• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian resolve weak: Taliban official

Pikache

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
882
Points
1,010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060409.waffy0409/BNStory/National/home

MURRAY BREWSTER

Canadian Press

Kandahar, Afghanistan — As MPs gather in Ottawa to discuss Canada's more combative role in southern Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official and coalition commanders painted two disparate images Sunday of where the war is headed.

In a weekend interview with The Canadian Press, insurgent spokesman Qari Yuosaf Ahmedi said the Taliban are convinced the resolve of the Canadian people is weak.

As suicide attacks and roadside blasts increase, the public will quickly grow weary, he said.

“We think that when we kill enough Canadians they will quit war and return home,” Mr. Ahmedi said in an interview, conducted through a translator, over a satellite telephone.

Given the fact troops are already deployed, Mr. Ahmedi suggested Monday's House of Commons debate as a sign of indecision among Canadians.

In addition to his fire-breathing rhetoric, the Taliban's public relations spokesman claimed that the insurgency had recruited 180 suicide bombers for operations in and around Kandahar over the next few weeks.

He said they are prepared to attack Canadians “any one else, at any place and at any time.”

But coalition commanders had a vastly different assessment, painting the Taliban as cornered, marginalized into rural pockets, struggling to raise money and find recruits.

“The reason we think the Taliban are falling apart is because the pattern of attacks we're seeing is not co-ordinated,” said Major Quentin Innis, a Canadian liaison officer with the local community.

“It may appear there are a lot of attacks going on and those are regretable.”

On Sunday, Kandahar city was rocked by two separate remote-control improvised explosive device, or IED, attacks, which injured 11 Afghans, including two children.

Senior Taliban commanders reside on the Pakistan side of the Afghan border and where many suiciders — as they known by local Afghans— are recruited, said the chief of staff to multinational brigade commander.

British Col. Chris Vernon said, while the coalition has faced increased attacks, it has been successful is eliminating junior insurgent commanders.

“Various middle level leaders in Afghanistan have been removed from the circuit over the last month,” he told reporters Sunday.

“When they're asking for volunteers to come in and take those mid-level positions, there is a distinct lack of volunteers coming forward, particularly out of Pakistan.”

He also said requests by front-line Taliban for more funds and equipment have not been answered.

Canada's more front-line involvement in this dirt poor, war-ravaged country will be the subject of a “take-note” debate in the House of Commons on Monday. It will be largely a symbolic exercise as the matter will not be the subject of a vote.

The new Conservative government has been reluctant to hold the debate because of its potential impact on the morale of the country's 2,200 troops deployed in southern Afghanistan. A few weeks ago, a public opinion survey found that a majority of respondents were opposed to Canada's more aggressive posture and wanted the country to return to its more traditional role of peacekeeping.

And on Sunday, a new poll suggested the public is evenly divided on the Afghan mission.

The survey by Decima Research found 45 per cent of respondents considered the deployment a good idea while 46 per cent viewed it as a bad idea. That's a statistical dead heat, given the poll's margin of error.

The poll also indicated a lack of agreement on how long the military commitment should continue.

Twenty-five per cent of respondents said the troops should stay as long as it takes to complete the mission. Another 10 per cent said they should stay another year or two, while 15 per cent were willing to see them stay up to five years.

Fully 43 per cent, however, said the troops should come home within the next year.

The online poll was conducted between March 31 and April 4 among 2,131 respondents. A random sample of this size is considered accurate plus or minus 2.2 percentage points, 19 times in 20.

Since 2002, the conflict has cost the lives of 11 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat.

A senior Afghan army officer said Sunday that Canadian politicians need to understand the positive contribution the army has made to the region, beyond military assistance.

“The Canadians did a lot of things, especially for Kandahar,” Major Rahmatullah Sha, the deputy garrison commander of the city, said through a translator.

“They've done a lot of reconstruction and security help. The security of Kandahar is normal. It's not that bad.”

