CASR

Canadian
American
Strategic
Review

Afghan Mission  –   New US Troops  –  2011 Pull-Out  –  NATO~ISAF  –  December 2009 Summer  2011  Pull-Out  –   Downward  Ramp  –  Not  a  Cliff : Parliament  Should  Re-Think  the  CF  Exit  from  Kandahar Comments  by a  journalist  on the performance of  CF troops  in the Arghandab Valley    [1] On  13  December  2009,  David Pugliese  provided  a  link  to a report  on  the  battles  for  the Arghandab River Valley (ARV) to  the  northwest  of  Kandahar City.  The  author  makes  some rather  unfortunate  comments about  the  Canadian  Forces: [CF]  "made jabs at Arghandab but  did  not  get  far.   Some people  believe [that]  the  [CF] have  been  militarily  defeated ... No US officer  has  told  me that the  [CF]  have  been  defeated, and  none  have  denied  it. " This comment  could  be  described  as  'innuendo'.  No  pious  follow-up  remarks  about  the number of  CF casualties can erase the lack of  respect reflected in this  ill-informed comment. If there is some humiliation to be borne  in the conduct of  the Afghan Mission,  especially in the south around Kandahar, let it be borne by us  –  the Canadian citizens and our Parliament. Deployed  CF  troops  have  done  their  best,  often  in  the absence of  effective,  consistent support  from  their  own  government. Now, at last, the chief of  NATO-ISAF,  US General Stanley McChrystal,  has recognized that Kandahar City is a key stronghold.  NATO forces must hold the City and its environs,  if they are to push back the Taliban insurgency.  Thousands of  US troops are going to be deployed in the Arghandab River Valley (ARV).  Thousands more are already assembling  to the south of  Kandahar  City,  forming a security perimeter,  in order  to protect  the civilian  population. These NATO-ISAF troops will need the intel of experienced Canadian Forces personnel who have been deployed  in and around  Kandahar  for four years.  Now is the chance for  NATO troops to work together in Kandahar Province as was originally intended.  It is also a chance for  Canadian Forces  to demonstrate  what they are capable of  when  they are able  to work under optimal conditions. The Canadian Parliament owes it to our troops to make the announced summer 2011 pull-out more flexible.  In fact,  the most logical  pull-out date,  from a military  perspective,  would  be one that is consistent with the 2011 'draw-down'  that has been announced by  NATO-ISAF. This  date  has  been  described  as  a  ' downward  ramp  –  not  a  cliff. '    [2] By altering the CF withdrawal  and aligning our timing  with that of  NATO-ISAF,  our troops would be spared the kind of casual, demoralizing remarks exemplified in the article cited above. A similar  flexibility  will  likely  be  demonstrated  by  our  allies  during  the  NATO  meeting in January 2010.  It is  probable that  the Dutch and  the Australians  will stay on  in  Uruzgan Province.  Likewise,  British  and  Danish  Forces  will  likely  remain  in  Helmand  Province. (The Helmand River is downstream from the Arghandab. The Taliban use these river valleys to move north and south with less chance of detection.) With their experience in Kandahar Province,  Canadian  Forces  could  make  a real difference to the concerted military effort in southern Afghanistan.  Parliament should think hard about the impact on the morale of  our troops, and on those of  other nations,  if  Canada  pulls  out according to some arbitrary deadline,  instead of  considering the overall  effect of our exit  –  on our troops,  on those of our allies,  and on  the attitude of  the enemy  towards  the  West.   [1]   Article  title:  Arghandab  &  The  Battle  for  Kandahar  written  by  Michael  Yon.   [2]   This  highly  visual  analogy  has  been  attributed  to  General James Jones,  National             Security  Advisor  to  US  President  Barack  Obama.