The blurring of the lines between NGO aid, both the supplies and the workers, and the military functions of 'peacekeeping' soldiers must not be done. The Afghan experience of MSF tells the tale.

For three decades MSF was able to operate in Afghanistan, including during and after the Soviet invasion, with tanks and helicopters and 100,000's of soldiers. MSF stood alone, and away from the Soviets, they steadfastly delivered their compassionate care and were respected by both sides for it.

Now enter the West into Afganistan, using militias and elite specialists from the Rangers and marines. Through some sort of demented reasoning they have tried to conduct 'compassionate' operations. Afghanis have seen what these soldiers do, they will not be tricked. Afghanis used ruthless and all or nothing tactics to push out the Soviet empire, while at the same time accepting the aid and services of MSF. The western troops and thier twisted aid will be dealt with using the same ruthlessness that was used on the Soviets, MSF saw the writing on the wall and left, as they represented (suddenly) the softest target.

All you will be left with is a mess of further pain, suffering, or subjugation and obsequiousness for the peoples of the lands that such 'blended peacemaking' comes to.

The 'unethical' argument of Dallaire of 'paying out food' for passage is nonsense. The Canadian Government had been 'paying for access' with Tax dollars for years to the Rwandan Government (which used the cash to line their pockets, live fabulous lives and stash away money anywhere they could). So his military presence was given passage into Government controlled areas. He was left stuck with nothing to support his presence when push came to shove in Rwanda, due to the sluggishness of the Government Controlled aid.

The answer lies in more separation, not more collective action. More co-ordination, such as not sending military action into areas where aid has been concentrated, causing mass panics and sweeping aid camps away in the process and destroying much needed aid and more important the delicate trust needed to establish the aid in the first place.

I agree with General Dallaire re: looking for opportunities for cooperation between aid, foreign affairs and the military.

This is currently under way with some experimental programs in Afghanistan. For example, CIDA and foreign affairs are working together with Canadian Forces on a community development program which provides funding (and, I believe, micro-credit) to poppy farmers to encourage them to switch crops. They require the security component because opium smugglers rely on farmers' dependence and lack of choices -- they get very upset & violent when the farmers have access to credit and support to switch to producing food.

Clearly this approach isn't universally applicable, but I am very interested to see if this pilot project yields results unattainable by CIDA, foreign affairs and the Canadian Forces operating separately.

Murdock writes:

This is uninformed drivel. It is absolute nonsense that average Afganis are not receptive to the reconstruction work done by PRTs, or even the small community projects done by ISAF troops. I follow Afghanistan's progress daily and hear only the exact opposite.

Even if this were true, it would still not address the issue of attacks on MSF, which is obviously not part of the military.

It is not the 'Afghan communities' attacking NGOs - it is the militant remants of the Taliban regime that wish to prevent the evolution of the nation since this would prevent any chance of an eventual return to power. These groups most certainly do not represent the Afghan's people desire to rebuild and improve their communities.

The point made by MSF and other NGOs is not that "the people" will turn on them - it is that they do not wish to be caught in the middle between UN forces and insurgent elements, no matter how small or unrepresentative these elements may be. By 'taking sides', they feel that they become targets.

I can understand this point and believe that in 'some situations' there may be some true to it. However I do not believe that either Afghanistan or Iraq, (where all but a few Iraqi-run NGOs have been driven out), proves anything in general. Through their tactics, these groups have made it clear that that will kill anyone in an effort to destabilize nation-building efforts. Doctors, teachers, academics, schools, markets and mosques are all fair game, so not for a moment do I believe that they would respect the 'neutrality' of NGOs.

The ruthless strategies of these groups are more extreme than in most previous intervention scenarios. Therefore I do not believe one can simply blame the expanded humanitarian mission of ISAF for all the violence against NGOs anymore than you can claim the killing of religious leaders and the many other tactics that were also not used in previous conflicts.

