NATIONAL NEWS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / SOMMAIRE DES NOUVELLES NATIONALES
ADM(PA) / SMA(AP)
November 17 2010 / le 16 novembre 2010
MINISTER / LE MINISTRE
Future of the Afghan Mission
The White House and the NATO military alliance applauded Canada's plan for a military training mission
in Afghanistan as Prime Minister Stephen Harper assured opposition parties that the armed forces will
work safely “in classrooms behind the wire on bases.” Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff declared the plan,
which provides three years of training by 950 Canadian Armed Forces personnel, as “a mission we can
support” after asking Harper for a "guarantee" the combat role truly ends when 2,800 current troops
withdraw from Kandahar next year and that training of Afghan forces will take place "in safe conditions" in
Kabul. Defence Minister Peter MacKay said earlier there would be no more training by fighting
alongside and mentoring Afghan forces in the field. BQ House leader Pierre Paquette accused Mr. Harper
of “trying to mislead the public” into believing there will be no more Canadian casualties. NDP leader Jack
Layton said the concept of military training schemes in Afghanistan occurring in safe havens “lack
credibility” (J. O’Neill and S. Alberts: Gaz A17, VProv A28, NP A4, SSP D5, RLP B8, VTC A9, CH A6,
FDG A7, MTT C1; M. Blanchfield: SJT A18, HS A8; No mention of the Minister: J. O’Neill and S. Alberts:
Ctz A4, WStar C1, NBTJ A8; D. Akin: LFP B3; M. Blanchfield: WFP A10, HCH B1, CG A7).
Canada is cutting aid to Afghanistan and abandoning any presence in Kandahar by withdrawing not only
troops but civilian aid officials next year. International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda suggested that even
the Dhalla Dam project will see more U.S. involvement. Mr. MacKay said the new training role will cost
Canada $500-million per year - less than half the cost of the current combat mission. It was noted that
there will be a one-time transition cost of about $85 million to move operations to Kabul. Mr. MacKay
said: “The type of training that we're talking about is going to a range of things from handling firearms,
obviously classroom training, physical training, the type of training that we do on bases here in Canada.
… It will include such things as marksmanship, infantry, armour, artillery, logistics. We may do some
training with respect to aircraft, depending on what equipment the Afghans have available.” Mr. MacKay
said most trainers will be based in Kabul, but the government will have talks with NATO about sending
some to other centres (C. Clark: G&M A1).
Mr. MacKay said combat operations will likely cease earlier than July 2011 to ensure that new troops
aren't taking up Canada's slack on the battlefield in the middle of summer, traditionally the most intense
period of fighting in Afghanistan (A. Woods: TStar A6).
Mr. MacKay said: “We will continue to do what many Canadian Forces personnel came to believe was
our primary reason for being there: Taking incremental steps to make a better life for ordinary Afghans,
especially women and children” (D. Akin: CSun 21, ESun 12).
Prolongement de la mission canadienne
La décision du gouvernement Harper de prolonger de trois ans le séjour des soldats canadiens en
Afghanistan coûtera au moins 1,6 milliard de dollars aux contribuables. Le ministre des Affaires
étrangères, Lawrence Cannon, le ministre de la Défense, Peter MacKay, et la ministre de la Coopération
internationale, Bev Oda, ont confirmé hier que le Canada maintiendra des troupes en Afghanistan après
juillet 2011. Mais ces troupes auront comme unique mission de former les soldats afghans dans la région
de Kaboul, la capitale du pays, et cela jusqu'en mars 2014. À partir de juillet prochain, aucun soldat
canadien ne participera à une mission de combat contre les insurgés talibans dans la région de
Kandahar, comme le font actuellement les 2800 soldats canadiens postés dans cette province
dangereuse de l'Afghanistan, ou dans toute autre région de ce pays, a tenu à souligner hier le ministre
MacKay (Pr A19, VE 11, Tr 21, Qt 26, Dr 27, Dv A5, AN 15).
Dans l'entourage du ministre de la Défense, on a martelé que les soldats seraient loin de la ligne de tir et
qu'ils n'agiraient plus à titre de mentors, mais feraient de la formation loin du champ de bataille. "Il y aura
une évaluation des besoins, mais ce ne sera pas dans la province de Kandahar, point à la ligne. Ce ne
sera pas en situation de combat, point à la ligne", a tranché le ministre MacKay. Le premier ministre
Harper a par ailleurs répété, aux Communes, qu'il n'était pas nécessaire de soumettre le prolongement
de la mission afghane à un vote des députés, puisqu'il s'agira d'une mission d'entraînement et non plus
de combat (AN 15).
Un nouveau sondage suggère que les Canadiens se méfient d'une prolongation de la mission militaire en
Afghanistan. Le coup de sonde La Presse Canadienne Harris-Décima laisse entendre que les Canadiens
sont partagés sur la question: 48 % d'entre eux désirent que tous les soldats rentrent au pays à la fin de
la mission de combat en juillet prochain, alors que 42 % affirment que des militaires devraient demeurer
sur place pour former l'armée afghane. Au Québec, l'opposition à une prolongation de la mission y est la
plus forte au pays, avec 59 % des répondants (AN 15, Dr 27).
Future of the Afghan Mission: Comment
Toronto Star editorial: Charting our future course in Afghanistan has been a needlessly messy, drawn-out
affair. Nonetheless, the leaders of Canada's two main political parties have managed to set aside partisan
wrangling long enough to agree on a credible, balanced approach. Mr. MacKay ruled out risky mentoring
in the field. This is anything but the “civilian only” mission the Conservatives had encouraged the public to
expect. Canadians are war-weary. A parliamentary debate would assist in explaining why staying the
course is necessary. And a vote would demonstrate that it has majority support in Parliament (TStar A18).
Peter Worthington: Believe what you want, but assurances from the PM and defence minister that
Canadian soldiers who remain in Afghanistan after the 2011 withdrawal deadline will be “inside the wire,”
is hooey. Mr. Harper's and Mr. MacKay's assurances make no sense – and this is not meant as criticism,
but as recognition of reality. Afghans need neither training nor encouragement to fight, but they do need
discipline if they are to be an effective army that can impose security and something resembling “peace.”
The more detailed the training, the more involved Canadian soldiers will likely be. Our guys will almost
inevitably be in the field mentoring the ANA – on patrols, providing security, doing what soldiers do to
maintain stability (CSun 15).
Barry Cooper: The pre-announcement last week by Mr. MacKay that the PM soon would say something
about Canada's future role in Afghanistan was hardly dramatic. It has been an open secret for some time
that the end of the combat mission would not mean a pullout of all Canadian troops. NATO and ISAF
were never expected to defeat the Taliban, but to provide conditions allowing Afghan forces to become
robust enough to do the job. But what is the job? An end to war in Afghanistan will require the Taliban to
join with the government in a manner similar to that which ended the Vietnam conflict (CH A14).
Barbara Yaffe: Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, Mr. MacKay and Ms. Oda told reporters up to
950 military trainers and support personnel will remain in the Kabul area beyond July 2011. The ministers
emphasized the gains made as a result of NATO's engagement, noting 700,000 boys attended school
before the engagement in 2002. The government maintains a Commons vote is unnecessary because
the new mission does not involve combat. Knowing his caucus is not of one mind, Ignatieff probably
favours Mr. Harper's decision not to hold a Commons vote. If the debate becomes focused on whether or
not a parliamentary vote should be held, Canadians probably will see the issue as one of process and be
less inclined to become actively disgruntled (VSun B1).
Defence Minister’s Future
Mr. MacKay insists that reports of his political death are “greatly exaggerated.” And the defence minister
got a public endorsement from Mr. Harper. During Question Period, Mr. MacKay looked at the media
gallery and quipped that he appreciated the “sincere concern” over his future expressed by the
“soothsayers and prognosticators who are with us today”: “But I can assure the House that I have every
intention of continuing in my job, if the PM so wishes, and I continue to serve my constituents, the CF and
all Canadians to the best of my ability.” After another question about Mr. MacKay’s future, the PM
responded: “What we on this side of the House are all delighted to find out is that the member for
Beauséjour, and, I presume, all members of the Liberal Party have the same high opinion of the minister
of national defence as all members of the government.” Mr. MacKay had a more visible role answering
questions about the Afghan mission than during previous sessions (B. Campion-Smith: TStar A8).
Remembrance Day as Statutory Holiday: Comment
Windsor Star editorial: Nepean-Carleton MPP Lisa MacLeod has tabled a private member's bill in the
Ontario legislature that would designate Remembrance Day as a holiday in the province. It's an idea
worthy of consideration and deserving of input from Ontarians. Ms. MacLeod said: “The first discussion I
had was with Defence Minister Peter MacKay, and we were talking about how odd it was that Ontario
didn't recognize Remembrance Day as a statutory holiday.” However, not everyone agrees with Ms.
MacLeod's bill, including the Royal Canadian Legion national office and Ontario office. The debate on
should focus on the best way to honour our veterans (WStar A6).
CDS / CEM
No related coverage. / Aucune couverture pertinente.
MILITARY POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION / COMMISSION D'EXAMEN DES PLAINTES
CONCERNANT LA POLICE MILITAIRE
No related coverage. / Aucune couverture pertinente.
CANADA IN AFGHANISTAN / LE CANADA EN AFGHANISTAN
Future of the Afghan Mission
The government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper must quickly shape plans for a complex training
mission that none of the main principals even knew was being contemplated until a few days ago. This
development comes as the existing combat mission in Kandahar is about to grow temporarily. The
development will place a second American unit under the command of BGen Dean Milner. As Canada is
insisting that most of its trainers will be in or near Kabul, which is already awash with trainers from other
countries, there is immense interest in what specific training tasks Canada is to be assigned by NATO
and how its trainers will be shoehorned into already-crowded bases in the capital. It is possible Canada
will build a training centre from scratch. Canada's late decision to send trainers to Afghanistan also
complicates next summer's exit plans for combat forces. Some of the equipment in Kandahar will have to
driven up the dangerous road to Kabul (M. Fisher: Ctz A4, Gaz A17).
The NDP accused the Conservatives of lying, saying it was “inevitable” that the 950-strong training
contingent that will be in Afghanistan until 2014 would be drawn into combat because the whole of
Afghanistan is a “war zone.” Steven Staples, a military analyst with the Rideau Institute, said it is wrong to
assume Canadian troops would be safe, or even excluded, from combat operations. Other military
analysts said the training mission was the natural progression of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan,
and would strengthen Canada's bonds with its NATO allies (B. Weese: CSun 21).
Afghan Ambassador to Canada Jawed Ludin is reportedly being promoted within the government. He
said President Hamid Karzai is so pleased with Canada’s decision to extend its military mission in a noncombat role, and a perception that Mr. Ludin helped achieve this result, that he is being recalled to Kabul
to help in Afghanistan (J. Campbell: Ctz C4).
The US is currently spending $1 billion a month training the Afghan military. The 950 trainers contributed
by Ottawa will join the surge that creates. Training will be far safer than the risky instruction Canadians
have been trying to deliver for years by embedding small groups of mentors inside Afghan battalions sent
alongside NATO troops into combat (P. Koring: G&M A21).
Future of the Afghan Mission: Comment
Globe & Mail editorial: As the New Democrats said, more soldiers may die during the training-focused
extension of the Afghan mission. However, it is wrong when it says this means it remains a combat
mission. Nor does this fact mean Canada should shy away. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff accuses
Prime Minister Stephen Harper of improvising on foreign policy. But foreign policy requires improvisation,
if that means responding to fluid conditions and changing demands. It is right that Canada remain useful
to the cause for which 156 Canadians have died (G&M A24).
Ottawa Citizen editorial: The debate over what Canada's mission in Afghanistan will look like for the next
three years risks being reduced to political positioning and sound bites. That's a shame, but for anyone
who pays attention to Canadian politics these days, it's no surprise (Ctz A14).
Retired MGen Lewis MacKenzie, in a letter: Senator Colin Kenny needlessly and unfortunately raises
unwarranted concerns regarding the proposed role for our soldiers post-2011. To dwell on the speculation
that, in 2005, Afghan soldiers being trained by Canadian soldiers based in Kabul “weren't prepared to
listen to our guys who wanted to talk the talk without walking the walk” conveniently ignores the fact that
the majority of our trainers we deploy post- 2011 will be proven battle-hardened soldiers, the envy of
most, including their students. Trust me, the Afghans will listen. Kenny wants us to stay "for real" in
Afghanistan if stay we must. Anyone familiar with building an army knows the most important step in the
process is basic training for soldiers, leadership training for the various levels of command and collective
(team) training before you venture “outside the wire.” Just because it's not dangerous in no way reduces
its importance (Ctz A13).