His account was somewhat contradicted by Major Innis, who laid out statistics from the local media that show there have been 24 roadside explosions or suicide car attacks between June 2005 and March 2006. Those assaults have killed 32 civilians.

“We understand the citizens of Kandahar don't feel secure, but there are two things you have to realize,” said Major Innis. “The first thing is that there are more unsuccessful Taliban attacks than successful. I can't go into the details but we've prevented more attacks than those that have occurred.”

The carnage can be blamed on foreign fighters, including jihadists from Pakistan, Chechnya and some Arab countries, said Major Sha.

Coalition forces are believed to have killed a senior Taliban commander during an offensive in southern Helmand province Friday, said a statement by the U.S. military. Although the man was not identified, authorities claimed the commander “was directly tied to dozens of improvised explosive device attacks.”
 
You just beat me to it HF.

Do I recall some folks saying that the Taliban didn't pay attention to Canadian politics?  Every guerilla commander since at least Ho Chi Minh and General Giap have paid attention to their enemy's domestic politics.

These guys have the same access to the internet and Canadian news that we do.

I hope the sillybuggers conducting the debate in Ottawa this week read this article and consider their words accordingly.  (Socialists with heads in the sand take note indeed).

(Edited for Spelling.)
 
However as a point to note...
I am sure the Dutch, Germans, Japanese, Italians and Koreans have all learned about the resolve of Canadian Soldiers. The resolve of the Canadian people is a different issue though...
 
The TB are probably right though. Don't expect to see any measure of public "resolve" to take these a-holes on if it costs too much money or blood.

As a country, Canadians are too insulated, comfortable, self serving and far over-protected by the US to see any real benefit to Canada from this.  The rising support for the mission is far too squishy to translate into acceptance of more casualities, or perhaps even mistreatement captured Canadians. [hopefully a very remote possibility]

Canadians may get behind their troops in a cleverly worded poll, but they will never get behind the troops when the chips are down, especially with beer and bar-b-que season around the corner.  Don't get me wrong- they'll still expect the troops to sand bag rivers and deliver generators, but thats about it.

The NDP ought to be ashamed, and ought to take ownership for the message in this article. They have provided the enemy an opportunity to deliver a victory that could never be obtained in any confrontation in the field.  

 
as long as the government stays with the mission and supports, the rule that Canadians have not backed away from a  fight or not been on the winning side will be the order of the day. Canadians might lose the battle but they always win the war.
I support the troops and my  MP better support them
 
If the government wanted to nip this in the bud, and make it abundantly clear what is going to happen, they should not only immediately announce a continuation of the mission (rather than "dithering" around, as the phrase was so applied to the previous government), but also an expansion of it.

Now I am not "in this know" is this regard, but it seems to me from Dallaire's comments on Darfur, and the number of troops deployed when compared to previous deployments to Bosnia, that there are additional troops that could be sent. Is there someone "in the know" who could either back this up or shoot it down?

Further, IMO, historically speaking Canadian people are not weak kneed. When the going gets tough, we step up to the plate. You'll notice that even with all of these unfortunate deaths, <a href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060223/oconnor_defence_plan_060223/20060223>support for the Afghan mission is up from a low 27% in February,</a>  <a href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060312/afghanistan_poll_060313?s_name=&no_ads=">though unfortunately lower than the high of 55% mid march. </a>

The variance between the 55% poll and the last one could easily be attributed to the poll itself, rather than an actual opinion change. However, the point still stands. Support, when compared to even a few months ago, is still up.
 
Couch commander: There is always a limited capacity for "additional troops" but in an Army as small as ours it will come at a price, and may be difficult to sustain for long depending on the type of troops required. Even using Reserve soldiers (as we are already doing) gives only a limited respite, since a number of  requisite skill sets either do not exist in the Res, or if they exist, would require extensive additional training prior to deployment. The current Army Managed Readiness Program includes a limited "surge" capability for overseas deployments, but we should remember that AMRP was designed to balance op needs (the "golden egg") wth having a healthy, capable and functional institutional Army (the "goose"). We have gradually begun to recover from the last decade or so of high operational tempo and disruptions, but IMHO we are not cured yet. Overloading the Army system again will not help.

