By THOMAS WALKOM, Toronto Star
A return to the Afghan War is one step closer. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has confirmed that NATO has asked Canada to send police trainers to assist Afghanistan’s struggling government in the fight against Taliban insurgents. He said Ottawa is seriously considering the request.
The trainers, if sent, could be either soldiers or police officers.
The NATO request is part of an effort by the alliance to quietly beef up its role in the Afghan war without inflaming public opinion back home.
Technically, the roughly 13,000 troops under NATO command in Afghanistan do not engage in combat. Their role is to train, advise and assist local Afghan forces.
But the war in Afghanistan is going badly for the government in Kabul. It faces not only its traditional Taliban foes but the terrorist group Daesh, also known as ISIS.
High-profile suicide bombings have rocked Kabul. The Taliban effectively controls large swaths of the countryside. The central government is shaky.
American Gen. John Nicholson, who heads NATO operations in Afghanistan, says he needs at least 3,000 to 5,000 more “advisers” to meet his military needs there.
In Washington, President Donald Trump’s administration is mulling over the question of how many more American troops to commit to Afghanistan (it already has roughly 8,400 soldiers there).
But Trump has also made it clear that he expects other NATO countries to pick up part of the slack.
Currently, Canada and France are the only NATO countries without troops in Afghanistan.
Canadian troops entered the Afghan War in 2001 and stayed for just over 12 years. Over that period, 158 Canadian soldiers were killed and hundreds more wounded.
It was the longest-running war in Canadian history. By the end, it was also one of the most unpopular.
In 2014, with an election year looming, Stephen Harper’s Conservative government ordered the last Canadian troops home.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government is careful to couch any return to Afghanistan in minimalist terms.
Sajjan first raised the possibility in a CTV interview on Saturday, volunteering that NATO had made an “ask” for Canadian advisers to help train Afghan police and that Canada was actively considering the request.
He repeated this again Monday to reporters in Halifax. But he noted that Ottawa’s real military focus now is on the war against Daesh in Iraq and that, in any case, Canada’s military operations in Afghanistan ended three years ago.
Translation: Even if we accede to the NATO request, this will not be as bad as before.
But of course that’s the kind of optimistic thing governments always say at the outset of armed conflict.
When Canada first entered the Afghan War after the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, the stated aim was to honour its NATO obligations to the U.S. When Canada upped its military commitment in 2006, the stated aim was to ensure that Afghan girls could go to school.
Throughout, the experts told us that we had to take part in this war to maintain our credibility in NATO and to avoid irritating the U.S. In fact, what we became involved in was a complicated, vicious and ultimately unwinnable conflict where the line between friend and enemy was too often blurred.
So we shall see what the Trudeau Liberals have in mind this time. They have already expanded Canada’s role in the ground war in Iraq. Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland talks glowingly of using Canadian “muscle” to promote Canadian values,
They plan to increase defence spending overall.
Perhaps they will remember how difficult it was to extricate ourselves the last time we involved ourselves in the Afghan War. Sajjan should. He fought in it.
Or perhaps they will calculate that the political benefits of satisfying a U.S. and NATO request are worth the risk.
After all, they could say, it’s just training. What’s so dangerous about that?
Showing posts with label Advise and Assist Role. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Advise and Assist Role. Show all posts
Thursday, June 15, 2017
Monday, February 22, 2016
Current Liberal Advisory on Iraq Criticized Tories on "Non-Combat"
Written by: LEE BERTHIAUME Ottawa Citizen
The Current Liberal Foreign Affairs Advisory also backed airstrikes against the Islamic State.
Less than a year before becoming Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s foreign policy guru, Roland Paris blasted the Conservative government for not being upfront about the fact that Canadian troops in northern Iraq were indeed engaged in combat.
The comments were made in a January 2015 blog post written for the University of Ottawa’s Centre for International Policy Studies, where Paris was director. They came after the Tories revealed that Canadian soldiers had been operating on the front lines with the Kurdish forces they were advising and assisting.
The Conservatives as well as senior military officers maintained the mission was non-combat, even though Canadian troops were calling in airstrikes and had engaged in firefights with Islamic State fighters. But Paris accused the government of “redefining” combat, and said Canadians deserved the truth.
“Our national government — regardless of the political party in power — must be forthright with Canadians about something as serious as putting Canadian soldiers into combat situations,” Paris wrote.
“Wars, especially long wars (as this one is likely to be), must be rooted in public trust. A lack of forthrightness erodes that trust.”
The Trudeau government is now presiding over the exact same type of mission. And like the Conservatives before them, they insist Canadians are not engaged in combat.
The fact the Liberals have followed the Conservatives in also using the term non-combat, even though Canadian soldiers are doing the same thing as before, has emerged as a political headache for the government after it promised during the election to end combat operations.
In his blog post, Paris raised and then answered nine questions about the Iraq mission. The first: “Is Canada engaged in ground combat?” His answer: “Yes.” Paris went on to accuse prime minister Stephen Harper and defence chief Gen. Tom Lawson of “walking a tightrope” in trying to explain why it isn’t combat.
Paris, who was appointed Trudeau’s foreign policy adviser in November, wrote that the Iraq mission had become a victim of “mission creep,” in which a small military operation slowly drags a country deeper into war.
“It became clear last week that the terms of Canada’s operation had changed,” Paris said. “Canada’s new front-line role — as well as our leaders’ redefinition of what counts as combat — unquestionably represent mission creep.”
As part of its new mission in Iraq and Syria, the Liberal government has ended Canadian airstrikes against Islamic State. But it has also tripled the number of soldiers assigned to work with Kurdish forces to 200, and will deploy helicopters to help move the troops and ferry equipment and supplies.
Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of defence staff, has said there will be no change to what Canadian troops are doing there. This includes accompanying Kurdish forces to the front lines, calling in airstrikes and fighting Islamic State forces when necessary.
But the government and Vance insist the mission is non-combat. Vance rejected suggestions Friday that he was tailoring the definition of combat to suit the Liberal government’s needs, saying he was the “expert on what is combat,” and telling those who don’t like his definition: “Too bad.”
In his blog post, Paris said Canada was the first country to “tinker with the definition of ‘ combat’ and move ‘advisers’ into a front-line role.” And he said having Canadian soldiers on the front lines with the Kurdish forces they are “advising and assisting” was unnecessary.
“In the final years of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, for instance, our troops trained Afghan forces in military facilities behind the wire and did not accompany Afghan forces on tactical operations,” he wrote.
“Indeed, the U.S. military indicated last week that American troops currently in Iraq are not being deployed with Iraqi units to front-line positions. Rather, they are training Iraqis behind the wire at four major military bases.
“The assertion that deploying Canadian troops to the front lines is an inevitable element of advising and assisting is, therefore, misleading.”
Paris did support expanding Canada’s mission in northern Iraq, noting that Australia had about 200 soldiers on the ground. But he said such an increase in the number of Canadian trainers should be done “while simultaneously clarifying and tightening guidelines on the deployment of these forces to front-line positions.”
He also called for a redoubling of non-military assistance to address the root causes of instability in the Middle East and North Africa, and offered qualified support for Canada continuing to bomb Islamic State in Iraq.
“As long as Canada’s CF18s can play a useful role,” he wrote, “it is reasonable to continue this deployment, provided we remain convinced that the overall mission is achievable, and that there are not more compelling demands for the CF-18s when we have to make this decision.”
Canadian warplanes conducted their last airstrikes in Iraq and Syria last week.
Less than a year before becoming Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s foreign policy guru, Roland Paris blasted the Conservative government for not being upfront about the fact that Canadian troops in northern Iraq were indeed engaged in combat.
The comments were made in a January 2015 blog post written for the University of Ottawa’s Centre for International Policy Studies, where Paris was director. They came after the Tories revealed that Canadian soldiers had been operating on the front lines with the Kurdish forces they were advising and assisting.
The Conservatives as well as senior military officers maintained the mission was non-combat, even though Canadian troops were calling in airstrikes and had engaged in firefights with Islamic State fighters. But Paris accused the government of “redefining” combat, and said Canadians deserved the truth.
“Our national government — regardless of the political party in power — must be forthright with Canadians about something as serious as putting Canadian soldiers into combat situations,” Paris wrote.
“Wars, especially long wars (as this one is likely to be), must be rooted in public trust. A lack of forthrightness erodes that trust.”
The Trudeau government is now presiding over the exact same type of mission. And like the Conservatives before them, they insist Canadians are not engaged in combat.
The fact the Liberals have followed the Conservatives in also using the term non-combat, even though Canadian soldiers are doing the same thing as before, has emerged as a political headache for the government after it promised during the election to end combat operations.
In his blog post, Paris raised and then answered nine questions about the Iraq mission. The first: “Is Canada engaged in ground combat?” His answer: “Yes.” Paris went on to accuse prime minister Stephen Harper and defence chief Gen. Tom Lawson of “walking a tightrope” in trying to explain why it isn’t combat.
Paris, who was appointed Trudeau’s foreign policy adviser in November, wrote that the Iraq mission had become a victim of “mission creep,” in which a small military operation slowly drags a country deeper into war.
“It became clear last week that the terms of Canada’s operation had changed,” Paris said. “Canada’s new front-line role — as well as our leaders’ redefinition of what counts as combat — unquestionably represent mission creep.”
As part of its new mission in Iraq and Syria, the Liberal government has ended Canadian airstrikes against Islamic State. But it has also tripled the number of soldiers assigned to work with Kurdish forces to 200, and will deploy helicopters to help move the troops and ferry equipment and supplies.
Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of defence staff, has said there will be no change to what Canadian troops are doing there. This includes accompanying Kurdish forces to the front lines, calling in airstrikes and fighting Islamic State forces when necessary.
But the government and Vance insist the mission is non-combat. Vance rejected suggestions Friday that he was tailoring the definition of combat to suit the Liberal government’s needs, saying he was the “expert on what is combat,” and telling those who don’t like his definition: “Too bad.”
In his blog post, Paris said Canada was the first country to “tinker with the definition of ‘ combat’ and move ‘advisers’ into a front-line role.” And he said having Canadian soldiers on the front lines with the Kurdish forces they are “advising and assisting” was unnecessary.
“In the final years of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, for instance, our troops trained Afghan forces in military facilities behind the wire and did not accompany Afghan forces on tactical operations,” he wrote.
“Indeed, the U.S. military indicated last week that American troops currently in Iraq are not being deployed with Iraqi units to front-line positions. Rather, they are training Iraqis behind the wire at four major military bases.
“The assertion that deploying Canadian troops to the front lines is an inevitable element of advising and assisting is, therefore, misleading.”
Paris did support expanding Canada’s mission in northern Iraq, noting that Australia had about 200 soldiers on the ground. But he said such an increase in the number of Canadian trainers should be done “while simultaneously clarifying and tightening guidelines on the deployment of these forces to front-line positions.”
He also called for a redoubling of non-military assistance to address the root causes of instability in the Middle East and North Africa, and offered qualified support for Canada continuing to bomb Islamic State in Iraq.
“As long as Canada’s CF18s can play a useful role,” he wrote, “it is reasonable to continue this deployment, provided we remain convinced that the overall mission is achievable, and that there are not more compelling demands for the CF-18s when we have to make this decision.”
Canadian warplanes conducted their last airstrikes in Iraq and Syria last week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)