Afghanistan, Still Losing the War, Part 11

Canadian Army defends night attacks

Sounds just like the Yanks who stormed a compound and shot Omar Khadr twice in the back.

Hundreds of Taliban dying in container trucks definitely was a crime. But I think the Taliban have not been straight up in dealing with Dostum through their supporters in Pakistan's secret service, the ISI. Apparently Pakistani officials met with Dostum in 1995 (declassified U.S. wire transcript pdf) and assured the "Northern Alliance" that Taliban were not interested in taking control of Northern Afghanistan. However, despite the assurances, the Taliban seized control of Mazar-e-sharif in 1997 and taking Dostum's territories. And Dostum was forced into exile.

Seymour Hersh described in The Getaway(New Yorker), that a similar war crime was later averted when General Mussharraf ordered a secret airlift rescue of hundreds of Taliban and al Qa'eda commanders(and Pakistani Army officers, intelligence advisers, and volunteers fighting alongside the Taliban) from the northern hill town of Kunduz.

They had to deny it. That's called covering up the fact that they snatched their own Islamic Gladios from the jaws of defeat. And it's exactly what I and many others are saying. The Bushies were backtracking. It was an accidental-deliberate fuckup on purpose... again! The Taliban and their mujahiden predecessors are a creation of CIA, Saudi, and British colonial foreign policies in Central Asia. Blowback is pure baloney. 

They cutoff half billion dollar a year CIA funding to Massood in '92 after he declared war on their religious robots, the Taliban. 

THIS IS A PHO-NY WAR ON TER-ROR.

And you're awfully quick to believe the quiet Americans caught red handed trying to cover their tracks.  

Ya they'll win like the Vietnamese kicked their US asses out of the country, like you said before. We've heard this countless times before from lefties that the American loss in SE Asia is legendary. And the warfiteers were so discouraged by their loss in Vietnam that they vowed never to take US taxpayers for a wild ride ever again. We know. Pull the other one - it's got bells on.

Meanwhile Obama is planning an escalation of phony war in Central Asia. But Afghans will win in the end, just like millions of Vietnamese were big winners. They'll show the warfiteering bastards who does the shitting in the buckwheat. You'll see.

When will the daddy warbucks and energy company magnates of this world ever learn that they just can't  push desperately poor people around and get away with mass murder in the process? Those fools!

I've tried to reserve these threads for many months now for news about the Afghanistan war. If you want to have a debate about "Soviets good, CIA-funded insurgents bad", I request that you open a separate thread. I won't be joining you there, but some others may be interested.

 They might as well stop lobbying Congress and Defense Department now for hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer handouts every year, because the Taliban will show them that it's all for nought. All the world's a stage.

Ah yes, and now it's big pharma puttin' the glad in Islamic Gladio. Gives a brand new meaning to sword operation. As Mike Meyers would say, Sssshwing! YA baby

Obama and the Graveyard of Empires
by Gary Leupp, December 27th, 2008

[excerpts]

Another double post

I hate to repeat myself, but else do you do when history repeats itself within 24 hours:

Now, for those who are forgetful, it is important to understand that the insurgents are merely making up for lost time. The Taliban had warned they would step up attacks during the Canadian election campaign. Harper, whose deep feeling for human beings is near legendary, decided to order a halt to normal patrols to reduce the kill count until he was safely back in power.

Here's what the Taliban said at the time:

No problem.

I'm sure you're more familiar with the sad statistics than I am, Webgear.

Sergeant Prescott Shipway (2nd Princess Pat's) was killed by an IED on September 7. Two days later (September 9), Qari Mohammed Yusuf bragged about having killed a medal recipient, saying they would step up attacks on account of the election campaign.

Listen up. There were no further deaths reported until Corporal McLaren and Private Diplaros were killed by an IED on December 5.

That makes 89 days between consecutive fatalities - the longest such gap since the first fatality of 2007.

The closest runner-up was the 54-day gap between the killing of Cpl. Nathan Hornburg (Sept. 24, 2007) and Cpl. Nicolas Beauchamp and Pte. Michel Lévesque (Nov. 17, 2007).

And now, IED deaths have resumed their usual pace, and then some.

