How American Of Us
Two Children Killed in Afghanistan
Two young children have been killed after Canadian troops opened fire on a vehicle in southern Afghanistan.
NATO says Canadian soldiers opened fire on a vehicle they feared was about to attack their convoy in Kandahar province.
The military alliance says the driver of the vehicle ignored repeated signals to keep its distance from the Canadian convoy.
A boy and his sister were killed, while their parents are receiving medical attention.
I have already heard the “unfortunate incident in unfortunate circumstances” and “put yourself in their position” arguments and I don’t buy them.
Either our military is trained and able to identify a real threat, or they are not.
People in Afghanistan should be able to drive down the streets of their cities and the roads of their country without being worried about getting shot by people who are afraid that they might possibly maybe pose some sort of risk and empty a rifle through the windshield.
It really is that simple.
Updated: According to a news slot (also on CFRA) the little girls head was blown off, in the car, in front of her parents…… there is no excuse.
Updated (Again): You can always count on Jack
There is not one person in this country who does not feel horror when they read this story, including the gunner that fired the fatal shot…but what was he to do? We all wish it hadn’t happened but such is the nature of this war we are engaged in. Our enemy doesn’t fight fair…”sneaky bastards they are”…and they won’t hesitate to use any means at their disposal to defeat us.
“By far” the most powerful weapon in their arsenal is our very own media who do not appear to have grasped that this war is as much a battle for the hearts and minds of Canadians as it is for the Afghan people. To put an exclamation mark on the point…the Taliban are winning!
[ ..... ]
I blame the editors of our national media as much as I do the reporters. Somebody should have told this reporter to “go back and do it again.”
“Only this time get it right.”
Truth?
“Shit happens.”
Get over it.
Two little kids go from being two little kids to “Collateral Damage” (which in this case is simply a way of not saying ‘ bits and pieces of brains, bones, and blood splattered all over the inside of the rear window ‘), and it’s all the enemies fault…. and if they got nothing good to say those media toads should just keep their f’ing mouths shut.
So let me get this straight.
You love Osama, despise Israel, and want to see us all worshipping Allah. Right?
Whooee! Much as I hate to say it, I think these sorts of incidents will multiply exponentially as the Merkans refocus their war machine on Afstan. The coming months will see more innocent civilians caught in friendly fire incidents and US air power will assure maximum damage.
A few years back, I delivered a VW camper to some friends living near Mexico City. Coming around a bend in the mountains near Monterrey, I was confronted by a bout 15 machine-gun wielding teenagers in uniform. I nearly panicked and I suspect I’d be dead now if I’d tried to run the roadblock. I considered jamming on the brakes and making a 180. In my confusion, I’m sure my driving looked suspicious. Thankfully, those kids didn’t open fire. I stopped at the checkpoint and they did a cursory search for weapons and sent me on my way. Now, I’m wondering what would have happened if these had been highly trained CF guys instead of a ragtag Mexican militia.
JB
balbulican: No, no, and no …. but blowing the heads off little girls in front of their parents is abhorrent whether it’s the Taliban or the Canadian Army doing it – there is no justification, it’s just that simple.
JimBobby: The Americans are not going to refocus on Afghanistan, as was announced last week by the Pentagon they don’t have the capacity for that.
In denial again, I see. Accidents will happen, and you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. A few dead kids is an insignificant price to pay for Freedom, you closet Talibanislamocommunazi, you.
The Canadian military has issued a statement which says (in part)
Call me silly, but I would think that clearly identifying your target should be one of the “appropriate steps” they take to minimize civilian causalities… essentially, if you don’t know what your shooting at you shouldn’t pull the trigger
One More Middle Aged Guy is unhappy about the headline.
The Americans are not going to refocus on Afghanistan
Mixed blessing, if it turns out to be true. Obama is gung ho on shifting the focus from EyeRack to Afstan.
Whoever fights for Karzai’s coalition of warlords, torturers and opium merchants is merely taking one side in a civil war that was raging before 9/11. We have no business being there.
Are you learning anything from these comments?
If you haven’t “been there, done that” give the rest of us a break. Who’s side are you on?
The side of correct spelling. That’s “whose” side. Tsk. How can we expect to defeat the Taliban if you can’t even be bothered to use an apostrophe properly? Do you think they’re not watching? Cheering in their foul caverns every time we betray our language (and thus our culture, our heritage, and the countless thousands of grammarians who have gone before us) with sloppy spelling and inappropriate punctuation?
Remember, Jack – an ill-used comma is a blow for Osama. Believe it.
“Well”…I only went to Grade Eight. Who do you expect?
Mark Steyn?
The prevailing sentiment here seems to be that (a) we should not be there (b) the remorse expressed by our military is insincere (c) it’s a valid tactic for enemy to use women and children.
In the case of (a), we each decide whether we think Aghanistan (and remote Pakistan) offer haven to an element that wishes to impose Islam on the world – and whether we are OK with Islam being imposed or not – if you do not think fundamentalist Islam is a threat, we should be having that argument, rather than cloaking in anti-American vituperation – personally, I think it is, and we have to take it to them or they will bring it here. (b) I believe our society, for the most part, raises empathetic people and find it difficult to accept that the individual who pulled the trigger is not going through hell over this (c) if we teach the enemy that we will not defend ourselves if they use children as shields, then they will use children as shields – regardless of whether the children in this case were used as shields or not; I personally know someone in theatre who witnessed an attack last year (several Canadians killed) – an old man approached with two children on his bicycle, and a bomb.
First and foremost is to get around the issue of the necessity of being there – the necessity of defeating militant Islam. If militant Islam is not perceived by you to be a threat, then there is little point debating the how.
If you don’t think militant Islam is a threat, then please, let’s hear the argument. Spell it out for us. If you cannot, then do you want to second guess from your armchair what is going on in theatre? Would you give the benefit of the doubt to the other side first? Why?
It’s important to keep our military honest, and let them know we are paying attention. By all means, express our horror at this incident. But if we are not strong and show the resolve to carry on the fight, we risk defeat. Why would we do that? Because militant Islam is not really a threat?
Whooee! I personally know a number of people whose lives were ruined by heroin addiction. I don’t personally know anyone whose life was ruined by militant Islam. Opium kills.
The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. The Northern Alliance was running Afstan prior to the Taliban. The NA was so brutal and corrupt that the people actually welcomed the Taliban. The invasion and bombing campaign restored Karzai and the Northern Alliance to power. We are fighting and dying to keep them in power. It is a civil war and we’re on the Northern Alliance side.
The Karzai regime is corrupt. It relies on the opium trade. It is comprised of warlords and opium merchants. Karzai’s appointed governors are Northern Alliance warlords. Karzai’s brother is a leading opium dealer.
The government we are fighting and dying for is officially known as The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Sharia Law is entrenched in the new constitution. Conversion from Islam to Christianity is a death penalty offense under the law we are dying to uphold. Humiliating Islam is also a death penalty offense.
We are turning over prisoners to be either tortured or to be released after bribing their Afghan jailers. ANA jailers receive $4 a day in wages. The Taliban pays $14/day. A $25 bribe will get most captured Talibans back out on the battlefield to kill more Canadians. But, we’re not in the prison business and we don’t want to know if they’re being tortured, so we don’t watch what happens when we hand them over.
Despite the billions the west has spent there, Afghanistan is still about the poorest country on the planet. Families are selling their daughters for grocery money.