Cheers
 
Unfortunate, but fair enough. How long do you think it will be before we would be able to sustain a higher tempo indefinately?
 
It's a fairly well known and "open source" assessment that our major weakness does not lie in the availability of Combat Arms soldiers: in some cases a number of these troops already feel themselves under-employed as far as op go. The bigger issue, IMHO, lies in our CSS folks, without whom no modern force can be trained,mounted, sustained or recovered. Most of  the CSS MOCs are quite small (much smaller than, say, Infantry) and their members often tend to be older than many Cbt A types. FCS Techs comes to mind, but medics  and PreMed Techs have also posed a problem recently. Some of these people are doing more time overseas than their opposite numbers in the Cbt A. As well, these MOCs can be difficult to recruit for and to retain folks in once trained. Of course, we are also struggling with tying to change the mentality of some (and I stress that it is "some", not "all"...) people in support MOCs who have a hard time grasping that they must go to dangerous places and be "soldiers first, tradesmen second".

So, IMHO the question is one that really has to be answered by folks with an insight into the "get well" plans for the support MOCs. My rough guess is three to five years, but that is a WAG.

Cheers
 
I'm not sure this Taliban spokesman understands Canadian politics all that well.  What are his qualifications to make these comments?  Has he ever been to Canada?  I doubt it.  Does this guy have a degree in democracy or in anything?  Hardly likely.  I think we should take his comments with a grain of salt.  Remember he is the enemy so he is probably biased and just making those statements to stir up trouble.  Maybe he is even trying to psyche us out of holding the debate because he wants us to destroy our own democracy and turn ourselves into an authoritarian state.  This could be the beginning of the end for democracy in Canada.  Let's be careful with this one, this guy sounds like quite a sharp character.  Maybe we should be looking for him instead of Osama.... 

 
The Taliban are pretty ineffectual with their ranks being thinned daily by attrition or by desertion. The much anticipated spring offensive has been a bust [knock on wood]. Right now the Taliban must engage the west on the battlefield of public opinion a sure sign that we have them on the ropes.
 
I think the Taliban bit off more than they can chew when this statement was issued.  This gives the Ottawa spindoctors sufficient ammo to say "See -- there is NO WAY we can leave Afghanistan now until these clowns are removed from any type of leadership of the country.  They just called us chicken!  They will continue to threaten us if they think we are weak."  Throw in a little Canadian military history about WWII, a few lessons on national security threats and the Canadian public will finally understand just why we are there in the first place.  I have no doubt that a little more press from troops in theatre that states unequivocally that the soldiers understand why they are there, support the mission and  are eager to serve will make the message easier for the Canadian public to hear.

If the message is played properly, I think it is precisely what the electorate needs to hear.  Maybe then they will understand that we can only get to rebuilding Afghani institutions once there is security on the ground.  Moreover, politicians are going to be tripping over themselves to be supportive of the military lest the Canadian public turn on them when the not-so-distant election is called.
 
What these terrorists don't know is that Canada does not run from a battle just because of a few casualties. I know that no Canadian wants to see their own soldiers coming home in metal boxes but we should, stick with the plan and I think that is what the taliban are going to find out. :cdn:
 
What these terrorists don't know is that Canada does not run from a battle just because of a few casualties.

I beg to differ as the NDP wanted to withdraw from Kandahar in 2002 after our troops were accidentally bombed by an American pilot!(My apologies to all the competent American pilots out there) The troops will stick it out, as that's what troops do. Our new government might attempt to stick it out, until public support goes south.(And I support the conservatives) The Canadian public for the most part has proved to want to support us, as long as there are no casualties! Once the casualty list starts to grow the public will cry for us to be withdrawn.
Blame it on the softening of Canadians by a mostly leftest liberal party spouting nonsense about "peacekeeper heritage" but it unfortunately is a fact of life that Canada will not stand for any substantial casualties!
 
whiskey601 said:
The TB are probably right though. Don't expect to see any measure of public "resolve" to take these a-holes on if it costs too much money or blood.