Now I'm not privy to any internal CF commands and tactical thinking - I just observe results. Three possible hypotheses:

1. The Taliban announced they would step up attacks - but they lied, and decided to give Stephen Harper a much-needed respite during the campaign and its aftermath.

2. Canadian troops were struck by sudden brilliance during this 89-day period and figured out how to prevent, detect, and disable IEDs - and promptly forgot again at the beginning of December.

3. Road patrols were radically reduced during that whole period out of fear that the Taliban were telling the truth and that massive IED casualties were in store during and after the election - thus embarrassing SH, the enlisted man's best buddy.

4. Coincidence and sheer good luck.

Well, Webgear, I've concluded that Hypothesis #3 is the most likely one. But I would certainly appreciate your inside knowledge and expertise in providing evidence pointing to any other explanation of what happened.

Now to Conclusion #2:

Sorry, Webgear, this one is too obvious to require evidence. You tell me why they keep walking and driving down the road and getting blown to smithereens, if not the clear fact that the insurgents can strike any time and any where they want. Neither informants nor detection technology are adequate to make a dent. Of course, CF lying spokespersons will say, "Yeah, but we detect 10 million IEDs for every one that goes off!" Why do the words "fog of war" spring to mind?

Webgear, please read my post more carefully:

I started my count with the death of Cpl Megeney on March 6, 2007, so your first point is inaccurate.

If, however, you choose to begin the count with "the first combat-related death of 2007" - which I agree was April 8, 2007 - then the latest 89-day gap is still, by far, the longest fatality-free one in the past 20 months. It makes little sense to go back to earlier periods, when the dynamics were different.

All your other points are valid, but you still offer no explanation for a 3-month gap in fatalities - immediately after the Taliban promised an escalation during the election campaign. You may not like my explanation, but the laws of statistics alone cry out for an alternative one.

As to whether this is a "popular insurgency" or not, I refer you to the multiple reports (not by lying military commanders, but by international organizations) which claim for some strange reason that the insurgency commands the vast majority of Afghanistan's territory and has freedom of movement and action there. You're quite right in saying it's not "currently" comparable to previous insurgencies. But you tell me whether the insurgents are getter stronger or weaker, and we'll both see what the future brings.

Hey Webgear

Those conclusions (Mentioned by Unionist) are wrong, pure and simple.

Someone can play around with the numbers and say it's been X amount of days since someone was killed and try and constrew it in such a way to indicate the Taliban havn't been attacking OR Canadians have been hiding inside bases but the truth is Canadians have not changed their patrol matrix to hide during elections. The number of patrols going out hasn't changed nor has the activity, truth be told we've even done ops during the election period, definatly not hiding.

As for the IEDs, why havn't Canadians been killed in X number of days? I can tell you for a fact it's not due to lack of trying on the Taliban's part. Dozens of IEDs are found every month and detonated by friendly forces. A smaller percent of those total number of IEDs are not found and detonate against targets. Some of the targets are NATO, some are Afghan police and Army. Sometimes they get us, often they don't.

The thing is, in 2006 when shit hit the fan every IED was reported in the news. Now it's not a "big deal" media wise. We had an IED hit our platoon not too long ago on the road and nothing was said in the news. I've seen IEDs take out Afghan army members or Police officers and it doesn't get mentioned in the news. The only thign that gets mentioned is Canadian deaths.

Why all of a sudden did we just loose 9 guys when there was a lull? Number of reasons. Bigger IEDs, different tactics and shit luck. But like I said, it's not for lack of trying the whole time. I was reading up on the statistics the other day. While some detonate and ruin our vehicles and injure or kill our soldiers, a few dozen are found each month and safely detonated. It's shocking the amount of IEDs we find trust me. We've had a few hit us with no injuries, someone could just have easily died.

The theory that the Taliban stopped the attacks for a certain period and are just starting up again because some Taliban boogyman says so might sound plausable but it's completely wrong- there are just as many IEDs, we're having an unlucky month.

Exactly. You're 100% right.

 Just a bit of bad luck

What a hilarious news item. In a "hastily called news conference", our hapless Col. Cade urgently announces that the CFNIS is investigating something, but of course we can't say what.

Why don't they just do their investigation and announce the results - or not, if there are no results?