Every year, year in and year out, severe weather kills hundreds of North Americans. Tornadoes, floods, hurricanes and fires are real threats. These threats are not being handled because we’re over-extended fighting perceived threats and making billions for war profiteers. Dirty air kills 9000 every year in the Great Lakes basin. 3 times 9/11 annually and we’re doing it to ourselves… every year.
The US economy is in the dumper and it’s dragging the world economy in with it. The US has squandered $500 billion on Iraq with nothing to show for it. Throw that much money down the tubes and you haven’t got much left for dealing with predictable, ongoing natural disasters, i.e. real threats that are killing people every year.
Boogeymen are convenient targets. Natural disasters and man-made pollution kill far more people than militant Islam could hope to kill.
JB
So, simply put, militant Islam is not a threat to us then? This is what we are to conclude from this response?
So, simply put, militant Islam is not a threat to us then? This is what we are to conclude from this response?
Simply put, there are far bigger and more immediate threats. We are not fighting militant Islam in Afstan. we are supporting Taliban-lite over Taliban. Both are proponents of Sharia Law.
But do both provide equal haven to Al-Qaeda? The mission in Afghanistan, as I understand it, is to convert Afghanistan from a haven within which militant Islam can form a command and control center from which to attack the west using asymmetric warfare.
The Taliban a direct threat? Only inasmuch as they are enablers of a greater peril.
The threat to which I refer is Al-Qaeda – clever, organized, and dedicated. Is Al-Qaeda a threat to us, or not?
What I am is hearing is “no that big a threat”. Is that correct?
What you’re hearing is that we kill 3x more Canadians every year with pollution than al Qaeda killed on 9/11. That’s just in Ontario and Quebec.
Karzai has been holding talks with the Taliban for several years. While he may say and you may think there is no connection between al Qaeda and the Karzai regime, I’m not buying it.
Is al Qaeda a threat? Sure. So is excessive speed on the 401. The difference: excessive speed will kill Canadians this week, next week and every week. Al Qaeda, not so many.
The biggest threat to international stability is the worldwide food crisis that is currently killing 1000 individuals each and every hour of each and every day. That sort of hunger breeds a desperation that fuels destabilizing elements all over the world. Want peace? Feed the hungry.
JB
So, if we feed the hungry, Al-Qaeda will not attack the foundations of our economy? That Al-Qaeda attacks the economic infrastructure of the west because of world hunger?
Is the damage Al-Qaeda can imposed limited to body counts? If 300 were killed at a football match, does that equal 300 killed in an explosion that wipes out the building on Front Street that brings the entire Internet into Canada? Or takes out the Stock Exchange? Or the Parliament? We don’t factor economic damage (and hence our ability to feed ourselves as well as the hungry) into the threat profile? We just count bodies? Is the calculation that simple?
[...] I was attacked by a “mickey mouse blog” because of a note I left in an earlier post. I was berated because I was unsympathetic to [...]
Check the Geneva convention and what it says about an army that hides amongst civilians dressed as civilians.
And maybe think about WHY they came up with the rules they did.
I love the simple dichotomies favoured by the LGs of the world. A simple, binary world.
What a hateful blog you have here Stageleft. I feel sorry for you, however misguided you may be. May the great black hole in the sky shine on you and your hateful rhetoric.
Check the Geneva convention and what it says about an army that hides amongst civilians dressed as civilians.
You mean our allies, the Northern alliance? They fought beside the invading forces sans uniforms. They still fight without uniforms. Check the Geneva Conventions and see what say about handing over prisoners to known torturers.
Is it a full moon, I wonder?
@balbulican – To which simple dichotomy do you refer?
I did notice that a question posed was left unanswered. As I sought to understand what JimBobby’s view of things was, he introduced as a scale of measurement for the purposes of prioritization body counts. I asked if economic damage was a factor in the calculation. No response.
Furthermore, he advances the theory that Al Qaeda attacks the economy of the west because of world hunger.
That would be odd logic indeed, because the last time I checked, the western developed economies contributed more to world food supplies that did any Islamic nation. If solving world hunger was actually the core mission of Al-Qaeda, then Al-Qaeda would be assisting us, rather than trying to destroy our economy. If social justice is the motivation for the Al-Qaeda’s of this world, they have a highly unusual method of demonstrating their compassion for their fellow human beings. Or, is blowing a few dozen to smithereens in a Bagdhad market doing their part to solve world hunger by easing back on the number of mouths to feed?
Al-Qaeda exists because of social injustice. Is that what I am to understand? Or, is that not a ‘nuanced’ enough question to deserve an answer?
It seems to me the Taliban never killed anyone (except for a few thousand of their own citizens and the thousands of occupants of a skyscraper). So I see what you mean, nobody would get hurt if it were not for those horrible Canadians.
Sorry Jack, that’s really poor logic – I’ve never been to a street race… I don’t need to to know they’re wrong. Never been to an axe murder scene either… that’s wrong as well.
If your happy with “oooops, we bad…. here’s a few bucks to help scrape your daughter off the back window” then you just have a blast with that thought process. Personally I’ll continue to expect more from our forces than shooting first and checking to see if there actually was any danger after the fact — you either know what you are splattering all over the road, or you do not.
– and if you don’t know and you end up splattering a couple of kids all over the road there is simply no justification.
Oh now there’s a compelling argument… that’s it, you convinced me, I’m wrong, I’m so ashamed — sheesh.
There are in fact some folks here who do not believe we should be there LG, I don’t happen to be one of them. How much damage do you think this unit caused to the Canadian mission over there LG? Did you ready the article Jack linked? Here’s the important part:
Tell me, would you accept a few bucks and an apology if one of your children’s brains was accidentally splattered all over the back window of your car by the authorities in the pursuit of their duties?
Why did the Soviets bail LG?
With respect to your other two points
(b) it does not matter if the remorse is sincere or not, it is absolutely, totally, 100%, immaterial to the situation. People who are supposed to be helping blew a girls head off and killed her brother in front of their parents – there is not enough remorse or sincerity in the world to cover that.
(c) I’m sure that somebody said that somewhere LG, wasn’t me and quite frankly that sort of [sarcasm]compelling argument[/sarcasm] fails to sway folks ’round here, I tend to label it pathetic…. please try again.
Were there any insurgents hiding in the car with this family Stan?
Did I miss anyone?
Obama! Speech August 1, 2007! Who knew in Canada?
“As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO’s efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.”
I mean, who’s a Canadian progressive to support?
Mark
Ottawa
Oh Darn… I missed Hoarfrost, how did I manage that?
Let me get this straight, failure to excuse the inexcusable is now hate – it must be a very dark indeed in the convoluted world that you inhabit Hoarfrost and it in fact I who feels sorry for you, what sort of misguided individual is it that reads about a families children being killed in front of their eyes and rationalizes it away?
@sf –
Gods… it’s getting difficult to keep up here folks, I’m completely knackered from an evening in the Dojo and gotta get up for work tomorrow — so how’s about “if all ya got is empty rhetoric, recognize that, and the limitations inherit in it, and simply watch others to see if you learn anything“.
I think LG is afraid of Al-Qaeda. What a wimp.
