MATTHEWGOODONLINE

Canada has suffered it’s 97th combat fatality in Afghanistan, as Sgt. Scott Shipway of Saskatchewan succumbed to wounds sustained from an IED attack today in Kandahar Province’s Panjwaii district. Seven others were also wounded.

Shipway, a father and veteran soldier who served in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Cyprus, was on his second tour of duty in Afghanistan and was due to return to Canada in a handful of days.

A poll conducted by Environics last week concluded that public support for the mission in Afghanistan has reached its lowest point.

As I have stated exhaustively in the past, the cost incurred by the Canadian Armed Forces in this conflict is disproportionately high given the size of Canada’s contingent. In fact, we have lost more soldiers by comparison than any other nation involved. That is a fact that seems to be lost on the leaders of this country. Then again, we are talking about a government that has used Canada’s military participation in the conflict to try and raise the nation’s international profile with the likes of NATO and the United States. In short, to make us a ‘player’, policy dictates that we remain and continue to endure such losses.

Despite the beautiful day here in the GGTA, tragic news from overseas. 3 Combat engineers from 1 CER Edmonton were killed in Zhari district earlier today.

Thoughts and prayers to the families and friends of Sgt. Shawn Eades, and the two other yet-named soldiers.

The most senior Canadian soldier on the ground in the area. Brigadier General Denis Thompson reminds us all of the following.

‘What I’d say is that they’re much more aggressive this fighting season than they’ve been in the past, Our soldiers believe in this mission. They know what this is all about,” he said.

‘At the end of the day the Taliban are against things, they’re not for anything. They’re against human rights, they’re against education, they’re against health care, they’re against women - they’re just against human decency. So if we leave these people, if we leave the population of Kandahar province in the hands of the Taliban we just won’t be performing our duty and our soldiers know that.’

Given that it’s Military Public Affairs protocol that when speaking to the media a soldier cannot speak outside his experience, isn’t the general being a little bold in speaking on behalf of all soldiers?

General Thompson goes onto show why he’s not Rick Hillier when dealing with the media.

‘The difference is they’re not holding any of the ground that they attack us on. So in the case of an IED strike they will inflict some casualties, but they don’t control the road they inflicted the casualties on. So really the net effect is zero, other than it whittles away at our resolve.’

That’s the point.

Is he new? Is he caught up in the nostalgia of legacy conventional tactics from the cold war what with what’s been going on in Georgia?

Since when does the Taliban care about “holding ground”?

The effect on moral by an IED - an attack with no risk to the attacker but great risk to the victim - is the sole purpose of an IED. It is not strategic in any sense.

This is taught in every IED class to every soldier, so I have to assume the General knows this and is just choking in front of the cameras. I could go on, but what’s the point?

93 dead Canadians since 2002, with no signs of change, from either side.

Wherever you are, enjoy the day.

It is a spectacular day here in the GGTA (Great Greater Toronto Area).

I am eagerly anticipating the Jays’ 38-5 run in the next two months. Today they have a game against the Bostons, who I believe will not make the playoffs.

(You heard it here first, my baseball opinion is respected by many.)

We are almost 12 hours since our last violent thunderstorm, our forty-ninth of the summer. (One more and the province gets a free set of steak knives!).

There hasn’t been a great deal of change going on in terms of the Canadian military current events. Which isn’t necessarily a good thing. 15 soldiers have died this year, most of them during what has become to be known as the annual “spring offensive”. There have been 93 U.S. soldiers killed and 29 British soldiers killed.

65,000 troops are deployed in the ‘Stan and 2,500 of them are Canadian. If you weigh sacrifice in terms of ratio of commitment, Canada has finally taken a gold in at least one event in Asia.

In any case, this has been the deadliest 3 months in Afghanistan for all foreign troops since 2001. And by foreign troops, I mean U.S. and NATO forces, not the Taliban.

