Thank you.
Here's what you had to say about the SATA. I'll read it in English:
...it is a team of strategic planners that has been assigned to the Presidency to assist in the development of the kinds of plans necessary to achieve the vision described earlier in this paper.
That's what we were talking about a few minutes ago.
In short, it applies generalist military planning skills to the solution of civilian problems. SATA is an Afghanistan-Canadian bilateral arrangement that does not come under the command of either ISAF or the U.S.-led coalition. Instead, the team leader takes his direction from the senior economic advisor to the President, in consultation with both the Canadian Ambassador and head of aid, and its operational focus is squarely in the other two pillars.
I have many questions about this. We're always hearing how our forces' mission is becoming far too defensive in its approach. Now I learn that the SATA is comprised of military planners who are trying to resolve civilian problems. I have a problem with this and I have three related questions for you. Perhaps you could jot them down and then answer all three in quick succession.
First of all, how do you feel about military planning as an approach to resolving civilian problems?
Secondly, bilateral arrangements between Canada and the United States seem to suggest that Canada will be pulling out of the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF. If in fact the ISFA, which is now in total control of Afghanistan, adopts a certain position, the SATA could well argue that it doesn't have to go along with what NATO Command is saying.
Thirdly, why target these two pillars? You've just said that Foreign Affairs should have responsibility for one of the pillars, and CIDA, responsibility for another. Now, we're hearing that the two can be replaced by the SATA committee, which endorses President Karzaï's decisions.
These are my three questions.