Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 14th, 2008

Evidence of meeting #14 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was taliban.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Canada's mission in Afghanistan

Committee Business

MPs speaking

Also speaking

General Retired) Paul Manson (President, Conference of Defence Associations

Marc André Boivin Deputy Director, Francophone Research Network on Peace Operations

Seddiq Weera Senior Advisor, Independent National Commission on Strengthening Peace and Senior Policy Advisor, Minister of Education, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, As an Individual

Colonel Retired) Alain Pellerin (Executive Director, Conference of Defence Associations

Kamran Bokhari Director of Middle East Analysis, Strategic Forecasting, Inc

4:15 p.m.

Colonel Retired) Alain Pellerin (Executive Director, Conference of Defence Associations

What is important to understand—and this touches somewhat on what Dr. Martin was asking—is the aspects of our mission that we should change. I believe we have to understand what the mission currently consists in. It has changed a great deal in the past year. I was in Afghanistan last year, and a transition was already underway in the military mission, which was essentially becoming increasingly a mission to train the Afghan armed forces. All that started about a year ago, in February, when the first Afghan battalion arrived, which wasn't prepared for combat and which we trained. There are currently four Afghan battalions of 400 to 500 persons, nearly 3,000 Afghans.

What must be kept in mind, in the case of a counter-insurrection operation, is that there are two important elements: patience and a lot of what we call boots on the ground. Patience eventually leads us to success, and when I say patience, I'm not necessarily thinking of operations such as the one you cited, search and destroy, but rather of operations in which the priority is protecting the population. That's what our Canadian Forces are increasingly doing, at least in the Kandahar region: we're providing a certain degree of security, particularly in two districts, Panjwayi and Zhari, which didn't exist a year ago, for various reasons. One of the reasons is that there are now more Afghan forces on the ground. Consequently, when we push back the Taliban, we can occupy the terrain permanently and ensure the population is secure. The goal isn't necessarily to search and destroy, but rather to ensure that the security perimeter is expanded over the years, months. That's what we've been doing for a year now, but it takes patience and it takes more forces on the ground, whether it be Afghan forces which will eventually be able to take the mission in hand—and that's the goal: to develop that capability—or Canadian Forces or other allies, or both.

Lastly, counter-insurrection operations have worked historically. Think of Malaysia, for example, and Northern Ireland. But on average, it's taken about 14 or 15 years to achieve success. You have to be patient. That doesn't necessarily mean that we'll be in the field for 14 or 15 years. The Afghan forces will eventually be able to take over. They're already doing a good job in the field. Lastly, we have to be patient. It must be borne in mind that the goal isn't necessarily just to destroy Taliban, but also to provide the population with security so that people can continue normal lives.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you, Mr. Pellerin.

Your time is pretty well up.

I'll give you a little more time, Madame Barbot.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC

You say it takes patience. I understand that, but didn't General Hillier know that it took patience when he convinced us to go fight the Taliban? We were told that it would be for a year or two and then it would be over.

4:15 p.m.

Col Alain Pellerin

General Hillier gave the government his military opinion, and it was the government of the time that made the decision, just as the current government or Parliament will decide whether or not to extend the mission. All General Hillier does is provide a military opinion. That's his role.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you, Mr. Pellerin.

We'll move to the government side.

Mr. Obhrai.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB

Thank you very much to all the witnesses for coming.

If I don't ask Alain or Paul any questions, that's fine. I'm going to go to Mr. Weera, because he had a press conference and talked about the peace process.

Mr. Weera, you rightly pointed out that Afghanistan is a land that was fraught by war. There are hardly any institutions there. There are hardly any democratic institutions either. Afghanistan had to start from zero. By the time the international community came, progress had been made in slowly building the democratic institutions of Afghanistan and the rule of law.

You made an excellent statement, that half of the groups that were supposedly fighting are now shouting in the parliament. That is the ultimate objective of the compact. That is why Canada is there. Canada is not there for war. You keep saying war. We are not at war. We are not there to invade Afghanistan. To expect these institutions to be functioning at their best capacity is asking too much.

I notice that you are an advisor to the strengthening of peace and policy to the Government of Afghanistan, so you are in a position to provide what you're telling us. We understand that these are slow processes.

As we have in this motion--and don't worry, we'll be able to change the motion--we, in Canada, are interested in what Canada is going to do over there. We have 2,500 soldiers there. It's not a big contingency if you want to call it a war. We are there to provide security. The most important aspect of that is to build the Afghan army, the police, and the judicial system so that they can take over. Afghanistans have to take over.

Canadians are saying that we are providing security. We are not in a war. We are there to provide that umbrella, as has been pointed out, so that the Afghan people can build. You rightly pointed out that with all these factions arising out of the war and everything else, it's a tough time getting them on the table. You can't talk to the hard-core Taliban, but you can talk to the soft-core Taliban. The old president has already issued a statement saying he is willing to talk. I think all these are steps in the right direction.

We want to see progress. I want to hear from you as to whether progress towards building Afghanistan is taking place slowly but surely and whether it's going in a direction so that Canadians can be assured that their dollars in diplomacy and development, as well as the lives that Canadians have lost, are working toward the people of Afghanistan.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you, Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Weera.

4:20 p.m.

Senior Advisor, Independent National Commission on Strengthening Peace and Senior Policy Advisor, Minister of Education, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, As an Individual

Seddiq Weera

The Canadian contribution is quite significant in Afghanistan. Moving towards institutions that are built and the security that people feel in half or more than half of the country are tangible results.

There is a huge gap that I'm trying to bring to the attention of everyone here. That is the lack of a political process. I'm saying that everything else you do to improve development is good and to improve coordination is very good. To increase troops? There is a question.

I'm saying that without having stability and security, which you can achieve through a political process, the investment might be at least partly wasted. We are losing Canadian lives in Afghanistan. There is $1.2 billion, at least until 2011, being spent with the generous support of the Canadian government, taxpayers' money.

But there is still a counter-insurgency focus, and that focus is going to fail us. Even Manley's report is telling us how we can win the military intervention. It's a military track that we are focusing on only to achieve peace, and I'm saying that you are fighting war on terror in Afghanistan in the wrong way. Isolate the terrorists and bring the Afghans to the political mainstream; for that there is no process.

Karzai announcing and everybody else announcing is not a process. That's not a track. That's a call for surrender. It didn't work in the Communist era. There was a reconciliation in the last years of Soviet-supported government, and it's not going to work now. It's just an invitation: come and join us. It's not asking what are the issues and how can we resolve them, back-and-forth shuttle diplomacy, track-one and track-two documentation.... This is the process that is missing.

The winning side of the civil war is also spending all of its energy protecting themselves from the fear, if the Taliban comes, of what will happen to them: “We are all going to be destroyed, so let's keep the power, let's have wealth, let's keep our positions in the military, in the intelligence.”

Both parties are using their energy for destruction, those who are not terrorists. That's why I'm trying to say the Canadian package is missing an important component. I feel morally obligated to tell the Canadian public that you might lose more of your sons and daughters, more of the many, but the approach without having a political track is not going to bring stability and reconstruction and good governance. Why? I know what assertion means. I'm a researcher. But I do have enough evidence to give me the confidence to make this statement.