90 Canadian soldiers have died in total, since the start of the operation. 1 of which was likely killed by fracticide from an independent contractor by the name of Compass.

As Matthew Good pointed out earlier, now that we have some good ol’ fashioned conventional war happening in Georgia, any apathy for this war will likely increase.

So as I stated above, nothing new to report.

Scott Taylor who recently returned from yet another NON- EMBEDDED tour in Afghanistan penned a great story about an aide worker who supports NATO’s presence in the area - but offers some advice for improving the approach taken.

…as an American living alone in downtown Kandahar, she is undoubtedly one of the bravest women I have ever met.

A former National Public Radio correspondent, Sarah Chayes has spent the past six years managing a small Afghan co-op. It is not a major development project, just a small soap factory that employs about a dozen local employees and operates on a self-generated budget of just $3,000 US a month.

What is truly significant is that Chayes has been able to continue her work despite the deterioration in the security situation. Although a committed pacifist, Chayes is not a fool, and she carries a Kalashnikov assault rifle for her own protection and several of her staff have weapon permits as well.

Her main criticisms seem to be primarily with a corrupt Afghan government, which one could argue is a criticism of western governments.

‘I was very happy to see NATO come [to Kandahar], but disappointed that NATO hasn’t altered their policy of using corrupt Afghan officials,” she said. “They have given a blank cheque to the local government authorities and you simply can’t do that. Fighting corruption is a daily process. You can’t just remove a few officials and consider the task complete.’

According to Chayes, the ongoing process of NATO soldiers killing insurgents is negated by the fact that the unchecked corruption of the local government is creating an even greater number of volunteers taking up arms to join the resistance. She said the solution for this is for NATO to take firm control of the Afghan administration that they are fighting to prop up.

Now, while I support the initiatives Sarah Chayes’ carries out and I respect her first hand accounts, how does NATO taking a hold of the current government’s administration, support the end state of a free and independent Afghanistan?

That said…

‘If NATO wasn’t here the Karzai regime wouldn’t last five days or five minutes because the people are so upset.’

Apparently, the comments former foreign affairs minister Maxime Bernier made about the Kandahar governor being corrupt and in need of replacement were greeted with glee by the local citizens. Following the public exchange and Bernier’s subsequent withdrawal of his statements, Canadian officials told Chayes privately they wanted to discipline the governor, but the Americans would not allow Canada the latitude to do so.

This notion clearly upset Chayes. ‘If the Afghan government is a criminal enterprise and Canada’s stated mission is to support the government of Afghanistan, then what the hell are you achieving?’ she asked. ‘Is NATO here to make five people happy or to make the whole province happy?’

Chayes goes on to recommend a requirement of more NATO forces and more experienced mentors for the amelioration of the current infrastructure.

Now, partisan politics aside, this is from a non-combatant, self-proclaimed pacifist aide worker. (A gun toting American pacifist but a pacifist none the less.)

Is her suggestion fanatical, a redoubling of our current efforts that, in strategy have fallen well short of expectations? Or is she actually on recommending that we start what we proclaimed we were trying to do in the first place?

Because if one were to be pro-military occupation that supported a full spectrum operation in a noncontiguous, nonlinear area of operation that included peace keeping and humanitarian aide - one could make a convincing argument that it has yet to be genuinely tried. For the record, the argument would start with looking at how much money had been committed in proportion to each of of the 3 objectives (war fighting, peacekeeping and humanitarian aide).

Your thoughts in the stream below.

Have a great day, enjoy it.

Now Playing:
Cinema - The Dark Knight (over and over again)
itunes - Write Me A Letter - Aerosmith

It’s a beautiful day here in the city of Toronto, who wouldn’t get up early to enjoy it?

Man, beaten to the punch on a Saturday morning!

Thanks to all who supported me last week. I’ll keep results short and by the numbers.

42 km
+$4,300 for Right To Play
$700 for the Colo rectal Cancer Society Of Canada
+50 pairs of shoes for Shoes for Malawi
Two sore knees
1 Happy Irish-Canadian Veteran
An infinite number of thank yous to those that made it worth while.

