I'm a little more sanguine about that report. It sounds to me like the NGOs are getting pissed that govt's are doing they're work, and perhaps actually making it happen. I have to wonder if the Taliban are hitting out at reconstruction a la PPLI because they are actually building schools, rather than the PPP of NGOs (promising, posturing, posing). Its hard to view the statements from NGOs with any equanimity. They have fouled their own nests so badly by themselves and with the aid of the UN, its difficult to give them any credence at all. The unintended consequences of "The Baghdad Brigade" perhaps?

I was going to say that "It was not that long ago!" that we had some posts on the arrogant posturing and interference of the NGO's in Afstan as well as in the Indian Ocean regions where the Tsunami disaster needed to be cleaned up.....just last year.
The international agencies were sitting on supplies and actually interfering with military resources that were in place.
This echoes the same theme. Having learned the lesson I would hope that NATO forces would keep the NGO's at bay ...it's the only way things are going to get done.
I ditto SKIP's comments.

That it was self-serving crossed my mind as well. However, it may still be true that the Afghans on the ground are confused by the crossover.

I'd agree with the above posts - the complaint is self-serving. If the non-military aid agencies had been constructive agents in the past, their role would not have to be taken over by the military, who could indeed be confined to security.

The problem is, with the implosion of, in particular, the UN, to a corrupt unaccountable international Gang of Thieves, the aid agencies are no longer constructive. They actually have aligned themselves, in many cases, with the terrorists and militant groups.

The view of the military may be:

"If this costs us dead soldiers and big resources, we'd better ensure the construction gets done."

Which would pretty much exclude both UN controlled and haphazard civilian agencies, likely unable to organise an orgy in a whorehouse, let alone large projects in a combat zone. IMHO.

Is it actual results we want, or are we willing to chance failures?

I agree that the role of our soldiers is to be soldiers... i.e. provide protection and security. And I certainly agree if the military could provide perfect (or near perfect) security there would be no need for them to be involved directly in reconstruction.

However, it is the reconstruction and everything that comes with it (like education for girls) that poses the greatest threat to the Taliban. The people involved in it would be targets anyway. Members of the Taliban have hauled Afghani civilians out of their houses and killed them for being involved in educating girls. They were not at all "confused" about what they were doing. If they are willing to kill Western soldiers and Afghani civilians what on earth would make any rational person think Western civilians would somehow be sacrosanct?

Now you could debate tactics on this point. Do you spend ALL your military resources establishing security? If you are successful then the civilian reconstruction teams can operate easily, but if you are not those teams are nice juicy targets for the Taliban.

OR

Do you take a more pragmatic approach? Do you spend some of your military resources "hardening" those targets? Which means many of those services will be delivered by members of the military. It may mean that your perfect (or near perfect) security is less likely or significantly delayed. Tough call, but you'd also have to take into account the good will generated among the local population by having our military be seen to be involved in the reconstruction efforts. That could help immeasurably in intelligence gathering etc.

Since these NGOs aren’t exactly the people you go to for advice on military strategy and tactics, I have to think that they have another agenda in mind. Namely they want the military to pursue the course of action that allows them (the NGOs) to get their accolades. But you don’t make military decisions based on whether or not you happen to be stealing thunder from a civilian group.

The arguement may simply come down to what kind of war do you want; A Politically Correct War; or a good'ol war where the job is to completely destroy the enemy. You may not be able to do both at once. In fact, when has any western nation done both at once... Iraq? Vietnam? Somalia?

The NGO's are of course self-serving in their comments; that's a given. But, they do bring neutrality to a greater degree than does the military. A school built by a consortium of aid agencies is not a school built by the "occupiers". Keep in mind, that under the Taliban that aid agencies were allowed a remarkable amount of freedom. It was, after all, only foreign female doctors who were allowed to aid Afghan females and children.

One pragmatic point is that soldiers involved in "construction" are the most vulnerable to attack. They are, in fact, sitting ducks. The arguement can be made that if all resources were put into hardcore all out warfare for a couple of years, there may not be any Taliban to worry about.

Have you ever thought, that for war hardened people, "hearts and minds" go to the biggest bad ass in town... not the well digger. Who cares if you build a school, if a can of gas can burn it down in one night. Who cares if you dig a well, if a "night letter" appears on your door and warns you that using it will cost you your life. Life, is the number one commodity... and only destruction of the Taliban can bring that... not wells.

Could it be that we are seeing "hearts and minds" from a western perspective and through a do-good "progressive" perspective? Could it be, that we are so "progressive" that we can't see our soldiers just as soldiers... whose primary task is security... period.

Hardcore pragmatic reasoning, as proposed by a number of pundits, says that Afghans will first and foremost chose the military winner... the strong man... simply because they must. They've seen Russians, British, War Lords, and Drug Lords come and go ... they are bound to choose the winner, not the cuddly Canuck with the blanket. So let's win the battle first; later... we can dig wells, or better yet, let the NGO's do it.

Dion is a citizen of France.

Is Dion mouthing French foreign policy?

Does France's President Chirac approve?

...-

DION SEEKS NEW STRATEGY FOR AFGHANISTAN

Coming out of his first caucus meeting as federal Liberal leader on Monday, Stephane Dion said he wanted to develop a new strategy for Afghanistan. "What we are doing now is not working," Dion said.

He added that he was interested in proposing a multi-nation approach comparable to the Marshall Plan, the U.S. strategy for rebuilding the allied countries of Europe and repelling communism after the Second World War. (national newswatch)

Maybe its time for NGO's to accept the fact that 'Aid' is not seen as neutral by everyone, and if they want to stay in business they may have to accept higher risks to do their missions. This will probably result in NGO casualties, but if soldiers can sacrifice to bring peace to Afghanistan, I don't see why aid workers shouldn't bear some share of that risk. It would be curious though, to see if the MSM would cover THOSE ramp ceremonies.