Chantal Hébert: If Mr. Harper's plan for a three-year extension of Canada's military presence in
Afghanistan was put to a vote in the House of Commons it would pass easily. But holding a parliamentary
vote could potentially trigger a repeat epidemic of the rampant diplomatic flu that decimated Liberal ranks
when the House debated foreign affairs critic Bob Rae's motion to amend the Prime Minister's maternal
health initiative earlier this year. Since he came to office almost five years ago Mr. Harper has twice
outmanoeuvred the opposition and secured parliamentary approval for extensions to Canada's combat
mission in Kandahar against long odds. This time, though, Messrs. Ignatieff and Rae outmanoeuvred
themselves (TStar A6, HS A19).
Lorne Gunter: The Tories' announcement was little more than confirmation of what most of us had come
to expect ages ago: The mission we set out to achieve in Afghanistan is far from complete. So we have to
accept that Canadians will be needed there for at least three more years. The anti-extension critics are
right that this should have been authorized by a vote in Parliament, not a nudge-nudge, wink-wink
agreement between the Tories and Liberals. When a country is committing its young men and women to
a dangerous, war-like mission, the least that can be expected is a full debate in Parliament (NP A14).
Thomas Walkom: Canadian soldiers are staying in Afghanistan not because of the rightness of the cause.
Nor are they staying because Mr. Harper likes war. The PM says he made the decision reluctantly and I,
for one, believe him. Rather, Canadian soldiers will remain in Afghanistan until at least 2014 because of
political events within Washington. In October, US President Barack Obama formally endorsed Afghan
President Hamid Karzai's 2014 deadline. A month later, the humbling of his Democrats at the polls
confirmed America's new political reality: If the president were to have any success domestically with a
Republican-dominated Congress, he would have to bend on foreign policy - that is, extend the war. On
Nov. 10, McClatchy Newspapers first reported what has now become widely known: For cosmetic
purposes, Washington may withdraw a few soldiers next summer; but to all intents and purposes its new
deadline is 2014. That came just three days after the Star reported Mr. Harper's change of mind. The
timing was not coincidental (TStar A8).
Andrew Dreschel: The Afghan war is a dirty, sneaky, nasty business - and that's just the way it's being
waged in Ottawa, let alone the actual field. The Conservative government is absolutely right to extend
Canada's military mission for an extra three years beyond next July's Parliamentary approved pullout
date. But the way they are doing it smacks more of mealy-mouthed politics than staking out the moral
high ground they should be defending (HS A19).
Afghan Mission: Comment
Andrew Cohen: On Remembrance Day, CBC broadcast a documentary on the Canadian men and
women who have died in Afghanistan called We Will Remember Them. It memorialized the 152 soldiers
who had been killed since 2002. The CBC gave meaning to our dead. The program is unlikely to have a
widespread social impact as Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. While Canada’s military is at war in
Afghanistan, Canadians are not. It has been going on for so long with such minimal consequences for
Canadians that it has become the invisible war. Afghanistan is a soldier's war, not a people's war.
Soldiers do the fighting and the bleeding, not us, and we're fine with that (VProv A16).
Training for Afghanistan Deployment
Tactical military training will take place in the Redwater area this week to help prepare the next round of
soldiers about to deploy to Afghanistan. The 408 Tactical Helicopter Squadron is conducting the training
just southeast of Redwater in the multi-land use area. There will be ground-force training as well as air
operations to help air crews prepare for various situations. Military vehicles will also be seen in Gibbons
and Bon Accord during the training (J. Franklin: ESun 18).
OTHERS / AUTRES
Potential Advertising on Inappropriate Site
DND is trying to verify whether it had unintentionally placed an ad on a hardcore pornography site. It was
noted that DND bought key-word search terms for their online advertisement, including “James Bond
girls,” “poor man's James Bond” and “can't find a jobs.” A DND spokesperson said keywords for search
engines had been specifically decided with its advertising agency: “These keywords are reviewed and
amended each week to ensure they attract the appropriate target audience (Canadians 18-to-34-years
old) and perform according to recruiting objectives” (A. Raj: ESun 34).
Section: News
Byline: JULIET O'NEILL and SHELDON ALBERTS
Outlet: Montreal Gazette
Illustrations:
 Photo: CHRIS WATTIE REUTERS / NDP leader Jack Layton said training occurring in safe
havens "lack credibility".
Headline: Allies applaud Canada's plan to train Afghan forces; Harper assures forces will work
safely 'in classrooms behind the wire'
Page: A17
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
Dateline: OTTAWA
Source: Postmedia News
The White House and the NATO military alliance applauded yesterday Canada's plan for a
military training mission in Afghanistan as Prime Minister Stephen Harper assured opposition
parties that the armed forces will work safely "in classrooms behind the wire on bases."
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff declared the plan, which provides three years of training by 950
Canadian Armed Forces personnel, as "a mission we can support" after asking Harper for a
"guarantee" the combat role truly ends when 2,800 current troops withdraw from Kandahar next
year and that training of Afghan forces will take place "in safe conditions" in Kabul.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay said earlier there would be no more training by fighting
alongside and mentoring Afghan forces in the field. Most personnel would work at a training
centre in Kabul and another fenced-in base just east of Kabul, providing classroom instruction
and basic army skills.
The other two opposition parties emphasized their opposition to the plan during question period
in the House of Commons.
Bloc Quebecois House leader Pierre Paquette accused Harper of "trying to mislead the public"
into believing there will be no more Canadian casualties. New Democratic Party leader Jack
Layton said the concept of military training schemes in Afghanistan occurring in safe havens
"lack credibility. You can't pull the wool over people's eyes in such a dangerous war zone as
Afghanistan," Layton said later.
NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen and officials from President Barack Obama's
administration welcomed the plan confirmed three days before Harper attends a NATO summit
in Lisbon, Portugal, where 28 member countries and another two dozen nations with troops and
aid programs in Afghanistan gather to plot a gradual handover by the end of 2014 of security
control to Afghanistan from foreign forces.
"Canadian Forces have made a real difference in the lives of the Afghan people, often at a high
cost," the secretary general said. "This Canadian contribution of hundreds of trainers will help
the Afghan security forces to more quickly become capable of securing their own country against
terrorism and extremism -a goal we all share."
Ben Rhodes, the U.S. president's deputy national security adviser, praised Canada's "robust
commitment" to improving life in Afghanistan.
Back to Top
Section: News
Byline: Mike Blanchfield
Outlet: The Telegram (St. John's)
Headline: Liberals back PM; Some troops to stay in Afghanistan until 2014
Page: A18
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
Dateline: Ottawa
Source: The Canadian Press
Prime Minister Stephen Harper averted a showdown with international allies and his biggest
domestic political opponent Tuesday by promising that Canadian Forces trainers in Afghanistan
will not be drawn into fighting.
Harper told Parliament Canada's combat mission will end next year as scheduled, as his
government confirmed the country will keep up to 950 soldiers and support staff in Afghanistan
on a training mission until March 2014.
The announcement won praise from NATO's leadership in Brussels, even though some allies
exerted pressure to keep Canadian troops on the front lines of fighting in Kandahar beyond the
July 2011 withdrawal date.
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he "warmly" welcomed Harper's
decision to deploy "a substantial number of trainers" to Afghanistan, and acknowledged the "real
difference" Canadian troops have made in the wartorn country, "often at a high cost."
Harper was dead set against extending the military mission beyond 2011, in any form. But his
reversal leaves Canada in lock-step with the 2014 Afghanistan exit strategy that will be front and
centre at this weekend's NATO summit in Lisbon, Portugal.
"In just a few days, at the Lisbon Summit, we will launch the transition process, and early next
year Afghan forces will steadily begin taking the lead for security throughout the country. This
Canadian contribution of hundreds of trainers will help the Afghan security forces to more
quickly become capable of securing their own country against terrorism and extremism - a goal
we all share," Rasmussen said from Brussels.
In Ottawa, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff offered his party's support for the training mission
and backed the government's decision not to seek formal parliamentary approval.
"This will not be a combat mission," Harper said in response to a question from Ignatieff. "It will
occur in classrooms, behind the wire and in bases. This is a way of ensuring we consolidate the
gains we've made and honour the sacrifice of Canadians."
Ignatieff said he agreed with Harper the decision is one for the government to make.
"We think this is a tough decision, but it's the right decision as a matter of principle," Ignatieff
said.
"You can't have the Bloc (Quebecois) and the NDP coming out there and saying, 'Let's just walk
away from Afghanistan and leave them a lot of fine words."
"When Canada is asked by its allies and when Canada is asked by the Afghan people, 'Get us
ready to defend ourselves,' I think Canada should respond as the government is responding."
But a new poll suggests Canadians are wary of any extension to the military mission in
Afghanistan, which has claimed the lives of 152 members of the Forces.
The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey indicates respondents are split on the issue, with 48
per cent saying all troops should be brought home once the combat mission ends next July and
42 per cent saying some troops should remain to help train the Afghan military. About 60 per
cent are opposed to a Canadian military presence in Afghanistan, while only 37 per cent support
it. The telephone survey of just over 1,000 people was conducted Nov. 11-14 and is considered
accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times in 20.
Harper's chief spokesman Dimitri Soudas confirmed allies pressured Canada to extend the
combat mission in Kandahar.
"We've been under a lot of pressure from our allies. Our allies knew very well that our mission
was to end given the Canadian parliament's resolution," said Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence
Cannon. Cannon said the "non-combat" troops will be stationed in the Kabul area and will also
provide humanitarian aid. The precise makeup of the contingent will be decided after
consultation with NATO allies.
"We shall dedicate ourselves to development, diplomacy, and a non-combat role in training
members of the Afghan National Security Forces."
Defence Minister Peter MacKay said the withdrawal of the combat force will likely begin
months before the July 2011 withdrawal date set by Parliament.
"Given that reality of what is usually seen as fighting season ... that is one of the options we may
pursue, that is to say, we will start to draw down sooner," MacKay said.
MacKay said Canadian troops will not accompany their Afghan trainees on operations - the sort
of field mentoring that could expose them to front-line fighting.
The mission will cost the military up to $500 million a year. The move to Kabul from Kandahar
alone will cost $85 million. The government will spend $100 million a year over three years on
development and aid, he said.
Back to Top
Section: National News
Outlet: The Globe And Mail
Byline: CAMPBELL CLARK
Headline: Canada quitting Kandahar and making deep cuts to aid
Page: A1
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
Canada is slashing aid to Afghanistan and abandoning any presence in Kandahar by withdrawing
not only troops but civilian aid officials next year.
Despite the approval of a new training mission, the moves mark a turning point where Canada is
significantly disengaging from Afghanistan: dramatically reducing the outlay of cash, reducing
the risk to troops and quitting the war-scarred southern province where Canada has led military
and civilian efforts.
There will be a deep cut to aid for Afghanistan. International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda
said Canada will provide $100-million a year in development assistance for Afghanistan over the
next three years, less than half the $205-million the government reported spending last year.
And the focus will be shifted away from Kandahar. The Harper government's decision to mount
a 950-strong training mission in Afghanistan when it cuts off the combat role next July was
accompanied Tuesday by confirmation of a complete pullout from Kandahar. The training
mission will be mostly in Kabul, and possibly other Afghan centres, but not in Kandahar - and
civilian officials who manage development projects from a Provincial Reconstruction Team will
also leave.
``The [civilian] people who are in Kandahar will be either reassigned to Kabul, as needed, or will
be returning to Canada,'' Ms. Oda said.
With the civilian staff in Kandahar to leave next year, aid to the province becomes Washington's
business, rather than Ottawa's. Reconstruction projects in the province will effectively be
managed on the ground by U.S. officials who are already gradually taking over operations at the
Kandahar PRT.
Ms. Oda insisted Canada will continue to fund its signature projects like the reconstruction of the
Dhalla Dam, which will irrigate the Arghandab River valley that flows into arid Kandahar. But
whereas about half of Canadian aid now goes to Kandahar, the much-reduced sums will now be
spread across Afghanistan, government officials said.
Even the Dhalla Dam project will see more U.S. involvement, Ms. Oda suggested. The first
phase of the dam's ``rehabilitation'' is on track, she said. ``And we have been in discussion with
our international partners, because of the work we've started, of course, they are very anxious to
build their own programming around the strong base that we've started in the Arghandab valley,''
she said.
The removal of Canadians from the Kandahar PRT involves not just aid officials who managed
things like agricultural programs but also political officials advising Afghans on rebuilding a
provincial court system that has only 15 judges and corrections officers who helped rebuild
Kandahar's oft-attacked Sarpoza prison.
The withdrawal of civilians comes after the government grappled with the problem of protecting
them in a war zone after Canadian Forces troops leave, but some had hoped that the government
would find a way to retain a civilian presence in Kandahar, perhaps under the protection of U.S.
forces. The PRT is located on the outskirts of Kandahar at Camp Nathan Smith, now effectively
a U.S. base that houses thousands of American troops who arrived over the summer.
``The PRT's abandoned,'' said NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar. ``The government talks
often about not abandoning the work and the gains that have been made. Well, some of those
gains were around some of the civilian and aid work that was being done in the south.''