In general, I agree with Dallaire that the evolution of aid, security and nation-building requires more integration and cooperation between all groups - particularly when their activities are interconnected. As part of this, it is also necessary for more organization between NGO's themselves. It is a far too common occurrance for aid to be provided excessively in some areas while other areas go weeks or months with none at all. This happened after the Asian tsumani and in other recent disasters. These failure are partly due to the 'competition' between NGOs mentioned in the article, and partly due to the lack of any large scale logistical planning.

I don't think enough information yet exists for anyone to definitively say one way that NGOs will be seriously hampered by cooperating with security forces. I think we need to try it in more normal situations first. Sudan might be a much more representative example for such cooperation since security is such an issue there.

Just my opinion.

For Kevin Dalman,

I have been reading many accounts, and have had first hand experience in having rocket grenades fired at the aircraft I was flying in over Africa.

A friend who is still serving in the Canadian forces, related the story to me and asked for news of coverage here. So far Tyee and Globe and Mail (inner pages) were the only places I have seen much in Canada about the confusing situation in Afghanistan.

You state that I am uninformed, perhaps you should read these for some more perspective yourself:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3931995.stm
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/publications/ideas/oneyear.cfm
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/afghanphotos/intro.html

Five of her colleagues are dead, many more put in danger and her agency's work in Afghanistan shattered after the remnants of the Islamist regime accused MSF of collaborating with US-led forces.

The aid agency has been in Afghanistan since 1980 ? through the Soviet occupation, the mujahideen resistance, the Taliban's rule and the US-led war to end it.

Today, however, MSF announced the "heartbreaking" decision to pull out of Afghanistan, only the second time the agency has been forced to abandon a country (the first was North Korea). The agency's 80 international staff will leave by the end of August. Its 1,400 local staff will lose their jobs.

The decision came nearly two months after her co-workers' vehicle was returned riddled with bullets and shrapnel from a grenade.

The ambush in the north-western province of Badghis came as a shock to MSF. The security situation in Afghanistan had been deteriorating, with 32 aid workers killed since March 2003, but most of the violence took place in Taliban strongholds in the south and east, and there was no obvious motive for the attack.

More to the point, MSF had never in its 30-year history been targeted in such a way. The agency had always been careful to stress its complete impartiality, refusing to accept money from any government and carrying on its medical aid work regardless of the regime in power.

Drawing on what the Afghan government had told her, Hawkins did not believe the Taliban assassinated her colleagues, despite their claim of responsibility. She was angry and frustrated at the government's failure to arrest anyone, even though officials in Kabul told MSF they believed they knew who was responsible.

Even if the government lacked the authority to arrest the local commanders they say killed her five colleagues, she said, they could at least have stated publicly that they were murder suspects.

"Without doubt, those with influence in Badghis know who did this," she said. The government in Kabul, she feels, lacked the will to act on their knowledge.

Ten days after the attack, the Taliban accused MSF of spying for US-led forces, throwing into doubt the safety of MSF staff both in Afghanistan and in some of the 80 other countries where the agency still operates. In response, MSF has already scaled back operations in Pakistan ? pulling out 25 of its international staff and confining the remaining five to Islamabad ? and has concerns about its operations in Iraq and Somalia.

"When we're directly accused in this way, it makes our position in the country very difficult to sustain," Hawkins said.

see part 2

Continued:

The US-led coalition has made the situation worse by blurring the line between humanitarian work and military operations. During the war in 2001, Hawkins said, US soldiers were driving around in civilian clothes in white cars, taking on the appearance of humanitarian aid workers. In May, the Pentagon was forced to apologise for dropping leaflets in southern Afghanistan which promised humanitarian assistance if local people gave the coalition information about the Taliban and al-Qaida.

She despaired that military campaigns were employing "hearts and minds" strategies more and more often, making it difficult for aid workers to maintain their aura of all-important impartiality. If armies are handing out food assistance and medical equipment, it becomes harder for locals to tell the aid workers from the occupiers.

Iraq was a prime example of this, she said. The campaign was branded as a humanitarian mission ? to remove a tyrant suppressing the Iraqi people's human rights ? from the beginning. With foreigners and Iraqis being targeted over the most mundane connections to US forces, the strategy puts legitimate aid workers with no political connections in danger.