Jimmy, ignoring your the utterly pathetic “green” defence, I wonder if you’ve ever read the Geneva Conventions? Ever been in the army, (or navy etc?) Thought not. Me, I’ve read much of it and I have put on that uniform. The whole uniform thing, Jimmy, is moot IF the combatant carries their weapons openly. The NA did. Does the Taliban? I bet there’s a lot you think you know about war and the conventions. You’ve probably watched a lot of really educational TV. The Taliban, people like our wonderful Khadr family, they like to hide among the populace. That’s a war crime. I wonder, do you know why? Can you even begin to relate that to today’s tragedy? And having served I can tell you, and losers like this blog’s author, that your sneering references to training and to Mexican conscripts seem to come awfully easy while you sit in your comfy chairs, your safety protected by police and soldiers standing in the line for you. That you have the right to sneer like little children is a testament to what such men as those stand and fight for. I wonder if you’re really worth it?
So Stageleft, your argument is based on your opinion that we should not be there. Then, is Al-Qaeda a threat, or not? If not a threat, then let’s have that discussion. If it is a threat, then, decide if you want to take action against that threat. If you don’t then let’s have that discussion. Do we deal with threats actively, or passively?
If you do think Al-Qaeda is a threat, then, the decision is whether to take action there, or wait for them to take action here.
Action. Or no action.
If action, then what action, and where. One commenter here thinks we feed the hungry and Al-Qaeda will stand down. Is that the operative logic here?
If you don’t think we should be there, then let’s hear the reasons. Clearly. At some point in the decision tree, our opinions diverge. Where is that point, and that is the point of debate.
StageLeft,
The issue at hand is what should the troops have done?
You make it very clear that you disagree with the action that they took.
So what was the proper response?
Now remember, you are in a war zone where anyone, including the guy with the little kids COULD be an enemy who’s faith tells him that if he kills you and your buddies, he AND his children all get to go to paradise.
Forget how ridiculous that sounds, because they believe it.
You have the one solution which guarantees all your buddies live and inaction on your part means they all could die.
It is in fact your job to ensure that they DO NOT DIE!
I am sure that the soldier who fired that round is torn apart by the whole situation.
What the rest of us should be doing is supporting him for having to do a terrible thing to ensure his buddies did not die.
Instead you armchair quarterback and criticize a situation you cannot possibly even imagine being faced with, let alone take action in.
Go ahead, tell us poor fools how you would have dealt with this.
If you can’t even suggest a reasonable alternative, it’s because you don’t have the qualifications to criticize.
So don’t.
My son is on his 3rd tour in Afstan, in Kandahar again. His squad has had numerous encounters with the taliban, but many more friendly dealings with the locals, who uniformly want the Canadians there to protect them from the taliban.
One must understand that his squad is composed of brothers. Each looks after the other, guards his back, and if necessary gives his life to protect the rest. Dave said he has utmost trust that any of his men would do the right thing in the highly stressful situations they find themselves in, which might include taking out a car which suddenly accelerates towards them, or fails to heed the order to stop. These soldiers are well trained professionals, and they will NOT simply stand by and await some crazed suicide bomber who wants to enter paradise by driving a motorbyke, car or truck loaded with C4 into their midst. His men depend on him to prevent this possibility, and he relies on them. He wants them all to come back alive and un-maimed. I want him back safe and sound as well.
In war, shit happens. Let us not forget that the war in Afghanistan, nor the one in Iraq would not have been waged had Mister bin Laden not organized the 9/11 attack on the twin towers. The west has been drawn by a nihilistic ideology into a war it has trouble winning – chiefly by the useful idiots of the left, who are doing their utmost to undermine morale, take our enemies’ side at every occasion and present infantile arguments that terrorists have a right to do anything they wish but we cannot, as we are bound by the Geneva Convention, the International Court decrees from the Hague… and likely the Marquis of Queensbury rules.
Let us not forget that the war in Afghanistan, nor the one in Iraq would not have been waged had Mister bin Laden not organized the 9/11 attack on the twin towers.
I’m not sure about the Iraq proposition. You’re blurring the noble Afghan mission with the Iraq one…
So, if we feed the hungry, Al-Qaeda will not attack the foundations of our economy?
Well, it’s a theory. I suspect they’d have a lot fewer recruits willing to strap bombs around their bodies.
Well, I respectfully disagree with the opinions here that we need to pull out of Afghanistan. I personally believe that a pull-out of Iraq may not be wise. I look at it in terms of responsibility. We knocked both countries over. It’s our responsibility to put things right. And that’s going to require a significant military commitment — possibly even more than what we, NATO and the Americans are committing right now.
However, for some strange reason, I’m able to maintain a respectful relationship with the people behind the blog than some of the commentators. Mostly because I see their disagreement with me over the morality and effectiveness of military force as what it is: a fundamental distrust that we can blast a country back to civilization. If anybody here thinks that these people are giving comfort to the enemy, support the Taliban, or hate all Americans, you don’t know these people. And you are severely misinterpreting their argument.
If you actually want to engage these individuals in a respectful debate, you need to readjust your world view, to wit: a disagreement over Canadian policy does not equate to colluding with the enemy. Otherwise, if you just want to throw insults around, I’m afraid that says more about you, than the people running the blog.
@James Bow –
Sorry buddy – Stageleft did not start a policy debate here. The author started by questioning the training of soldiers performing the mission. Then he said that the people in the car were just driving down the street when they were shot up by the Canadian soldier who was afraid the possibility of danger from cars just driving by on the street. Then he brought in some really factual commentary that contributed to the policy debate about the little girls “head being blown off”. I do not see the policy debate here at all. I see emotional self righteous indignation and anger. This is not an insult. It is a conclusion arising from the facts.
You say the people behind the blog do not give comfort to the enemy, support the Taliban or hate Americans. Well they certainly don’t show it here. A commentator referred to “useful idiots”. That is what I see here. Look up the source of the quote and see if the author doesn’t fit. Again that is not an insult but a conclusion based upon observed facts.
people who are afraid that they “might possibly maybe pose some sort of risk”
Hmmm… In Canada this type of wording is enshrined in our “Human Rights” legislation. It is the Canadian way to ensure no crime occurs in the future. In Canada you can be convicted by Kangaroo Courts for doing or saying something that “might possibly maybe pose some sort of risk” at some time in the future to somebody. I am paraphrasing, but each of the 100 or so HRCs in Canada has some version of this. Unfortunately, in Afghanistan, this type of Canadian thinking can lead to death. In Canada it is only financial ruin or a public renunciation of your faith, or both.
Interestingly, the Afghan Gov’t was again outraged/concerned when the UN troops accidentally kill citizens. (Yes this is a UN sanctioned mission with NATO as the main actors. Blame the UN for allowing this military adventure.)
Anyway, I never seem to hear outrage from anybody when the Taliban intentionally kills citizens. Strangely, it still seems to be our fault even when the Taliban blow up Afghanis on purpose. Do we hold ourselves to a higher standard of behaviour? If so, is this a “racist” position to hold? Are we in fact better human beings than the Taliban? Well, I think we are better people and we do hold ourselves to a high standard. But if our enemies lower themselves to using first women, and now possibly children, as shields or decoys how do we mitigate the risk to ourselves? Run away, I suppose, would be the answer here.
@James Bow – If that is the truly held belief, then we should have that out in the open for discussion, on a national basis. I personally don’t believe it to be the case, but that is not to say we should not strive to mitigate hunger. Necessary, but likely not sufficient.