There must be some motive behind this non-story. Probably just some psy-ops to make our murderous mission look as if it cares about wrongdoing. 

Here's the funniest part:

And then, he refuses to say what the allegations are!

" The bulk of Canada's troops are deployed in Kandahar province, which is adjacent to Helmand - a part of the country that's largely the domain of British forces.

Canadian troops were involved in at least one significant operation in Helmand in the days leading up to the date of the alleged incident, although there's no evidence of a link between the two.

In mid-October, the Afghan National Army - under the tutelage of Canadian military mentors and backed up by British forces - defended the Helmand capital of Lashkar Gah from a three-pronged attack by hundreds of Taliban militants.

About 30 Canadian mentors accompanied an Afghan army battalion, or kandak, to Helmand on Oct. 16. Afghan Gen. Sher Muhammad Zazai later said Canadians were involved in the fighting.

Afghan and international troops eventually retook the Nad Ali district centre, which had been held by insurgents, after a three-day fight. That battle, which also involved air strikes, ended Oct. 18.

Altogether, Afghan and NATO officials claim that at least 100 Taliban died in the fighting."

More details from the Globe and Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081231.wafghancan1231/BNStory/International/home

And where are Steve and his coalition of ReformaTories, rightwing Liberals, and Mike Harris castoffs? AWOL? Who's minding the shop?

You're right, Jingles. Canadians are busy making merry. We'll never notice that there is no one at the helm while Canadians are over there fighting for Crazy George's sake.

Oops, no offence to the very lucid and pleasant George of rabble-babble intended by me. I meant "Crazy George II" aka George Bush, Prescott's grandson, and great-great grandson of Samuel, another prolific warmonger of a long line of warmongering warfiteers

And since this one is rigged, too, they should all just quit now and go home.

Some death stats for NATO forces in Afghanistan:

• Canada - 32 in 2008, compared with 30 in 2007 and 36 in 2006. Overall total 106 soldiers dead. Plus 360 wounded in action in the past two years. (Overall, 395 Canadians have been diagnosed with PTSD after service in Kandahar.)

• UK - 51 in 2008, compared with 42 in 2007 and 39 in 2006. Overall total 137 dead. Plus 526 wounded in action in the past two years.

• USA - 155 in 2008, the highest annual figure so far. Overall 630 dead.

• Denmark - 12 in 2008, compared with 6 in 2007

• France - 11 in 2008, including 10 killed in August.

Source

I don't know if this story is posted elsewhere but from http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/01/02/soldier-charge.html:

Defense Commitee for Malalai Joya 

It's a phony war

 You're right - you're not privy to CF "commands" or "tactical thinking" and it shows.  Being privy, I can tell you that your hypothesis is junk.  Answer one question and you'll know why: when does the CF rotate majority of its forces in Afghanistan? Hint: one takes place around a month starting with "Jan" or "Feb" and the other takes place around a month starting with "Sep" or "Oct".  But, of course, that couldn't have anything to do with it - it must be the evil white men in the military and government conspiring to keep each other happy.

But what do I know, I'm just the guy going there to kill and maim "innocent people" under the glorious banner of cheaper gasoline and hardcore pornography.  Long live the almighty dollar, down with the proles, blah blah blah. *insert obnoxious, ineffectual placard waiving and foot-stomping here*

 Edit:

As for people speculating about the circumstances surrounding the charges against Rob Semrau, some clarification:

Having known him quite well, I'm about as likely to believe that he shot someone in cold blood as I am to believe that he flew to the moon on stardust.

Being "too severely injured" to receive field treatment means about one thing: you're fatally wounded.  Even traumatic amputations can receive field treatment but something like getting split in half at the waist by the cannon on an Apache is going to render field treatment useless. 

We do?  He isn't charged with the war crime of being an invader, but if he were, I suppose the evidence is certainly overwhelming.  As to the other count, 2nd degree murder, and your reverse onus 'principle,' he is innocent until proven guilty.   There is ample precedent for murder suspects to be released on bail while awaiting trial in Canada.