Nobody asked me, but should we be more careful about letting these Generals self-promote themselves to rock star status?

(That statement holds particular allure to me given the owner of this site…)

I speak specifically to ex-general turned Liberal Senator and anti-patriot Romeo Dallaire and his comments stating that if Canada doesn’t speak out to the imprisonment of Omar Khadr, in Guantanamo Bay and bring him home then Canada is no better than terrorists.

HE SAID WHAT!?!

He can’t say that! Canada terrorists?

How can this be? We can’t have Generals going off half-cocked and saying whatever they want! We can’t have them speaking this plainly in the press! The Canadian people can’t handle this straight talking, tell-it like it is opinion.

After all, what would the scumbags think?

Now, this dripping sarcasm is not to suggest that either General is correct.

It’s also not to suggest that our Generals, whose experience is significant should sit entirely mute either.

However, when they do venture into hyperbole, they should be careful that they are not being used as leverage by their political counterparts. When was the last time you saw a soldier type win on the TV show Survivor.

Soldiers do speak plainly. They have experience to share and their warnings and recommendations should always be considered before acting as a nation on foreign affairs that involve forces they’ve been entrusted to lead. However those recommendations should be tempered with prudence.

As there are those that will seek those sound bites of experience and advice and use it as all knowing and infallible proof that there is no other option. See Hillier moving our mission from Kabul back to Kandahar and getting the mission extended to a minimum of 2011.

Look, I respect everything Dallaire went through in Africa. I think for an officer whose hands were tied, he accomplished a tremendous amount of good. He brought awareness to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and helped improve the quality of life for serving personnel from overseas.

That said, we should be careful of allowing ourselves to be romanced by cinema and best-selling novels. Not everything the ex-general says appears to sing from the same script.

This isn’t the first time Romeo Dallaire hasn’t painted himself into a political corner. He was once called out on it by another media darling General too!

Here’s an editorial by Dallaire’s friendly nemesis from the 90’s Lewis Mackenzie, it makes some valid points.

Roméo, Roméo, wherefore art thou partisan?

It’s hard to watch someone whose name is linked to our failure in Rwanda argue that Canada’s response in Darfur is just fine, says retired major-general LEWIS Mackenzie

LEWIS MACKENZIE
May 19, 2005

It’s no secret that Roméo Dallaire and I have some profound differences of opinion regarding the role and capabilities — or lack thereof — of the United Nations when it comes to fulfilling its primary responsibility: to enhance international peace and security. After his experience in Rwanda, I wasn’t prepared to debate our differences in public, lest it exacerbate his fragile state of mind. Now that he has eagerly accepted a partisan appointment as a Liberal senator, however, one can reasonably assume that he will be able to cope with deserved criticism.

In the past few days, we have witnessed the sad spectacle of Senator Dallaire arguing with his own oft-stated previous position regarding the appropriate action to be taken in the Sudanese region of Darfur. It has been widely reported that Mr. Dallaire met independent MP David Kilgour in an attempt to convince him that the government’s plan to dispatch a mere 100 unarmed Canadian observers and advisers to the area would be not only adequate but the best policy for Canada. The senator opined that any attempt to dispatch thousands of white troops from NATO countries (as Mr. Kilgour wisely suggested) would exacerbate the situation in Darfur, because the Khartoum government would not be happy to see such troops cross their borders.

This flies directly in the face of Mr. Dallaire’s own pronouncements made over the decade since his return from Rwanda — namely, that a mere 2,500 well-trained NATO troops would have prevented the slaughter of 800,000 Rwandans! Now that Prime Minister Paul Martin has offered up a token Canadian military contingent for Sudan, Mr. Dallaire has done an about-face: He has decided that a tough, disciplined and well-led force protecting Darfur’s innocent victims would be a bad idea! Go figure.
Mr. Dallaire has suggested on numerous occasions that the West did not respond to the genocide in Rwanda because of underlying racism. This inflammatory comment is blatantly untrue. Since 1956, the United Nations has conducted more peacekeeping missions in Africa than on all the other continents combined. Further evidence that the UN has paid close attention to Africa is the fact that more UN peacekeepers have been killed in Africa than on any other continent.