In the meantime, Canadian combat forces may be withdrawn from the Kandahar battlefield
sooner than the July deadline, coming back to the base at Kandahar Airfield before the Canadian
Forces begins the months-long task of taking down equipment and shipping it back to Canada.
Next year, up to 950 troops will move in for a three-year training mission that Defence Minister
Peter MacKay insisted will be conducted entirely in bases or ``static enclosures,'' with no combat
operations and no in-the-field mentoring that could expose the trainers to fighting.
That mission will cost Canada $500-million per year - less than half the cost of the current
combat mission, Mr. MacKay said, but there will be a one-time transition cost of about $85million to move operations to Kabul.
``The type of training that we're talking about is going to a range of things from handling
firearms, obviously classroom training, physical training, the type of training that we do on bases
here in Canada,'' he said. ``It will include such things as marksmanship, infantry, armour,
artillery, logistics. We may do some training with respect to aircraft, depending on what
equipment the Afghans have available.''
NATO has said it needs 900 more trainers to meet its goal of expanding the numbers of Afghan
soldiers and police from 255,000 to 305,000 in 2013. But about half of NATO's need is for
specialized trainers, from pilots to radio specialists and doctors.
Mr. Mackay said most trainers will be based in Kabul or on a base near the relatively-safe
capital, but that the government will have talks with NATO about sending them to other centres,
all outside Kandahar.
Back to Top
Section: News
Headline: Canadian troops will stick to the basics; Off to Kabul in 2011 to work with Afghan
soldiers in classrooms and on the firing range
Page: A6
Byline: Allan Woods Toronto Star
Outlet: Toronto Star
Illustrations:
 A newly trained army officer of Afghan National Army salutes as she receives her graduation
certificate in Kabul as fellow officers look on during their graduationceremony in September.
Gemunu Amarasinghe/AP file photo
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
Canada's war-hardened soldiers are going back to the basics for a three-year Afghan training
mission.
Up to 950 soldiers who would normally have been facing combat in Kandahar will now be
dispatched to walled-off bases around Kabul to lead Afghan soldiers in basic training exercises
between 2011 and 2014.
Jogging, marching, push-ups and firing weapons will replace Taliban hunting in the Canadian
playbook, under a plan rolled out Tuesday by the ministers of foreign affairs, defence and
international development. They said the new task is crucial if Afghanistan is to take control of
its own security in four years, when NATO nations hope to begin withdrawing from the country
en masse.
"Our goal is not merely to do things for Afghanistan," said Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence
Cannon. "It is also to help them to do things for themselves once more after decades of civil war
and chaos."
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said his party would support the mission, though the NDP and
Bloc Québécois are opposed.
"We think this is a tough decision but it's the right decision as a matter of principle," Ignatieff
said.
The mission will cost Canadians about $500 million annually for the supply and upkeep of its
soldiers. Development dollars, to be directed toward programs dealing with education and child
and maternal health, will account for about $100 million a year.
International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda said Canadian International Development Agency
staff would be either moved to Kabul from Kandahar or returned to Canada.
"There will not necessarily be new people," she told reporters.
The new task for Canadian soldiers in the country will not change the planned withdrawal from
Kandahar next summer. It may even hasten that process.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay said combat operations will likely cease earlier than July 2011
to ensure that new troops aren't taking up Canada's slack on the battlefield in the middle of
summer, traditionally the most intense period of fighting in Afghanistan.
And there will be no battles with insurgents in the military's new role, despite the fretting of
opposition parties in Ottawa Tuesday, who cited a long-held maxim that training and clashes
with the enemy are inextricably linked in Afghanistan.
The soldiers will be working under the year-old NATO Training Mission in Kabul.
"The type of training that we're talking about is a range of training from handling firearms,
classroom training, physical training, the type of training that we do, frankly, on bases here in
Canada," said MacKay.
Gen. Doug Lute, special adviser to President Barack Obama for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said
Canada's commitment to the training mission puts the country "at the forefront" of the coalition's
efforts to eventually handover control to the Afghan government by 2014.
"These trainers will go a long way to fully resourcing our training mission, the NATO training
mission, which of course is central to enabling the Afghan national security forces to take the
lead," he said in a briefing to the Washington press corps Tuesday.
In a speech this fall, the training mission's American commander, Lt.-Gen. William Caldwell,
said the past year has been focused on boosting the numbers of Afghan soldiers.
The next step is building on the quality of soldiers wearing the country's uniform.
That will require specific military skills such as logistics, communications, intelligence and
analysts to support the combat soldiers.
If those training roles are not filled soon, he said, the Afghan security forces won't be ready to
begin taking control of their country by next summer, potentially delaying NATO plans to
withdraw from the country even more.
950 number of military trainers and support personnel who will be deployed as part of the NATO
training mission that is expected to last until March 2014.
42 percentage of Canadians who say some troops should remain in Afghanistan for training
purposes.
48 percentage of Canadians who say all troops should be brought home when the combat
mission ends in July 2011, according to a Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll.
60 percentage of Canadians surveyed in that same Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll who are
opposed to a Canadian military presence in Afghanistan.
$700M expected cost per year of the new mission. About $500 million will go toward the supply
and upkeep of soldiers and $100 million will go toward Canadian development work. One-time
transition costs are expected to be $85 million.
Back to Top
Section: News
Lead: OTTAWA-- Canadian troops are staying in Afghanistan for an extra three years, but will
be taken off the battlefield and put in the classroom, the federal government said Tuesday.
Headline: Afghan mission extended Canadian troops committed toto three 3 more more years
years for for training training
Page: 21
Byline: DAVID AKIN , PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF
Outlet: The Calgary Sun
Illustrations:
 photo by Chris Roussakis, QMI Agency Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, right, and
Defence Minister Peter MacKay speak to the media Tuesday after announcing Canada's
commitment to keep troops in Afghanistan for three more years on a training mission.
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
OTTAWA-- Canadian troops are staying in Afghanistan for an extra three years, but will be
taken off the battlefield and put in the classroom, the federal government said Tuesday.
Canada has based rotations of up to 3,000 soldiers at a time out of Kandahar in the Talibaninfested southern part of Afghanistan. From there, Canadians have been mounting combat
operations for nearly a decade, suffering more than 150 killed and hundreds more wounded.
Now, Canada will move its main base to the country's capital, Kabul -- still a dangerous place
but less so than Kandahar.
There, about 950 military trainers and support personnel will be based until 2014 to help train the
Afghan National Army.
The announcement completes a 180-degree turn of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's policy on
Afghanistan.
In January, he had said all troops would be coming home, save the "odd guard guarding an
embassy."
And while he vows the combat mission will indeed end, along with the inevitable Canadian
casualties that go with such a dangerous assignment, he now believes the troops should stay to
help preserve the gains already made there.
"We do think this is a way of ensuring we consolidate the gains that we have made and honour
the sacrifices of Canadians who have served in Afghanistan," Harper said.
Officials said the training mission is likely to cost $700 million a year.
Canadian troops will stay "behind the wire" in Kabul where they will train members of the
Afghan National Army "to do the job we're now doing for them," said Defence Minister Peter
MacKay. MacKay said Canadian "mentors" will not, as they do right now, accompany Afghan
soldiers on combat missions outside the wire.
Canada's post- 2011 role in Afghanistan will continue to focus heavily on aid and development.
About $100 million a year will go to aid projects, mostly to improve maternal and child health.
"We will continue to do what many Canadian Forces personnel came to believe was our primary
reason for being there: Taking incremental steps to make a better life for ordinary Afghans,
especially women and children," MacKay said.
david.akin@sunmedia.ca
Back to Top
Section: Politique
Headline: La facture s'élèvera à 1,6 milliard
Page: A19
Outlet: La Presse
Byline: Bellavance, Joël-Denis
Illustrations:
 Les ministres Peter MacKay, Lawrence Cannon et Bev Oda ont confirmé hier que le Canada
maintiendra des troupes en Afghanistan après juillet 2011 afin de former les soldats afghans dans la
région de Kaboul.
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
Dateline: OTTAWA
La décision du gouvernement Harper de prolonger de trois ans le séjour des soldats canadiens en
Afghanistan coûtera au moins 1,6 milliard de dollars aux contribuables.
Le ministre des Affaires étrangères, Lawrence Cannon, le ministre de la Défense, Peter MacKay, et la
ministre de la Coopération internationale, Bev Oda, ont confirmé hier que le Canada maintiendra des
troupes en Afghanistan après juillet 2011. Mais ces troupes - 950 soldats et du personnel de soutien auront comme unique mission de former les soldats afghans dans la région de Kaboul, la capitale du
pays, et cela jusqu'en mars 2014.
Entre 2001 et 2011, la mission de combat des soldats canadiens en Afghanistan a coûté près de 11
milliards de dollars. Durant cette période, 153 soldats ont perdu la vie de même que deux travailleuses
humanitaires, un diplomate et une journaliste.
A partir de juillet prochain, aucun soldat canadien ne participera à une mission de combat contre les
insurgés talibans dans la région de Kandahar, comme le font actuellement les 2800 soldats canadiens
postés dans cette province dangereuse de l'Afghanistan, ou dans toute autre région de ce pays, a tenu à
souligner hier le ministre MacKay.
Cette décision, annoncée à trois jours seulement du sommet de l'OTAN à Lisbonne, a été immédiatement
saluée par le secrétaire général de l'alliance militaire, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
"J'accueille chaleureusement la décision du premier ministre Harper que le Canada va déployer un
nombre important de soldats dans le cadre de la mission de formation de l'OTAN en Afghanistan. Le
Canada a contribué de manière substantielle depuis plusieurs années aux opérations en Afghanistan.
Les troupes canadiennes ont fait une grande différence dans la vie des Afghans et souvent à un coût très
élevé", a affirmé M. Fogh Rasmussen.
Pressions
Les pays membres de l'OTAN ont exercé d'énormes pressions sur le gouvernement Harper au cours des
derniers mois pour qu'il maintienne une présence militaire en Afghanistan.
Mais le premier ministre tenait mordicus à ce que la mission de combat actuelle prenne fin comme prévu
en 2011 afin de respecter la résolution adoptée à cet égard en 2008. Toutefois, il a accepté de maintenir
des troupes afin de former les troupes afghanes et de poursuivre le travail de reconstruction de
l'Afghanistan entrepris il y a une décennie.
M. Harper aura l'occasion d'expliquer de vive voix à ses collègues de pays membres de l'OTAN les
intentions du Canada la fin de semaine prochaine. Le premier ministre aura aussi l'occasion de discuter
de la transition de la mission canadienne avec le président de l'Afghanistan, Hamid Karzaï, qui sera
également à Lisbonne.
En conférence de presse, le ministre Lawrence Cannon a expliqué que le Canada compte donc
réorienter la mission en Afghanistan en concentrant ses efforts dans quatre domaines: renforcer la
sécurité du pays et la primauté du droit formant les forces afghanes et la police; favoriser la diplomatie à
l'échelle régionale; contribuer à la prestation d'aide humanitaire; et investir dans la jeunesse en
améliorant les services d'éducation et de santé.
"En misant sur ces points forts et sur les réalisations qu'il a accomplies au cours des dernières années, le
Canada s'engage à améliorer la sécurité, la stabilité et l'autonomie de la population afghane et à faire en
sorte que le pays ne soit plus un refuge pour les terroristes", a affirmé le ministre Cannon.
La ministre Bev Oda a pour sa part indiqué que le Canada mettra 100 millions de dollars par année
pendant les trois dernières années de la mission des troupes canadiennes afin de financer divers
programmes d'aide humanitaire.
Même si la situation demeure difficile en Afghanistan, Mme Oda a tenu à souligner les progrès
enregistrés dans ce pays depuis une décennie. A titre d'exemple, en 2001, seulement 700 000 enfants
fréquentaient l'école en Afghanistan et uniquement des garçons car le régime taliban interdisait aux filles
d'aller à l'école. Aujourd'hui, six millions de jeunes Afghans sont sur les bancs d'école, dont un tiers sont
des filles.
Le ministre MacKay a soutenu que l'objectif du Canada et des pays de l'OTAN est de former
suffisamment de soldats afghans pour qu'ils puissent eux-mêmes assurer la sécurité de leur propre pays.
Depuis le début de la mission, le Canada a aidé à former quelque 50 000 soldats afghans.
Aux Communes, hier, le Bloc et le NPD ont encore une fois dénoncé la décision du gouvernement
Harper, soutenue par les libéraux, de maintenir des troupes en Afghanistan sans que le Parlement ne se
prononce sur cet important enjeu de la politique étrangère du Canada.
Back to Top
Section: Canada
Outlet: L'Acadie Nouvelle
Headline: Loin de la ligne de tir
Page: 15
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
Dateline: OTTAWA
Source: La Presse Canadienne
Dans l'entourage du ministre de la Défense, on a martelé que les soldats seraient loin de la ligne de tir et
qu'ils n'agiraient plus à titre de mentors, mais feraient de la formation loin du champ de bataille.