Eye witnessess, exhibits, etc all form part of the evidence, produced at trial.  The trial hasn't occurred yet.  What is weighed is risk to the public, flight risk, things of that nature.   A simple google search will point to many cases where suspects have been released on bail, regardless of the evidence.  As for kid gloves...the military justice system does have its faults, although I've never heard it being referred to as that:

Chief Military Judge Site

Webgear, you know that I respect your views, and I appreciate your researching this reply. But I really seriously asked for any examples of release on bail where an eye-witness has given a statement stating the person committed a cold-blooded murder. Do any of your examples fit that bill?

And no, Slumberjack, I understand the difference between an eye-witness account used to lay charges and a witness giving evidence in court. But I'm not the one who told the media there was an eye-witness who alleged seeing this character murder a wounded Afghan. That was the military that released that information. Given such an accusation, the accused must remain incarcerated to protect the public.

Regardless, eye witness, murder weapon, bloody gloves, brain speckled uniform, etc...whatever it is they have, certainly is used to form the basis for the charge, and then the evidence is bought to trial.  As of right now, he is innocent of the charges.  Presumed innocence is the key here, along with the judges view, based upon defence and prosecution statements, on they're being a likelyhood of further risk to the public.  One's views on the war overall, or mob mentality, does not influence the decision.

When deliberating charges that are applicable under the criminal code, Canadian military judges use the precedents from civilian courts, provincial or supreme court decisions, and Court Martial appeal court rulings.  It wasn't always the case that they did so, but the charter slowly made inroads into the military justice system over the past two decades.  They're still having problems dealing with it's applicability and implications.

It is you who doesn't get the basic concept of judicial fairness towards an accused who could be facing a long time in prison.  A bail hearing is not a trial.  It is a deliberation to determine if the accused should remain in custody, or be released with conditions, based on any previous convictions for the same offence, the risk that the accused may flee justice, and further risk to the public..period.  It has nothing to do with the amount of evidence.  The charges are based on the gathering of evidence, but the evidence has not been heard by the court at this stage.

Hate the ceeb.

The eyewitness is probably an Afghan. Since everyone knows they are untrustworthy, their "evidence" is only worth about, say 1/6th a proper Christian man.

That's the only reason I can think of why this scumbag walks free.

Probably?....Only reason you could think of?....about 1/6th?.......

Not much to go on when deciding upon the denial of ones liberty in a criminal proceeding.

Yep, it's a really low court precedent for limpus willius for sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Hall

Yes, my error, it was 1am when I happened across it, and I read 'allow the appeal', instead of that which was stated one scroll below...no excuse, i know.  Although they ruled that the section containing 'or other just cause' to be unconstitutional, they upheld the "maintian confidence in the administration of justice" section.  They tend to review these things against the confidence of the public as a whole, not just the confidence of any one individual with a particular view of participants in this war.

In R vs Pearson, the appeal was allowed.  It depends on the circumstances of each case.

Scummy creep or not..names indeed eh, the correct label will come out at trial.  Until then, an accused is entitled to rely on the law for protection against the impulses of the mob, regardless of yours or my thoughts on the war, both of which have been made public on the board, or your general view in particular, of soldiers.  It's not a question of arguing because of a perceived dislike for someone's views on particular issues.  I'm not so sure our views diverge to any substantial degree on certain issues, its more likely the approach.  I'm defending the right of a person to a fair trial, and not this particular individual, within the standard of precedent in Canadian law as I understand it, as opposed to taking up with the lynch mob mentality.  I don't know if he is guilty or not, as you've concluded.  The process is valid, and it should protect everyone equally, although there's a debate in itself as to the equal application of that principle within Canada.

I love how  some posters can commit to name calling happily but when they themselves are called names in return it's all hurt feelings injured egos and "please don't call me names".

Kettle this is pot, radio check over?  =)

I have a question about that soldier accused to 2nd degree murder, where is right now?  (Martin?) When they say freed do they mean he is released from custody and still overseas somewhere or is he at home in Canada?

I admit I havn't had the chance to keep up to date on the facts of this so far, I'll try and bring myself up to speed on it.

I ask because if he is in Canada then  unless he is a member of the military police then there is no reason why he would need to keep his firearm. They get turned ino theweapons lock up.  If he IS a member of the military police though that might change things as they require carrying a sidearm in the lication of their duties.  Still I wonder if a member of the RCMP or OPP or local police force was accused of 2nd degree murder would they have their weapon taken away.