Distasteful as it is to admit, the members of the UN, including Canada, turned their backs on Rwanda because there were no perceived national self-interests at stake. The Security Council has been sitting on its hands for years regarding the situation in Darfur because of the national self-interests (oil) of at least two, and perhaps three, of the Security Council’s veto-holding permanent five members (France, China and Russia)…

…To suggest, as Mr. Dallaire has done, that the African Union’s modest and ill-equipped force can successfully operate in an area the size of France and bring deadly force to bear to stop the killing in Darfur — and that a few unarmed Canadian observers and advisers will make them even more effective — is naive in the extreme.

The situation cries out now (as it has for years) for rough, tough, professional soldiers to take on the goons, cowards, rebels and militias who are doing the raping and murder. The two sides in the conflict, the Darfur rebels and the government-supported militias, who share the blame for the chaos, don’t have to be defeated — at this time.

Only then, when the killing of innocents has stopped, can the diplomatic process have a chance and the NGOs return to help rebuild the society. The West could have saved Rwanda. It should move now to save what is left of Darfur’s innocents. It was hard to watch Mr. Dallaire standing behind the Prime Minister during a press scrum waiting for the cue to leap to the microphone — swallowing his pride and endorsing Canada’s pathetic response to the genocide in Darfur as the “best solution.” If he really believes this, I have some waterfront property by the Sydney tar ponds that I’ll sell him.

It should be mentioned that Lewis Mackenzie had his fair share of criticism and press for his role in the former Yugoslavia in the 90s is now used by many major Canadian news outlets as a resident expert.

Who doesn’t enjoy the political debating often left for mess clubs on bases being brought to the real life stage in our nation’s mainstream press?

Is it prudent and wise that we allow the sound stage to our Generals, retired and active?

These are men used to attaining great praise and responsibility - at what point do we differentiate between straight talk versus egotistical bravado?

Even if what they have to say is of merit, can we trust it won’t be used as leverage for partisan politics or biased mainstream media outlets?

Is it a greater folly to have their no-nonsense advice muted?

Am I not guilty of the same then?

Have a great weekend, enjoy it.

Now Playing:
iunes: Living In Paradise - Elvis Costello

If anyone were looking for an example of just how truly idiotic the man running this country is, look no further than this quote…

“If a country wants to be taken seriously in the world, it must have the capacity to act. It’s that simple. Otherwise, you forfeit your right to be a player. You’re the one chattering on the sideline that everyone smiles at, but no one listens to.”

Is that what being taken seriously in the world demands - military might? If so, then we forfeit our ability to condemn those that use violence as a means to an end. If to be ‘a player’ one must possess significant military capabilities, then who are we to condemn anyone that adheres to that line of thinking and the inevitable application of force?

To be a player, Mr. Harper, you must first examine what and whom you are playing with. And if your conclusion is that to be taken seriously on the world stage requires a military capability that is substantial enough to placate those that view such a requirement as a prerequisite for inclusion, then you must also accept the reality that those that are willing to use violence must be graced the same allowance for the exact same reason, no matter who they are.

I’ve been busy with rehearsals and exhausted afterwards, so haven’t been able to update the site at all. In fact, I haven’t even checked my email since Friday. Anyway, a few things…

Welcome to the new Canada. Today, in Halifax, the Prime Minister announced the Canada First Defense Policy, which is a major shift in Canadian military spending and commitment to global military affairs. It is, without question, extremely alarming.

