Cialis - Buy Cialis Online

From August 19 to 26, the Canadian Forces (CF) will conduct Operation NANOOK 2008, a sovereignty operation in Canada’s Eastern Arctic. With participating personnel and resources from the Navy, Army, Air Force, and Nunavut Territorial and Federal government departments, this will be a joint and integrated operation to demonstrate sovereignty and interoperability in Canada’s North.The intent of this operation is to project sovereignty in the eastern Arctic, and to also provide a means to exercise the CF’s ability to provide humanitarian assistance and disaster relief in the North. Operation Nanook will include exercise scenarios that simulate maritime emergencies, such as an evacuation of a ship in distress and an oil spill. The CF will support the other government departments participating in the exercise with their response to these scenarios.

The media has been invited to embed reporters with the different facets of the mission “to see first-hand each element of the CF (Navy, Army and Air Force), and the Canadian Coast Guard, in their own environment. Additional opportunities will be organized in Iqaluit to enable media to see the exercise scenarios as they unfold.” We wait anxiously to see what kind of glowing coverage they will grant our military and the Conservative government. If you would like to make predictions on the quality of media coverage, please leave a comment.

Today the Times & Transcript published another typically partisan rant by MP Brian F. P. Murphy. Among his many noteable misrepresentations were the following:

“…the Liberal Party of Canada has been calling for a firm termination date and a shift in focus from strictly military operations to training, security and reconstruction”

“…key commitments on development and diplomacy have been absent from the government’s position on our involvement in Afghanistan since the beginning of the mission.”

“…the Liberal amendment on the government’s Afghanistan motion which called for a refocusing of the mission toward reconstruction and development. “

The clear implication is that the Conservative government wants our efforts in Afghanistan to be strictly military in nature. The further inference is that Conservatives are to blame for Canadian casualties because of the “combat nature” of the mission. Both of these assertions are patently untrue.

Mr. Murphy knows very well that the mission in Afghanistan had been founded on three pillars since its inception: Diplomacy, Defense and Development. Our Diplomatic efforts began with recognizing the democratically elected government of Hamid Karzai, and has extended to building relationships with regional governors and even local village and tribal leaders. Without the cooperation of local Afghans, our troops would be in danger at every turn. On the other hand, we have to give those local leaders the assurance that our soldiers will provide them security, otherwise they risk death from the Taliban for cooperating with western forces.

The Development efforts have also continued in tandem with diplomatic efforts. Six million children are now going to school in Afghanistan; more than ever in its history. Afghanistan is the largest recipient of Canadian development assistance. Canada’s pledge of $1.2 billion until 2011 for development and reconstruction puts Canada among the top five donors in Afghanistan.

Our support is for programs that ensure local ownership, accountability and community-based engagement as well as those that rebuild necessary infrastructure. This approach is designed to re-equip Afghanistan with the tools and expertise it will need to sustain itself and flourish for generations to come.

Canada has had remarkable success to date in the following areas:

• access to education: particularly for women and girls, helping to establish thousands of community-based schools and supporting literacy and vocational training programs;
• economic development: Canada is the lead donor toward microfinance, which allows Afghans to start their own businesses and achieve self-sufficiency;
• community development and infrastructure: we work with the Government of Afghanistan (GoA) to improve the management of rural and national development programs, including the GoA-led National Solidarity Program, which encourages community-led development with projects in such areas as transport, irrigation, electricity, education, rural development, health and agriculture; and
• health: we are making great strides toward eradicating polio, improving obstetric care and maternal health.

A complete list of Current Projects and Recent Successes is posted on the CIDA website. Mr. Murphy is either admitting ignorance of the significant and ongoing development, or he is deliberately misleading the public in hopes that they won’t go looking for the facts!

The Defense component of our efforts in Afghanistan is a tremendously important underpinning to the entire mission. The Liberals and NDP have tried to score points with the public by emphasizing the amount of money spent in this area, compared to development and diplomacy. The reason for the imbalance in cost is obvious, unless you want to distort public opinion. First of all, the most important new diplomatic contacts are actually forged by our troops as they secure new areas from the Taliban. That means that our investments in security are also paying off in diplomacy. Secondly, it doesn’t take much thinking to understand that the logistics of moving, supplying and supporting a modern high-tech army are enormous. For every soldier on the ground, there has to be command and control, supply, communications, transportation, etc. This requires a much higher cost than a diplomat in their office in Kabul.