"Il y aura une évaluation des besoins, mais ce ne sera pas dans la province de Kandahar, point à la ligne.
Ce ne sera pas en situation de combat, point à la ligne", a tranché le ministre MacKay.
Le premier ministre Harper a par ailleurs répété, aux Communes, qu'il n'était pas nécessaire de
soumettre le prolongement de la mission afghane à un vote des députés, puisqu'il s'agira d'une mission
d'entraînement et non plus de combat.
Le Bloc québécois et le Nouveau Parti démocratique réclament la tenue d'un vote afin que les
parlementaires se prononcent sur la question.
Du côté libéral, le député Bob Rae avait lui-même proposé, en juin, le prolongement de la mission
militaire à des fins d'entraînement. Le parti a toutefois refusé de réitérer son appui tant qu'il n'aura pas vu
le plan concret du gouvernement conservateur.
Back to Top
Section: Canada
Outlet: L'Acadie Nouvelle
Headline: Mission militaire: les Canadiens se méfient d'une prolongation
Page: 15
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
Dateline: OTTAWA
Source: La Presse Canadienne
Un nouveau sondage suggère que les Canadiens se méfient d'une prolongation de la mission militaire en
Afghanistan.
Le coup de sonde La Presse Canadienne Harris-Décima laisse entendre que les Canadiens sont
partagés sur la question: 48 % d'entre eux désirent que tous les soldats rentrent au pays à la fin de la
mission de combat en juillet prochain, alors que 42 % affirment que des militaires devraient demeurer sur
place pour former l'armée afghane. Six pour cent des répondants sont en faveur de la prolongation de la
mission de combat telle qu'elle existe actuellement.
Au Québec, l'opposition à une prolongation de la mission y est la plus forte au pays, avec 59 % des
répondants. Ils sont toutefois 36 % à se dire intéressés à ce que l'armée canadienne contribue à la
formation des soldats afghans. Quatre pour cent des répondants veulent que la mission de combat soit
prolongée.
Ce sondage survient alors que le gouvernement Harper annonce son engagement à maintenir jusqu'à
950 soldats en Afghanistan pour se consacrer exclusivement à la formation, et ce, jusqu'en 2014.
Le coup de sonde suggère que les Canadiens demeurent fortement opposés au déploiement de soldats
en Afghanistan. Selon l'enquête, 60 % des répondants ne veulent pas d'une présence militaire en
Afghanistan; seulement 37 % d'entre eux y sont favorables.
De plus, la moitié des gens interrogés estiment qu'il est trop tôt pour déterminer si la mission de neuf ans
a été un succès, tandis que 34 % d'entre eux la considèrent déjà comme un échec. Seuls 13 % des
répondants croient qu'il s'agit d'un succès.
Le sondage téléphonique a été mené auprès d'un peu plus de 1000 Canadiens du 11 au 14 novembre. Il
est considéré fiable à plus ou moins 3,1 points de pourcentage, 19 fois sur 20.
Back to Top
Section: Editorial
Headline: Balanced shift in forces' focus
Page: A18
Outlet: Toronto Star
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
Charting our future course in Afghanistan has been a needlessly messy, drawn-out affair. Far
from showing leadership, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has dithered and dissembled. And
Parliament still hasn't had a chance to debate the way forward, or vote on it.
Nonetheless, the leaders of Canada's two main political parties have managed to set aside
partisan wrangling long enough to agree on a credible, balanced approach just three days before
the allies meet in Lisbon to review Afghan strategy.
Canada's 2,800 troops in war-torn Kandahar will leave next July, as the House of Commons
decreed in 2008. Harper reconfirmed that on Tuesday. But at Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's
urging, the government will also redeploy 950 troops to Kabul to help train Afghan security
forces until March 2014, when the allies hope they will be able to stand up to the Taliban on their
own.
From the relative safety of Kabul bases, our forces will teach the Afghans firearms handling,
marksmanship, infantry tactics, the use of armour and artillery, logistics and possibly aircraft.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay ruled out risky mentoring in the field.
Make no mistake: this is anything but the "civilian only" mission the Conservatives had
encouraged the public to expect. Canada will spend $500 million a year on the training, far more
than the $100 million earmarked for development and aid. By any standard the focus is still
chiefly military. And in Afghanistan, there's no guarantee of success.
It left the New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois railing about bypassing Parliament, political
betrayal and "mission creep."
But back in 2008, the Commons never demanded a wholesale military exit when it "capped" the
Kandahar mission. It called for "the redeployment of Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar . .
. by December 2011." But it also emphasized the need to train and equip Afghan forces. The new
mission is true to that call.
It is also endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, which has urged us to "train, mentor
and empower" the military. And it brings Canada in line with our American allies and our
partners in NATO. They all asked us to "stay the course."
Still, Canadians are war-weary. A parliamentary debate would assist in explaining why staying
the course is necessary. And a vote would demonstrate that it has majority support in Parliament.
Back to Top
Section: Editorial/Opinion
Lead: Believe what you want, but assurances from the PM and defence minister that Canadian
soldiers who remain in Afghanistan after the 2011 withdrawal deadline will be "inside the wire,"
is hooey.
Headline: Canada doesn't operate 'inside the wire'
Page: 15
Byline: PETER WORTHINGTON
Outlet: The Calgary Sun
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
Believe what you want, but assurances from the PM and defence minister that Canadian soldiers
who remain in Afghanistan after the 2011 withdrawal deadline will be "inside the wire," is
hooey.
The formal "combat" role may end, but Canadian soldiers do not function "inside the wire."
Never have, unlikely ever will.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's and Defence Minister Peter MacKay's assurances make no
sense -- and this is not meant as criticism, but as recognition of reality.
If 750 to 1,000 Canadian soldiers remain in Afghanistan after the bulk of the 3,000-member
battle group departs, they will be responsible for training the Afghan National Army (ANA) and
providing security for aid workers and reconstruction teams that will be Canada's main priority.
Fair enough.
But "training" Afghans to be soldiers is not an "inside the wire" job. Afghans need neither
training nor encouragement to fight, but they do need discipline if they are to be an effective
army that can impose security and something resembling "peace."
The more detailed the training, the more involved Canadian soldiers will likely be.
Our guys will almost inevitably be in the field mentoring the ANA -- on patrols, providing
security, doing what soldiers do to maintain stability. In Afghanistan, as elsewhere, that means
being outside the wire. And "outside the wire" means fighting when necessary to pacify those
who would subvert the status quo.
"Reconstruction," which is building schools, dams, restoring normal life, takes place "outside the
wire."
Canadians involved in aid work are justified in feeling more secure if Canadian soldiers are
responsible for their security. That's as it should be and will be.
Maybe the Harper government feels it has to sugar the pill to condition the public on what
ending our combat role in Afghanistan really means.
Canadians prefer straight talk, which doesn't come easily to politicians.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and his understudy, Bob Rae, have already voiced approval of a
continuing military role in Afghanistan.
Putting Canada's interests ahead of political expediency is a credit to them both.
Having visited our troops in Afghanistan, Ignatieff and Rae have a better understanding of the
situation than the NDP's Jack Layton whose forte is posturing and pronouncing.
That the Americans are virtually pleading with Canada to remain in Afghanistan in some
capacity is testimony to our effectiveness. U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham lavishly praising the
professionalism of Canadian soldiers is not just massaging Canadian egos.
Rather, it is heartfelt recognition of our worth and is reflected in the U.S. military's realization
(somewhat to their own surprise) that "outside the wire" our guys know what they are doing and
at every occasion have thumped the Taliban enemy.
For a peace-loving people, Canadians make excellent soldiers -- as witnessed in all our wars
fought mainly by citizen soldiers who, once the job is done, return to their peaceful lives.
An oddity of the world today is the most effective soldiers tend to be those from Englishspeaking countries. That doesn't mean others aren't good, but that Englishspeaking countries
produce soldiers who usually win -- or are damned hard to defeat.
That can work to advantage in peace as well as war -- as Afghanistan may yet prove.
Back to Top
Section: The Editorial Page
Byline: Barry Cooper
Outlet: Calgary Herald
Headline: Lessons from Vietnam can be applied to Afghanistan
Page: A14
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
Source: For The Calgary Herald
The pre-announcement last week by Defence Minister Peter MacKay that the Prime Minister
soon would say something about Canada's future role in Afghanistan was hardly dramatic. It has
been an open secret for some time that the end of the combat mission would not mean a pullout
of all Canadian troops.
Moreover, the task they are to undertake, training Afghan security forces, is part of a broad and
public U.S.-led NATO and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) strategy. The only
disingenuous aspect of the news is the pretence, as Senator Colin Kenny pointed out months ago,
that training is possible in safety behind the wire. It is not. In fact, patrolling with Afghan
soldiers is more dangerous than patrolling only with Canadians.
Almost a year ago President Barack Obama outlined his Afghanistan policy in a speech at West
Point. Continued pressure on the leadership of al-Qaeda would be augmented by some 30,000
combat troops to blunt military operations by the Taliban. Increased security would enable
NATO-ISAF forces to train the Afghans and (somehow) improve civilian governance. He also
indicated that the U.S. would begin withdrawing troops next July, about the time Canada
proposes to end its combat operations.
Announcing drawdown dates tells the Afghanistan government that foreign commitments are
finite. It is also important to reiterate the obvious: NATO and ISAF were never expected to
defeat the Taliban, but to provide conditions allowing Afghan forces to become robust enough to
do the job. But what is the job?
Consider an obvious historical parallel: just as today the U.S. and its allies cannot indefinitely
provide security in Afghanistan, so in the late 1960s the U.S. and its allies could not indefinitely
provide security in South Vietnam. This is why, shortly after his election, in January 1969, U.S.
President Richard Nixon announced his "Vietnamization" policy. U.S. forces in South Vietnam
would continue to oppose the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) but would devote increasing
resources to support and training of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN). There was
no surge, but there were sustained air attacks on NVA bases in "neutral" Cambodia.
Then as today, the purpose was to shape conditions so indigenous forces had a shot at being
effective. The problem then was that the ARVN didn't like to fight; the problem today is
incorrigibly corrupt civilian governance.
There are additional parallels. One reason for risk-aversion in the ARVN was that the North
Vietnamese had successfully infiltrated the military, administrative and governmental
organizations of the South. This meant that the North was seldom surprised in combat. Likewise
in Afghanistan, the training and creation of an indigenous military is an obvious opportunity for
Taliban infiltration. Intelligence sources within an enemy's army are always useful, especially
during counterinsurgency operations. Equally important, knowing that ISAF and NATO are
leaving signals the Taliban to reduce their operational tempo, permit the foreigners to leave, and
then reassert themselves.
Now, the rational purpose of war is peace, which is usually preceded by messy and usually secret
political negotiations. People are willing to negotiate accommodations and eventually legal
agreements either because they are coerced or because they see opportunities.
NATO-ISAF counterinsurgency operations, despite some tactical successes in reducing the
Taliban's drug income and the extreme prejudice to the health of their political and military
leadership, have not induced sufficient fear to compel them to negotiate. Yet, since late
September, when Afghan President Hamid Karzai implored reluctant Taliban leaders to join their
colleagues on the High Peace Council, talks have been going on, which means that the Taliban
sees a political opportunity.
At the very least the Taliban expects to gain considerable influence in any future Afghan
government. Given the number of foreign players involved, which includes India, Pakistan, and
Iran, as well as ISAF and NATO countries, we can expect the negotiations to be even more
squalid than the American-Vietnamese peace talks in Paris during the late 1960s and early
1970s.
The result of the Paris talks a generation ago did lead to peace and eventual co-operation
between the United States and Vietnam. Call me a cockeyed optimist to expect as much from the
fanatics in the Taliban, but it is not impossible. "Afghanization" will help.
Barry Cooper is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary.
Back to Top
Section: Canada & World
Byline: Barbara Yaffe
Outlet: Vancouver Sun
Headline: Harper gambles on grudging support for 'non-combat' role; With his Conservative
base behind him and Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae on board, the prime minister may escape
unscathed
Page: B1
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
Source: Vancouver Sun
Under pressure from NATO allies and with Liberal backing, the Harper government has
announced an extension to Canada's military mission in Afghanistan.
The government took pains to emphasize that post-2011 activity will be "non-combat," confined
to classrooms on military bases in Kabul, not in the violent environs of Kandahar where some
2,800 troops have been stationed since 2006.
Conservatives know how unpopular the mission has become, with people wondering whether
fighting for democracy over yonder is realistic and lamenting the heavy loss of life.
An August Ipsos Reid poll had 57 per cent of Canadians opposed to further engagement.
But polls also show that the Conservative base is less opposed.
Stephen Harper has clearly come to the view that Canada cannot entirely extricate itself from the
region in good conscience, no doubt with a little help from other NATO members that have
urged Canada to stay involved, to consolidate whatever gains have been made.
Harper was keen to deal with the issue this week because he's scheduled to attend NATO
meetings in Lisbon starting Friday.
