to kill Canadians, they have no choice as long as Canada continues following the "American'' agenda.

And should you still harbour some small doubt, consider the allegation that Canada has "sacrificed'' our national and international self-respect by not following a "neutral agenda.''

"Neutral agenda"? Was there really anything "neutral" about Sept. 11, 2001? The death toll from New York was 2,057 people while a further 189 people died when a plane was flown into the Pentagon and another 44 were killed when a hijacked jet crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. Citizens from 90 different countries. Fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and children from around the world. Including 24 Canadians.

MAYBE it’s because we’ve called them "insurgents" instead of "terrorists" once too often. Or maybe it’s because we get our news in high definition – with every shade and hue in vivid contrast – that we no longer recognize black-and-white truths when we see them.

What is going on in Afghanistan today is a battle between right and wrong. This does not mean that "we" are all angels, and "they" are all monsters. But at bottom, Canada and its partners’ intentions in Afghanistan are good.

The Taliban’s are not. Their deeds are evil, and this is not just a matter of cultural perspective...

Isn't it about time we all started calling a spade a spade?

Has Canadian Journalism Gone Yellow?

"Canadian Troops Kill 2 Afghan Children"

Girl, 4, and her brother, 2, hit as soldiers fire on speeding car

’My innocent children have been killed by foreigners — for no reason.’ Mother of slain children

’This is the last thing soldiers want to happen. . . . The soldiers believed they had to take action to protect their convoy because the car was coming toward them at high speed.’ Canadian army

Funny, I was actually niave enough to think that the American media were the only ones who actively tried to make their military look bad, who actively and deliberately slanted their headlines to scream something to the effect of "Our bloodthirsty soldiers must be stopped!".

Apparently, sadly, I was wrong.

I mean, I could be way off base here. But in comparision to the above headline, don't you think this just slightly changes the story?

Canadian troops killed a four-year-old girl and her two-year-old brother Sunday by opening fire on a car that they feared was about to attack their convoy in Afghanistan.

Soldiers said that as the car sped toward them in Panjwaii district outside Kandahar city, they flashed the lights on their vehicles, made hand gestures and issued audio warnings for it to pull over.

The car came within 10 metres of the convoy.

The crew in a light armoured vehicle faced a life-or-death choice and had very little time to make it — fire at the car, or risk being blown up by a suicide bomber.

Really, is there any excuse for that sort of headline?

And please don't feed me that crap about violence and gore selling or that they only write the stuff we want to read. Because these are our own Canadian soldiers, our neighbours' sons and daughters, and our very country they're selling down the river. Unjustly.

Now you might respond that those very pieces I highlighted give the lie to the sensational headline, that anyone who reads the first few paragraphs will immediately get the real story. True enough. But there's only one small problem ... how many people will read read that headline and never stop to read one further word in the article? Will never read that the soldiers had a legitimate fear for their own lives and tried to warn the vehicle away to no avail?

Think about it, how often do you walk by a newspaper on display in a store, read the headline and keep on walking? Leaving those words, "Canadian Troops Kill 2 Afghan Children" to ring in your ears. And how many people do little more than skim the headlines at any time?

So do these types of headlines really matter? Yes, yes they do. And frankly, I expect better from Canadian journalists. Because selling out our military in order to sell newspapers is quite simply not okay with me. Is it with you?

And no, I'm sorry, but you can't justify this, not for one single second, just because you report 'the rest of the story' a few paragraphs down. Because by then, the damage is already done.

And for that, we can thank "Canada's trusted news leader", The Canadian Press.

Update: Stay tuned for Part II of my thoughts on the article from hell.

Down The Rabbit Hole

I was reading the latest in the saga as to exactly what information the Conservative government was privy to in the Omar Khadr matter yesterday. Apparently new documents released by the Foreign Affairs Department show that Canadian officials knew in 2004 that "the US military was depriving the then 17-year-old Khadr of sleep for weeks to soften him up for interrogation".

Putting aside for the moment of the issue of whether or not Canada should have done more (or anything) to get Khadr out of Guantanamo and have him returned to Canada and recognizing that I ain't no fan of either Prime Minister Harper or his Conservative government, I have to say that I quite taken aback by these statements from Khadr's lawyer.

It boggles my mind that this prime minister is prepared to criticize China over human rights and is prepared to lambaste Mexico for the way its criminal justice system is applied to a Canadian," said Edney.

"But when you have a young Canadian who is in Guantanamo Bay whom Canadian courts have said has been abused and tortured, our government remains silent."

Excuse me, but when, exactly, did depriving a person of sleep to "soften them up" for interrogation become defined as "torture"? Admittedly, it's not very pleasant and certainly not a very hospitable thing to do, but torture?

A quick Google search for the definition of torture yields the following:

Definitions of torture on the Web:

anguish: extreme mental distress

unbearable physical pain

agony: intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical pain; "an agony of doubt"; "the torments of the damned"

distortion: the act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean

torment: torment emotionally or mentally subject to torture; "The sinners will be tormented in Hell, according to the Bible"

the deliberate, systematic, or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons in an attempt to force another person to yield information or to make a confession or for any other reason; "it required unnatural torturing to extract a confession" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Or try these documents.

The U.S. Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991:

b) Torture- For the purposes of this Act–
(1) the term `torture’ means any act, directed against an individual in the offender’s custody or physical control, by which severe pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering arising only from or inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions), whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on that individual for such purposes as obtaining from that individual or a third person information or a confession, punishing that individual for an act that individual or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, intimidating or coercing that individual or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind; and
(2) mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from–
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another individual will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment:

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Now, I'm sorry but nowhere can I equate anything in any of that with simple sleep deprivation. Particularly given that the reference to "depriving ... Khadr of sleep for weeks" was more succinctly described as not being permitted more than three hours in any one location for a three week period.

At three-hour intervals he is moved to another cell block, thus denying him uninterrupted sleep and a continued change of neighbours."

The documents go on to say that Khadr was to be placed in isolation for up to three weeks and then interviewed again.

I'm certainly not privy to what else might or might not have been done to Khadr. So I will make no comment on a recent Federal Court finding that that the way the U.S. military prepared Khadr for interrogation with visiting Canadian government officials broke human rights laws, including the Geneva Conventions.

But I do feel that I can say with a fair degree of certainty that not permitting someone more than three hours in any one location does not qualify as "torture". Not in any case and certainly not for someone suspected of lobbing a grenade that killed a Special Forces soldier following a firefight in Afghanistan.

Then again, I wouldn't consider at least half of the stuff listed here as "torture" either. Although, just to be clear, unlike many others, I would and do consider waterboarding to qualify as "torture".

But as for the rest of it, if I start referring to a chair as a table and enough other people start mimicking me and doing the same, will that chair really become a table?

Amazing Figure

Wow! Here's something definitely worth writing home about.

Now if only they (and we and us) could bring that same type of "improved security" situation to Afghanistan. Did we ever get those extra Marines, by the way? Because if anybody's listening, I think we sure could use them.

H/T to Lex