Most importantly however, development cannot take place without security. If Mr. Murphy would take the time to read the newspapers, he would not need to be convinced that the mission of the Taliban is nothing more than to kill innocent people and destroy new infrastructure that gives the Afghans hope.

These are pictures of the Taliban’s most recent handiwork, burning a newly constructed school. To the credit of the indomitable Afghan spirit however, they simply cleared away the rubble and went back to school the next day!  You see without security there can be no schools built, and there can be no children in school. That is the same for wells, irrigation ditches, hospitals, roads and all the other amenities of life that we take for granted here in Canada.

Our mission in Kandahar is not “strictly military,” neither is “development and diplomacy absent,” nor does the mission need to be “refocused towards reconstruction and development.” All three elements are present and active but until peace and security can be established, the diplomacy and development play a somewhat subordinate role. As we continue to train more Afghan police and army volunteers, development is accelerated and diplomacy is increasingly handed over to local democratic government. Those are the realities of rebuilding a nation from the rubble of a terrorist, oppressive regime.

MP Murphy’s partisan rhetoric does a disservice to the bravery of our troops and the Afghan people. Furthermore, it is a disgrace to the honorable mission of delivering an oppressed people from tyranny that kept them in the Stone Age. When Canada succeeds in making the south as stable as the rest of Afghanistan already is, it will be no thanks to Mr. Murphy and those of his ilk. The men who helped liberate France, Poland and Germany from a despotic Nazi must be rolling over in their graves listening such reprehensible drivel.

In an article entitled “Dion on run again“, columnist Greg Weston blasts Liberal leader Stéphane Dion for being a political champion that “is about to turn tail and run.”

He looses his pen on the Liberals weak leader by writing: “Stephane the Lily-Heart will once again sound the retreat, leading his Liberal troops into another show of embarrassing capitulation, this time surrendering to the Conservatives in the crucial Commons vote on Afghanistan.”

He finds M. Dion’s new position especially grievous since Dion initially said, “A Liberal government led by me will unequivocally commit to ending Canada’s mission in Kandahar in 2009, and we will inform NATO of this deadline right away to ensure they find a replacement for Canada.”

This is indeed yet another example of a classic Dion flip-flop.

There was a particular issue raised in the article however with which we took issue. Mr. Weston stated: “The motion [presently before Parliament] uses words such as security and defence to couch the harsh realities of the war — things such as engaging in firefights with the Taliban, and getting killed.”

We sent Mr. Weston an email with a summary from a previous post regarding the circumstances of Canadian deaths in Afghanistan. We documented the causes of death released by DND, and showed that only 10 out of the 80 Canadians who have died were actually involved in “combat operations against the Taliban.”
“I am surprised however that you continue to perpetuate the theory that Canadian soldiers are being killed because of engaging in active combat with the Taliban” we wrote. “I in no way mean to diminish the death of any Canadian, but it is just not honest to say that our soldiers are dying because we are pursuing the Taliban. Most of our soldiers are dying because we are in hostile territory where anyone can plant explosives along dirt roads or drive a suicide bomb into a Canadian convoy.”

Our email to Mr. Weston concluded: “I would point out that the two most recent deaths were not a result of actively engaging Taliban fighters either. Most other forces in that dangerous area (notably the US) transport their troops and supplies by helicopter, thus avoiding the vulnerabilities of suicide bombs and IED’s on the ground. We don’t have helicopters to do that job because from Chrétien on, the Liberals gutted the military.”

We were pleased to receive a timely (almost immediate) reply from Greg Weston. Here is what he wrote in response to our statement:

“Thanks for your note. I have written about this before and you are perfectly correct. To my point: the new mandate being approved today changes nothing. cheers/gpw”

It is refreshing to see a respected journalist such as Mr. Weston engage such a serious matter as Afghanistan in a thoughtful way. Furthermore, the fact that he took the time to personally respond to a reader’s input thoroughly raises our estimation of his professionalism. Actions such as this go a long way to restoring faith in a once credible profession.