After a drubbing in Parliament on Monday, when New Democrats and Bloc MPs criticized
Conservatives for not calling a Commons vote on the mission's extension, a trio of cabinet
ministers appeared Tuesday to formally announce, and defend, the continued troop involvement.
Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Development
Minister Bev Oda told reporters up to 950 military trainers and support personnel will remain in
the Kabul area beyond July 2011 -- the date previously designated for a pullout by a 2008
parliamentary motion.
The plan now is to stay on until March 2014.
Related costs include $500 million annually for the training effort, plus $85 million in logistics
costs.
Canada will also spend $100 million a year on development assistance.
Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page last year put the total cost of the Afghan effort at more
than $18 billion, including long-term costs of caring for injured soldiers.
The ministers emphasized the gains made as a result of NATO's engagement, noting 700,000
boys attended school before the engagement in 2002.
Today, six million students are enrolled, a third of them girls.
Conservatives hope that by confining troop activities to training, presumably out of harm's way,
Canadians will give grudging support to the policy shift.
The government maintains a Commons vote is unnecessary because the new mission doesn't
involve combat.
But New Democrat defence critic Jack Harris insisted, "All of Afghanistan is a war zone. . . . It's
a continuation of the military mission and it's contrary to the motion passed by Parliament."
Stephen Staples of the Rideau Institute, an Ottawa foreign policy think-tank, agreed: "This new
training mission will likely involve combat [and] there will be pressure for Canada to lift its noncombat caveats, especially if the war worsens over the coming years."
The NDP, with support from its supporters, has long advocated that involvement in Afghanistan
after nine years of fighting should be focused solely on humanitarian and civilian activity.
Liberals have had a trickier time dealing with the mission, as past votes have shown the caucus
to be divided.
But leader Michael Ignatieff is known to champion a "responsibility to protect" principle -which holds that civilian populations under siege must be protected by the international
community.
And the party's foreign affairs critic, Bob Rae, after visiting Afghanistan earlier this year, has
taken a strong stand in support of a continued role in Afghanistan.
Knowing his caucus is not of one mind, Ignatieff probably favours Harper's decision not to hold
a Commons vote, though on Tuesday he criticized Harper's "frantic improvisation in the making
of Canada's foreign policy."
In any event, if the debate now becomes focused on whether or not a parliamentary vote should
be held, Canadians probably will see the issue as one of process and be less inclined to become
actively disgruntled.
byaffe@vancouversun.com
Back to Top
Section: News
Headline: MacKay is staying '... if the PM so wishes'
Page: A8
Byline: Bruce Campion-Smith Toronto Star chief
Outlet: Toronto Star
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
Defence Minister Peter MacKay insists that reports of his political death are "greatly
exaggerated."
And MacKay got a public endorsement from Prime Minister Stephen Harper as he sought to beat
back rumours he's been shopping around for a job at a Bay St. law firm.
In question period Tuesday, Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc asked MacKay point-blank about
reports that he has had high-level contacts with the Gowlings law firm about the possibility of a
job starting early next year.
Commons Speaker Peter Milliken said the question didn't apply to government business but gave
MacKay a chance to answer anyway.
With his gaze fixed on the media gallery in the Commons, MacKay quipped that he appreciated
the "sincere concern" over his future expressed by the "soothsayers and prognosticators who are
with us today.
"But I can assure the House that I have every intention of continuing in my job, if the Prime
Minister so wishes, and I continue to serve my constituents, the Canadian Forces and all
Canadians to the best of my ability," MacKay said.
LeBlanc, who had called MacKay a member of the "progressive wing" of the Conservative party,
asked again about his future. This time, Harper sprung to his feet to respond.
"What we on this side of the House are all delighted to find out is that the member for
Beauséjour, and, I presume, all members of the Liberal Party have the same high opinion of the
minister of national defence as all members of the government," Harper said.
Indeed, a day after he appeared sidelined in the number one issue facing his department - the
military mission in Afghanistan - MacKay was back in the spotlight on Tuesday.
First, he appeared at a news conference as the government confirmed its plans to extend the
military mission to 2014.
And in question period, he had a much more visible role than he did Monday, when Foreign
Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon pointedly did all the talking.
Back to Top
Section: Editorial
Outlet: Windsor Star
Headline: Nov. 11 as a holiday; Let's have the debate
Page: A6
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
Source: Windsor Star
Nepean-Carleton MPP Lisa MacLeod has tabled a private member's bill in the Ontario
legislature that would designate Remembrance Day as a holiday in the province. It's an idea
worthy of consideration and deserving of input from Ontarians.
If MacLeod's bill becomes law, an act "Respecting Ontario Veterans, Soldiers and War Dead,"
would effectively cancel the recently declared Family Day holiday in February and transfer the
holiday to Nov. 11.
At this time, Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba are the only provinces that don't recognize Nov. 11
as an official holiday.
"The first discussion I had was with Defence Minister Peter MacKay, and we were talking about
how odd it was that Ontario didn't recognize Remembrance Day as a statutory holiday, even
though it is recognized in virtually every other province with the exception of two," said
MacLeod. "The sacrifices of the men and women in Canadian Armed Forces today, or 50 years
ago, or 100 years ago, need to be recognized in this province."
However, not everyone agrees with MacLeod's bill, including the Royal Canadian Legion
national office and Ontario office. One reason the Legion opposes the bill is that it believes
children will miss out on Remembrance Day services if schools are closed.
"They'll treat it as another day off," said Bob Butt, spokesman for the Legion's Dominion
command.
Robyn Zettler, assistant executive director of the Ontario command, adds that the idea hasn't
been popular with many Legion members in the past.
"The No. 1 concern is participation on Remembrance Day from youth and students," she said.
"Many schools come to the cenotaphs. Should the schools be closed we feel that would hurt our
program."
However MacLeod believes those concerns are addressed by her bill which would still require
schools to hold Remembrance Day services on the day before Nov. 11.
Retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenizie agrees with Mac-Leod that children would still be
involved in understanding the significance of Remembrance Day if the bill passes.
"Let me assure you that in my entire lifetime I have never seen the attention that teachers and
communities are expending on their young people and the positive response of the young people
in this country," MacKenzie said just before Remembrance Day this year.
"As we speak there are some schools digging trenches in the back of the schoolyard in the rain
and having some of the students spend time in there to replicate as least for a short time, trench
warfare in World War One," he added. "Lisa's bill ensures that on the last school day before
Remembrance Day there will be ceremonies in the school. So it's a double victory."
Certainly, it is important that all Canadians, young and old, understand the significance of
Remembrance Day and remember those brave men and women who selflessly gave their lives to
preserve the democratic principles and freedoms that we enjoy today.
The debate on MacLeod's bill should focus on the best way to honour our veterans.
Remembrance Day must not be allowed to become just another day off. It would have to be a
meaningful holiday.
At the same time, to gain more business support for the idea, it might be better if this new
holiday could replace one of our existing holidays, such as Famiy Day where it applies, or the
civic holiday where it doesn't.
Back to Top
Section: News
Byline: Matthew Fisher
Outlet: The Ottawa Citizen
Illustrations:
 Photo: Reuters / Canadian Capt. Bryce Morawiec, right, in a 2007 training session with
Afghan National Army commanders.
Headline: Time becomes the new enemy; Canadians scrambling to set up training plan
Page: A4
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
Dateline: KABUL
Source: Postmedia News
Having finally provided Canadian Forces, NATO and the public with a thin sketch Tuesday of its
future military intentions in Afghanistan, the Harper government must quickly shape plans for a
complex training mission that none of the main principals even knew was being contemplated
until a few days ago.
This development comes as the existing combat mission in Kandahar, which is to end next July,
is about to grow temporarily with the addition of more U.S. forces under Canadian command in
the Horn of Panjwaii, Postmedia News has learned. The development will place a second
American army unit under Brig.-Gen. Dean Milner, the Task Force Kandahar commander, until
next summer.
Because Canada's new $500-million a year training assignment is to last until 2014, one of the
imperatives that the military has suddenly been seized with is the urgent need to find a new
staging base to replace Camp Mirage, which was closed to Canadian Forces earlier this month
because of a spat with the United Arab Emirates over civilian landing rights.
Stopgap measures, such as airfields in Cyprus and in Germany, which were hastily decided in
order to get the combat mission out of Kandahar next summer, involve hours of extra flying time
and only work long-term if Ottawa is willing to shell out tens of millions of dollars extra for
three years for fuel.
If an agreement can be reached, the most sensible new logistics hub might be Qatar. It is right
next to the U.A.E., 800 kilometres closer to Afghanistan than Cyprus and 2,400 kilometres closer
than Germany.
Qatar may have the best military airport in the Gulf and already hosts the forward headquarters
for the U.S. military's Central Command, which guides the war in Afghanistan, and is also home
to a variety of U.S. air force and Royal Air Force aircraft. There is also a historical connection as
Canadian CF-18 fighter jets used Qatar as their launching pad during the Gulf War in 1991.
Only three weeks ago, Canada successfully concluded a civilian air agreement with the
sheikdom. It is also opening an embassy there in a few months.
While Harper dithered for months before doing his volte-face, the Europeans took all the best
(read: easy) training spots in Kabul or places nearby.
As Canada is insisting that most of its trainers will be in or near the capital, which is already
awash with trainers from other countries, there is immense interest in what specific training tasks
Canada is to be assigned by NATO and how its trainers will be shoehorned into already-crowded
bases in the capital.
One possibility is for Canada to build a training facility from scratch, adjacent to existing bases
on the outskirts of Kabul, perhaps near where it had a base called Camp Julien from 2003 to
2005. That base was handed over to the Afghan army when the Canadians left for Kandahar.
What has transpired has been, in a way, a reprise of the decision that Paul Martin's government
made that sent Canadian combat troops to Kandahar. By the time Martin finally made up his
mind, several European countries had slyly volunteered for much less hazardous duty.
Canada's late decision to send trainers to Afghanistan also complicates next summer's exit plans
for combat forces. Some of the staggering quantities of equipment that were headed home
(accommodations, computers, communications systems, etc.) must now be driven in convoys up
the dangerous road from Kandahar to Kabul.
Furthermore, because the Armed Forces were ordered by the Prime Minister's Office to not even
make routine contingency plans for a training mission -- and still do not have a clear idea what
they are being asked to do -- everything must now be quickly sorted out on the fly.
For example, it normally takes one year or more to plan troop rotations and to identify which
personnel should be part of them. This is especially true for a training mission where many
specialists in disparate trades are required.
But nobody can be selected until NATO presents a list of what experts it requires.
Back to Top
Section: News
Lead: OTTAWA -- The government's post-2011 Afghan plan was met with yeahs and nays from
critics and military analysts.
Headline: Critics warn combat 'inevitable' in war zone
Page: 21
Byline: BRYN WEESE PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU
Outlet: The Calgary Sun
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
OTTAWA -- The government's post-2011 Afghan plan was met with yeahs and nays from critics
and military analysts.
The NDP again accused the Conservatives of lying, saying it was "inevitable" that the 950-strong
training contingent that will be in Afghanistan until 2014 would be drawn into combat because
the whole of Afghanistan is a "war zone."
"You can sugarcoat this all you want, but you're in a war zone. You can't fool people about that,"
said NDP defence critic Jack Harris. "They're calling soldiers trainers, but it's a combat training
mission."
Steven Staples, a military analyst with the Rideau Institute, said it's wrong to assume Canadian
troops would be safe, or even excluded, from combat operations.
'PRESSURE'
"As long as Canadian troops remain in Afghanistan, there will be pressure for Canada to lift its
non-combat caveats, especially if the war worsens over the coming years," he stated in a news
release.
Other military analysts said the training mission was the natural progression of Canada's
involvement in Afghanistan, and would strengthen Canada's bonds with its NATO allies.
bryn.weese@sunmedia.ca
Back to Top
Section: City
Byline: Jennifer Campbell
Outlet: The Ottawa Citizen
Illustrations:
 Photo: Lois Siegel, The Ottawa Citizenn / On the occasion of the national day of Algeria,
Ambassador Smail Benamara and his wife, Hasna, hosted a reception at the Canadian Museum
of Civilization, followed by a performance of the National Ballet of Algeria.
 Photo: Tomas Margaitis / The Women Ambassadors of Ottawa (thereare currently 26 in
Ottawa) held their annual general meeting Nov. 3 at the embassy of Lithuania. Lithuanian
Ambassador Ginte Damusis, who was president, ended her term and Norwegian Ambassador
Else Berit Eikeland will assume those duties. From left: Sofia Cerrato (Honduras), Rakiah Abd
Lamit (Brunei Darussalam), Berit Eikeland (Norway), Damusis (Lithuania), Nouzha Chekrouni
(Morocco).
 Photo: David Lee, representative of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office, hosted a
fundraiser for the CanadianMusic Competition Nov. 8. Pictured are Gilberte LeClerc, diplomatic
liaison for the Canadian Music Competition, Lee's wife, Chih Lin Lee, and performers Anita Pari
and Philip Cho.
