Entry details

Younghusband
Author

Younghusband

Date

September 27th, 2006

Tags

,

Comments

14 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Straight dope from Musharraf

Regular Canadians should heed Pervez Musharraf’s advice:

“When you get involved in places like Iraq or Lebanon or Afghanistan, yes indeed you have to suffer casualties, and the nation must be prepared to suffer casualties. So if you’re not prepared to suffer casualties as an army, then don’t participate in any operation,” he said in an interview.
…
“We have suffered 500 casualties. The Canadians have suffered four or five. What are you talking about? Who are you talking to? Who are you talking to? You are talking to the president of a country that has suffered 500 casualties,” he said.

Since 2002 Canada has suffered 37 casualties to date. Though there is concern that Canada has been suffering an disproportionate sum of casualties (43 per cent of all coalition military deaths in Afghanistan since February) it still pales in comparison to what we have faced in the past.

Comments to this entry

Stevie
September 27, 2006
7:22 pm
Yes, its true Canadian casulties a lighter than American. But the only reason Canada is in Afghanistan is because America was attacked. Unfortunately, our (American's) short attention span is now focused solely on Iraq. So much so that we now have more police officers in NYC, than soldiers in Afghanistan.
Stevie
September 27, 2006
7:22 pm
Yes, its true Canadian casulties a lighter than American. But the only reason Canada is in Afghanistan is because America was attacked. Unfortunately, our (American's) short attention span is now focused solely on Iraq. So much so that we now have more police officers in NYC, than US soldiers in Afghanistan.
J.Kende
September 27, 2006
7:48 pm
The reason Canada is in Afghanistan is _not_ just because America was attacked. Canada is in Afghanistan because the entire modern liberal (Western + Eastern) world is facing a serious threat and Afghanistan was a very clear breeding ground for some of the worst of that.

To compare troop levels in Afghanistan to NYPD officers in NYC is another bit of poor analysis. One does not connect with the other.

In Afghanistan we need a relatively small footprint to attain and maintain support from tribal leaders. It is a hearts and minds campaign, plus security for the construction which assists in spreading the sphere of modernization in the country and ideally reinforces our any gains in tribal support.

The role of the NYPD in NYC is to POLICE. Policing involves near total support from the populace allowing for the targeting and suppression of statistical anomolies aka criminality. If Afghanistan was merely a police action, we wouldn't really find ourselves in a war on the sources of Islamist terror. More a dreamworld where international problems can be solved through paying the beat cop more money to travel the world.
Lexington Green
September 27, 2006
8:19 pm
24 Canadians were killed on 9/11. If 24 Canadians were murdered by terrorists tomorrow it would, rightfully, be a huge story. 24 people being murdered only seems small in light of the vastness of the atrocity. We should not let Joseph Stalin's logic apply, with one death a tragedy and a million being a statistic. Canada was attacked on 9/11. The entire liberal world order, the trade with America and others, that Canada relies on for its survival was attacked. And if that is not enough, defeating the Taliban and keeping them at bay is a worthy goal in itself. America's attention span is irrelevant, as is the size of the NYPD.
Canada chose to participate in the military effort in Afghanistan for plenty of good reasons. Canada's soldiers are following in the footsteps of their ancestors at Vimy Ridge and Ortona and the Commonwealth Division, and Canadians should be proud of them
Curzon
September 28, 2006
12:13 am
Musharaff is half right. Pakistan is right on the border with Afghanistan and has its entire military and police force engaged in the Afghan conflict, whereas Canada sends a comparatively small contingent to Afghanistan.

So yes, Canadians should note the numbers. But Musharraf should note the proportion.
Elizabeth
September 28, 2006
12:15 am
If Canadian casualties are disproportionate, why is that? Is it their safety measures? Even if the danger was misjudged, it seems bizarre that Canadians are more likely to die in the same provinces than their British and American allies.

"In Afghanistan we need a relatively small footprint to attain and maintain support from tribal leaders."

This is simply not true. The reasons it is not true are twofold. First of all, while some tribal leaders can easily be bought (viz. Dostum), almost none of them will stand by us if we start losing. We don't have a single medium-sized or "large" ally who has not fought on the side of the Taliban, or at least made a deal with the Taliban, or run away from the Taliban, once. Our biggest allies- Dostum and Ismail Khan- both made deals with them, Dostum for money and power, and Khan to protect (the men and buildings in) his city. I have no doubt that both would do it again.

Second of all, there are a number of warlords who require significant inputs if they are to stay on our side. They have high expectations, and also we are competing with alternative funding sources (from regional powers ranging from Uzbekistan to Pakistan to Iran and Saudi Arabia and political parties getting funding from around the world) which are funding their own parties and factions inside the country. It is not us vs. tribal leaders. It is the coalition vs. regional forces, funded by the same people that have been funding instability in Afghanistan for decades. That's how they kept the war going for 25 years in the first place.

Most Afghans who are on "our" side (that is to say, those who believe they can benefit from our prolonged occupation of their country) wish we had many more soldiers there. I am not for a violent approach, but more people wouldn't hurt.
Rommel
September 28, 2006
4:08 pm
Indeed, Afghans seem far more pragmatic as a people than do Iraqis (excluding the Kurds). Perhaps it is years of unending conflict and misery but I believe that if we had the type of force in Afghanistan that we do in Iraq we might see some very real success (not that there hasn't been any). I don't believe most Afghans resent our presence or harbor reflexive anti-American sentiment. It seems that most just want to stay alive - hence, widespread poppy cultivation and the growing disillusionment (at least in the south) with an obviously weakened America.

