A while ago I got greased out - there is simply no other word for it...as shocking as that is - for suggesting that Canadians could more troops on the field in Afghanistan. The greasing parties were (and are) more knowledgeable and experienced in matters military and I usually bow to their wisdom. But I can't find the link. Maybe it was over at Ben's. Anyway, I now find myself reading this statement this morning and wonder if I was actually right:
"If countries like Germany and France were not so afraid of committing forces, this problem would be solved readily," Major Richard Moffet, deputy commander of Canada's battle group, said in an interview. He listed five Kandahar districts and suggested Canada needs to double its current troop strength of 2,500 to keep the Taliban away from those important areas. "Easily you could have a brigade of 5,000 Canadians here just for Zhari, Panjwai, Arghandab, Shah Wali Kot and Khakrez, because to be honest, we haven't been to a few places in Panjwai yet," he said.I do not recall that my betters and tormentors never used the word "easily". Someone cleverer than me will have to find this post-Yule thread I am recalling but suffice it to say, I agree with Major Richard Moffet.
Update: it was at Ben's though I think there were three discussions: the capacity of Canadians to stomach more troops, the capacity of the army to provide more troops and the capacity of the Harper government to send more troops.
Comments
Damian - February 24, 2008 6:22 pm
Alan, I believe you're misinterpreting the good major's remarks. What he was getting at, as I see it, is that the area could use 5,000 troops easily. This is very much along the lines of what MGen (ret'd) Lew Mackenzie has been saying all along (10K more troops in the south alone).
The major likely knows better than to get outside his lane by opining on the capacity of the CF to raise those troops.
In other words, he's just saying we could use not only the 1,000 we're asking for, but a whole lot more.
Mark wrote a post about it at The Torch.
Xanthippa - February 25, 2008 2:20 pm
It drives me absolutely mad to watch the predictable scenario played out in Afghanistan..... One does not need to be a military tactician, only to have a basic grasp on history, to understand that sufficiently strong military force can indeed eradicate the Taliban and stabilize the situation in Afghanistan - followed by 30-50 years of actual peacekeeping (Cyprus took no less!). That same history lesson tells us that having too few soldiers on the ground allows the Taliban to prolong the conflict and bleed out the willingness of 'the West' to continue this low-grade conflict....the population at home will demand a full troop withdrawal, and it will be this 'war fatigue' which will win the war for the Taliban.
We need a lot of boots on the ground now, finish the job, and after peace is established in the whole area, we must leave behind sufficient forces to guard the peace. And we must be ready to leave THIS force in Afghanistan for several decades, otherwise all this will have been in vain.
sean liddle - February 25, 2008 3:39 pm
Xanthippa, I must disagree. History also tells that when a people feel they are being downtorodden, note I said FEEL they are, not necessarily are, or if they are believers in a form of religious fundamentalism that promotes the destruction of, well, simply everyone that does not share their beliefs, simply killing as many of them as you can does not make the onlookers change sides to your own. The only solution that will work in Afghanistan is to bring back the King, burn the poppy fields and salt the earth and provide the Monarch with UN peacekeeping forces. The country will never be domocratic and adding more trops will simply embolden those that feel they are being oppressed by occupiers.