About a week ago, we picked up on a subtlety in Liberal leader Stéphane Dion’s question to the Prime Minister in Question Period. M. Dion seemed to be suggesting that the 1000 new troops that Canada is seeking from NATO would REPLACE our soldiers rather than REINFORCE them.

The Manley report was very clear that “This added deployment should consist of a battle group (about 1,000 soldiers) to reinforce ISAF’s “clear, hold and develop” strategy in Kandahar…These additional troops would serve to expand ISAF’s security coverage in Kandahar, and reinforce ISAF’s capacity to prevent incursions…To repeat: A successful counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan requires more ISAF forces.” [p.35]

The report also emphatically encouraged “Early adoption by NATO of a comprehensive political-military plan to address security concerns and imbalances, especially the need for more troops to bolster security…” [p.37]

In today’s Star article, Allan Woods reports “A government motion to extend the Afghan mission to 2011 could be in jeopardy after the emergence of a major difference of opinion with the Liberals on the future role Canadian troops will assume.” According to Woods, deputy Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff is the driving force behind this fracture in the agreement between Conservatives and Liberals. “‘If the government does not accept a clear focus on training and reconstruction, if they believe that they can sneak past Parliament a motion that continues the existing mission … I am afraid that they will have difficulty securing the Canadian consensus that this party is seeking,’ Ignatieff said in the House of Commons.“

There is no doubt that the Conservatives have made large concessions in an effort to find common ground with the Liberals. Both parties have said they don’t want an election on Afghanistan; the Liberals now appear to be backing away from that. This would be extremely divisive for Canada, and our military will be innocently caught in the middle of a game of political football.

An overwhelming majority of military and civilian pundits have criticized the Liberals position of “stay, but no combat” as unrealistic. Even many in the media have openly contended that it makes no sense at all. When you look at how Canadians have died in Afghanistan, it is clear that “combat” is not what has made our soldiers vulnerable.

What has brought about the deaths of most of our soldiers is driving troops and supplies across Afghan roads booby trapped with explosives. As we documented in a previous post, the number of casualties suffered by Canadian Forces in direct counter-insurgency operations that the Liberals are insisting must be discontinued is 10. That represents only about 12% of all Canadian casualties. The other 88% of Canadians died either as a result of being in military vehicles that came under attack, or facilitating reconstruction and training of Afghans when they came under attack.

According to DND briefings, “Sergeant Tedford and Private Williamson were killed when their unit was ambushed near a road development project in the Panjwayi area of Afghanistan, west of Kandahar. This road project is vital to local development and progress.”

In another report from earlier in that month we learn that “Two Canadian soldiers, Sergeant Craig Paul Gillam and Corporal Robert Thomas James Mitchell, were killed today in the Panjwayi area in Afghanistan… These brave young men were working alongside their fellow comrades to clear mines and improvised explosive devices from a route for a future road construction project, when they came under attack…

Our Canadian Forces members in Afghanistan face an enemy that will go to any length to try to undermine any progress made for Afghans to have a brighter future. The courage demonstrated by Sergeant Gillam and Corporal Mitchell speaks volumes to their dedication to our country and to this mission…These soldiers lost their lives in a mission to prevent Afghanistan from reverting to a safe haven for terrorists and their destructive networks. Canada will remain forever grateful for their service, and we are all saddened by this loss.”

The Liberal proposal to keep our troops engaged in “training and reconstruction,” but tie their hands from combat, will do nothing to keep our troops safe! It will in fact make them more vulnerable because the Liberals would rob our troops of the reinforcements they need to provide security on the ground. The only thing more sad than the Liberals forcing an election on this issue is the fact that more brave Canadians might die because the Liberal want to avoid being seen as supporting the Conservative government.

Reported on Mike Duffy Live tonight, a CTV News/Strategic Counsel poll reported that 60% of Canadians think that our country is on the right track. That is up from a low of 38% when the Liberals were in power in 2005. According to the report, the 60% figure is unheard of; and of course this doesn’t say much for the relevance of the NDP which is constantly saying, “The government is taking this country in the wrong direction.” That is just not so according to most Canadians.