 Photo: Frank Scheme / The Future of Remembrance conference took place at the Canadian
War Museum Nov. 4. Shown, Netherlands Ambassador Wim Geerts and CBC The National
anchor Peter Mansbridge.
 Photo: Ute Mikula / Sabine Witschel, wife of German Ambassador Georg Witschel, hosted a
fashion show and recitalfeaturing designer Emilia Torabi and German-born singer, Sylvia
Larrass (accompanied by David Hassin on piano.) Pictured left to right are Larrass, Zuhra
Bahman-Ludin, Witschel and Torabi.
 Photo: Ulle Baum / Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet visited Canada Nov. 3. He's shown
here with Defence Minister Peter MacKay.
 Photo: Jiyun Shin, Reporter, Korean Newsweek / The Canada Korea Society's 2010 annual
general meeting took place Nov. 3 at the Ottawa Hunt & Golf Club with Len Edwards,
formerdeputy minister of Foreign Affairs, as guest speaker. From left: Korean Ambassador
Chan-ho Ha, Louis Levesque deputy minister of International Trade, Canada Korea Society
president Young-Hae Lee, and Edwards.
 Photo: Ulle Baum / The embassy of Latvia hosted a reception to celebrate the 92nd
anniversary of Latvia's independence at the National Arts Centre. Ambassador Margers Krams,
far right, is joined by, from left, Korean Ambassador Chan Ho Ha, House of Commons Speaker
Peter Milliken, and SandraKrams.
Headline: Afghan ambassador returns home to help
Page: C4
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
Source: The Ottawa Citizen
Afghan Ambassador Hamid Karzai is so pleased with Canada's decision to extend its military
mission in a non-combat role that he's recalled his ambassador.
Clearly it's not the traditional recall, which is done to express displeasure at a foreign
government's position. Rather, Ambassador Jawed Ludin is being called home to Kabul so his
skills can be put to use there.
"They're very happy," Ludin said. "The president called me and was very happy with Canada's
decision. He thought I had a role in this -- which is quite optimistic. I don't think anyone had a
role in it except for the prime minister himself, who should take credit.
"It was a very important issue for me and I tried to give a perspective of an Afghan but I was
always very realistic about how much influence this would have because there are many factors
the prime minister would take into account."
Ludin said Karzai hasn't told him what he'll be doing in Kabul but he said his recall is definitely
a promotion, though he regrets having to leave Canada, which he'll do by the end of 2010.
On Canada's decision, Ludin said he's as pleased as his president. "It's a good decision and we're
very grateful. We did wait for a long time and we were anxious about it but it was well worth the
wait. The prime minister quite rightly took the time.
"It is the best decision and it's not just in a selfish way for the Afghans, I think it's also the best
course of action that Canada could have taken. I see some Canadians trying to find arguments for
why it's a bad decision but having lived here now for close to two years, I really believe
Canadians would have felt bad about just leaving Afghanistan and leaving nothing behind."
Ludin said there is now a date -- 2014 -- which Afghan forces, and the 40 nations who are in the
country, share for Afghans to take control of their own fate. And he said this decision, on
Canada's part, pays better tribute to all the sacrifices, 152 soldiers killed in all, that Canadian
troops have made.
"(This will help) make sure that what those people believed in, to the extent that they were
prepared to lay down their lives, is achieved," Ludin said.
The outgoing ambassador said he believes the Afghans will be ready in 2014 and feels the
country would have been ready much sooner had it invested initially in building up the army and
police forces.
"There was a severe underinvestment in these institutions and that's why it has taken us rather
long."
He said Afghans are "passionately eager" to take control and that as a people, they don't like
being a "burden to others."
Ludin said progress is being made, that the surge in the south is working.
"We're seeing, gradually, the outcome of many hard years of efforts and investment and it would
have been meaningless to just leave it behind."
Lieberman Coming to Town
Kollel of Ottawa, a group of scholars pursuing Judaic studies, is hosting an event called
Democracy & Global Governance Nov. 22. It features Citizenship and Immigration Minister
Jason Kenney and U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman, who is chairman of the Homeland Security
and governmental affairs committee. The annual forum and reception includes a general program
with dinner and a VIP cocktail option as well.
Today is the deadline for reservations, which can by made by e-mailing kollelottawa@bellnet.ca
or by calling (613) 729-4368.
EU Film Festing
The 25th edition of the European Film Festival takes place Nov. 18 to Dec. 5. Over the past
quarter-century, 378 films have been screened as part of the festival.
This year, with the exception of Malta, every member state in the 27-country union will make a
cinematic contribution to the festival.
Things kick off Thursday with Belgium's entry, called A Perfect Match. Each film will be
screened in the auditorium at Library and Archives Canada, 395 Wellington St. Visit www.cfiicf.ca for detailed information on the festival and summaries of each of the films being shown.
New Executive for WAO
The Women Ambassadors of Ottawa, an organization that brings together Ottawa's 26 female
ambassadors for regular meetings with the goal of facilitating and strengthening links with
leaders in Canadian society, held its annual general meeting Nov. 3 and elected new members to
its executive.
Its outgoing president, Ginte Damusis, who is ambassador of Lithuania, handed over her duties
to Norwegian Ambassador Else Berit Eikeland. Also elected to the board were Honduran
Ambassador Sofia Cerrato, Brunei Darussalam High Commissioner Rakiah Abd Lamit, and
Rwandan High Commissioner Edda Mukabagwiza.
Jennifer Campbell is a freelance writer and editor in Ottawa. Reach her at
Diplomatica@sympatico.ca.
Back to Top
Section: International News
Outlet: The Globe And Mail
Byline: PAUL KORING
Headline: Exit strategy hinges on reliable Afghan army
Page: A21
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
President Barack Obama has tripled the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and as part of that
surge is pouring $1-billion a month into a training effort aimed at creating a powerful Afghan
army ready to protect its own citizens by 2014.
As Canada winds down its combat role, the 950 trainers pledged by Ottawa Tuesday will
eventually join that surge, which amounts to the ``Americanization'' of the training mission in the
war-torn country, a critical part of the exit strategy in a war that now involves a Soviet-scale
commitment of more than 120,000 foreign troops.
Years of fitful pacification operations by ill-co-ordinated NATO forces - including a Canadian
battle group in Kandahar - have been matched by a mostly failed effort to build, train and equip
Afghan soldiers and police.
Now the costly training effort (the $1-billion a month is more than Afghanistan's entire
government budget) is aimed at turning the rag-tag, largely illiterate recruits into a reliable, if not
sophisticated, army. To succeed they will need to be instilled with sufficient discipline, loyalty,
and pay not to desert in droves when facing the Taliban or, worse, defect with their newly
acquired military skills to fight for the insurgency.
Training will be far safer than the risky instruction Canadians have been trying to deliver for
years by embedding small groups of mentors inside Afghan battalions sent alongside NATO
troops into combat. Those so-called OMLTs - Operational Mentor and Liaison Teams,
pronounced ``omelette'' - deployed with Afghan units and were among the most dangerous
assignments for Canadian troops in Kandahar.
That role will end, along with all combat, next summer. The replacement Canadians' role - likely
in Kabul - will involve roughly 1,000 trainers confined ``inside the wire'' of their bases by the
sort of caveats that Prime Minister Stephen Harper once decried when other NATO nations kept
their troops away from the fighting.
But while the training effort should be relatively safe, it still represents a significant military
presence.
Canada's trainers will be teaching soldiering to recruits who are often illiterate and lack any
notion of a military loyal to a civilian democratic authority, despite living in a wild and violencetorn nation and usually being familiar with the ubiquitous AK-47, a household staple in
Afghanistan.
Building an indigenous military, measured in the hundreds of thousands, in a few years remains
an enormous undertaking. Even in Iraq, a far more sophisticated society with a literate
population and where almost every adult male had some military experience in a conscript army,
the U.S. effort suffered years of failures and setbacks.
In Afghanistan it's much harder.
There's no point in teaching gun handling to a recruit who can't read or paying soldiers who can't
add the funds in a bank account.
``You know, had you asked me last November when we were starting the NATO training
mission, `Hey, is literacy important?' ... my philosophy was, hey, look, we're here to train
soldiers and policemen; you know, if they want some literacy, they can do it on their own, but
that's not what we're here to do,'' admitted Lieutenant-General William B. Caldwell, the U.S.
officer in charge of the new training effort.
But with one in four soldiers deserting and overwhelming corruption among newly trained
police, boot camp now starts with basic literacy.
Barely one in 10 Afghan recruits is literate. By next summer, the training program expects to
have taught 100,000 recruits rudimentary reading.
Gen. Caldwell says he is making progress. For instance the police attrition rate - through death,
desertion, defection to the Taliban and simple disappearance - has dropped to about 25 per cent
annually, down from 70 per cent.
``We really don't know where they go to, to be completely honest,'' admitted Gen. Caldwell. ``I
mean ... that's very, very difficult to track over here.''
Pay is way up. Soldiers and police in a high-violence province such as Kandahar earn $250 a
month, five times what they were paid three years ago. Yet that rate is lower than the Taliban,
which hires willing gunmen for about $300 a month.
Estimates vary widely as to the needed size of an Afghan army. Some analysts suggest 500,000
soldiers and perhaps half as many police. The U.S. targets are smaller: 170,000 military and
135,000 police by the summer of 2011, both nearly double the levels set only two years ago.
Gen. Caldwell concedes that even with improving retention rates through better pay, he expects
to recruit and train three Afghans for every one that is willing to stay in uniform and fight for the
unpopular government of President Hamid Karzai.
Back to Top
Section: Editorial
Outlet: The Globe And Mail
Headline: Just leaving is the worst option
Page: A24
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
The Conservative government has spelled out reasonable parameters for Canada's continuing
involvement in Afghanistan. As the New Democrats said, more soldiers may die, though the
three-year extension is to be focused on training that will take place on an army base near the
capital of Kabul, and in classrooms in Kabul, but not out in the field. Soldiers can be attacked in
transit. Military bases have been attacked before. It remains to be seen whether all the training
will indeed be tucked safely ``inside the wire.'' But the NDP is wrong - that does not make it a
combat mission. Nor does it mean Canada should shy away.
Canada has served its time in Afghanistan and done its fair share, and then some. But leaving
entirely would be foolish. Having come this far, it makes more sense to make constructive use of
the expertise it has built up. Training Afghan soldiers and police is consistent with the goals
Canada had when it entered the war - to help Afghans secure their own country, for the benefit of
Canada and the West. It is also a way to continue to play a meaningful role in NATO. It would
be strange if Canada, after years of such brave and devoted service to a NATO mission, were
simply to take its helmets and bats and go home. To say no to NATO now would be to squander
years of relationship-building.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff accuses Prime Minister Stephen Harper of improvising on
foreign policy. On many occasions Mr. Harper expressed reluctance about a presence in
Afghanistan beyond next July. But foreign policy requires improvisation, if that means
responding to fluid conditions and changing demands. Still, as Mr. Ignatieff knows, the
government's response is within the framework envisioned in the March, 2008 resolution of
Parliament, which expressly called for an end to this country's presence in Kandahar by July,
2011.
The government's commitment of 950 Canadian military and support staff is sizable, and larger
than expected. At the same time, Mr. Harper reflected the ambivalence of Canadians (and the
political risks of exposing soldiers to a high risk of death) by rejecting a request from the United
States that training be done ``outside the wire,'' in the field. The financial costs of $500-million a
year, plus $100-million for development and aid, are a reasonable contribution to global security.
In the end, his government's position, and the Liberal one, are similar. It is right that Canada
remain useful to the cause for which 156 Canadians have died.
Back to Top
Section: Editorial
Outlet: Ottawa Citizen
Headline: Politics and position
Page: A14
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
Source: Ottawa Citizen
It's a rare moment in Canadian politics. There's an important policy question on the table, on
which the Official Opposition largely agrees with the government.
Both parties believe some Canadian troops should stay in Afghanistan beyond July 2011 as
trainers.
This might be a moment for the adversarial system that is the House of Commons to work -gasp -- constructively, for the fires of debate to forge a strategy that's better than anything the
government might have developed with on its own.
If there's a detail that seems ill-considered, or a policy area that's been forgotten, the Liberals
could play a valuable role by hammering the government on those points and offering alternative
ideas. Minority governments can sometimes be improved by their fragility; they're forced, in
theory at least, to listen to their critics.
For that to happen, though, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has to discover the courage of his
convictions and muster his party behind him. He has to find a way to offer a valuable perspective
that isn't Conservative but isn't the all-or-nothing stance of the NDP.
And he has to have something to criticize. The government has kept the Opposition -- and the
country -- in the dark about its plans, right up to the eve of a NATO summit. That hasn't left the
Opposition much of a chance to influence the policy one way or the other.
So the debate -- if we can call it that -- over what Canada's mission in Afghanistan will look like
for the next three years risks being reduced to political positioning and sound bites. That's a
shame, but for anyone who pays attention to Canadian politics these days, it's no surprise.