Listening to the Prime Minister talk this morning I was deeply troubled at his alignment of economic growth with the bolstering of the defense industry – that it will benefit all Canadians, providing jobs. Of course, we wouldn’t dare nationalize the oil sector, but the government can promote the growth of the defense industry by spreading military contracts throughout the country. The Prime Minister also stated that export possibilities would also be providing economic opportunities – meaning that we’re going to start cashing in on arming others to help bolster our economy through the development of the defense sector.

When I have time to sit down with a draft of the policy I will comment further and in more detail.

Also of note this morning is the devastating earthquake that has struck China’s Sichuan province. An estimated 8,500 people are dead, though that number will most likely increase.

I’ll do my best to return to updating the site on a more routine basis in the days ahead.

It’s a fantastic morning here in the great city of Toronto.

Sure it’s raining, but at least the TTC isn’t on strike (that I know of).

For those of you who don’t know the TTC is the mass transit outlet here in Toronto - and like any public transit system should, they decided to celebrate earth week last weekend by going on strike on Friday night at about midnight.

I said, they went on strike during earth week last Friday night, you know, when people like to drink, right after a Raptors game, without the requisite 48 hours notice or heads up.

The TTC Union might want to consider finding a new chief, other than the current Bob Kinnear. Because to pull a stunt like that, comes across as low and makes your cause seem greedy and selfish.

It’s still a great city.

Nobody asked me, but when I paid my taxes this year, I was curious where my money was going to be spent.

I know through electronic filing and prospective funding and budgeting there is no real way of saying, “my dollar(s!) paid for this particular venture”, but wouldn’t you feel great if it was your dollar that went to the purchase of some cancer research.

Or to a fire fighter or nurse’s wage who worked overtime.

Hell, I’d be happy knowing I helped buy the new printer for one of my old units.

However, given the recently projected price tag, there’s a good chance I’m funding the Operation in Afghanistan.

The figures show that for the first nine months of this recently ended fiscal year, from April 1, 2007 to Dec. 31, 2007, the incremental cost of the war was $871 million.

Another $206 million was pegged as the incremental cost for final quarter of the fiscal year that ended on March 31, bringing the year’s total to $1.007 billion.

The $1-billion-a-year price tag is expected to hold for another year. The report projects the incremental cost for 2008-09 to be $1.009 billion.

The Defence Department defines incremental cost as “the cost, which is over and above the amount that would have been spent for personnel and equipment if they had not been deployed on the task. The incremental costs include items such as the additional ammunition required, mission specific pre-deployment training, strategic transport and redeployment, and operating cost for the capability deployed in theatre.”

Egad.

I love investing. I love looking at the pie charts of my holdings, I love following the andex charts. I like seeing my retirement income grow, because I want season tickets and the ability to buy a burrito daily every year when I hit 55.

So when my money goes into something, I ask, what’s my ROI - return on investment.

When you look at the dollar value, and the value of life spent on the direction taken in Afghanistan you have to ask, what’s the ROI?

And is it time to change my holdings or the institution managing my funds?

As promised, for those that have and continue to support my fund raising for Right To Play as I run the Mississauga Marathon next week I have some good news.

I got a pair of tickets to the Matthew Good show in Hamilton in June.

For every ten bucks donated, that goes for those that already have, I’ll put your name in the hat.

I’ll draw the name in two weeks, and on the 17th, I’ll let you know who won.

So as if giving money to Right To Play, or motivating me to blast out my knees wasn’t influence enough, now you may get a chance to watch Matt live.

So make a gift!

Maybe Matt’ll come take a picture with you too. I already owe him a couple million favours, what’s one more shrimp on the barbey?

Have a great weekend, I’m off to see the Chicago’s play the PERFECT (in the month of May) Blue Jays today.

With the SkyDOME closed.

Because of the rain.

Hopefully my ride home will not strike without telling me.

I maintain it’s still a great city.

Where ever you are, enjoy it!