CTV News reporter Graham Richardson asked Liberal Finance Critic, John McCallum, “If the Conservative government is really so terrible, then why not defeat it? What about that 60% number?” McCallum’s mumbled reply was something like, “Of course we wish that number were lower, but…”

When it comes to who Canadians most trust to lead the Afghan mission, the Conservatives again post numbers nearly double those of the Liberal party. When you consider the ‘position du jour’ style of leadership from M. Dion, there is little wonder. If this kind of populist support will translate into votes on election day, it is no wonder that Stéphane Dion is running away from voting against the Budget. The Liberals have lost so much credibility, even the NDP’s Tom Mulcair has said they no longer have the “moral right” to call themselves the Official Opposition.

With the Liberals in such disarray, they have no hope of forming Government any time soon (Greg Weston, Ottawa Sun).

To his credit, Stephen Harper has displayed a steady, moderate hand of leadership that should attract all but the most partisan liberals. If you want real leadership and effective representation in Ottawa in the next term, vote Conservative.

Tuesday in Question Period, Stéphane Dion demonstrated once again a fundamental lack of understanding of the Afghanistan conflict. Just a few weeks ago he suggested that NATO troops should invade Pakistan. Now he is suggesting that Canadian troops should leave as soon as NATO reinforcements show up.

Here is what M. Dion said to PM Harper:

“We thought the Prime Minister did not believe in the rotation principle. Will he say today that, under the rotation principle, the additional troops that NATO should provide will enable our troops to be replaced in their combat mission, their offensive mission, and allowed to focus on a new security, training and reconstruction mission?”

This is not at all what was called for in the Manley report. The Report was very clear that NATO reinforcements were needed to bolster the Canadian security presence in southern Afghanistan.

The Manley Report stated on page 35:

“Therefore, Canada’s military mission in Kandahar should be conditionally extended beyond February 2009—the extension to be expressly contingent on the deployment of additional troops by one or more ISAF countries to Kandahar province. This added deployment should consist of a battle group (about 1,000 soldiers) to reinforce ISAF’s “clear, hold and develop” strategy in Kandahar and to accelerate training of Afghan army and police units. These additional troops would serve to expand ISAF’s security coverage in Kandahar, and reinforce ISAF’s capacity to prevent incursions from Pakistan and facilitate Afghan training. To repeat: A successful counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan requires more ISAF forces.”

The Manley Report also stated on page 37:

“We recommend…Early adoption by NATO of a comprehensive political-military plan to address security concerns and imbalances, especially the need for more troops to bolster security and expedite training and equipment for the Afghan National Security Forces;”

Clearly what the Manley Report is calling for is more troops to reinforce our Canadian soldiers – making a larger force. If, as the Liberal leader suggests, Canadian troops are replaced by the incoming NATO forces, then there is no net gain to the security and training capacity! The issue is clearly not enough ‘boots on the ground,’ and M. Dion’s suggestion is to have 1000 less Canadian soldiers working in the area they have fought so hard to “clear, hold and develop.”

This is yet another example of the Liberal leader’s fundamental misunderstanding of the mission. His fixation on “end of combat operations” has been widely panned by a number of military experts and media. He seems to be implying that Canadian casualties will be reduced if we just cease being hostile to the Taliban. As long as we are in their country wearing a western uniform, we are a target of opportunity.

As we have demonstrated previously, the vast majority of Canadian casualties have not been the result of “combat” but simply driving on roads that we don’t have enough soldiers to patrol. Canadian soldiers are right now fighting to take back areas that were overrun by the Taliban when NATO forces pulled back. The cost has been too great to abandon the field now; we need to finish the job.

Update: Watch Gen. Lewis MacKenzie comment on his perception of the Liberal Afghan position at the end of this clip from Mike Duffy Live, Wednesday 13 February 2008.

Gen. Lewis MacKenzie is a retired Canadian general who served in Bosnia. He is a frequent guest as an expert commentator on military affairs for various media outlets. The full text of the general’s comments can be found in today’s Globe & Mail. Here is his summary at the end of his article:

“During the times I reported to the United Nations as a field commander, I was appalled at the incomprehensibility of some of the orders issued from that organization. Never in my wildest nightmares did I believe a political party in my own country could conceive of options equally bizarre.