With MSF gone, the Afghan people who relied on them for medical help could face a journey of up to a day to receive treatment from scarce ministry of health clinics. Given the social position of women in Afghanistan, that journey could prove impossible for them, Hawkins admitted.

Hawkins said that a credible investigation from the Afghan government would be one prerequisite for the agency's return to Afghanistan. But an apology from the Taliban is key, she said. Unless they withdraw the accusation, she does not see how MSF can return.

"They are a party to this conflict and we are looking for them to respect the fact that we are there to do medical work and nothing else," she said.

My own family doctor was in Afghanistan for 6 months in 1998, she was never threatened in any way. She said until the american actions began that she would go back again.

Now?

"No way, the military / civil confusion is going to bring it to disaster." Was her answer in 2003 christmastime. I have not spoken to her about this since.

The balance to be struck to effectively deliver aid cannot be done the way the US led forces are trying to do it.

An elder navy friend of mine who was serving during Vietnam indicated that they (the US) tried this during the late 1960's and early 1970's there (in Vietnam), but because they were also seen as partly responsible for the harm their efforts to fix anything were seen as 'suspect'.

see part 3

continued from part 2:

Now the US are at it again

Last April, for example, US planes began dropping leaflets in southern Afghanistan demanding that people pass on any relevant information regarding the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or Hekmatyar to the coalition forces in order to "continue receiving humanitarian aid."

"The deliberate linking of humanitarian aid with military objectives destroys the meaning of humanitarianism," asserts Nelke Manders, head of MSF's Afghanistan mission. "It will result, in the end, in the neediest Afghans not getting badly needed aid - and those providing aid being targeted."

The spreading violence is seriously hampering reconstruction projects and forcing aid groups, such as the International Red Cross and UN agencies, to limit or close their operations. Many expatriates are being pulled out of the country or being restricted to Kabul.

These military / civil mixed actions are have zero effect no more than 5 km outside of Kabul or Khandahar. This is from an eyewitness CANADIAN soldier, who sees that he is repeating the mistakes of Vietnam (for he had an uncle that served there) and is doing all he can to make the time bearable until he can get back out.

The premise is good, the thought is good, it is the mixing of MILITARY force with the efforts that will be the failure of the design.

Would you accept medicine/food/anything from a man with a gun at your front door?

Knowing that 10 minutes after he was gone the next column of US troops may decide that your refusal means you are Al-Queida?

Would you take medicine/food/anything from an unarmed aid worker, who has been giving that aid for decades to your community and not presented any danger?

What if suddenly those aid workers were from the countries or places where the dangerous soldiers were coming from?

Food for thought.

see part 4

continued from part 3 (final thoughts)

The fear is that the lack of effective international commitment toward improving security will lead to further conflict - even to a collapse of the country's fragile recovery. There is also concern that the world has already begun walking away from Afghanistan, just as the West did following the Soviet withdrawal.

Afghanistan offers no quick or politically expedient solutions. Nor can its security predicament be resolved by military intervention alone. What is needed is a long-term, dedicated, and imaginative commitment that involves nationwide peacekeeping and recovery. If not, as has occurred with the reappearance of Hekmatyar, the West can expect to pay for its lack of vision for years to come.

The point I was after in the first post was that the SOVIETS were forced out, at a time when they were willing to send in 100,000's of troops, tanks and helicopters to enforce thier efforts. Where do we think the US-led forces are ever going to come up with more than that?

Sending in more force or making assistance have a price tag (such as acceptance of another country as your ruler) that is too much to bear will not have the leaders of Afghanistan or anywhere else wanting that aid, much less those who are trying to force it down their throats.

An open hand is needed here, not a closed fist.

Murdock, Your post is filled with the very facts I noted. And I obviously am well aware of MSF's losses and opinions.

Of course they publicly acused them of being 'collaborators'. This is terrorist tactics 101. In some cases I believe it is a factor, but in both Afghanistan and Iraq, recent attacks make it clear that the insuregent groups do not 'require' collaboration for targetting NGOs, or anyone else for that matter.