Now Playing:
Book: Bruce Etherington - See The People
itunes: The Kills
Cinema: Iron Man - It’s as good as they say
PPV: Tonight Oscar De La Hoya vs Stevie Forbes (I’ll take the Golden Boy by 12 round unanimous decision)

The rain is holding off in the great city of Toronto and we are officially in the short strokes until Matthew Good returns to Ontario and Massey Hall.

This time he’s doing the full band thing, you’ve got to be looking forward to that.

Keep your eyes peeled for another meet and greet prior to the show. The one that was held before the acoustic show was a good go, and allowed an opportunity for members of the matthewgood.org community to get to know each other beyond their nerdy handles and gravatars.

Also my thanks to so many who have been donating generously to my running in the Mississauga Marathon and fundraising for Right To Play.

I have some announcements to make in the coming week with respect to motivating others to donate, or rewarding those that already have. It has a lot to do with what I just mentioned above.

However, please do go check out the site that the good folks at Right To Play have set up.

The reason why I chose this charity and continue to raise awareness about it is two fold.

1. I’ve seen child soldiers and they aren’t born that way. You give a child in a failed or failing state the choice or the opportunity to show them something other than violence they’ll take it. Sport and play does that.

2. What Right To Play does to educate young girls on having respect for their bodies is absolutely fantastic. The way in which Right To Play courageously enters these troubled regions, and empowers children through something as simple as play makes you realize that the solution is so much simpler than many make it.

In many of these failed states local warlords get kids at such a young age. They train them and they indoctrinate them at such an early age to hate, and to kill. Many of those child soldiers never had a chance.

Ever seen that flick Blood Diamond with Leo DiCaprio. That’s the tip of the ice berg.

Can you imagine having never played? Never imagined? Never dreamed?

I’ve seen it. First hand.

Over there the idea of play is a foreign subject to so many children.

In ‘02 in Afghanistan I saw a group of 10 year olds and thought - in a couple years if I’m back here this kid might kill me or one of my friends.

Really, who could blame them for wanting to?

Help give them a choice, and please give.

Nobody asked me, but I can’t get this retiring Hillier thing off my mind.

About a week or so ago I did a post on former CDS General (retired) Rick Hillier retiring. It was rather sudden and many have been wondering why go to all that work to get the CF extended in Afghanistan and then leave the troubles to a successor.

One can’t help but speculate.

I mean obviously he was waiting for some of the political waters to quell. After all the liberals were looking for an opportunity to take advantage of a floundering conservative government, but they couldn’t must up any leader of their own to challenge.

Than it occurred to me - Jesus - is Ranger Rick considering running for PM? Scott Taylor recounts something unnerving.

From coast to coast, editorialists were hailing Hillier’s achievements and bemoaning his imminent departure. And after his announcement, the general continued his tireless charm offensive against the habitually cynical press corps. Relaxed, confident and oozing self-deprecating Newfoundlander down-home charm, Hillier had the media once again eating out of his hand.

In providing my own analysis for a TV network of what the Big Cod’s departure would mean for the Canadian Forces, I engaged in conversation with several cameramen and technicians. “If Hillier ever decides to run for prime minister, he’s got my vote,” said one of the techies, and this was echoed by a chorus of “Mine too” from the others. When I asked them which political party the general should lead, their answer was immediate: “Who cares?”

Taylor goes on to remind many that while recruitment may be up, and the budget for the military may have been expanded - retention is down and the balancing of some of the major purchases and extension in operations will be challenging to say the least.

Let’s hope common sense prevails should Hillier seek leadership as Prime Minister.

Have a great weekend, where ever you are enjoy it.

Now Playing:
itunes:You and Me - Neil Young

With regards to Pat’s entry below this, I must admit that I will be happy to see Hillier go. Of course, Pat has far more direct experience regarding matters to do with the Canadian Armed forces, being that he is a retired Captain, served two tours in Afghanistan, and also served in the Balkans. That being the case, his insights are of import, and you should definitely read his latest entry.