It is my opinion that just as GPS, containerization, asymmetric cryptography and fibre optics have intersected to let the globalization genie out of the bottle, a similar phenomenon has occured with the Wahhabi strain of Islam. Heretofore ineffective, factors have combined that now makes this ideology and its practicioners dangerous to our way of life in a manner without historic precedent. They were localized, less than effective, but now they are coming to us, because enough enablers are in place.
Mitigating hunger, always a right thing to do, does not, however, get to the core of AQ. Similarly, improved employment possibilities mitigates. But still, while necessary, I believe is insufficient.
I think it a gross misrepresentation to categorize the mission in Afghanistan as ‘blasting a country’, and do not feel that such a characterization lends much to the debate.
I don’t know what happened there, I wasn’t present. I am horrified that once again, children are killed. While unfortunate, I cannot say it deters me from a resolve to address an elusive, clever, and dedicated foe of our way of life, and remove them from our world.
To the respectful engaging in dialog here, thank you for the time and attention.
Let’s acknowledge some stuff.
a) Canadian and American troops are among the best trained, best disciplined in the world. That reduces the likelihood and frequency of events like this. It does not eliminate them, and no amount or quality of training ever, ever will.
When a country opts to go to war, it is deciding several things. It is deciding that many civilians will die, often under horrible circumstances. It is deciding that its soldiers will be dehumanized, traumatized, and put in the position of committing war crimes and atrocities. This is not because we are inherently weak, evil, or badly trained: it’s because that’s what human beings do when they’re surrounded for extended periods of time by people trying to kill them. All that factors into the decision. Sometimes going to war IS the right decision: but this is ALWAYS part of the price, and should be part of the initial calculation. Unfortunately, those of us who try to remind everyone of that hidden price tag up front are either ignored or accused of weakness – until it all happens.
b) The motives underlying Canadian participation in the Afghan mission, and the NATO/UN mission itself, are a complex tangle of honorable and opportunistic reasons. If you’re not prepared to acknowledge that, pick up your toys and go home: no country commits billions of dollars and hundreds of lives out of pure altruism. That neither diminishes nor exalts the mission: but let’s not talk about it as though it were either (a) an Exxon-funded imperial crusade to expand western dominion, or (b) a delegation of missionaries and eductors.
c) The armed forces are an instrument of Canadian policy, and their deployment must be an attempt to further Canadian foreign policy goals. That’s why we invest lives and money. Given that, we are not only entitled, but, as responsible citizens, REQUIRED, to debate their deployment, and to make our views known. Most of the folks in this thread seem to have forgotten that.
Back when I was a whole lot younger I had an RSM who was, without a doubt, the nastiest SOB on the planet, the man didn’t like anything, or anybody. Behind his back we called him Warrant Shaky because when he got really mad everything from his voice to his boot laces would start shaking – and I don’t have enough fingers and toes to count the number of times he shook and yelled about knowing exactly what we were pointing our weapons at before any pressure went on the trigger.
Hell, we once got bitched out after firing a winger and all we were doing was aiming the friggen gun where we were told to aim it… I shudder to think what the poor sods in the command post endured that day, it can’t have been pretty.
So what should they have done? They should have been sure, dead sure, of what their target was before they put any pressure on the trigger – absolutely anything else compromises the mission, unless of course, our forces have adopted the “we don’t care if they respect us, as long as they fear us” motto.
…. I’ll get to everybody else a bit later, right now I gotta get ready for work – don’t go away now, ya hear.
I notice there is no fault or outrage reserved here for the parents of these children, who willfully and recklessly endangered their lives in a well-marked military safety zone, and in full defiance of multiple warning shots.
Did the parents pull a trigger?
Stageleft, as you should well know, the soldiers don’t get to decide what their ROE are. So when you say “They should have been sure, dead sure, of what their target was before they put any pressure on the trigger” you’re saying they should disregard their training and their ROE. We don’t know exactly what those ROE are due to OPSEC, but I know for a fact that they involve an escalation of force, and that they don’t involve absolute certainty about the vehicle headed towards you in spite of that escalation of force – since they can’t be absolutely certain in that space of time about the intent in the heart of the driver of another vehicle.
If you can tell me how to be absolutely sure every single time about who’s driving a vehicle too close to one of our convoys, and what their intent is, in time to do something about it, I’d sure like to know. In fact, I can introduce you to some people at CEFCOM who’d really like to know that as well. Because they have a far more immediate and vested interest in eliminating these incidents than you do.
Balbulican’s response to Theresa’s question is a bit too flip, in my opinion. As I understand it, the father was driving the car. To start the escalation of force process, he would have had to drive too close to a military vehicle – which are all marked with bright red 1m high signs with both writing and pictograms instructing people to stay well clear. People in Kandahar are well aware of the rules – they’re broadcast many times a day on local radio stations as well. The father would have also had to disregard hand signals from the soldiers telling him to keep clear. He likely would have had to ignore warning shots that wouldn’t have hit his vehicle (assuming he wasn’t closing on the convoy too fast for that). It’s also important to note that once the decision was made to shoot at the vehicle, the soldier would have been shooting to stop the vehicle, not necessarily to kill the occupants, although that often happens when you’re stopping the vehicle.
So with all of that information, I’d say questioning whether the father should share some of the responsibility for this tragedy isn’t out of line. I’m sure there will be an investigation, and I’m sure we’ll know if the Canadians deviated from their procedures at all. If they did, they’ll be punished. Even if they didn’t, I’ll bet the guy who pulled the trigger is already punishing himself.
BTW, Balbulican’s 5:18 a.m. comment is easily the most intelligent thing written in this entire thread. Especially the point that boils down to this: sometimes you do everything right, and things still go to shit.
Regarding the ongoing debate, however, I’d like to add one thing. While we in a democracy have a responsibility to consider and debate military deployments, since, as LGen Andrew Leslie likes to say “YOU sent us there,” we need to understand that we’re not debating in a vacuum. The soldiers follow the debate. Our allies follow the debate. Our enemies follow the debate. So when we’re debating, we should remember that the way we frame our thoughts – irreverent, sober, harshly critical, limply deferential or somewhere in between all those – has an effect on those beyond the debate.
Similarly, when the media jump all over a story such as this like a duck on a junebug, are they unwittingly becoming part of a Taliban information op (enemy propaganda)? Yes, they are. Does that mean they shouldn’t report on it? No, it doesn’t. It just means they need to be cognizant of the fact that there are extended consequences that ripple out from their reporting, and handle the story accordingly. As should we with our comments here.
Typical of piece of shit leftards.
Highly trained or not, how would you like to be in a shity place where some terrorist asshole could come out of the woodwork from any angle and detonate their bomb on you?
If you see a drive speeding up on you and they don’t heed your warning to back off, you either shoot or take the very real and deadly chance that the guy who isn’t stopping wants to kill you.
Easy call to slag those guys (who undoubtedly feel like total shits for being wrong as it is) from the safety of your mother’s basement. It’s easy to second guess with hindsight.
If they didn’t shoot, and the car was full of explosives, you’d be decrying how Harper got more soldiers killed (and ignoring that it was Chretien and Martin who sent them there to begin with.)
And you wonder why people hate fuckhead leftards. There ought to be a draft for no other reason than the ability to send you lot off as cannon fodder.
I didn’t mean to be flip, Damian, and I’m sorry if it came across that way. I think I was still reacting to a comment (noted elsewhere) from “hunter”, who suggested that the drivers were actually doing this for compensation payments…a notion I found as nauseating, and as psychotic, as the idiotic idea that this was an act of deliberate aggression by a Canadian soldier.