These the 'facts' of the issue. The 'opinions' offered are those of MSF. As I said previously, there are 'some situations' where this is an issue - particularly for MSF's operation. It is fantastic that MSF is often the first NGO into some areas and that they can work safely all alone. However food aid is much harder to deliver without adequate security. There is a lot more material to move and much of it is stolen, bargained away, or even if it makes it all the way, ends up being controlled by warlords or other groups. "Food security" is a major issue. In fact food, poverty and security are usually tightly intertwined.

The world does not revolve around what is 'most convenient' for MSF. If Canadian troops have to help rebuild Afghanistan to both help Afghans advance and win their trust and support, then so be it. It is just as important, if not more so, that security issues are dealt with effectively. When security breaks down, things can get a lot worse than just a couple of NGOs leaving.

These are not simple black and white issues. No single strategy is likely to be the best in all situations. And just because MSF has an 'opinion' as relates to their specific situation, that doesn't 'prove' anything to the larger issue. It is just one piece in a much larger and more complex puzzle. Neither aid or security operations are optimal now, and both need to keep up with an ever-changing world.

The west is 'forcing aid down Afghan's throats'? Really? If you say so. This is not the topic.

I will say that some like BC Mary, I find Dallaire's suggestiion intriguing. Though I would want to know a hell of a lot more, and much of it from a lot more NGOs' perspectives.

Also, this country yet needs to develop a more coherent and nation serving military policy first, than that currently tied through formal alliances to serving the interests of US imperialism, unfortunately, too often acting behind the cover of UN missions and the catchall "feel good" warm and fuzziness of peacekeeping. (Haiti, the Baltic states, Afghanistan etc.)

This country's military is regrettably compromised, in my view. It is not so much a national army serving national interests, as it is a quasi-colonial military adjunct serving primarily US interests and subject to US command and control, through the nature of the alliance structures in which it is enmeshed. And this has been noted by a number of academics and military policy researchers, even within the officer training structures. (Names escape me, and I'm lazy. Though see sources below by way of one's own research starting point on this subjest.) It's not entirely that simple, of course, but goddamn close. And that is how it's seen around the world, and likely for that reason more than any other, of dubiouw values to foreign aid NGOs, I would think. (Though they might be reluctant to state that up front, for fear of complicating their missions, by earning the wrath of both the Canada and US parties.)

If the Canadian military is going to serve the role suggested by General Dallaire, for whom I otherwise have a great deal of respect as a well meaning person, this country first has to get better control of the Canadian military, and especially its officer corp which is most compromised , and be sure that it is actually serving the national interests of this country, over that of The Empire, with whom its chain of command especially is too intimately integrated.

Otherwise, assuming once the national security of Canada is first adequately served, our shores, airspace and territory secured against ONE AND ALL, and we still decide that there is an international peacekeepiing mission we can serve, outside the interests of The Empire and toadying to those, NGOs have a right to be concerned that we will compromise the objectivity and neutrality of their missions and roles in the world.

This too close and toadying a connection to the US Empire this country has, taints and colours everything we do in the world, and even the effectiveness of the role served by our military at home.

Check out these sites as part of one's own research project:

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue51/articles/51_50-51.pdf

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411C.html

Good piece above, Murdock.

The premise of the original article was the mixing of armed force and NGO aid.

That presents the image of forcing aid to my eyes, and clearly to the eyes of those who attacked MSF, the leaders of MSF, the Red Cross and the UN Humanitarian officers who have all left Afghanistan.

Of course the world does not revolve around what is best for MSF, but that is not the point of the article either...or is it?

If the aid workers from the NGO's cannot feel safe to do their work, they will not go to the 'new' hotspots or dangerous places because the lunatic mixed military/civil PRT's are there.
This is the entire point of the article.

So long as the blended military/civil mess is going on, then so long the other NGO's will stay away. This is the point = the military functions should not be combined in any way with the direct aid functions.

Interesting articles Coyote.

Though related to the discussion they are on a bit of a tangent.

Only a small bit of a tangent though, considering Canada has had no new 'official' white paper on National Defence since 1991. Officially we are still fighting the cold war.