My personal feelings on the matter have to do with two of what I feel were Hillier’s misgivings. The first was his overt use of the media to unabashedly promote our combat role in Afghanistan. That is, with regards to the Armed Forces in any democratic society, not the place of any active military commander. Knowing that the average soldier can’t comment on operations, Hillier’s perspective and words became the focal point for many Canadians with regards to how they view the war, which, as I have said, was entirely inappropriate given that in any free society the military establishment should never be given license to promote a military agenda directly to the populace. That is the role of elected officials who are supposed to direct the actions of the military, meaning that Hillier should have never been allowed to appear on televised broadcasts by the Harper administration to bolster support for our role in the conflict. That said; even though Hillier himself seemed a more than willing participant when it came to such things, it should not be overlooked that the politicization of his position was something premeditated by the current government of this country. And that, too, should be cause for alarm.

My second problem with Hillier was his apparent lack of knowledge, or disregard, of Afghan history, especially with regards to how its people, or at least factions representing segments of its population, have dealt with foreign occupations for centuries. And if he does possess significant knowledge in that area, he’s certainly never let on. In truth, Hillier was not alone with regards to not seriously examining such historical realities. I would contend that most of the foreign military leadership in Afghanistan has, for some bizarre reason, failed to take such a serious aspect of Afghan history into account. In fact, the British, above all, have been provided enough of a lesson in their own past to know better than to view the conflict as one that is simply an exercise in the deliverance of democracy. I am certainly no proponent of the Taliban, that is for certain, but when placed within the context of Afghan history with regards to the occupation of the country by foreign forces, the reality is that their entirely warped ideology becomes a secondary consideration to many, leaving their willingness to oppose foreign occupiers at the forefront. Obviously, given their tyrannical rule of the country prior to the invasion in 2001, a swath of the Afghan population is not going to forget what life under Taliban rule was like, just as many Afghans will never forget what life was like during the Soviet occupation.

Miscalculation is the reason why the resurgence of the Taliban occurred, and it had far more to do with a segment of the population viewing them as force willing to combat foreign occupation rather than one bent on supporting the reinstallation of a wholly corrupted theocracy. Therefore, despite the steadfast ideology of the Taliban’s core leadership, it would be very interesting to see what would occur amongst their rank and file, not to mention those civilian elements that support them, especially with regards to Pashtun refugees, were the Taliban to seriously consider the possibility of being included in the political process. In truth, it could very well diminish their numbers, altering the perceptions of those that view the group as a last bastion of anti-occupational traditionalism and exposing the Taliban leadership for what they truly are – a group unwilling to alter their immovable position, one steeped in religious fanaticism, simply because they are able to exploit a segment of their support based on the promotion of themselves as freedom fighters.

In September of last year, President Hamid Karzai, of whom I am also not a fan, did, in fact, extend an olive branch, and invited members of the Taliban’s leadership to enter into negotiations in hopes of reaching some form of ceasefire and work towards their inclusion in the political process. That invitation was also extended to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the country’s former Prime Minister, and the head of Hezb-e Islam. At the time, the United Nations reported that an increasing number of Taliban fighters were interested in laying down their arms, a fact that is rather telling.

What ISAF, and primarily the United States, has truly refused to consider is the exploitation of the political process as a means with which to defuse the situation. Rather than acting as peace brokers in hopes of stabilizing the country through political means that, in the end, might not produce the sort of immediate results that they’re after, they have, instead, dealt with the resurgence of the Taliban from an entirely military standpoint to ensure the instillation of a pro-Western government, which is in many ways just as suspect as the motives of those they are fighting. Of course, the core leadership of the Taliban has refused to enter into negotiations unless foreign forces leave the country, which is another way of saying that their forces would be on the streets of Kabul in a month’s time and political negotiations would probably be limited to executions. That said; context must be examined with regards to the difference between the ambitions of the group’s core leadership and those that have joined their ranks solely because they believe they are actively waging a war to dispel foreign invaders, not necessarily help reestablish a backwards theocracy governed by hypocrites.

