We are very focussed on our operational objectives: training the 4th Brigade of the Afghan National Army in Uruzghan Province. We've made clear recently about the latest information that is available in terms of the time we believe it will take to complete our training mission in the province, some two to four years, and indicated that it's likely to see the Australian commitment after that period transition to a support role.
But having said that, ladies and gentlemen, I make the point as I have made on so many occasions, it is a difficult and dangerous mission. The reason we are here in Darwin today to attend the funeral of an Australian soldier, and the news we are speaking about today of the death of another Australian soldier in Afghanistan, I think does indicate to you the risks that are involved in our mission.- Australian Defence Minister Faulkner, July 2010.
Wow. Truth-telling on the risks of training exercises.
In this case, what Harper calls “minimal risks” -
The attack shows just how dangerous it can be to train the Afghan army, which the German government in recent months has declared to be the main aim of the German mission in Afghanistan. "Anyone who thought that training the Afghans was a safe walk in the park ahead of pulling out of Afghanistan, has now seen the reality," commented one German army officer. "At the end of the day, training Afghan soldiers in Afghanistan means fighting side by side with the Afghans."
France is aware of the minimal risks of training missions -
The French soldier killed in Afghanistan on Monday belonged to a highly skilled team training Afghan soldiers. The French specialists focus on helping the local army operate independently, often under extremely difficult circumstances.
The Americans have had their share of minimal risks as well -
U.S. defense officials in Washington described the slain soldiers as Special Operations troops attached to the U.S. training mission for Pakistan's Frontier Corps, responsible for security in areas near the Afghan border seen as part of a global militant hub. (Three US soldiers dead, two injured)
Just a couple of reasons why Canada should re-think the whole minimal risks thing::
Cpl. Darren James Fitzpatrick, 21 years old
Fitzpatrick, a member of the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, was on his first tour of Afghanistan since joining the Canadian Forces in 2006. Since October, he had served with the Operational Mentor Liaison Team, which helps train members of the Afghan National Army.
Cpl. Matthew McCully
A Canadian soldier marching into battle alongside the Afghan troops he helped to train and mentor died today when he stepped on a jerry-rigged anti-tank mine during the opening stages of Canada’s largest anti-Taliban offensive in nearly two months. The soldier, identified as Cpl. Matthew McCully, was a member of Canada’s Operational Mentor and Liaison Team helping to shape their Afghan counterparts into cohesive, organized fighting units.
Harper stated “We are proud of Corporal McCully’s contribution to our mission in Afghanistan,” considering this particular minimal risk a “contribution” we should be proud of.
Put names, faces, families to the minimal risks before you decide to force others to face them without consulting with Canadians, without even holding a serious debate, you poppy-wearing politicians. Tell us about the ones who are killed or maimed while on routing patrol during such training missions, during reconstruction and development missions. Tell us and those you send about the real state of unrest in Afghanistan, the real reason soldiers are being placed in harm’s way, the real reason they are being asked not only to give their lives but take lives as well, something they will have to carry home with them.
And quit wearing our soldiers deaths and injuries like they are some sort of your own personal badge of honour. You're not the ones taking those "minimal risks."
No comments:
Post a Comment