The NORTHCOM efforts are a direct result of having no official direction for the Canadian Military.

Long ago BC became part of The Dominion of Canada, to avoid US 'manifest destiny.'
Now Canada is letting 'manifest destiny' become a reality.

The discussion of our military position has long been a topic of great interest to Gen. Lewis MacKenzie (ret.), I take far more from what he has had to say on the military functions and actions that anything Dallaire would have to say.

True, Murdock, which links I posted only to further make the point that this country's military is clearly unsuited to any "humanitarian" role, for it lacks the "detachment/ objectivity" to be able to do so.

I know from my own ancient experience in the Canadian military ,even having seen it up close in Vietnam in the late 50s, from a low ranked position to be sure, whilst Canada served on the International Joint Commission overseeing an early attempt to end "foreign" interference there and bring peace to that troubled place and people, we, at one and the same time, also played certainly an enabling and blind eye role for the US military buildup nonetheless-, going on at the same time. And the tainted role of this country and its military has only gotten worse and more compromised ever since, vis a vis the rising US Empire, for then it was still early in the process, with much genuflecting still going on towards Great Britain and its Empire-, whose sun that was never to set was finally in fact setting.

The point being, as these two linked articles I posted help make clear, this country and its military are ill suited in fact to any serious peacekeeping or humanitarian roles tied to the neutrality needs of NGOs attempting to operate "in theatre". It is much yet still to be discovered and admitted in this country, of course, where there is still much a tendency to see ourselves in a flattering mirror and light, but we are not much taken seriously abroad I think, as a power of any seriously independant strength or committment. Not really. Save from those for whom we have something they want, or are immediately desparate enough that they will take help from any quarter, even from one tied to an imperial interest with a covetous eye on their geography and/or resources.

No. Were I an NGO with a serious humanitarian interest in assisting needy parts of the world, I would not want to be seen standing too close to this country politically or its military especially. (And sometimes in the course of such things, I'm sure, NGOs for safety and effectiveness have to make deals with all kinds of Devils. No respect intended to Dallaires recent book at all.)

The should read, "No disrespect intended to Dallaires recent book at all."

Dalman has shredded Murdock's objections already, but one of them still could use a good flogging:

"Would you take medicine/food/anything from an unarmed aid worker, who has been giving that aid for decades to your community and not presented any danger?

"What if suddenly those aid workers were from the countries or places where the dangerous soldiers were coming from?"

Good grief.

Aid has not "suddenly" come from the West. Compassionate outreach has ever come from generous Westerners, like your family doctor who went to Afghanistan.

Where did the major human rights monitors come from???

Amnesty International: Britain.
Human Rights Watch: USA.
MSF: France.
Red Cross/Crescent: Switzerland.
Oxfam: Britain.
Transparency International: Germany.

If this is coming in under the flag of Western militaristic hegemony, then that's a pretty amazingly inspiring flag.

Now, I'm pretty sure your doctor did not go as an apologist for manifest destiny, or for that matter, for Abu Gharib, secularized Christendom, free market capitalism, and Paris Hilton.

But even if he had, none of that stuff has ever deterred people from trying to migrate here.

Odd, that. Strange that so many people should have such a desperate desire to bring their families to the nasty, dangerous West.

Finally, let's turn it around. Say you are a person who, despite coming from the evil West, has, like millions of other thuggish Westerners, founded an NGO. The Denton program offers you free access to conflict zones in the spare cargo areas of US military planes. Do you take it?

Well, actually it is not strange at all. Entiely understandable, in fact. Many people from states throughout the ancient Roman occupied world, for example, fled to Rome. It was the only place at the time in which one had at least a slim chance of prospering and staying safe from Rome's slave gathering Legions. Ditto throughout the history of Empires and their effect on subject nations and peoples. The Land of Opportunity is always in the Imperial Occupiers Heartland. It's what imperialism is fundamentally about.

