Topic: Commons to vote on Afghanistan Mission Extension.......

[MarkOttawa]

Quagmire: Michael Ignatieff and Scott Brison (Liberal leadership candidates) voted for the motion.

"Leadership hopefuls Joe Volpe, Maurizio Bevilacqua, Hedy Fry, Stephane Dion and Ken Dryden voted against it.

Former prime minister Paul Martin wasn't present."
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060517/nato_afghan_060518/20060518?hub=Canada

Mr Dithers indeed.  To be kind.

Mark
Ottawa

[Lone Wolf AT]

Michael Ignatieff I believe was the one mentioned who according to the coverage I watched is a bid supporter of the stuff the CF is doing now.  Which lead to the wonderings about the Liberal Leadership race and if this will divide the party.
Its also rumored that no not because of the extension but because of how the Conservatives went about the whole thing.

[GAP]

It was reported on CTV last night that Michael Ignatieff and 11 of his supporters voted for the extension. He has always been for the deployment and Brison, ever the opportunist (see Atlantic support for the CF), supported it also.

[Lone Wolf AT]

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060517/nato_afghan_060518

Afghan mission extension 'no surprise' to soldiers
CTV.ca News Staff

Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan have reportedly welcomed Wednesday's Commons vote to extend their mission by another two years.

Just hours after Canada suffered its first female combat death in the war-torn country, MPs voted by a narrow margin of 149-145 to extend the Canadian military mission to February 2009.

Capt. Nichola Goddard, 26, was killed during a firefight with Taliban insurgents Wednesday.


CTV's Janice Mackey Frayer, reporting from Kandahar, said although there hadn't been any official reaction to the vote, soldiers she had spoken to had shown "a degree of inevitability" about the mission being extended.

"When foreign minister Peter MacKay had his surprise visit here last week, there was talk that perhaps Canadian troops would be staying longer," Mackey Frayer told CTV's Canada AM Thursday.

"The fact that the mission is being extended comes as no surprise because very few, if anybody here, believe that the task would be done by February, 2007."

Warrant Officer Bruno Wissell likened the Afghan mission to Bosnia.

"It's going to be similar to Bosnia, where we were there for 10 years and we had people that were doing two or three tours," he told reporters from Kandahar Thursday.

"Once you get into a mission, you always want to finish what you started."

Sergeant Scott O'Neill also approved the mission's extension, calling it "a no-brainer."

He told The Canadian Press that the coalition is only starting to make headway and needs to keep at it until the job is done.

Motion

After the Conservative motion passed late Wednesday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper walked across the floor and shook hands with Liberal Opposition Leader Bill Graham, who voted in favour of the extension.

Graham was defence minister when the current Afghan mission was deployed.

"I'm obviously pleased, the vote was obviously much closer than we thought even 24 hours ago," Harper told reporters.

"Support for the mission is a lot stronger than the vote. There were a lot of people in there who just wanted to vote against the government."

Harper accused the Bloc Québécois of playing political games over the issue, and attributed his narrow victory to Conservatives and "certain Liberals who acted on principle."

While Graham voted in favour, another former Liberal defence minister, John McCallum, voted against the motion.

Leadership contender Michael Ignatieff voted for the extension, while rivals Stéphane Dion, Ken Dryden and Joe Volpe voted against.

The vote leaves the Liberal Party deeply divided over an issue that will likely dominate the coming Liberal leadership campaign.

A defiant Harper led off the debate Wednesday by declaring he would extend the mission by a year in any case, with or without the support of the House, and would be willing to call an election on the issue.

"We cannot walk away quickly," Harper told the House. "If we need further efforts or further mandate to go ahead into the future, we will go so alone and go to the Canadian people to get that mandate."

The Conservatives announced the debate and vote for a two-year extension on Monday, and MPs spent about six hours debating whether Canada's troops should come home as scheduled in February 2007, or stay until 2009.

The Bloc Québécois and New Democratic Party voted against the motion.

