Why are we there again?

Afghan President Hamid Karzai refused to remove a former warlord from atop the energy and water ministry despite U.S. pressure to oust the minister because Washington considered him corrupt and ineffective. Secret diplomatic records showed the minister -- privately termed "the worst" by U.S. officials -- kept his perch at an agency that controls $2 billion in U.S. and allied projects.

The refusal to remove the official despite threats to end U.S. aid highlights how little influence the U.S. has over the Afghan leader on pressing issues such as corruption.

"How little influence the U.S. has..."

As Karzai and his corrupt personal appointees laugh in our faces and take our money, we keep sending our troops to face death and keep this scum in power.  But somehow, it's all for the women and children, right?  We'll bring all our soldiers home in 2014 and Karzai will run a democracy that will be fair to all, right?   

Once more - why are we there?

What’s been missing from the discussions about our post-2011 role is the reality that not only will Canada be training an army under the command of one of the most corrupt governments on the planet, but also that it is a government ridden with warlords and held together only by military support and money from the West. This is not a government with independent staying power.

In all likelihood, the exit of Western troops in 2014 will precipitate a countrywide civil war that will see the Afghan army fractured into militias controlled by warlords battling for roads, opium fields, mineral resources and cities, while the Taliban attempt to take over the country or disintegrate into violent, squabbling factions.

The United States and NATO have been providing the Afghan army with world-class weaponry: assault rifles, grenade launchers, machine-guns and armoured vehicles. With the weapons, and tactical training to date by Canadians and other NATO troops, the national army is an increasingly formidable force, though plagued by desertion, poor discipline and drug abuse.

Canada’s future training of these well-armed Afghan troops will ratchet up the torque on a war machine that appears destined to blow apart.

If we were actually doing something to help establish a government chosen by the people of Afghanistan for the people of Afghanistan and offering aid which would directly encourage the establishment and maintenance of a society concerned about human rights and a fair system for all, that would justify some Canadian presence there, but training troops to fight under a corrupt government that will fragment into a bunch of corrupt groups further ripping the country apart and killing civilians in their bid for power...what the hell are we doing that for? We can't afford the dollar cost of this war, and the cost in lives is beyond measure, certainly not justified.

This is not a criticism of our troops, but of our own corrupt, dishonest government and its utter disregard for the lives of its own soldiers.

harper  and BFF

About "minimal risks" and training missions

Let's look at some of those “minimal risks” Harper says our soldiers will face under his latest support the troops extension of the Afghan mission.  Let’s not include rebuilding and development efforts, just the training mission (emphasis mine throughout) -

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” -

Scott Palmer

The Germans discovered something about minimal risk training missions -

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."