(The safest place to be is typically within the heartland of a major and successful imperialist state. Though its all relative. Witness the ghettoized third world slums in France, in revolt as we speak, Britain and Germany, seedbeds of Al Quaida's operations in the west, and the marginalized third world ghettoes in this country and the US, still to be heard from. Keeping in mind, the perpetrators of 911 had all long lived within the United States itself, likely in just such marginalized ghettoes reserved for Middle East immigrants, I would venture. Though they might also have been the neighbour of such a person as yourself.)

You really do need to dig deeper and study real history more, Yammer, and develop a stronger critical thinking capacity, rather than simply cut and paste your views from neocon wingnut web sites. It is only the shallowness of your analysis that is strange and startling.

What is that noise? Should I ignore it?

Oh, let's play, it is a Saturday.

OK, Coyote. You caught me cutting and pasting!

Or...have you? Demonstrate my "cut and paste" in this post, or in any other.

While Coyote is doing that, other readers are implored to read a neocon wingnut website: Newsmax.

Isn't it freaky?

But I think it is good to read this, to know what the dittoheads think, as it is to read the old-timey conservatives (Buchanan), as it is to read the ZNET Chomsky archive, the New York Times, rabble, the tyee, canada.com, and amnesty.org, FAIR, etcetera etcetera.

If you can do that, then you can appreciate that every one of these folks thinks themselves sane and correct, and not evil and bullying.

Who is "right"? Well, given the microscopic rarity of truly "unique" opinion, the correct test is reasonableness, not whether it too closely resembles any particular pundit.

Reasonableness is a sensible interpretation of facts. My own view is that the most persuasive documentation comes from primary sources, so the human rights reporters have the most weight.

After reading these for any amount of time, the reasonable conclusion is that the Western countries lead the way in every conceivable measure of civility, aid, and freedom.

If this is "neo-con" thinking, it's not my fault.

p.s. Coyote, stop looking now. It was trick assignment. I have never cut and pasted from a neocon.

p.p.s. You do know that I respect your views, don't you? I am rarely given to expressing hostility generally and have not done so to you, to my knowledge. If are reacting to a forgotten (by me) personal slight, then I apologize.

Yammer,

I accept your comments above at face value. Though you ever do seem to come out on the status quo side of issues.

It is necessary, however, that you understand for my adult life to now, when it is of late just beginning to show signs of changing, my analysis and views, as well as those of similar outlook, have tended to be on the outside of the accepted norms within this society, and which has tended to push me/us to the outside margins of things, including within the labour movement. Which I am not really complaining about, because I really do understand that is the way of things very often over such times as these in history. It has, however, tended to make me quite aggressive and not infrequently combative with those with whom I disagree. I will concede that.

I will, however, keep your statement above in mind when I challenge your perceptions of things from now on, and moderate my prickly nature some. (Which is also an "old man" thing. :-)

All that said, with respect, I suggest that you need to make an effort to get beyond the sometimes surface appearance and propagandistic explanations of social, political and economic phenomena that often comes out of "official" explanations and the ruling class media. For you do effectively wind up, consistently, on the neocon side of debate-, which is a little, oooo, again disconcerting to find coming out of a self-proclaimed working class person, if I recall correctly from previous descriptions about yourself that you have made. (And I do understand that working class folks, modern wage slaves, like the slaves of old no less, frequently seek to ameliorate the conditions of their lives by unquestioningly accepting and mouthing those things and ideas which will find favour with The Masah. It becomes so habitual, in fact, that one can actually start to think that they are one's own ideas. Been there and done that myself in certain compromising situations. Ehhh, I had mouths to feed.)

Nonetheless, I will endeavour to treat your views with greater respectful seriousness in future-, so long as you do that of others here, for you exhude your own style of mocking and ridicule very often here.

Coyote,

I don't post to insult people. I post to inflict my viewpoint on others. I am not much for using bandwidth simply to agree. Perhaps my phrasing is cutting. It is meant to be persuasive and is assumed to be for a highly informed and literate readership.

The trigger for my posting is never ideological. It is because I think a salient point is being missed.

Given the nature of the Tyee readership, it may seem that "status quo" points are being made more often than not.

But on a site with a principally old-fashioned readership, I have been their resident pinko, commie, bleeding-heart.