NDP Leader Jack Layton said the mission would see Canada straying from its traditional role as peace keeper.

Meanwhile, Graham allowed Liberal MPs a free vote and in the end Graham and 29 other Liberals supported the motion.


Graham earlier criticized the government for holding a vote without providing enough time to debate the issue. He said his party supports the troops and the mission in Afghanistan, but that MPs were voting "with a gun to our heads."

Canada has around 2,300 soldiers in Afghanistan, with most stationed at Kandahar Airfield.

The Globe and Mail reported Wednesday that the government's sudden decision to call a debate and vote was in part because NATO wants Canada to take over command of the entire Afghan mission in 2008.

[Michael Dorosh]

I find it interesting that CTV reported Harper shook hands with Graham, but CBC did not.

[zipperhead_cop]

Michael Ignatieff I believe was the one mentioned who according to the coverage I watched is a bid supporter of the stuff the CF is doing now.  Which lead to the wonderings about the Liberal Leadership race and if this will divide the party.
Its also rumored that no not because of the extension but because of how the Conservatives went about the whole thing.

I wouldn't be surprised to see another Liberal good MP/bad MP play like they did with Dithers taking over from Cretin.  That whole "he's a bad guy/ you go pound it" donkey show was just a thinly veiled stunt to capture publicity.  Look at how much press that got them, they got to make Cretin the big bad boogie man and Dithers the new golden boy who was being picked on because he was such a straight up guy.  Smart people management.  And low and behold, a Liberal victory in the face of huge scandal in the previous federal election.
Now, you have a Liberal leadership race (what is it up to now, 37 hopefuls?) and you see the front runners going against their party.  The poorly worded polls didn't sway Canadians feelings about the troops, and the insiders would know the real information behind the stats they skewed.  The front runners can now paint themselves as rogue upstarts, bravely foraging against the grain for the good of Queen and Country.  Contrary votes get press no matter what.  No matter what we think of them (and it is pretty piss poor) the Lieberals are good at media manipulation.  Don't be surprised when Dithers starts to be made out as a lightning rod and the front runners "just can't be silent any longer in all fairness to Canadians everywhere".  I'm calling bullshit.

[Hot Lips]

Well, well...I watched most of the debate off and on yesterday and of course the vote late last evening...it sickens me to think that regardless of what the others think of Harper, what the others think of the Liberal party that they were willing to vote, not on what was at hand but on the principle of how it was presented to the members of Parliament.

For the love of god, would these overgrown, overpaid individuals just suck it up and vote to support the mission already!!!!
When do they shut down the politicking and get to work...decisions at hand...that require real attention, not attention seeking behavior.
Nevertheless I was happy to see the motion passed...

I would have to concur that General Mackenzie's remarks about Jack Layton were extremely amusing and so very accurate in depicting the fact that Jack Layton doesn't have one iota of an idea what he is talking about...the statement from Gen. Mackenzie to the effect that Jack Layton needs to realize we don't do these touchy feely peacekeeping missions any more...was hilarious...and that no one is doing that kind of peace keeping (Layton's reference of peacekeeping) no one in the world...it cracked me up...he's an amazing individual in my opinion...

Well that's the end of my 2 cents

HL

[Thucydides]

Harper is far smarter than any of us think. This vote was a test of the waters, and soon our friend David Emmerson might find some of his old pals sitting on his side of the floor. What a test by fire, who is a party drone, and who has the potential to do the right thing (in all senses of the word)?

Technicolour dreaming? Maybe.........or maybe not 

[Hot Lips]

a_majoor,

I do agree that Harper is intelligent and strategic in his thinking and actions...I'm a big fan of his ballsy political style...and I agree the waters were definitely tested last night on more ways than one 

HL

[Enzo]

Yeah. I concur with majoor's thinking about Harper. That was definitely a toe in the water.

[Technoviking]

Technicolour dreaming? Maybe.........or maybe not 

Hopefully not, but what does "Ken Ore, Ya mo tsuki" actually mean???