That said, the NATO forces have done an awesome job with what they've got. I'm sure we've all read the few and far between headlines in the last couple of months. 40 Talibs killed here, 80 there. My respect for Canada has grown immensely. Younghusband - here's a hearty thanks for your countries efforts!
J.Kende
September 28, 2006
6:25 pm
Within the constraints of the current America and European low tolerance for casualties or for prosecuting a war effort forcefully, I don't see how you can thinking having 140,000+ troops in Afghanistan is a good idea at all. If you are suggesting that be done if and only if we stop fighting with both hands tied behind our backs, then that's a different story.
Rommel
September 28, 2006
10:11 pm
Point taken, Mr. Kende and to some extent I agree. However, instead of more flexible rules of engagement, I think it would benefit the effort much more if we had more Pashto/Dari speakers, officers who were able to navigate the tribal and cultural complexities and other means to make the NATO force more efficient and flexible.
However, I still think we could benefit from a much larger troop presence in the country. I could very well be wrong, but it seems that many Afghans are coming to a realization that we really do not intend to stick around and commit to the country in any serious manner - whether this is true or not, it certainly seems to be the perception. Unlike in Iraq, I think a large portion of the country was happy to have us around and engaged in reconstruction and in remote Afghanistan, a robust force would not be so highly visible - not to mention the fact that it is much harder to argue against our military occupation there.
Mr. Kende, how do you propose we free ourselves from the burdens of RoE?
Elizabeth
September 29, 2006
3:47 am
"I don't see how you can thinking having 140,000+ troops in Afghanistan is a good idea at all"

If you want to win, you need the force. If you want to keep your soldiers alive, keep them at home. I think the US doesn't appear to know exactly what it wants in the US.

"Afghans seem far more pragmatic as a people than do Iraqis (excluding the Kurds"

I don't think Afghans are pragmatic: they fight based on honor. They just have fewer men in the north and realize that they were losing until we came. The Kurds are surrounded and must ally themselves with us, whereas the Shias have Iran and the Sunni Arabs have their own allies.

It's not a question of pragmatism, it's a question of needing us.
Rommel
September 29, 2006
6:11 pm
On a related topic, that of the reconstruction effort in Afghanistan - I recommend a recent article by the CSM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060929/cm_csm/yinderfurth

Not sure how to get it to become a link.
Anyhow, the main reason I bring it up is the suprising (to me at least) fact that Afghanistan has so far received LESS than Bosnia & Kosovo in international reconstruction aid.
Perhaps there is a practical reason (I'm guessing the distance from Western Europe) for this, I however find it to be distressing and appalling. Compare with Karzai's recent statements that if he were to receive the aid Iraq has, Afghanistan would be heaven in Central Asia.
GI Korea
September 29, 2006
9:40 pm
Here is a thought, if the US was not so heavily involved in Iraq how would the Afghanistan conflict have changed if the thousands of foreign Jihadis went to Afghanistan instead of Iraq? Iraq's environment is much more favorable to rooting out jihadis compared to Afghanistan where you have to climb mountains and are dependent on very poor infrastructure to root out jihadis.
Rommel
September 29, 2006
11:51 pm
GI Korea -

I won't say that I totally disagree, but what makes you believe that a large chaotic urban area i.e. Bagdhad, Kirkuk, Mosul, Fallujah, Ramadi is far easier for a modern army/counter-terrorist force to operate in than the Hindu Kush?
It seems that both environs pose signifigant challenges in different ways. I'm tempted to bring up the large number of kills carried out by NATO forces in Afghanistan in individual battles or operations as evidence that perhaps Afghanistan is not the ideal terror heaven so many suggest, but that might only mean the size of enemy units/cells engaging the coalition there are on the whole larger than in Iraq.
Anyhow, I have got to stop posting on this topic, I just cant get Afghanistan out of my mind lately... why is the place so fascinating?
Elizabeth
September 30, 2006
1:26 am
"how would the Afghanistan conflict have changed if the thousands of foreign Jihadis went to Afghanistan instead of Iraq... Iraq's environment is much more favorable to rooting out jihadis compared to Afghanistan"

The difficult conditions that make it harder to root out jihadis also makes it more difficult for them to operate. Remember that during the Russian occupation they were being crushed until we provided them with handheld anti-aircraft missile launchers. In Afghanistan, they used to spend half the year farming, and even foreign fighters only came seasonally from Pakistan. Those high mountain, continental winters are impossible to survive for non-natives. Foreigners could only reasonably expect to survive in certain provinces and generally only in existing settlements.

I also suspect that the kills in Afghanistan may be in part due to much more experienced fighters. Remember, there are thousands of people in that country with 25 years of experience in guerilla warfare. This simply isn't the case in Iraq.

Finally, there is a serious issue with Afghanistan's hosting of foreign Arab fighters: the population is not Arab. They don't speak Arabic and view themselves as totally different from Arabs, ethnically: they are proud of being Arians. So I'm not sure they could absorb nearly as many foreigners as Iraq has. Iranians and Pakistanis, possibly, but only to an extent, and only in certain areas.