The complexities of Afghan society, and the nation’s history, are profound. The situation, even as it applies to the common rank and file of the Taliban’s forces, is not black and white. With the ability to draw men willing to fight simply to make a living from a significant pool of Pashtun refugees, the Taliban are able to project an inflated sense of support for their ideologies, which we then take as law and use as an excuse not to realistically examine such complexities, nor exploit them in an attempt to begin defusing hostilities.

Wow.

It truly is a beautiful day in the city of Toronto. The sun is shining, the Jays are soaring! And controversial Generals are retiring?

In Ottawa, Canada’s outspoken Chief Of Defence of Staff, Rick Hillier, a.k.a. “Ranger Rick”, a.ka. “Big Cod”, will not have his tenure extended beyond July 1 2008.

Nobody asked me, and nobody told me, but considering the past year this is a bit of a surprise.

The native of Newfoundland and Labrador has been in the job since February 2005, appointed by former prime minister Paul Martin. The role doesn’t have a defined length, but the average tenure is three to five years…Hillier had been a strong advocate of Canada’s military intervention in Afghanistan and is said to have been the driving force behind an increased Canadian military presence in Kandahar province.

Last October, it was reported that the Conservatives were seeking to push the outspoken senior military commander out of his job.

But Prime Minister Stephen Harper denied the report, praising Hillier as an outstanding soldier and saying there had been no discussion about the possibility of changing the chief of defence staff.

Hillier had also said then his work as defence chief was unfinished.

“I love being a soldier,” Hillier said in October. “I still have things to do here in the immediate future, and I intend to do them.”

Hillier has been known for his blunt talk, making headlines, for example, when he referred to the Taliban as “detestable murderers and scumbags.”

Outspoken for a Canadian General and admired by a great deal of the ranks for just that. He was also perceived as not being easily controlled by politicians on all sides. He was able to lobby for increased spending on the CF after the budget cuts in the 90’s. He restructured the command of the entire Canadian Forces.

He was equally criticized by those who felt he was too influential in the public with respect to Canada’s presence. His stance on transfer of detainees and pushing to have Canadians move into the volatile southern region of Afghanistan has made more than its ripples in the headlines.

Let’s face it, if he was asked to retire someone didn’t like the job he was doing.

If he chose to retire, what didn’t he like that would cause him to change his mind from what he said back in October when asked if he’d step down.

Gen. Hillier says he’s 100 per cent focused on his job, has no plans to leave his post at this time, and that he’s received no word the government is planning to end his term.

“Truthfully, I look at it this way,” Hillier told reporters after a luncheon in Ottawa on Wednesday.

“I’m the chief of defence staff. We’re into a pretty intense period of operations in our country right now, and for me to be focused on anything but looking after Canada’s sons and daughters and meeting my responsibility to Canada’s moms and dads, would be wrong. So I’m 100 per cent focused on that.”

He pointed out that his position is not subject to a three-year term. Instead, he serves at the pleasure of the prime minister for as long as both parties feel it is appropriate

Hmmmm.

Why is he retiring? Although not ahead of schedule, one has to wonder why such a motivated individual wouldn’t have stayed on longer. Especially after the mission had been extended at least until 2011. Especially after Canadian troops had been promised US support in the southern region of Afghanistan.

Or maybe the reason lies in those details.

Chances are Rick will seek employment in politics (more so even) the day after he retires. Many questions are unanswered, and many of them will remain unanswered.

Does this have anything to do with the flak he received on dealing with detainees?

Was he too involved in Afghanistan and not any of the other facets of the CF’s responsibilities such as sovereignty?

What will he do next?

In the archives you’ll find a post where I once discussed what peoples’ opinions of the General were, and the opinions crossed the spectrum.

It’s probably too early to tell, but this will probably get interesting before it gets boring.

Stay tuned.

Now Playing
itunes: Wyclef Jean - The Carnival