[E.R. Campbell]

Here is an interesting opinion piece by Eugene Lang, copied, under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, from today’s Globe and Mail.

Mr. Lang is a partisan Liberal but, unlike me and, I suspect all of us, he was there, in the room.  Some may doubt his motive and some may suspect that he ‘tailors’ the facts, as he remembers them, to support his case but we should not doubt his honesty – not without real proof.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060519.wxcoafghan19/BNStory/specialComment/home

We never discussed the real Afghan option

EUGENE LANG

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Parliament has just narrowly passed a motion approving a two-year extension to Canada's military operation in Afghanistan. The government framed the issue as a stark choice between extending the current mission in Kandahar or withdrawing the Canadian Forces entirely from Afghanistan.

In reality, the choice is not black and white at all. To grasp the real options for Canada in Afghanistan, you need to understand the complex nature of the current mission and the history behind it.

In 2003, Jean Chrétien decided that Canada would offer to command and contribute 2,000 troops to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), a multinational NATO mission in Kabul. Its mandate fell somewhere between combat and peacekeeping and was designed to provide security and stability to the nascent Afghan government.

Canada's then military leadership was concerned that the Canadian Forces would get bogged down in ISAF, unable to extricate themselves for several years. As a result, an exit strategy was developed. It was decided that, after a year of commanding and contributing a large number of troops to ISAF, Canada would deploy a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Afghanistan. The PRT would be made up of 200 to 300 soldiers, plus other civilian government officials, and would allow Canada to gracefully bow out of ISAF, yet remain committed to Afghanistan and carry out important reconstruction tasks -- such as training police and advising on governance -- elsewhere in the country.

Officials in the Department of National Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs, frequently at odds with one another, dithered and bickered for about a year and a half over where Canada's PRT should be located. During that crucial period, other NATO countries deployed PRTs throughout Afghanistan. Hence, by early 2005, the only part of the country that lacked a sufficient number of PRTs was the Kandahar region, the birthplace of the Taliban, the locus of the resistance and the most dangerous and unstable part of Afghanistan. As a result, Canada's PRT decision became academic; we had won the Kandahar sweepstakes by default.

At this point, Paul Martin had replaced Mr. Chrétien as prime minister and had appointed a new chief of the defence staff, General Rick Hillier, who had headed the ISAF mission. Gen. Hillier advised Mr. Martin that, in addition to the PRT, Canada should deploy a 1,000-troop combat task force, plus special forces that, together, would carry out essential counterinsurgency operations in Kandahar, in part to relieve the Americans.

Mr. Martin, who was never keen on Canada's presence in Afghanistan, reluctantly approved this expanded mission, principally because he was told it would not preclude a second significant Canadian Forces deployment to Darfur or Haiti, both of which were preoccupying him. There was also an understanding at that time that the combat part of the Kandahar mission would be in place for one year only, but that the PRT would likely stay beyond that point. I was in the room in the spring of 2005 when those decisions and commitments were made.

For reasons that are not yet clear, the Harper government is equivocal on whether a significant second mission elsewhere in the world can be mounted in tandem with the extension of the Afghanistan mission.

That brief history explains how and why the Canadian Forces ended up with a combined combat and reconstruction mission in Kandahar. And when put in this context, it is obvious that the Harper government had another option, aside from the false choice of total withdrawal or extension of the existing mission.

Parliament could have been asked to approve an extension -- and perhaps even an increase in the size -- of the reconstruction force. The reconstruction force, by the way, is not a group of namby-pamby soldiers running around with hearts on their sleeves and flowers in their hair. While having a robust mix of soft skills, this unit is made up of highly trained, well-armed, combat-ready soldiers, housed in a virtual fortress, very capable of defending itself against any likely conventional foe in Afghanistan.