Back to Top
Section: Letters
Byline: Lewis MacKenzie
Outlet: The Ottawa Citizen
Illustrations:
 Photo: Finbarr O'Reilly, Reuters / The majority of trainers whom Canada will deploy post2011 will be proven battle-hardened soldiers, the envy of most, including their Afghan army
students, writes Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie.
Headline: Our trainers won't be 'Omleteers'
Page: A13
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
Source: The Ottawa Citizen
Re: You can't train troops from 'behind the wire,' Nov. 15.
I frequently agree with Senator Colin Kenny in spite of our ideological differences, but not this
time. He needlessly and unfortunately raises unwarranted concerns regarding the proposed role
for our soldiers post-2011.
Let's be clear that "behind the wire" is an euphemism for a benign environment absent a
significant enemy threat and definitely not involving combat. Our Canadian soldiers "outside the
wire" have done a pretty darn good job in Afghanistan and every one of them, without exception,
received their basic training including those leaders further up the food chain "inside the wire" in
Canada.
To suggest that our trainers would have to seek out combat for their trainees is absurd. That
phase of an Afghan soldier's development comes after he graduates from training in a secure
environment.
Based on information to date, there is no intention or suggestion that our trainers will be taking
on the role of "Omleteers," the name our soldiers have given themselves when operating as a
member of a four- or five-member strong Operational Mentor and Liaison Team (OMLT, which
is pronounced omelette) that regularly accompanies Afghan Army units into combat as advisers.
To dwell on the speculation that, in 2005, Afghan soldiers being trained by Canadian soldiers
based in Kabul "weren't prepared to listen to our guys who wanted to talk the talk without
walking the walk" conveniently ignores the fact that the majority of our trainers we deploy post2011 will be proven battle-hardened soldiers, the envy of most, including their students. Trust
me, the Afghans will listen.
Since the second "leak" regarding the training role, a number of misinformed military "experts"
(not Senator Kenny) have predicted that our 750 trainers would find themselves assigned to a
combat role during their deployment. If it wasn't outright fear-mongering, it would be funny.
Our trainers will be non-commissioned officers, warrant-officers and officers. You can't create a
fighting unit without the vast majority of its members coming from the ranks of junior corporals
and privates. No one would want to, or could, command a unit comprised of only leaders.
Kenny wants us to stay "for real" in Afghanistan if stay we must. Anyone familiar with building
an army knows the most important step in the process is basic training for soldiers, leadership
training for the various levels of command and collective (team) training before you venture
"outside the wire." Just because it's not dangerous in no way reduces its importance.
Lewis MacKenzie,
Almonte
Major-general (retired)
Back to Top
Section: News
Headline: Divided Liberal camp helps Harper
Page: A6
Byline: Chantal Hebert Toronto Star
Outlet: Toronto Star
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
If Prime Minister Stephen Harper's plan for a three-year extension of Canada's military presence
in Afghanistan was put to a vote in the House of Commons it would pass easily.
When all is said and done, the Conservative minority government needs fewer than a dozen
opposition votes to carry the day.
Tuesday, the government sketched out a plan that closely dovetails with oft-repeated Liberal
prescriptions for a post-2011 Canadian training role in Afghanistan. That basically forecloses the
Liberal option of breaking ranks with the Conservatives.
But holding a parliamentary vote could potentially trigger a repeat epidemic of the rampant
diplomatic flu that decimated Liberal ranks when the House debated foreign affairs critic Bob
Rae's motion to amend the Prime Minister's maternal health initiative earlier this year.
Despite unanimous NDP and Bloc Québécois support, the call to include contraception (and
abortion) in the initiative failed by 144 to 138 votes after many Liberal MPs went missing in
action. Three of those present voted against Rae's proposal.
The abortion issue had long been a troublesome one for the Liberal caucus. In hindsight, the
surprise was that Rae and Michael Ignatieff had not anticipated a lethal volley of friendly fire.
For as long as Ignatieff and Rae have sat in the federal Liberal caucus, the same divisiveness has
attended the Afghan issue.
In 2006, a majority of leadership candidates - including Stéphane Dion but not Ignatieff - voted
against a first extension.
Once leader, Dion toyed with the notion of parting ways with the government on the Afghan file
but was persuaded that he could not win the anti-war argument in the rest of Canada in the face
of former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley's recommendation for another mission
extension.
For the second time this year the latest sequel in the Afghan debate again finds Rae and Ignatieff
at cross-purposes with a section of their own caucus on a foreign policy issue.
The irony is that if there is one front on which Ignatieff's Liberals should be bulletproof, it is
foreign policy.
On paper, the combination of a leader with a distinguished international career as a prolific
public intellectual and an opposition critic with extensive political and foreign policy know-how
should be an unbeatable one.
Ignatieff and Rae's combined foreign policy credentials easily exceed those of the competition.
It is hard to think of a recent prime minister who brought less foreign affairs experience to the
fore than Harper did in 2006. With very few exceptions - and current Foreign Affairs Minister
Lawrence Cannon is not one of them - the Conservative caucus is light on foreign policy
gravitas.
Given their leadership history there was always a chance that Rae and Ignatieff would clash with
each other in their current roles. That has so far not been the case. Earlier this fall Rae was
particularly adept at stickhandling Canada's failure to land a seat on the United Nations Security
Council in such a way that Conservative attempts to pin the blame on Ignatieff failed.
But it does seem that the two former leadership rivals are finding it easier to agree with each
other - and in this instance with the government - than to secure a consensus within their caucus.
As a result, they have jointly managed the singular achievement of giving Harper the elbow
room he needed to change tack on Afghanistan in a way that is bound to please both NATO and
the Conservative party base, while making the Liberals more vulnerable to Bloc Québécois and
NDP attacks on both Afghanistan and parliamentary accountability in the next election.
Since he came to office almost five years ago Harper has twice outmanoeuvred the opposition
and secured parliamentary approval for extensions to Canada's combat mission in Kandahar
against long odds.
This time, though, Ignatieff and Rae outmanoeuvred themselves.
Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer. Her column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
Back to Top
Section: Editorials
Byline: Lorne Gunter
Outlet: National Post
Headline: We still have a duty; If we left Afghanistan now, the violence would get worse
Page: A14
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
Source: National Post
I suspect the announcement that Canadian troops will remain in Afghanistan for three years
beyond next year's planned withdrawal will be met with a shrug from most Canadians; not a
shrug of indifference, but rather one of resignation.
The Tories' announcement Tuesday was little more than confirmation of what most of us had
come to expect ages ago: The mission we set out to achieve in Afghanistan is far from complete.
So we have to accept that Canadians will be needed there for at least three more years.
There will likely be little anger among voters. Like investors who anticipate economic bad news
in advance and make their market corrections before the actual figures are released, most
members of the public had likely factored in the extension long before there was official
acknowledgement that not all our troops will be coming home next summer.
Just under 1,000 of our troops will remain behind. They will largely leave the most dangerous
Afghan provinces and disengage from the frontlines to take up the training of Afghan police and
troops. But there are unlikely to be any guarantees they will stay on base -- "inside the wires," as
it is known. They may well still engage in combat.
This is how it has to be. Afghanistan remains a very dangerous place for its citizens and the
Western world.
Canada has done much to make Afghanistan safe after nearly 30 years of war. We have worked
hard to give Afghans enough sense of security that they can open their shops, attend school and
tend their crops on a more or less routine basis. But roadside bombs and terror attacks on town
squares remain too common. If we were to pull up stakes now -- before the country's own troops
and police officers are ready to take over security duties -- the violence would get worse rather
than better.
Also, were we to leave now, the Taliban would certainly flood back into the country, followed
shortly by al-Qaeda. At least some parts of Afghanistan would come under Taliban governance
again and those parts would quickly become home to terror training camps from which al-Qaeda
would hatch plots against the West and train for missions.
Pakistan has failed, utterly, to stem the flow of money, supplies and recruits that keep the
Taliban and al-Qaeda going. Its border territories, which are as radical as any Islamist area in the
world, happily provide safe haven for terrorists, too.
But al-Qaeda cannot operate in the open in Pakistan because officially the government is on the
hunt for its members. What it really wants is to reopen its operations in Afghanistan, where it can
scheme and prepare unmolested.
All this, I think, is understood by ordinary Canadians. We have a job to do. It is unfinished.
Therefore we must remain on until the work is nearer completion. This realization is why there is
unlikely to be much backlash against the Tories' decision.
There are lots of legitimate reasons for us to come home on schedule: Corruption is rife in the
Afghan government and the parliament is still largely controlled by Islamic hardliners who,
among other extreme acts, would execute those Muslims who convert to other faiths, if they
thought they could get away with it.
But the greatest reason of all is we've already shed enough precious Canadian blood. We could
leave as planned and still hold our heads high. Yet most of us seem to have accepted we still
have a duty in Afghanistan, so we are resigned to more than a third of our troops staying.
Where the anti-extension critics are right is that this should have been authorized by a vote in
Parliament, not a nudge-nudge, wink-wink agreement between the Tories and Liberals.
I understand the extension is being handled as it is because the Tories don't want a vote that
might bring them down and the Liberals don't want a debate that would make them look like
hypocrites. Still, when a country is committing its young men and women to a dangerous, warlike mission, the least that can be expected is a full debate in Parliament. lgunter@shaw.ca
Back to Top
Section: News
Headline: Exit date jibes with Obama's. Coincidence?
Page: A8
Byline: Thomas Walkom Toronto Star
Outlet: Toronto Star
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
Canadian soldiers are staying in Afghanistan not because of the rightness of the cause. Nor are
they staying because Stephen Harper likes war. The Prime Minister says he made the decision
reluctantly and I, for one, believe him.
Rather, Canadian soldiers will remain in Afghanistan until at least 2014 because of political
events within Washington - most notably the Republican victories in congressional elections
earlier this month and the ongoing dispute inside President Barack Obama's administration over
how to handle the war.
And the new 2014 deadline? Ironically, we can thank Afghan President Hamid Karzai for that.
If Canadians were taken aback by the Conservative government's abrupt about-face last week,
we should not have been.
True, Harper had been adamant up to then that Canadian soldiers would quit Afghanistan by the
end of 2011.
No combat. No training. Nothing.
That endpoint suited Canadian public opinion. It also fit conveniently with Obama's pledge to
start withdrawing American soldiers the same year.
But powerful forces within the American political establishment were strongly opposed to the
president's 2011 deadline, arguing that it would only encourage Taliban-led insurgents.
Obama's 2011 deadline also spooked Pakistan, which, fearing an abrupt American withdrawal,
accelerated its two-track strategy toward the Taliban - on the one hand staying cozy, on the other
deliberately sabotaging any peace talks that might exclude Islamabad.
Added to this was an accident of history - a damning June 2010 Rolling Stone profile on
America's top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, that recounted in lavish
detail his staff's contempt for the White House.
Cashiered for insubordination, McChrystal was replaced by the far more politically savvy Gen.
David Petraeus. Petraeus made no secret of his opposition to Obama's 2011 deadline and quietly
began to search for ways to subvert it.
Oddly enough, Karzai provided the solution. Karzai is very much out of favour in Washington
these days. He is considered corrupt and - with his constant complaints about NATO's attacks on
Afghan civilians - a bit of a pain.
But he is also a politician who understands his country's deep-rooted mistrust of foreigners. A
year ago, in a major address, he spoke to this mistrust by vowing to have Afghans take full
control of their own security in 2014.
For NATO leaders facing war-weariness at home, Karzai's new deadline was a political godsend.
In January, German Chancellor Angela Merkel began referring to 2014 as the date when her
troops would quit Afghanistan.
In July, Britain's new coalition government promised to pull its combat troops by 2014. That
same month, a conference of some 40 nations contributing to the Afghan effort signed on to the
2014 deadline.
But in Washington, Petraeus and his allies saw Karzai's deadline as an argument not for cutting
short the war but for extending it past Obama's self-imposed 2011 withdrawal date.
In September, as part of this strategy, Petraeus formally asked other NATO members to send 750
more military trainers to Afghanistan - roughly the same number (plus about 200 support staff)
that Canada has now agreed to provide.
In October, Obama formally endorsed Karzai's 2014 deadline. A month later, the humbling of his
Democrats at the polls confirmed America's new political reality: If the president were to have
any success domestically with a Republican-dominated Congress, he would have to bend on
foreign policy - that is, extend the war.
On Nov. 10, McClatchy Newspapers first reported what has now become widely known: For
cosmetic purposes, Washington may withdraw a few soldiers next summer; but to all intents and
purposes its new deadline is 2014.
That came just three days after the Star reported Harper's change of mind.
The timing was not coincidental.
Thomas Walkom's column appears Wednesday and Saturday.
Back to Top
Section: Opinion
Byline: Andrew Dreschel The Hamilton Spectator
Outlet: Hamilton Spectator
Headline: PM's right and wrong on Afghanistan
Page: A19
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
The Afghan war is a dirty, sneaky, nasty business - and that's just the way it's being waged in
Ottawa, let alone the actual field.