It's interesting how bias works. When that 14 year old Khadar (spelling?) kid was accused of killing the american medic with a hand grenade (typically) people on the right wanted to lock him up and throw away the key, those on the left reminded the right innocent until proven guilty.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. (Not saying I wasn't guilty of the very same thing, I was-just a bit older and able to recognize it now)

Jingles just FYI, we do treat Taliban  the same way we would a recognized military force. We respect all the same rules regulations and such when it comes to the geeneva convetin and rules of land warfare. Not that you believe me of course =)

Due process is never a load of crap. It should apply equally regardless of political spectrum viewpoints. Extremist scorched earth policies on any topic tend to create more problems than are solved, be it domestic justice issues, or international affairs. The Khadr case is a poor example of due process, because of the complete absence of it. We abhor the system that holds him as a hostage to support the political objectives of the extreme right. We should similarly abhor the impulsive influences of the extreme left in matters of judicial fairness. In each instance, the harmful effect on the rights of the individual, and to victims, is at risk because such inclinations create more victims. Instead, the moderate approach is necessary to achieve real solutions that do not create more enemies from the process. If this is what we can expect when emotional radicalism holds sway over policy, then perhaps that is a more appropriate role for an army than interference in foreign affairs, to prevent it from happening. A worthy cause to support and participate in, I believe.

Hey Fidel.

Well we beat them unmercilessly of course. When we go to hand them over to the US we ask "Are you going to abuse these men?" and if they say no, we don't hand them over until they agree to mistreat them of course =)

I'm kidding  with you Fidel.(Though Martin won't believe me I bet)

I'm not sure about your first question, to be honest.  That's a bit of my lanes (Prisoner transfers). If we do detain someone we immediately "push them to the rear". They don stay in the hands of front line guys for very long, it's more a military pilce/NIS show. I like how you threw in the tourture and abusing human rights comments, very leading, very subtle =)

When I say we treat them as a military force I am saying that we give them food, water, medical attention and what not. Quite frankly it's stupid to mistreat prisoners. VERY stupid, not just for humane and ethical reasons. From an "army point of  view- You play punchy face with someone and they're going to tell you WHATEVER they think you want to hear. It's stupid not to. Electrocute or burn or hit etc.. someone and their going to tell you THEY are Osama Binladden.

Sometimes it a catch 22 or paradox (am i using that word right?)

You're a Canadian soldier incharge of a platoon of guys. You catch someone planting an IED or lets just say his ID card says Jonny Taliban.

You want to hand the prisoner er to some local police (thus aiming to validate them as a professional police force) BUT your interputer says "if you hand him over they are going to kill him".

But your orders are to hand all detainee's over to the local police. Do you hand him over to the legal authority, the Afghanan police or keep them?  This is something that Canadian soldiers do encounter. very trick.  But to get back to my origional point Canada does infact apply the Geeneva convention and rules of land warefare etc.. to the Taliban, insurgents, suspected insurgents etc.. We do not treat them differently. I realise how the US views them with regards to Gitmo-bayand ther whole not treating them as a military force is a whole different bag of worms.

Agreed slumberjack, due process should NEVER be over looked. Innocent until proven guilty.

Though...I may not be 100% correct BUt I think in the Military justice system it MAY be different. If you are charged with a crime the onis is on you to prove that you're innocent. Webgear, Loretta, is that fairly accurate?

No, it isn't accurate, although if you've ever witnessed a Summary Trial being conducted, it might appear that way.  Military trials, with a few exceptions built in from a purely military discipline consideration, must be conducted within the Charter and within the precedents set by similar cases within Canadian courts.  For instance, in the civilian context, people usually don't run the risk of loosing their liberty through a subsequent AWOL charge if they don't show up for work on time, yet this sanction is among the possible sentences in a military judicial proceeding.  So while the Charter guides military judges in the way that it does in civilian courts, there are allowances included in the military justice system for purely military offences.  Also, a charge of murder, if it was committed in Canada by a military person, would be handled by the civilian court system under the Criminal code, but the same offence in an operational theatre is handled by the Military system under the National Defence Act.  A review of some of the decisions at the Chief Military Judge website will show how the military conducts trials.

Closing for length, and is that sidescroll I see? Eek.