With a firm and long-term commitment to a PRT in Kandahar, Canada could have withdrawn our combat forces as was originally planned, having done our bit in the more offensive side of the operation. Another NATO country could then fill in for Canada in the combat role we had vacated, continuing the burden sharing that is the hallmark of the alliance. The choice of focusing on reconstruction and development would have been acceptable within NATO and much more in keeping with what Canadians like to see their military doing abroad.

Yet, that option was never discussed publicly.

The decision to extend Canada's Afghan mission is no trivial matter. This is a huge issue for Canada, with appreciable human and financial costs. Forcing a sudden and premature parliamentary vote on it is one thing, but framing it as a simplistic choice to either stay in Afghanistan or abandon this struggling country is the real sin.

Eugene Lang was chief of staff to Liberal defence ministers John McCallum and Bill Graham.

Lang say that: “Officials in the Department of National Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs, frequently at odds with one another, dithered and bickered for about a year and a half over where Canada's PRT should be located.”  I’m sure that’s true but I think he might have been a touch more accurate had he said something like: “Officials and political appointee staffers in the Prime Minister’s Office, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs, frequently at odds with one another, dithered and bickered …”

Lang fails to point out that bureaucracies (including military bureaucracies) like political parties, change their minds – sometimes, even often to reflect the views of a new leader.  It appears, to me, that DND (and, in part, DFAIT) changed their minds in 2005.  New leadership was and remains intent on transforming the CF and part of that transformation is to get rid of the namby-pamby image and mind set (throughout the government and the country) which bedevils the CF today.

Those points being made I accept the crux of Lang’s position:

•   Canada did, indeed, ditrher its way into dangerous Kandahar;

•   There were options available to PMs Martin and Harper – both made choices, perhaps in ignorance and by default, but choices none the less;

•   Parliament’s debate was narrow.


The responsibility for the dithering rests 100% with the Martin government in which Mr. Lang served in a senior political capacity.

PM Harper has made a choice.  It is a ‘legitimate’ choice based on defensible foreign and defence policy grounds.  Mr. Lang may not like the choice but two dozen Liberals did and another dozen were too timid to show up for the vote.

The fact that parliamentarians failed to deal with a complex question in a sensible, professional manner speaks to the low quality of too many elected members which, in turn, speaks to the low quality of the political process – in all parties – in Canada.  Mr. Lang, as a senior political operator bears some responsibility for that, too.

[GAP]

I keep getting the feeling that we should apologize for aggressively going after the insurgents. Everything is couched in politically correct terms and in a roundabout manner.

What is so terrible about going out and kicking A#$ and being proud of do it?

[MarkOttawa]

A good and realistic column by Richard Gwyn in the Toronto Star, May 19, "The choice before us is not whether we stay or go; it is whether to try to hide in the past or plunge into the future":
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1147989015328&call_pageid=968256290204

Excerpts:
'...
There's no doubt whatever, though, that political pressure is going to build on the government to get our 2,300 troops out as soon as decently possible...

There is a strong pacifist sentiment in this country. It's strongest in Quebec for historical reasons.

But it's widespread; it explains why, until quite recently, Canadians had come to regard our military as a kind of police force that went around the world handing out sacks of flour and in the meantime helped out at home during ice storms.

Those days are long gone. They're never going to come back...

In Afghanistan, the mission isn't to prevent a war between nation-states but to build a nation-state, from virtually nothing.

This has to be a long-term project. It can't be done, by many allies as well as ourselves, in under five years.

The attempt to do this may fail, of course. It's excruciatingly difficult.

To win, the enemy, the Taliban, does not need to win militarily. It only needs to kill enough people, both Afghans and the foreign troops, until it has won politically.

Political victory for the Taliban will happen when and if public demand in Canada forces the government to opt out of the mission...

It will be a victory for the forces of darkness, of hatred, of those who refuse to accept that all people everywhere have the right to a chance at a decent life...'