Don't get me wrong. Stephen Harper's Conservative government is absolutely right to extend
Canada's military mission for an extra three years beyond next July's Parliamentary approved
pullout date.
But the way they're doing it smacks more of mealy-mouthed politics than staking out the moral
high ground they should be defending.
For almost a full year, Harper and his cabinet minions have insisted that any post-combat role for
Canadians in Afghanistan would be civilian-based and centred around humanitarian and
development projects that don't require a sizable military force for security.
The prime minister even chanted that same melody last spring when Liberal foreign affairs critic
Bob Rae, fresh from a fact-finding tour of Afghanistan, suggested his party was open to
Canadians taking on a military training role after the deadline.
Harper made it abundantly clear that though the Liberals may have acquired some true grit, he
was still sticking to the parliamentary resolution of 2008 which set 2011 as the withdrawal date.
He's certainly yodelling a different tune now.
Any way you carve it, stationing as many as 950 soldiers and support staff in Afghanistan to
provide military training and other assistance for another three years is a major recommitment to
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) war effort.
Helping train Afghan army recruits may not constitute a continued combat role, but neither is it
providing strictly civilian aid as promised.
The dollars themselves tell the tale. The feds estimate the new mission will cost the military up
to $1.5 billion over three years compared to some $900 million in new development aid.
Since Harper is willing to continue playing the part of the good NATO ally, for the sake of
consistency and conviction, there's no valid reason he shouldn't take the extension to the House
for a formal debate and vote.
Other than a lot of distracting noise from the New Democrats and anti-war and anti-west
ideologues, with the Liberals in support, the move wouldn't present any real danger to the
Conservative minority government.
On the other hand, there is a great deal to be said for openly standing up for what you believe in,
both principally and practically.
The fact is, NATO's mission is far from over and Harper is simply responding to that reality in
the same way United States President Barack Obama is applying the brakes to his own timetable
for withdrawing American troops.
Though Obama is still talking about starting to pull out next July, he's come to realize that U.S.
combat operations will have to continue until 2014 if the Afghanistan government is to be
sufficiently stabilized to protect itself and its people.
Pulling out prematurely would undermine Afghani confidence in the fight against the Taliban,
condemn the country to a new and bloody cycle of civil war, endanger the indisputable health
and social progress that's been made, and give jihadists a significant victory in their global war
against Western values.
Quite simply, there are better reasons for staying than retreating. Nobody can ever accuse
Canada of not doing its share in the international mission that overthrow the brutal Taliban
regime in the aftermath of 9/11. Since 2002, Canada has suffered 152 deaths, the third highest
after the United States and Britain.
It rightly remains a sore point that our combat role and causalities are disproportionate compared
to more powerful allies such as France and Germany.
But it should also be a source of sombre pride that we recognize our own and the world's best
interests by continuing to try to make a difference.
Harper's refusal to make that case and seek a new Parliamentary resolution says more about his
spiritless leadership than it does the cause.
Andrew Dreschel's commentary appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
adreschel@thespec.com 905-526-3495.
Back to Top
Section: Editorial
Byline: Andrew Cohen
Outlet: The Province
Headline: Afghanistan the military's war, not the people's
Page: A16
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
Source: Ottawa Citizen
On June 27, 1969, Life devoted an entire issue to the U.S. soldiers who had been killed in
Vietnam in a seven-day period a month earlier.
Under the title "One Week's Dead," the magazine published the pictures and the stories of 242
Americans who had died between May 28 to June 3, what it called "a span of no special
significance except that it includes Memorial Day."
The dead, Life said, were about average for a week during that stage of the war. By its end, some
58,000 Americans (and many more Vietnamese) would die.
The magazine wanted to make readers aware not so much of how many had died in Indochina -by then it had reached 36,000, eclipsing the American dead of the Korean War -- its purpose was
to tell them who had died, which it did with a devastating simplicity.
One soldier, writing from the infamous battle on Hamburger Hill, said with eerie premonition:
"You may not be able to read this. I am writing it in a hurry. I see death coming up the hill."
The magazine hit like a thunderbolt.
The dead were no longer abstract; they were the boy next door. Americans could attach a face to
a name. The war would not end for several years, but humanizing it accelerated swelling
domestic opposition.
On Remembrance Day last week, CBC-TV broadcast a documentary on the Canadian men and
women who have died in Afghanistan. Called We Will Remember Them, it memorialized the
152 soldiers who had been killed since 2002.
Like Life addressing Vietnam a generation earlier, the CBC gave meaning to our dead. For two
hours, without commercial interruption, the documentary offered a wrenching view of the lives
of some of the dead, through the reminiscences of those who knew them.
Will this kind of program have a similar impact to Life? No. Most Canadians oppose the mission
in Afghanistan, but it isn't nearly as socially and politically divisive as Vietnam.
The reason might be that, while Canada's military is at war in Afghanistan, Canadians are not.
It has been going on for so long with such minimal consequences for Canadians that it has
become the invisible war.
In the early years, we lowered the flag and sent the prime minister to Trenton, Ont., to pay
respects to the fallen, but neither happens any more (though the governor-general usually goes).
We have learned to live with the dead.
It helps that there are relatively fewer of them these days. In fact, at the time of writing, there
hasn't been a death in almost three months, and fewer Canadian soldiers have died this year than
in any of the past five.
In other words, Afghanistan has become a sideshow in our national life, which is fine with the
politicians.
It was one of those curious
coincidences that the week the documentary was broadcast the government announced that it's
extending Canada's mission in Afghanistan to 2014.
No, we won't be fighting, the prime minister says. We'll be training Afghans to do the fighting.
And while this will involve 1,000 Canadians, and cost more money, it won't be debated in
Parliament. Technically, you see, a debate isn't necessary.
This is fine with the Liberals, who don't want to discuss Afghanistan any more than the
Conservatives. Actually, no one has ever wanted a debate on Afghanistan. We learned early that
it's unpleasant to address unpleasant things.
So, this isn't Canada's war, not really, if our measure is the level of support, engagement and
awareness among Canadians.
Rather, it is the military's war, followed by an audience that cares about the military.
No doubt that audience is bigger now than a decade ago.
The military has risen in stature in Canada. It receives more money from government and more
respect from people, which explains the good folks who line the overpasses on the Highway of
Heroes when a dead soldier is returned to Canada.
But the war in Afghanistan, almost
nine years on? It is just another distraction for our wealthy, contented, detached, multi-tasking
society, which can have guns and butter.
Waging war in Afghanistan asks no sacrifices of us, as a people, because it isn't total war in the
way of the Second World War.
To fight the Taliban, there will be no new taxes, no war bonds, no scrap-metal drives, no food
rations, no military conscription. And no debate in the public square.
In 2010, let there be no confusion: Afghanistan is a soldier's war, not a people's war. Soldiers do
the fighting and the bleeding, not us, and we're fine with that.
Back to Top
Section: News
Lead: Tactical military training will take place in the Redwater area this week to help prepare
the next round of soldiers about to deploy to Afghanistan.
Headline: Redwater a war zone for soldiers in training
Page: 18
Byline: JASMINE FRANKLIN, QMI AGENCY
Outlet: The Edmonton Sun
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
Tactical military training will take place in the Redwater area this week to help prepare the next
round of soldiers about to deploy to Afghanistan.
The Redwater community can expect to hear helicopters fly throughout the area during the day
and evenings as well as see military vehicles on the ground from Nov. 17 to 19, according to a
Canadian Forces press release issued Tuesday.
The 408 Tactical Helicopter Squadron is conducting the training just southeast of Redwater in
the multi-land use area.
There will be ground-force training as well as air operations to help air crews prepare for various
situations.
On Remembrance Day, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced at the G20 summit in Seoul
that Canada will "reluctantly" continue deploying military trainers into Afghanistan for three
years.
It was previously announced Canadian soldiers would pull out from the area in 2011.
However, Harper stated that although Canada will end its combat mission in 2011, soldier
presence is still required to train the Afghan military.
"Down deep, my preference would be, would have been, to see a complete end to the military
mission," said Harper at the summit.
"But as we approach that date, the facts on the ground convince me that the Afghan military
needs further training."
Since Canadian soldiers deployed to the area in 2002, 152 soldiers have died as well as Calgary
Herald reporter Michelle Lang and aid workers.
Military vehicles will also be seen in Gibbons and Bon Accord during this week's training.
jasmine.franklin@sunmedia.ca
Back to Top
Section: News
Lead: OTTAWA -- At least two federal government agencies spent money advertising on
websites featuring soft pornography.
Headline: Fed ads: the naked truth
Page: 34
Byline: ALTHIA RAJ, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU
Outlet: The Edmonton Sun
Date: Wednesday 17 November 2010
OTTAWA -- At least two federal government agencies spent money advertising on websites
featuring soft pornography.
The National Film Board was prepared to spend up to $5,000 a day advertising on photoforum.ru
and photo.net,websites with graphic photos of naked women -- some appearing to be less than 18
years old.
"Oh my goodness, they shouldn't be advertising there, that's for sure. On a website with
questionable pictures that may even be child pornography? That's pretty outrageous," said the
Canada Christian College's Charles McVety as he looked at the sites.
Images featured on these websites include fully frontal nude shots in various positions and at
various angles.
Canada Post was, until Tuesday, also advertising on photoforum.ru, when alerted of its ad
placements by QMI Agency.
Spokeswoman Anick Losier said Canada Post did not buy advertising with the website directly
but its ad agency, Cossette, signed up to deliver a six-week campaign with Google AdSense.
"This site unfortunately passed through our filters," she said. "We've immediately blocked the
site from using our ads."
Losier thanked QMI for alerting Canada Post to the problem and said the Crown corporation was
now investigating all the websites where it advertises.
The National Film Board's Lily Robert said the advertisements for GDP, a web-documentary
series on the human side of the economic crisis, had been an unfortunate mistake.
"The NFB never never ever intentionally bought an ad there," she said.
Heritage Minister James Moore's office said it was trying to nail down what had happened.
The Department of National Defence was also trying to verify Tuesday whether it had
unintentionally placed an ad on a hard-core pornography site.
In advertising its recruitment drive to 18-to-34-yearolds, DND received quite a few hits from a
placement on hollywoodtuna.com,a tamer site featuring Britney Spears' "Nasty Panty Flash,"
Blake Lively's "Kinda See Through" dress and photos of Rihanna suggestively touching herself.
DND also bought key-word search terms for their online advertisement, including "James Bond
girls," "poor man's James Bond" and "can't find a jobs."
The Canadian Islamic Congress's national president Wahida Valiante took offence that the
Conservative government had also selectively paid for the search term "Christian values."
"We are supposed to be living in a country where church and state are quite separate," she said.
Valiante said the Conservative government was being "very divisive" and she questioned what
message it sent to non-Christians wanting to join the Forces.
DND spokeswoman Christiane Callahan said keywords for search engines had been specifically
decided with its advertising agency.
"These keywords are reviewed and amended each week to ensure they attract the appropriate
target audience (Canadians 18-to-34-years old) and perform according to recruiting objectives,"
she said.
althia.raj@sunmedia.ca
Back to Top
MEDIA SOURCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
LES SOURCES MÉDIATIQUES ET ABRÉVIATIONS
AN (L’Acadie Nouvelle)
CG (Charlottetown Guardian)
CH (Calgary Herald)
CSun (Calgary Sun)
Ctz (Ottawa Citizen)
Dr (Le Droit)
Dv (Le Devoir)
EJ (Edmonton Journal)
ESun (Edmonton Sun)
FDG (Fredericton Daily Gleaner)
G&M (Globe and Mail)
Gaz (Montreal Gazette)
HCH (Halifax Chronicle-Herald)
HS (Hamilton Spectator)
JM (Le Journal de Montréal)
JQ (Le Journal de Québec)
KWS (Kingston Whig-Standard)
LFP (London Free Press)
LN (Le Nouvelliste - Trois Rivières)
MT&T (Moncton Times and Transcript)
NBTJ (New Brunswick Telegraph Journal)
NP (National Post)
OSun (Ottawa Sun)
Pr (La Presse)
RLP (Regina Leader-Post)
SJT (St. John’s Telegram)
Sol (Le Soleil)
SSP (Saskatoon Star-Phoenix)
TM (Télémédia)
TStar (Toronto Star)
TSun (Toronto Sun)
VSun (Vancouver Sun)
VE (Le Voix de L’Est, Granby)
VProv (Vancouver Province)
VSun (Vancouver Sun)
VTC (Victories Times-Colonist)
WFP (Winnipeg Free Press)
WStar (Windsor Star)
WSun (Winnipeg Sun)
Published by / Publié par
P&L Communications Inc.
95 Glebe Avenue, Ottawa, ON K1S 2C2
Phone: 613-231-5597 / Web Site: http://www.plcom.on.ca/