Afghanistan Committee on June 4th, 2008

[LGen Michel Gauthier]

Unfortunately, my crystal ball isn't terribly clear on that subject. I would not even want to try to make a prediction. Will there be progress? Will we see progress within the population? Will districts become safer than they are today? Absolutely. Will we see functional progress with regard to the capacity of the police, the army, the governance of villages, districts and provinces? Yes, once again. To what extent? I couldn't tell you today.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Okay.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Good day, Mr. Gauthier.

[LGen Michel Gauthier]

Good day, Mr. Bachand.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

How are you?

[LGen Michel Gauthier]

Quite well, thank you.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I have two questions for you.

Robert Gates deployed 3,000 American soldiers in southern Afghanistan. I'd like to know whether there are any changes. Are those American soldiers completely under the jurisdiction of Brigadier-General Thompson at present? You will recall that Robert Gates had said that the Canadian soldiers were taking part in a much more vigorous mission. What this involves isn't necessarily consistent with the Canadian approach. I'd like to know how this integration is working at present.

I have just come back from Valcartier today. No doubt, you have read the Auditor General's report on the supply chain. A number of people there have told me that this was starting to create a significant problem. Soldiers are even cannibalizing other trucks, meaning they are taking parts to use them where they are needed elsewhere. Have you talked with General Benjamin about this? The problem seems to be getting worse, in my opinion, and this is endangering Canada's intervention in Afghanistan.

[LGen Michel Gauthier]

In answer to your first question, I can give you a very clear answer, Mr. Bachand. In fact, there are slightly fewer than 3,000 soldiers. There are two US Marine Corps groups. One is working training the Afghan police and army, and the other, which is a battalion, is working under Major General Lessard. This is regional command south, in Afghanistan. These soldiers are under his orders. They are therefore following his orders. He decides, in cooperation with the commander of ISAF, obviously, what duties they will be assigned. It is clear that they come under the orders of the ISAF chain of command.

With regard to supplies, I don't want to minimize this, but I must say that it is quite challenging. A supply chain that extends 17,000 to 20,000 kilometres is not an easy thing, given all the equipment on the ground in Afghanistan. Every time I go there, and I've been more than 20 times, I ask those questions. In talking with soldiers, I get a very clear picture of their concerns. Every time I come back, I consult my staff—sometimes it's more than consulting—and General Benjamin does the same with his staff, since we work in close collaboration.

We recognize, clearly, that there are challenges, and we do everything we can to overcome them. General Benjamin, who has just come back from Afghanistan, sent me a report on his trip. I saw it this afternoon, but I haven't had the opportunity to read it. The report talks about these problems and the way in which they are being addressed.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

[LGen Michel Gauthier]

No, it is a classified document.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Unfortunately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pierre Lemieux]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to Ms. Black.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming to our committee.

I want to ask you about the evolution of the mission. In 2005, under the previous administration, under Prime Minister Paul Martin, we started under Operation Enduring Freedom before it changed over into the ISAF mission. So it seems to me we've had, since 2005, quite a few years to assess how the mission has evolved.

I wondered if you could talk about that. What changes have you seen in the direction, and what changes have there been to our mission there?

[LGen Michel Gauthier]

That's a really good question. It's a difficult one to answer in a couple of minutes, but I'll do my best.

Back in 2005, of course there were no Canadians in the south of Afghanistan. There was an Operation Enduring Freedom mission, and there were provincial reconstruction teams that were led by Americans in four of the provinces, and there were, essentially, two battalions' worth of troops, one in Zabul province and one in Kandahar province, operating throughout the area together with special forces. Their presence was obviously much less than it is today.

How much they were aware of what was actually happening across the south of Afghanistan back then is not obvious to me, because you don't know what you don't know.

The mission has evolved since then. We've had many, many forces deploying to the south of Afghanistan. NATO assumed command on the 31st of July, 2006. Our engagement was predicated on that, on the fact that there would be a transition to NATO command and that it would be a NATO mission. All we did prior to that was to try to set the conditions for that to happen.

I would say, over time, the larger number of international forces coming into the area, into areas where, quite frankly, there was no presence previously, has certainly attracted the attention of those who oppose the government of Afghanistan, Helman in particular. We call them insurgents, we call them Taliban, but it's more complicated than that. Of course there's a connection to narcotics and a number of other things; it's criminality as well as insurgence.