Mark
Ottawa

[Hot Lips]

Well put...
It's a shame why we can't just get on with supporting this mission, which was started by the Liberals and stop all the debates already...how much time and money has been spent debating...would have better been spent on supporting...IMO

HL

[zipperhead_cop]

"Mr. Martin, who was never keen on Canada's presence in Afghanistan, reluctantly approved this expanded mission, principally because he was told it would not preclude a second significant Canadian Forces deployment to Darfur or Haiti, both of which were preoccupying him. There was also an understanding at that time that the combat part of the Kandahar mission would be in place for one year only, but that the PRT would likely stay beyond that point. I was in the room in the spring of 2005 when those decisions and commitments were made."

If this statement was true, then perhaps Dithers should have SHOWN UP and had his say.  Seems like that would have been a pretty big political stick to swing, if it existed.  Pretty easy for Mr. Lang to throw around now that he is not in the "game". 

+1 for Edwards assessment of our time wasting, largely usesless Parliamentary procedures.  It's hard to believe that we even have running water in this country with that gong show making decisions for us.

[North Star]

The NDHQ grapevine says that yes, there was dithering and as such we ended up with Kandahar. But it was "political" dithering between members of cabinet. I suspect the Globe article was indeed taliored a bit.

[armybuck041]

+1 for Edwards assessment of our time wasting, largely usesless Parliamentary procedures.  It's hard to believe that we even have running water in this country with that gong show making decisions for us.

Now thats funny......

[Hot Lips]

+1 for Edwards assessment of our time wasting, largely usesless Parliamentary procedures.  It's hard to believe that we even have running water in this country with that gong show making decisions for us.
[/quote] LMAO ROTFL...omg how true is that.

HL

[MCG]

Are the Dutch and the UK not in Afghanistan anymore???

They are there, and both nations are providing a BG sized force to same Canadian led OEF Bde that ORION is a part of.

Afghanistan mission vote 'risked lives'
Dallaire attacks Harper gov't 'fiddling'
Andrea Sands, The Edmonton Journal
Published: Sunday, May 21, 2006

SPRUCE GROVE - The federal government needs to stop its political "fiddling" with the military mission in Afghanistan and must also send troops into Darfur, says retired Lt.-Gen. Romeo Dallaire.

During a visit to Spruce Grove on Saturday, the Liberal senator accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of risking soldiers' lives by unnecessarily seeking support last week in the House of Commons to extend Canada's military mission in Afghanistan.

"We've got troops who have already been bloodied in the field and we've got a prime minister who's fiddling back home, trying to manoeuvre himself at their expense," Dallaire said.

"If the opposition ... the troops face realize that maybe we are not committed politically to this mission, then they could use Canadians as a target to ultimately undermine the whole mission.

"If that's the case, then it's the prime minister who's going to carry those bodies on his back, because he didn't need to see that split in that debate in the House."

Dallaire's speech was to members of Spruce Grove's Rotary Club.

Canada currently has about 2,300 troops in Afghanistan, and Parliament voted 149-145 Wednesday night to extend the mission until 2009. But that vote wasn't binding on the government, which has the right to conduct foreign policy as it sees fit.

Harper had vowed before the vote to extend the mission by a year even without approval from the Commons. Angry opposition MPs suggested he was playing politics with soldiers' lives by forcing the vote on two days' notice.

"I think you've got an incredible, callous exercise that went on (last) week," said Dallaire.

But Dallaire, who commanded a poorly supported United Nations peacekeeping mission during the Rwandan genocide of 1994, nevertheless praised Harper for visiting troops in Afghanistan in March.

The move was "absolutely magnificent and of first class," he said.

In his speech, Dallaire argued Canada must send its military into wartorn regions to support civilians who are fending off extremists while struggling to set up stable democratic systems.

The federal government should also send 1,500 troops into the Darfur region of Sudan, or at least contribute 500 soldiers to a UN rapid-reaction brigade already operating in the country, Dallaire told reporters.

"Canada's role is to get off its butt and to do something and continue the effort that Prime Minister Paul Martin started when we went over and we decided to reinforce the African Union."

A shaky peace treaty was signed May5 to end Darfur's three-year civil war, which has killed at least 180,000 and displaced about two million people.