As a country, Canadians are too insulated, comfortable, self serving and far over-protected by the US to see any real benefit to Canada from this.  The rising support for the mission is far too squishy to translate into acceptance of more casualities, or perhaps even mistreatement captured Canadians. [hopefully a very remote possibility]

Canadians may get behind their troops in a cleverly worded poll, but they will never get behind the troops when the chips are down, especially with beer and bar-b-que season around the corner.  Don't get me wrong- they'll still expect the troops to sand bag rivers and deliver generators, but thats about it.

Today I saw CBC "on the street" interviews.  The reporter was asking people about their views
of the Parlimentary debate tonight regarding Canadian participation in AFG.  Most people responded with
Canada should continue with peacekeeping, avoid the aggressive combat similar to US forces,
and some felt we shouldn't be in AFG.

From my observation, subjective as it is, most people don't understand why we are in Afghanistan.  They
don't understand what peacekeeping is and how it may not apply to AFG right now.  They don't understand
resolve, the 3-Ds, ignore prior Taliban support of terrorists, and how acts of terrorism could affect us. 
Whiskey's post  nails it on the head.

Hopefully, the Parlimentary debate levels the knowledge field and the Government clearly states its reasons
and intentions so all Canadians understand what and why we are in AFG.  Opinions will vary, but maybe
the public can start from the same page.



 
Bert said:
Today I saw CBC "on the street" interviews.  The reporter was asking people about their views
of the Parlimentary debate tonight regarding Canadian participation in AFG.  Most people responded with
Canada should continue with peacekeeping, avoid the aggressive combat similar to US forces,
and some felt we shouldn't be in AFG.

From my observation, subjective as it is, most people don't understand why we are in Afghanistan.  They
don't understand what peacekeeping is and how it may not apply to AFG right now.  They don't understand
resolve, the 3-Ds, ignore prior Taliban support of terrorists, and how acts of terrorism could affect us. 
Whiskey's post  nails it on the head.

Hopefully, the Parlimentary debate levels the knowledge field and the Government clearly states its reasons
and intentions so all Canadians understand what and why we are in AFG.   Opinions will vary, but maybe
the public can start from the same page.

Well said gents, this seems to be the crux of the problem, that the general public really has no concept of what is really going on.  I've had some casual confrontations with friends and strangers about the whole mission.
People seem to be okay with it as long they don't hear anything about it...
 
It will be interesting to watch two things going forward:

The debate tonight;

The nature of the "man-on-the-street interviews" and polls that the CBC chooses to broadcast.

They will give an indication which way the socialist hordes are leaning - opposing Bush/Harper at all costs or promoting progress in spite of Bush/Harper.  What a conundrum for the poor blighters.
 
Kirkhill said:
They will give an indication which way the socialist hordes are leaning - opposing Bush/Harper at all costs or promoting progress in spite of Bush/Harper.  What a conundrum for the poor blighters.

I lean left, don't like Harper or his party, but in this case, that does not matter. Sometimes we all need to look at situations issue by issue, not by party lines. I have no conundrum on this issue; the troops should stay there for at least a couple of years.

Yes it will break my bleeding liberal heart to see bodies coming back home, but after years spent bitching and complaining about "We have to do something" I personally would feel like a hypocrite not supporting this *non peace-keeping* mission.
 
whiskey601 said:
Canadians may get behind their troops in a cleverly worded poll, but they will never get behind the troops when the chips are down, especially with beer and bar-b-que season around the corner.  Don't get me wrong- they'll still expect the troops to sand bag rivers and deliver generators, but thats about it.

That pretty much sums it up, lmao.


 
Back
Top