Training the Afghan army and protecting development and reconstruction operations without the security provided by pro-active military operations by Canadian soldiers significantly increases the risk to life and limb.“

In a January 28th commentary on the Manley Report, noted military affairs analyst, Scott Taylor, made the following observations in the Chronicle-Herald:

“There are more than enough NATO soldiers and firepower in southern Afghanistan right now to keep the Taliban restricted to their hit-and-run roadside bombings. It would seem that this proviso was intended to once again point the finger of blame at our allies and to thump our chest in a reminder to all that Canada is doing the ‘heavy lifting.’“

In addition to those comments being counterproductive, if the aim is truly to solicit additional assistance from those countries we’re chastising, they are also mainly false. A lot of these NATO countries that are maligned as “shirkers” in Afghanistan (such as Germany and France) are contributing far more military resources in support of peace operations in other hotspots.”

Intrigued by Mr. Taylor’s assertions, we followed up with an email to which he graciously responded. We asked him to “provide some examples of trouble spots where Canada has ceded NATO responsibility to other countries.”

Scott Taylor replied:

“Two off the top are Bosnia and Kosovo. The French also stepped up in a big way when Lebanon erupted 18 months ago, and last year the French & Germans mounted a huge security deployment (8000 troops) to the Congo; just to mention a few. France routinely maintains 40,000 troops stationed abroad in former colonies.”

This is in line with an article he wrote for Esprit de Corps magazine last November. Mr. Taylor stated the following in an article entitled: “Allies are doing their part -just not in the spotlight.”

“Afghanistan appeared to be a quiet, safe sideshow by comparison. That is, until the coalition forces began moving out of Kabul to establish provincial reconstruction teams. Not unexpectedly, the Taliban heartland of Kandahar proved to be a particularly difficult sector to quell, and the Canadian battle group soon found itself suffering a significant rate of casualties. With this turn of events, the Canadian public began to wonder how and when the hasty victory over the Taliban had devolved into a protracted counterinsurgency war.”

“Since 2005, large numbers of Pakistani troops have been deployed in western Pakistan (along the Afghan border). More than 700 soldiers have been killed and thousands wounded. Furthermore, the army’s offensive operations in Pashtunistan have resulted in numerous retaliatory terrorist attacks in the rest of Pakistan.”

“As Canada “punches above its weight” in Kandahar, we are not achieving complete success because other NATO countries are failing to do their bit for the alliance. The latest rallying cry of the Canadian tub-thumpers is that Afghanistan is NATO’s Waterloo and that if our partners don’t step up to the plate to win, we should consider cutting short our own commitment.

Two of the most maligned NATO countries accused of shirking their martial responsibilities are France and Germany. What is ironic about Canadians criticizing these particular allies is that as well as contributing significant contingents to Afghanistan (50 per cent more than Canada, in Germany’s case), they are both still heavily engaged in providing security forces in Bosnia and Kosovo.

While Canada has rushed from flavour-of-the-month conflicts over the past decade, many of our NATO allies have been left manning the less newsworthy but still simmering hot spots.

Canada has chosen to place its military eggs into the one Afghan basket, but we should not be so quick to point fingers and denigrate those countries whose ongoing commitments elsewhere allow us the dubious luxury of being in the front-line spotlight.”

Taken from someone with close ties to the military, this is a compelling argument. There is no doubt that NATO needs to step in and help our Canadian forces who have been fighting so bravely, but saying that NATO has abandoned us is apparently not true.

Chief of Defense Staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, has referred to the Liberal tenure at the helm of military procurement as the ‘decade of darkness.’ That is because our forces were chronically under funded and ill equipped.

Columnist Rosie Dimanno today reinforced an argument we made on this blog two weeks ago. The substance of that argument is that the vast majority of Canadian casualties have been the result of vehicles with IED’s while plying Afghanistan’s roadways. By contrast, the troops of most other nations move soldiers and supplies by helicopter – thus avoiding the dangerous roadside bombs.

Why doesn’t Canada move its troops by helicopter? BECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE ANY! The procurement of helicopters was killed by Liberal Jean Chrétien days after taking office in his first term! Throughout his successive terms and into the Martin regime, Liberal governments were content to watch Sea King helicopters fall out of the sky as the military’s equipment variously crashed, caught fire, sunk and failed to protect our soldiers.