Heh. Bite me…do us a favour? Bring a brain to the discussion, or go back to Jack’s. Please? Thanks.
balbulican,
Bring a brain?
I’m not the assmonkey who said “They should have been sure, dead sure, of what their target was before they put any pressure on the trigger” as if the soldiers had the ability to fucking strip-search the driver before the car got close enough to kill them.
There is a zero possibility of being “dead sure” the driver is a real threat in advance. Only a leftarded asshole would say something so stupid.
Of course it sucks that a couple of kids were killed. That is worst-case scenario. I bet the soldiers responsible will no fair well mentally and will carry it to their grave. We should feel sympathy to both the driver (who, as they weren’t a bomber, probably panicked) and the soldiers.
Only an asshole second guesses that decision when it should be clear to any non-retard that there was only one response they could have made.
I think your point was made rather more clearly by Damian, “Bite Me”. Since neither you nor I are privy to the specific ROE that applied to this specific incident, nor to the degree to which those rules were followed, I suggest your conclusion that “there was only one response they could have made” is premature.
It has already been reported (on TV news whose reliability I admit is iffy) that the soldiers were following their ROE.
That is secondary to the logic of the situation. If you can’t know if a car is a threat unless it stops, and it won’t stop (for reasons you can’t know in advance if ever,) and the consequence to you and your fellow soldiers is death if the threat turns out to be real, what other choice do you have?
Any ROE that doesn’t specify shooting at a threat that won’t stop in the very short time you have to make the call isn’t a reasonable rule. The military does make questionable decisions but there is no military leader worthy of the name which would prevent defensive action when the alternative is a crap-shoot involving the lives of our soldiers.
To slag our soldiers in this case, you have to be a particularly lowly asshole. Stageleft fits that bill to a “T.”
StageLeft,
A very nice tale from your past… not sure what it had to do with my question though.
You said;
“They should have been sure, dead sure, of what their target was before they put any pressure on the trigger.”
That is a typical armchair quarterback response.
“Make sure” how?
It’s already established that the bad guys are perfectly willing to sacrifice pretty much anything or anyone (including small children) to kill a few of our soldiers.
The rules regarding approaching these convoys has been distributed to the populace in a wide variety of ways to try to avoid these tragedies.
The guy driving the car (reportedly not the father) was an experienced driver in the area and by all rights should have known full well what the convoy’s reaction would be.
Our guys did exactly what they were supposed to do.
There is no way I am aware of to “make sure” as you put it.
Unfortunately, when the bad guys play by the “there are no rules” rulebook, the only way to make sure is to follow the ROE and stop any approaching vehicle ignoring direction from the convoy, with force.
Any other response is the equivalent to playing Russian roulette with your buddies lives.
Again, if you disagree with this then tell us… What do you believe they should have done?
Specifically please.
“It has already been reported (on TV news whose reliability I admit is iffy) that the soldiers were following their ROE.”
Dude, with all due respect, that is the first statement a communications officer will make. I assume there will be an investigation, and we’ll find out. It’s entirely possible you are correct. However, you weaken your own argument by essentially arguing that if they violated the ROE, it might be the fault of the ROE. Ahem.
By the way, I posted in detail about this type of problem in November of last year, for those who are interested in more detail from the military point of view. The post shows pictures of the signs on the CF vehicles, too.
I don’t weaken my point that the ROE is entirely beside the point by saying the ROE is entirely besides the point.
I also didn’t say that anything may be the fault of the ROE. I did say that it isn’t likely that a violation of the ROE could occur in a situation that left no reasonable option.
The people who write ROE’s don’t generally leave soldiers with unacceptable options. You don’t force a soldier to risk their lives, their hardware and their mission foolishly. The military is in the business of dealing with threats – not ignoring them.
Food crisis leaves many Afghans desperate
Afghans pay for leftovers as global crisis sends bread price skyrocketing
MATTHEW PENNINGTON
Hungry Afghans looking for their next meal eye bread scraps piled up like heaps of trash at a Kabul market as a vendor weighs out fistfuls of the stale crusts on a scale. A Pashtun woman waits with an empty plastic sack.
She isn’t scavenging — she’s paying for leftovers that in better times were sold for feeding to sheep and cows. The woman said her household of 14 people had to give up fresh bread a month ago as the price spiraled out of reach.
Rising global food prices have hit few places as hard as Afghanistan, where the cost of wheat flour has shot up 75 percent in three months, fueling anger against the U.S.-backed government of President Hamid Karzai. In the volatile south, officials fear it could boost recruitment for the Taliban insurgency.
“Karzai is the king and this is my life,” wailed the Pashtun woman, who declined to give her name because of her conservative social code. “Since the Americans came here, nothing is cheap.”
The U.N. World Food Program, or WFP, warns that the situation for the poorest in Afghanistan is dire and deaths from malnutrition are likely to increase. Protests have broken out in at least one city.
Even middle-income professionals are struggling.
“People are not dying of starvation, per se, but that’s very rare these days. Usually people die from diseases they never should have died from but their bodies are weakened by hunger,” he said.
Even before the food crisis, U.N. data showed 54 percent of children under five in Afghanistan are stunted. An estimated 10,400 people die of nutritional deficiencies each year.
In two of the poorest provinces, Ghor and Badghis, communities are buckling under the double impact of the global food crisis and a drought that wiped out 70 percent of last year’s crop, said Mary Kate MacIsaac of the aid group World Vision.
“If they did have assets, they have been forced to sell them off,” she said. “People are desperate and living in greater fear of what’s to come if this year’s crop fails.”
Reliable statistics are hard to come by, but Commerce Minister Amin Farhang estimated that in 2007 Afghanistan produced 1.3 million tons less grain than the 6.6 million tons it requires each year.
Deputy Agriculture Minister Pir Mohammad Azizi said initial signs show the 2008 harvest will be worse because of insufficient rains in the early spring.
Because of its reliance on aid and imports to help fill its food deficit, Afghanistan is particularly vulnerable to rising international prices driven by growing demand from China and India and the use of grain to make bio-fuel.
The main source of Afghan food imports, Pakistan, is suffering its own wheat shortages and has imposed stiff controls on exports to Afghanistan, forcing prices higher.
Traders at Mandawi market, the main center for flour sellers in Kabul, blame ruthless businessmen for capitalizing on the shortages. They look back with some nostalgia on the Soviet-backed communist regime of the 1980s.
“In the past we had shortages but there were silos. The government had several months supply to cope with a food crisis. Now the government can’t even cope for a day,” said flour seller Sayed Hassan Agha, 64. “We are at the mercy of businessmen.”
With elections due next year and its popularity at rock bottom, the food crisis has political and security repercussions for Karzai’s government.
“There are lots of young men who are jobless, they have no income in their families and this economic situation makes them join the Taliban,” said Niaz Mohammad Sarhadi, chief of Zhari district, near the main southern city of Kandahar.
For the first time since the fall of the Islamist regime six years ago, the WFP has begun food distributions in Afghan cities, rather than just to rural areas.
That, and a government plan to use $50 million to buy flour for government employees and the poor, has helped reduce the price of a 110-pound sack of flour imported from Pakistan from $50 to $40 this week, Kabul traders say. Farhang predicted that after the May harvest prices would drop further.
But even if those hopes are realized, the economic realities in post-Taliban Afghanistan will remain harsh, a source of growing bitterness across the social spectrum.