As for the accusation of kowtowing to Massah: I acknowledge that everyone is subject to influence and intimidation, and may subconsciously tailor their comments to suit the people in power.

Nonetheless, I have always based my comments on respected human rights reporters, rarely on state sources, and NEVER on American official policy or because of a blanket pro-Americanism.
You can search these indices all you like.

I don't think that we are that much different. We're both trying to be independent and iconoclastic voices. But I also see Massah in the left, especially the current pacifist left that sneers at poppies, the Iraq war, and the businesses that enslave them (and pay their doles).

Jezus Murphy. All that time and money wasted.

Why study, when you can cover everything by just reciting Left, Right ... Left, Right ... Left bad, Right good ... Left bad, Right good ... bad, good ... bad, good ... left bad, left bad, (skip) left bad ... are you following me? are we havin' any fun yet?

Before throwing in another 2-cents worth, I want to make the point that points can be made on both sides of the "cooperation" debate, but no one can know for sure until it is actually tried in various scenarios.

I do not accept this premise. IMO, there are many more cases where we take dissenting views in the UN than there are times that we go against the mainstream western opinion to favor an exclusively US view. The reason it appears that Canada (and everyone else) follows US policy is because major UN missions rarely happen with US backing. This is why I support a stronger Canadian military, so that we, in cooperation with others, can have enough capability and confidence to undertake UN missions without the US. But I see this as our failure (Canada, Europe, etc) - not theirs.

As for our military integration with the US, that is going to continue here just as it will in Europe and other regions. Does there need to be debate about how it is done? Of course. But I consider claims that our 'sovereignty' is about to be lost to be more fear-mongering than constructive dialog.

I think this is way off-base. The positions of NGOs like MSF is not specific to the US or Canada, or to Afghanistan. They simple want to maintain the illusion of being 'neutral'. Obviously in some instances there is benefit to this, but the debate is whether this is ALWAYS necessary - or if SOME situations, like UN nation-building missions, could benefit from a more unified approach.

BULL! I have never heard MSF or any group claim this means aid would be "forced" on people. It is also a misrepresentation that Dallaire suggests "replacing" NGOs or that the military should "control" aid. Plus no one has suggested that ALL humanitarian aid should be done through PRTs. This alos is a baseless exaggeration that distorts the debate.

While NGOs' mandate may be single-mindedly focussed on delivering aid, the larger mandate must be to stabilize and rebuild the state so it eventually becomes self-sufficient. We don't want permanent welfare states, or to have political and security problems continue or return in a few years time.

From the security perspective, it IS often vital the people understand that military forces are part of the overall humanitarian mission. NGOs may like to feel morally superior and present themselves as 'the good guys' while the soldiers are relegated to being 'occupiers', but this is not in the best interests of a UN mission. Just look at Somalia - virtually all NGOs had to flee when the UN forces pulled out, and the state has stood frozen in time since. Had different tactics been used, perhaps the warlords would not have been able to control the aid and then paint the UN as a purely military presence. This may have prevented the cycle that resulted in a return of the US military and everything that followed.

Only time will tell what is successful. Will the PRT experiment work well in Afghanistan. We will see.

The argument is still postulated that the US-led missions involving the PRT's are doing more of a witholding of aid, again I quote:

This is the 'forcing' of aid that I am talking about, this is aid with a kind of price tag that cannot be attached. This is the linkage of force that sent MSF packing out of Afghanistan after three decades of being in there during the worst of the Soviet periods.

The Soviets tried all of these different means, what they could not do was subvert the MSF since NONE of their troops came from a country that the MSF sends doctors from. The US-led mission is seen as different, whether it is, or is not the image of 'linkage' is there in the minds and thoughts of the locals. Now caught in-between the average Afghani will, nay must chose to stay away from those NGO's that 'appear' to be connected to the US-led forces. Co-operation with them (the NGO's) will be seen by the militant side as co-operation with the US military, thus they become a target. This same poor Afghani, now starts to look like an Al-Quida supporter to the US-led troops since he will not take their aid.

This is exactly the same no-win situation the US created in south Vietnam!

Unless we read and understand our own history we will repeat the same mistakes.