It is time that we as a country stopped pointing the finger of blame at others in order to deflect attention from our own shortcomings. The military has been the victim in the political sniping and is finally getting some much needed attention; but while we are supporting our brave men and women putting their lives on the line, let’s not unfairly vilify others who are doing their own heavy lifting where our forces are virtually absent.

On January 24th, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon wrote a special op-ed piece for the Globe and Mail. Oddly enough the paper that has been so supportive of greater UN oversight in Afghanistan failed to publish the Secretary General’s letter in their print edition. Though it appeared briefly in their online edition, it was soon supplanted by a message that it was only available to paid subscribers.

What was the Globe and Mail trying to hide that they could not afford space for the leader of the United Nations. Perhaps a clue lies in what the Secretary General had to say about the value of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. Here is a sampling of some of his quotes:

• “Afghanistan is a potent symbol of the costs inherent in abandoning nations to the lawless forces of anarchy. That alone justifies international efforts to help rebuild the country. “
• “The past six years have seen a massive international partnership to rebuild Afghanistan’s state institutions. A modern constitution was adopted after widespread popular consultations. Presidential and parliamentary elections were held. Three million refugees returned from decades of exile. Clearly, a large majority of the population supports the international community’s efforts on Afghans’ behalf.”
• “more dismaying is the response of some outside Afghanistan, who react by calling for a disengagement or the full withdrawal of international forces. This would be a misjudgment of historic proportions, the repetition of a mistake that has already had terrible consequences.”
• “Our hopes for the future look to a day when Afghan state institutions stand on their own, able to tackle with dignity the difficult tasks of reconstruction and development while providing security and justice within secure borders. I believe that day is within reach. We cannot let it be lost to the inhuman violence of today’s insurgents.”
• “Six million children are in schools today, compared to less than a million under the Taliban. More than five million children have been immunized against polio, crucial not only for them, but also for our fight to eradicate polio worldwide. Half a million Afghans have gained access to safe water.”
• “New roads are helping farmers get produce to markets. Afghan farmers are meeting 95 per cent of the country’s grain needs; in 2001, the figure was less than 50 per cent… Under the Taliban, women’s participation in public and political life was non-existent. Today, 28 per cent of the seats in parliament are held by women”
• “The Afghan government has far to go before it regains control of its own destiny. But that day will come. It is hard work. There is little glory. It requires sacrifices. And that is why we are there.”

Toronto Sun reporter, Lorrie Goldstein, says he verified the letter’s authenticity with the Secretary General’s office. He went on to say “…given that Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe are forever telling us how important it is for Canada to act through the UN, I’m sure many Canadians would like to hear their responses to the UN Secretary-General’s observations about our UN-sanctioned military mission in Afghanistan.”

We always hear that there should be a fair, open, honest debate about Afghanistan. We fail to see what is to be gained by censoring the Secretary General of the United Nations. We have to wonder if the outcome would have been the same if Ban Ki-Moon had been ciritcal of the mission and Canada’s role in it.

This weekend the respected Edmonton Sun echoed comments posted on this blog relating to the flawed Liberal policy on Afghanistan. In an article by Michael den Tandt, the author concludes by saying:

“Canadian soldiers are doing an extraordinary job in Afghanistan under extremely dangerous conditions. The political class in this country owes them a degree of unanimity. If Dion wants to be considered a leader in waiting, he should speak like a leader. That means, very simply, telling the truth.”

In amplifying on many of the views stated in our post The Folly of Stéphane Dion’s Afghanistan Policy, Mr. van Tandt went on to say:

“Prevent our troops from “proactively” seeking out and destroying insurgents? That’s another way of saying, stop defending the troops, aid workers and diplomats engaged in training and reconstruction.

Stop using your intelligence network to find out where the insurgents are, and stop trying to put them out of business. Instead, roll down the road in your convoy and let them blow you up.

Sound insane? It is. But it follows logically from the current Liberal position on Afghanistan.”

This article is well worth reading and is a thoughtful, honest evaluation of the sacrifice that are troops are making over there right now. We’re glad to see that we are not alone in our reaction to M. Dion’s misquided policy.