Teachers have been staging strikes at the top high state schools in Kabul, demanding a hike in their $50 monthly salary, while desperate villagers migrate to the city seeking elusive work as laborers that pays $3 a day.
“Look at all these people here,” said Fateh Mohammed, 35, gesturing to a crowd of jobless, hollow-cheeked men in grimy prayer caps, outside a Kabul bakery. “They are here because their children are hungry.”
Merkel to G8: Food Crisis is Global Security Risk
In a letter to her G8 colleagues, Merkel warned her colleagues that extreme price hikes for food could lead to serious problems in the world’s poorest countries.
The crisis could “threaten democratization, destabilize countries and lead to international security problems,” Merkel wrote in the six-page paper, according to German newsmagazine Der Spiegel.
The document is apparently based on the findings of a governmental working group the chancellor established at the end of April to analyze the current food shortage and come up with solutions.
jimbobby,
1)What is your point?
2)A link would suffice.
Did you notice that the story quotes WORLD food prices and not Afghan food prices? Did you know there have been food riots in around 40 different countries which include one or two that NATO hasn’t yet invaded?
If you want to know why food is expensive, blame Al Gore and the eco-frauds for turning it into feul.
Food, fuel highlight crisis of inequality
A crisis of inequality looms in this world that combines plenty with the deepening impoverishment of some who had actually made significant strides against poverty over the last two decades.
Unlike poverty per se, inequality lends itself to far more urgent political expression. Around it populists, fundamentalists and others whose objectives lead us further from a safer world are able to mobilize.
If you want to know why food is expensive, blame Al Gore and the eco-frauds for turning it into feul.(sic)
I’ve written on the folly and destructive nature of biofuels a number of times on my own blog. Biofuel is one of many causes and biofuel support is more due to the lobbying efforts of major commodities outfits than due to treehuggers. If treehuggers could influence policy and get big government support for tenuous programs we’d see all sorts of initiatives. Big money (ADM, Cargill, Monsanto) lobbied successfully — not greenies.
While Bite Me is still posting from a position of anger at “eco-frauds” (and as JimBobby points out, many environmentalists did not see ethanol as a wise alternative to oil), I do appreciate that he isn’t flinging insults around as he did when he started. We at least are talking more seriously, now, and I thank him for it. But it begs the question: why start in with the insults in the first place?
And I concur with JimBobby’s analysis that the biofuels movement was fueled more by business interests than anything else. A similar thing happened in the early 1990s when business interests successfully lobbied governments to invest in untested natural gas burning buses, oftentimes replacing perfectly serviceable and more efficient electric bus systems in cities like Toronto and Hamilton. They claimed that natural gas was a clean burning fuel, but what they were really trying to do was clear a “glut” of natural gas from the market. Now that there’s no glut, the natural gas buses are being quietly abandoned.
Similarly, the biofuels movement really got a boost when the price of corn was at Great Depression-era levels — and not adjusted for inflation, either. It was agricultural companies like Monsanto that wanted to move the corn. Now that there’s no glut, we’re seeing the folly of this action. But plenty of environmentalists sounded the alert about the folly before the folly became clear to everyone.
Don’t mistake corporate greenwashing for the sum total of the environmental movement.
James Bow,
Anger started the vitriol. Specifically, stageleft’s typical idiocy. In short, I read something that pissed me off and lost my temper.
The environmentalists are NOW against ethanol (and should be against biodiesel as well.) They weren’t in the beginning. This is what made it possible for rent-seeking companies like ADM to push through fraud solutions to fraud problems. As far as biodiesel goes, so much for the rainforest (and endangered species such as the orangu-tans.) They’re being cut down in favour of Palm Oil plantations so that foolish Europeans can drive their BMW while being sanctimonious about how “green” they are.
You know, if you are willing to stand behind our soldiers and the difficult life-or-death decisions they are forced to make on a daily basis, why not go stand in FRONT OF THEM! Reality denier.
No Damian, soldiers do not get to decide on ROE, that said, the forces there know two things
[1] car bombers do not come by the car load, I was unable to find one single reference to 5 bombers in one car.
[2] it has been reported (and was reported on the radio this morning) that many drivers do speed because of the potential for IEDs on the side of the road – it is in their best interests to get passed any given place on the road as quickly as possible.
It may be going out on a limb but I would suggest that the forces there have better binoculars than most of us could pick up at Canadian Tire, and given the circumstances they are being far more watchful than you or I are when we’re parked by the side of the road.
If the ROE does not include these factors then it is a seriously deficient set of ROE indeed.
There were grievous f*uck ups committed here, they resulted in the unnecessary lose of civilian life, the traumatizing of a husband and wife, they damaged the mission, and they damaged the credibility of the Canadian Forces.
It does not get much simpler than that.
It had to do with very basic training, at least what it used to be basic training – possibly it’s changed now?
See my response to Damian.
I was unaware that simply by putting on the uniform and making it through GMT & Basic one became infallible. Without even considering the ramifications of your idea you tread on extremely dangerous ground – think about the consequences of a military that is above criticism?
I’m against all crop-based agrofuels, not just corn ethanol. Palm oil plantations are, as Bite Me says, a huge step in the wrong direction.
We’re straying a bit off topic, though. The Afghan problem is being exacerbated by poverty brought on by high food and fuel costs. Afghani soldiers draw $4/day pay. Taliban pays $14/day. $4 won’t feed a family. $14 will. Graft and corruption at every level of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’s government is siphoning off aid money and preventing the Afghan government from paying a livable wage. In other words, driving people who simply want eat and provide for their families into the Taliban ranks.
The low pay and high cost of survival also affect security in prisons. Afghan prison guards routinely release Taliban detainees for as little as $20 — a week’s pay. We look the other way, even to the point where a prison break-out releases hundreds of captured Taliban fighters back to the frontlines where they can kill more Canadians.
My point is that there are far more serious problems than al Qaeda. Like Bite Me says, food riots have broken out in more than 40 countries and threaten to destabilize and topple governments. The worldwide ranks of anti-western terrorists and insurgents is being boosted by hunger and desperation. We’d stop more violence through massive food distribution than through military efforts that so far have been one step forward and one step back.
Earlier in this thread, I posted something to that effect and a commenter scoffed at it. That’s why I posted those quoted articles.
If we want to win, we need to win popular support — hearts and minds. we can’t do that when the people we’re trying to win over are hungry and desperate and our foes offer them more food security than we do. We’re spending billions on military efforts, mostly on what the government describes as “offensive” operations — seek and destroy missions. If we spent half as much on trying to prevent those desperate people from taking up arms against us, we’d save money — and lives.
If we don’t really care about winning popular support, then the simple solution is to annihilate the population. Maybe the US can use its WMD’s. They’ve got the largest stockpile in the world.
JB
“why start in with the insults in the first place?”
Because it seems to be the default setting on a lot of blogs. Kudos to BiteMe for figuring out that we’re trying to do it differently here.
Sorry stageleft but that just does not cut it.
“[1] car bombers do not come by the car load, I was unable to find one single reference to 5 bombers in one car.”
Right, and they have never used young boys and girls as suicide bombers or flown airliners into skyscapers. Oh wait, as of 2001 they changed those facts didn’t they? Your assumptions about what they don’t or won’t do is what kills soldiers.
“[2] it has been reported (and was reported on the radio this morning) that many drivers do speed because of the potential for IEDs on the side of the road – it is in their best interests to get passed any given place on the road as quickly as possible.”