DION SEEKS NEW STRATEGY FOR AFGHANISTAN

maz2:

This is the "Iraq Part Deux" strategy, trying to build on the Dem position south of the 49th parallel.

I thought the libs hate "American" ideas?

Debris Trail says: "So let's win the battle first; later... we can dig wells, or better yet, let the NGO's do it."

Van Doos grunts must be great well drillers; that is what they are there to do. Bien sur.

Are the Van Doos grunts happy to be named to drill wells? Peu de valeur.
...-

Over 100 soldiers from CFB Valcartier leave for Afghanistan

QUEBEC (CP) - A contingent of 120 soldiers from Canadian Forces Base Valcartier near Quebec City leaves today for Afghanistan. (cnews)

...-

debris trail, I agree with your comments. There is a lesson of history that applies here. During the battle of Britain, if my historical reading serves me correctly, the Luftwaff began the battle with the correct tactics. They used fighters and fighter bombers to attack airfields and destroy Brit fighters on the ground. The Luft bomber crews got so upset with their seemingly vulnerability to Brit fighters that they suceeded in having the fighters ordered to escort them on bombing runs, thus enabling the Brits to build an effective fighter defense.

I couldn't help but notice that during his victory speech, le grand mouse had Mr. Critien standing directly behind him. Same old, same old.

Soldiers have been building roads in foreign countries for hundreds of years. And the Taliban do not debate the finer lines of combatant/non-combatant.

A comprehensive and compelling counter-analysis by Babbling Brooks at "The Torch":

"First aid"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/12/first-aid.html

Mark
Ottawa

Update: Unlike the GG, M. Dion did not actively apply for French nationality:
www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060901.wdion/BNStory/National/?pageRequested=all

"Mr. Dion's mother, Denyse, was a real-estate agent. Born in Paris, she gave her children their dual citizenship; Léon Dion would joke he was the only one in the household to be solely Canadian.

(Mr. Dion does not have a French passport and has not voted in a French election, his staff says.).."

Nonetheless, he should renounce French citizenship (h/t to my wife who Googled better, independently of me).

Mark
Ottawa

Update: Unlike the GG, M. Dion did not actively apply for French nationality:
www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060901.wdion/BNStory/National/?pageRequested=all

"Mr. Dion's mother, Denyse, was a real-estate agent. Born in Paris, she gave her children their dual citizenship; Léon Dion would joke he was the only one in the household to be solely Canadian.

(Mr. Dion does not have a French passport and has not voted in a French election, his staff says.).."

Nonetheless, he should renounce French citizenship (h/t to my wife who Googled better, independently of me).

Mark
Ottawa

Update: Unlike the GG, M. Dion did not actively apply for French nationality:
http:www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060901.wdion/BNStory/National/?pageRequested=all

"Mr. Dion's mother, Denyse, was a real-estate agent. Born in Paris, she gave her children their dual citizenship; Léon Dion would joke he was the only one in the household to be solely Canadian.

(Mr. Dion does not have a French passport and has not voted in a French election, his staff says.).."

Nonetheless, he should renounce French citizenship (h/t to my wife who Googled better, independently of me).

Mark
Ottawa

Serious apologies for multiple stuff on the wrong thread. Mea culpa.

Mark
Ottawa

"In life, there are only two things that are truly worthy of a man's attention: WAR and POLITICS."- Napolean
I am hereby offering to fix machines,(that is what I do)- and hump lumps,( whatever has to be done), in Afstan- any takers? (Kate has my number- feel free to contact me.)
In return, I want, ( and my employer supplies it): A Para-Ordnance CCW handgun. (CCW stands for 'carrying a concealed weapon')
Log onto the Para-ord.com website, and check it out for yourself. (Pleeze, Santa!)

The Taliban don't give a rats ass who is doing the rebuilding. The fact that rebuilding is going on at all is an affront to their vision of Afghanistan as a pure 14th century ideological backwater where they can continue to keep the unwashed masses ignorant, uneducated, and sequestered from the rest of the world.

The Taliban don't give a rats ass who is doing the rebuilding. The fact that rebuilding is going on at all is an affront to their vision of Afghanistan as a pure 14th century ideological backwater where they can continue to keep the unwashed masses ignorant, uneducated, and sequestered from the rest of the world.

Bingo, Zip. And the real key is that ordinary Afghans do care about the rebuilding. They want food on the table and their kid not to die of a simple cough this winter. Oh, and most of them seem to want their daughters to be able to read, even though they're devout Muslims. If we can help them achieve the basic lifestyle they dream of, they'll tell the Taliban to take a flying leap.

THIS IS BULL! I have studied and discussed the argument that soldiers should be soldiers and NGO's pass around the buns, but it isn't gonna work anymore. The military effort to appease through humanitarian efforts has worked in the past (Hearts and minds campaigns in colonial Malaya and the Philippines) and it is working in Afghanistan. Look at the areas that the Canadian military is pumping money into for aid work, and where soldiers are concentrating on aid work. That is the peaceful area, but up in Kandahar where the boys are unfortunately being shipped home in boxes from, the aid is weak. This needs to be reversed, also the military is the only group that can distribute aid the such a volatile region. I know that aid workers have been killed since militaries have started doing it, but even the original mandate of Doctors without boarders was to work side by side with the military. People need to actually research before they write statements like this. And start looking in academic literature, because this issue is being widely debated and written about as we speak in campuses all over the country.

Further to this discussion:

toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/12/first-aid.html

and more from Cjunk:

cjunk.blogspot.com/2006/12/two-modes-of-war-harsh-reality.html