I referred to the progress as I see it in terms of evolution. I'm not sure if the question was about progress so much as the military footprint on the ground. The military footprint has grown. I would say that governance capacity at the district level and even down to the community level—you may have had a chance to see some of that in Afghanistan during your visits—is much more robust and organized than it was previously, with community development councils and district development assemblies. In some cases, not across the board but in some cases, there is more effective leadership at the district level, more effective leadership at the governance level.

But we still have a tough security environment underlying all the other efforts we're engaged in. The challenge, of course, is to be able to focus sufficiently in those areas where there are greatest prospects of success, so you get synergy between what we're doing on the security front and what we're doing with governance and with development. That's what we will see, I'm pretty confident, in Kandahar province relatively soon.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

My second question deals with a follow-up to Mr. Bachand. The Americans are there now in kind of a surge, similar to what took place in Iraq; that was the idea behind it. Also, there's a lot of speculation about Americans really increasing their involvement in southern Afghanistan. At this point it's just speculation about the long term, because I think the marines who are there now are only guaranteed for seven months or something. It's not for a long time.

From your perspective, if the Americans become much more heavily involved with the ISAF mission in the south, how will that play out with Canada's participation under the NATO banner if the Americans have a much, much larger participation?

The second question is around the surge that's taking place now. What do you think the effect of the surge will be in the long term, not the short term?

[LGen Michel Gauthier]

On the first count, of course, you understand that in Regional Command-East there are large numbers of Americans under ISAF command. There is some interesting reporting that's come out relatively recently. The Economist, I think, this week makes reference to the success of their approach in the east. Of course, there has been some controversy about some public remarks made about some nations versus other nations. I'm certainly not going to go there in terms of responding to that.

Frankly, I look at this incredibly positively. We have objectives. There is some military component to the objectives. There is a broader civilian effect, if I can use that term, to our focus over the next three years. And if we can get more security forces into Kandahar province, that certainly will not be a bad thing. It will be an absolutely positive thing.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

I'm more interested in your opinion on a massive amount of American participation. For NATO, as for any other organization, the numbers, to some extent, give the power. So I'm wondering what your opinion is on the rotation of leadership and how that will affect Canada's mission in Afghanistan, if that should happen.

[LGen Michel Gauthier]

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. It's all speculation at this stage. I'm certainly not concerned about it, I will tell you, as the guy who is overseeing this mission right now. I see only positives in having more troops, more capable troops, deploying.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

What about the surge in the long term?

[LGen Michel Gauthier]

Right. The challenge with the surge is that it needs to be followed up. I think, by and large, when you surge forces in, they're able to disrupt, which doesn't necessarily have a lasting effect. They're able to clear, which doesn't necessarily have a lasting effect, unless you're able to follow it up with a holding capability. Clearly it will be important to get that effect following from whatever it is the marines do, wherever they do it. And that's well understood by commanders on the ground.

It's a matter of picking the right player off the bench to serve the right purposes and to sequence those in the right way to get an enduring effect, as opposed to a temporary effect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Pierre Lemieux]

Thank you very much, General.

We will go over to Mr. Hawn.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, General, for being here.

I'm going to ask three or four quick questions that I'd like fairly quick answers to, if possible, and then I'll turn it over to Mr. Obhrai.

First of all, just following up on Ms. Black's question on the Canadian Forces working with the U.S., how comfortable are you that at the operational level it's pretty seamless? Is that fair to say?

[LGen Michel Gauthier]

It is absolutely seamless, without question. This will be a success story. I can tell you that up and down the chain of command, the prospect--if there is a prospect--of partnering with the U.S. forces.... We're very familiar with them, very interoperable, and like-minded in many ways from a military perspective. It will be good news for Canada and it will be good news for Afghans.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

This goes to a question Mr. Ignatieff asked that you didn't get a chance to answer. You mentioned that our exit strategy is the OMLTs and POMLTs. Is it fair to say that if all that works, the ANSF, the Afghan National Security Forces, will be our replacement in 2011, whether they're quite there or not?

[LGen Michel Gauthier]

Clearly that would be the objective. The ISAF commander, I think, has gone on record as saying that he foresees success in that sense, in that timeframe. I think that will depend. Different formations will be ready at different times. But that clearly is our end state. What we're focused on is building this capability. There's a relatively structured approach to this from a United States perspective, with different capability milestones--to get back to Mr. Ignatieff's question--that you can associate with benchmarks: capability at the company level, capability at the battalion level, capability at the brigade level, numbers, self-sufficiency, and being able to lead operations. These are all things we are tracking now. And we're seeing progress.