Hence our forces efforts to make it very obvious that doing so near our convoys is unacceptable and probably life threatening. A poor choice was made by the driver which caused this incident. The soldiers did their job.
Your comments about the binoculars is ludicrous.
If the vehicle had been moving slow enough to allow the time to identify the situation better, it is unlikely this would ever have happened.
Do you really think the 5-10 seconds that this event unfolded in was sufficient time to allow for your solution?
You may have spent time in the military but I am sure from your words, you never had to face anything like this situation.
Hence my opinion, you have no right to judge.
PS – “According to a news slot (also on CFRA) the little girls head was blown off, in the car, in front of her parents…… there is no excuse.”
This add on was a blatant effort to inflame the issue and make our soldiers look as bad as possible. This kind of thing is what causes the nasty responses as opposed to a reasonable discourse.
Stageleft, a couple of points:
First, just because you’ve found no mention of multiple attackers in a single vehicle in the news doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. The CF has better intel than you can find in the local fishwrap.
Second, sentries on convoys aren’t generally using binoculars, as I understand it. Their hands are occupied with their weapons, and their heads are on a swivel using the Mark-1 A-1 eyeball to detect threats.
Third, the ROE may be deficient, and they may not be. I’d suggest neither of us is really in a position to know that for sure. But your suggestion that this was a f*ckup that could have been prevented seems a stretch to me. As I noted earlier, sometimes you can do everything according to the book and things still go to shit. There’s no set of rules or procedures that can deal with every single eventuality perfectly.
Maybe the soldier who took the shot screwed up. Maybe he or she didn’t. We’ll find that out in due course. In the meantime, Canada and the ISAF forces definitely need to do some IO to mitigate the damage done by this incident.
Every single soldier I’ve spoken with who has served over there understands that their mission exists to support the broader hearts and minds campaign that will eventually get Afghanistan back on its feet.
By the way, from the ISAF news release:
The vehicle was directed to keep its distance but it did not comply. ISAF soldiers gave hand, arm and audio signals as well as flashing light signals to stop. When the vehicle was 10 metres away and still approaching rapidly, the ISAF soldiers, fearing an attack, fired on it.
I’d also suggest to all here that it would be worth your time to read what a LAV gunner who’s been there and done that has to say about the issue. Really – he details a couple of real-life decisions he had to make and how they turned out.
Part of what I do for a living is design procedures for all kinds of operations – television production, negotiation of development benefits agreement, testing scuba diver proficiency. I’m pretty good at it. I try to take into account every variable and every contingency I can think of, based on my own experience, expert input, observation, best practices and precedent. But I will NEVER anticipate every contingency, and I will NEVER be able to forecast the interplay of circumstances as hitherto unanticipated sequences of events interact.
ROE attempt to balance a wide range of potential inputs and outcomes, minimizing risk to all stakeholders to the extent possible, ensuring compliance with an insane tangle of international, national and site specific regulations, and trying in the end to mitigate potential harm while maximizing the likelihood of a positive outcome.
The highest duty of care is on the soldier. The soldier is the professional onsite. The soldier has been trained, and the soldier understands the rules. Their accountability is of the highest order, and they know that.
The civilian may or may not know the rules. They may or may not understand the signals, or pay attention. They may or may not panic. Their behaviour is the great variable. And it is entirely conceivable to me that a panicky civilian does precisely what the driver in this case did; and that a well trained soldier, following the ROE, takes the shot. And that, I think is what happened.
The soldier in question needs neither our blame nor our forgiveness – he/she is in hell right now, working it out for themself.
I have a citizen’s right to point to this incident and say; this is an unavoidable consequence of our decision to be here. There will be more incidents like this, and they will impact on the achievement of the goals that Canada has set for its intervention.
But I have no right to fault the soldier we put there.
[...] Stage Left went after me and some twenty-four hours later I do a quick check of his site and find he has over 70 comments on that one entry alone. Call me impressed “all to hell” as he get’s “jumped”. [...]
“But I have no right to fault the soldier we put there. ”
Thank you.
It’s called a safety zone. The vehicle was ordered to stop and they chose not to. It is not unlike the enemy to use public places to stage attacks nor children or the mentally challenged as the past will clearly show.
I wonder how many people would be applauding if that car blew up the convoy?
Soldiers did the right thing and quite frankly, I assume they would do it again.
I won’t go so far, as some have, as to imply that those kids were used as a human shield. It is, indeed, a very unfortunate accident.
I disagree with the statement made in the blog post that the military staff are either trained in recognizing real threats or they are not. This is blatantly wrong. The best training in the world in any discipline cannot prevent all mishaps, accidents, etc.
Some of the best doctors have killed patients. It is very tragic when things like that happen, but they do happen and will continue to happen.
I generally disagree with “military games”. I don’t think America should be in Iraq, and I certainly don’t think that Canada should be in Afghanistan. But since we’re there, sigh, we’ll have to accept that innocent lives will be lost no matter what — among soldiers and civilians.
If we don’t like it, though accept we must, it is our right to speak up about it. And if enough people keep screaming about ending our mission in Afghanistan, then maybe, their voices will be heard.
So Werner,
To you, the best option now is to cut and run?
Look, I’m not talking about the decision to go, but what does it say about us if we cut and run as soon as the ordeal gets difficult.
If you can suggest a way to resolve this conflict short of giving up, I’d love to hear it (so would the government).
We are there and involved.
We either find a way to resolve the situation OR all those soldiers have indeed died for nothing.
Quitting now shows only one thing. We can’t stand the heat.
If that’s where we stand, then dismantle the military and start sucking up to the US for protection.
It’s not a half way proposition.
If you can suggest a way to resolve this conflict short of giving up, I’d love to hear it (so would the government).
We cannot win the war without winning hearts and minds. Afghans have slipped deeper into poverty, desperation and hunger during the course of the occupation. We are spending billions on war materiel and scant millions on aid. Thanks to our benign acceptance of Karzai’s corruption, much of the aid money we have sent has been siphoned off for governors’ mansions and out-and-out graft.
Every friendly fire death, every poorly targeted NATO airstrike has helped the Taliban recruit new fighters. Pure financial desperation and hunger have driven fighters to the Taliban where they are paid $14 a day compared to the $4 a day paid by the ANA and ANP.
Take a look at who we’re fighting for. Karzai has personally appointed the provincial governors. His talent pool has been the Northern Alliance warlords. Under our occupation, the country became officially established as The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The new constitution enshrines Sharia Law. Oipium harvests fuel both sides of the civil war that was raging prior to 9/11. Karzai admits to holding secret talks with the Taliban for several years and has publicly said that he would welcome Taliban inclusion in his government.
Cut and run (such an American phrase) or continue to support a corrupt regime that cannot even be trusted with its own police payroll? Cut and run or continue to prop up a regime that issues the death penalty for conversion from Islam to Christianity? Cut and run or continue supporting an Afghan senate that upholds the death penalty for “humiliating Islam” by questioning the treatment of women?
Alexander the Great cut and ran. The British cut and ran. The Russians cut and ran.
Afghans are suffering due to the worldwide food crisis. If we want to make lemonade, we can capitalize on that situation. By mounting a massive food distribution campaign, we can win hearts and minds. Desperate Afghans are selling their daughters for food money. They’re taking up arms in order to feed their families. If we divert a fraction of the money we’re spending on offensive seek and destroy missions to food aid, we will win hearts and minds. If we continue to support the corrupt Karzai regime and spend all of our time and money on shooting and killing and trying to achieve a military victory, we ensure failure.