Could these same acusations not be made against anyone that voted against staying in Afghanistan?

[MarkOttawa]

Regarding the Dutch (May 11): I think it noteworthy that no Canadian media carried this report (as far as I can see).  No wonder so few people (ordinary, media, politicians) have any serious understanding of what is going on.  And this is the sort of detailed info the government should have given to the House during the debate on Afstan.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C05%5C11%5Cstory_11-5-2006_pg4_22

'Dutch confident about Afghanistan mission

Helicopters, engineers and armoured infantry are helping make the commander of Dutch troops in southern Afghanistan confident of success in their mission in Uruzgan, where now only an handful of special forces are taking on the Taliban...

Despite parliamentary delays in approving the mission amid a heated national debate about it, Morsink [Dutch force commander] said he believed 80 percent of parliamentarians supported the deployment, “and that is very important for the soldiers”. The political support could prove decisive: Western military officials in Afghanistan think the Taliban will try to play on the doubts of the Dutch public in a bid to force their withdrawal.

The about 800 soldiers who are already in Uruzgan, waiting for the arrival by the end of July of some 550 more, have had been engaged by militants twice in the past weeks. The first time was “quite heavy”, involving rockets, grenades and machine-gun fire, Morsink said, adding the soldiers had coped “extremely well”.

...The commander will have at his disposal six Apache attack helicopters and, in a few months, eight F-16 fighters [our forces can but dream]. “They are my Apaches so nobody can tell me in a case of emergency, ‘I cannot help you.’ I have my own means to help myself,” he stressed. The soldiers also will undergo special training in Kandahar before leaving for Uruzgan. AFP'

Mark
Ottawa

[Enzo]

Canada must send its military into wartorn regions to support civilians who are fending off extremists while struggling to set up stable democratic systems.

Canada must? Uh, yeah.  Internal civil matters are not an issue for immediate involvement.

The federal government should also send 1,500 troops into the Darfur region of Sudan, or at least contribute 500 soldiers to a UN rapid-reaction brigade already operating in the country, Dallaire told reporters.

And these troops are coming from where exactly? Not to mention the logistics and ROE, etc.

"Canada's role is to get off its butt and to do something and continue the effort that Prime Minister Paul Martin started when we went over and we decided to reinforce the African Union."

Ok, let's use our civil and political elements to pursue such matters, i.e., contining to support the African Union and rally against states that sell arms to the combatants, etc.

A shaky peace treaty was signed May5 to end Darfur's three-year civil war, which has killed at least 180,000 and displaced about two million people.

Yeah, "shaky" is the word and last time I checked only one faction (albeit the largest) signed that treaty. Anyone want to step into the middle of that nonsense?

Dallaire got rooked and he needs to deal with his demons. I don't concur with his rationale and to be so fervent is misguided and potentially harmful.

[MCG]

Canada must? Uh, yeah.  Internal civil matters are not an issue for immediate involvement.

Maybe, but it sounds like another good reason to stay in Afghanistan.

[MarkOttawa]

When will Sen. Dallaire, and ourmedia, deign to notice THAT NO UN FORCE for Darfur has been authorized by the UNSC?  And that no Chapter VII force likely will be given the opposition of Khartoum, Beijing and Moscow.  Our media fail dismally in giving a complete picture--but then that is not of interest to them, rather the political story here.

Mark
Ottawa

[Brad Sallows]

>"If that's the case, then it's the prime minister who's going to carry those bodies on his back, because he didn't need to see that split in that debate in the House."

Refresh my memory, please.  As I recollect the events of the past few months, the Conservatives were not the ones agitating for a debate on the Afghanistan mission. If my recollection is correct, then if the senator wants to chastise a political party for seeking a debate, perhaps someone could steer him in the correct direction since it would appear instead that his memory has failed him.  If he believes that a Commons debate was inappropriate and not required, he can tell them that also, and instruct them that Prime Minister Harper should simply give the orders.