I expect to hear the old refrain, “Without security, there can be no aid.” Hogwash. We can safely drop bags of grain and flour just as easily as we can drop bombs and shells. We can set up secure food distribution centres that would be welcomed and protected by the hungry locals. We can insist on oversight of the Afghan government that we helped install. We can keep track of the prisoners we hand over to ensure they don’t bribe their way back to the Taliban ranks. We can establish a market for legal, medicinal opium production. We can provide seed and fertilizer to help farmers move from opium to food crops.
The Manley Report calculates that Canada spent $6.1 billion on its military effort in the central Asian country between fiscal 2000-01 and 2006-07. The total financial aid between 2001-02 and 2006-07 was $741 million. Up to 90% of that $741 million is known to have been diverted to corrupt government officials.
There are about 2,500 military personnel deployed in Afghanistan. In comparison, there are 47 civilian government employees assigned to the country: at the embassy in Kabul, at Kandahar Airfield and in the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) office in Kandahar City. Of the 335 PRT team members, 315 are military personnel.
We’ve put nearly all of our eggs in the military basket and we cannot hope to win hearts and minds with that sort of lopsided approach. Again, if we don’t win hearts and minds, we will not win.
JB
JimBobby,
Okay, if it’s that easy, why is the government not doing that?
According to your words, it would all be so easy.
Unfortunately, anyone who bothers to look at the whole picture would use another word.
Naive.
Name me another conflict like this, where the distribution of aid packages has not immediately been grabbed by thugs with guns, to be used for their own purposes. Meanwhile the poor town-folk continue to go hungry and any hope of law and order goes down the toilet.
Without a policeman, all societies degenerate to anarchy.
It’s human nature.
Wishing it were otherwise is… oh, what’s that word??
Oh ya… naive.
Well, I reckon you figger it ain’t naive to think NATO will be able to win a military victory that eluded Alexander the Great, the British and the Russians. It ain’t naive to think the Afghans will rally ’round the NATO forces that have been responsible for friendly fire incidents. It ain’t naive to think that the locals won’t join the Taliban who offer 3x the pay and speak the local lingo. It ain’t naive to hand over detainees and then look the other way hoping that they won’t bribe their way out to fight again.
If we are on a humanitarian mission, we should not be standing idly by while the country sinks into deeper and deeper desperation and hunger drives more and more desperate men and boys into the Taliban ranks simply for grocery money.
If it’s policemen they need, we should be helping them pay a living wage to police recruits. We already had to take over paying the police ourselves because those who were supposed to pay them couldn’t be trusted to do so.
Poverty breeds discontent and fuels Taliban recruitment. I may be naive in thinking that fathers and mothers will fight those thugs who try to take the food from their starving children’s mouths.
No, it ain’t easy. Neither is it easy to chase a guerrilla movement into mountain hideouts and caves. We’ve been doing it your way for 6 years and we’re in worse shape than when we started. Continuing to expect better results from the same actions is not naive. It’s just stupid.
Manley said we should be retooling the mission with a much bigger emphasis on aid and reconstruction. Harper chose to accept the parts of the Manley report that called for more men and more military action and chose to disregard the parts that called for more attention to winning hearts and minds.
We must win hearts and minds. We cannot do that with bullets and bombs. To think that we can win without winning popular support (hearts and minds) is naive. To think we can win hearts and minds with a totally lopsided military effort is equally naive.
Okay, if it’s that easy, why is the government not doing that?
It ain’t macho enough. Too namby-pamby touchy-feely. It doesn’t line the pockets of war profiteers enough. It doesn’t boost Canada’s image in the eyes of GWB. It doesn’t mete out enough punishment to the rotten Taliban.
Right now, the poor town folk are being robbed by the warlord provincial governors and other Karzai appointees that we are assisting. When these Northern Alliance thugs were in power before, they were so corrupt and brutal that the Taliban was able to gain popular support and take over. Now, we’ve re-installed them and we back them with our military might.
JB
A “mishap”? A “mishap” is when you drop a full hot cup of fair trade coffee first thing in the morning, a “mishap” is when you stub your toe, a “mishap” is when you find your last cigarette got wet because of a hole in your rain jacket…. innocent dead people is not a “mishap”.
To quote a bad joke that was the cause of so much stupidity in and around the blogosphere a short time ago, a little girls brains splatted all over the back window of a car is a “tragedy”.
First and foremost it is a tragedy because a little girls brains were splattered all over the inside of a car and her dead brother because people with guns who are supposed to be helping were afraid they were being attacked when they were not.
After that it becomes a tragedy for the mission in general, remember the quote I posted above?
You wanna talk about encouraging the Taliban?
You wanna talk about giving aid and comfort to the enemy?
Each and every civilian who suffers a “mishap” at the point of a Canadian gun gives far more support to the enemy than this little blog, all its’ comments, and the sum total of every media article ever printed that criticizes such a “mishap” ever could.
Each and every post and comment that says
* Shit happens
* Soldiers did the right thing
* “Poof”, you’re gone!
– gives far more support to the enemy than this little blog, all its’ comments, and the sum total of every media article ever printed that criticizes such a “mishap” ever could.
Makes for great propaganda doesn’t it lads?
You need to get back on track here my friend.
That soldier didn’t pull the trigger because he hated kids…he pulled it because of duty…and he didn’t create the environment he is now involved in.
Butchers did and:
“Shit happens.”
Soldiers did the right thing.
“Poof”, you’re gone.
Ever been scared? Really scared?
Didn’t think so. Otherwise you wouldn’t be saying these things.
It doesn’t matter why he pulled the trigger Jack, as with the remorse the soldier or the military may feel that I mentioned in an earlier comment it simply does not matter.
Why that soldier pulled the trigger may be important to people here in Canada who want to explain away or rationalize what happened but I can guarantee you that it is absolutely, 100%, immaterial, to the people who lost their children…. and I’d feel pretty darned safe in betting a good portion of my next pay cheque that it is also absolutely, 100%, immaterial to their relatives, and their friends, and their neighbours.
Once again I’m gonna quote from the article you linked, maybe people will read it this time and just maybe even ponder what it means.
Does any of that really surprise you?
I give up.
Neither you (JB) or you (stageleft) is willing to accept realities.
JB, you had one thing right.
We are there because of butchers.
The butchers who attacked unarmed civilians in an office building, hoping that their governments would be too cowardly to defend them.
Then they (or their controllers if you will) ran into the hills of Afghanistan and tried to hide amongst more civilians with the help of the regime controlling the country at the time.
Stageleft, all your solutions seem to involve our troops having some magical intuition which will allow them to know civilians, from terrorists disguised as civilians. You have yet to explain (realistically) how they should do this but maintain this is the solution to this kind of tragedy, mishap or what ever phrase you prefer (nice attempt at mis-direction though).
We are there because the Liberal government at the time actually believed it was important. From that point on, we either quit because it’s too tough for us or we continue to try to help these people (and God knows they need the help).
It’s not going to be easy and it’s not going to be neat. How it will resolve in the end, I do not know.
What I do know is people who sit around offering hurtful criticisms based on partial information and absolutely no viable solutions are no help at all and most likely a hindrance.
You’re a waste of space.
I’m tired of wasting rational thoughts on irrational minds.