I understand the conservative (not political party but concept) view that states the 'aid' (food/medical/technical) must only be supplied once stability is assured. Since the locals cannot assure the stability, then we (the US-led forces) must supply the stability. The problem is that those very forces (which are supposed to provide the 'stability') cannot do that job, they are not trained for it, they have NEVER I repeat NEVER trained for these jobs, nor does the temperment of the troops allow them to perform it correctly.

If 'reconstruction' is needed, then let the NGO's conduct it without military oversight. Let the NGO's work with Afghani's on THEIR terms, not OURS.

Once again the open hand, not the closed fist.

Yammer asks

Were I an NGO from here in CANADA, no.

Were I an NGO from Asia, Japan, or any Muslim country or firm, possibly.

Why possibly, because the NGO's from those parts of the world have not been 'part of the problems of the past or present' in Afghanistan, giving them a chance at breaking through the perception barrier. The 'possible' part comes from the decision to enter the locale via US-led means and thereby ruin your chance at neutrality.

In the past (1970's and 1980's) in Africa, the UN-led missions all had UN painted aircraft, even though the airframes were all still 'owned' be the militaries of the member nations that contributed them, those aircraft got re-painted in UN white with BIG BLUE LETTERS UN on them. Now come the 1990's and 'restraint' issues, money is cut back and the repainting does not happen. Instead they stick on a little blue & white UN sticker on the nose and tail of the planes. Now as those same aircaft that 20 years earlier (I AM NOT KIDDING IT WAS THE SAME C-130's) had flown into African conflict zones without interference as white UN planes were starting to be SHOT AT by nearly everybody. Whether they knew what the aircraft was or NOT they shot at them, with small arms, rockets, grenade launchers and AAA.

What is needed is for the UN to return to its function as the neutral go-between, the only problem is that the UN has lost its way, the UN's 'teeth' are all rotted away and its bones are all full of rickets. Dalliare and his contemporaries (I am one of them) want a return to a time that cannot be gone back to, not unless or until the US pays its 'back taxes' to the UN and returns to respecting the 'former' position of the UN and its organizations. Sadly the UN must also clean up its corruption before anyone else will follow the UN leadership as well.

Welcome to the brave new world everyone, make sure you are prepared to accept hegemony or fight for your own liberties.

Yes and do that on your own too.

It seems to me that the terms 'nation building' and 'holistic' were key in the article. The point being that, in spite of differences between the various parties' ideologies, levels of greed and corruption, and methodologies the basic goal is to unify.

The military's traditional way of accomplishing that is to wipe out the other views by making large holes in everything available; people, buildings, cultures, everything.

They are essentially ineffective and untrustworthy for two reasons; one- the only thing that keeps them in control is their own tradition of honour while they are sworn to serve politicians who are known to have none, and two- if they are successful they reduce the variety of people, the variety of ideas, and the number of opportunities to try different directions. This is a very counter-evolutionary thing.

To work, unification must involve integration. All the various ways of going about our lives must be embraced and accomodated. This means that the military has to be brought in to the main stream of the society. How better to do this than to require them to bend their efforts toward the real work of repairing the structures they have such skill at destroying?

Security is the keystone, but security doesn't mean forcing everyone to agree with one view or be killed. It means making it safe for everybody to express their own views, try their own solutions, and succeed or fail according to the qualities of their own characters.

Murdock, you continue to try to paint the debate in the context of ONE country and situation - Afghanistan.

Why not use Somalia instead? TNGOs were helpless both before and after UN troops were in-country. That 'military' mission saved hundreds of thousands of lives, something the NGOs were unable to do alone. But when the NGO aid was again allowed to be subverted by warlords, it ended up in chaos and anarchy.

This is more empty rhetoric.

First, NGOs generally do not do 'reconstruction'[/U], beyond simple projects like wells. This is the point! The current situation is that there is often no coordination between reconstruction projects and humanitarian aid, even though we KNOW from experience that the two can compliment each other. This is what Dallaire is talking about.

Second, I am not swayed by empty rhetoric like "THEIR term, not OURS" or "open hand, not closed fist" - it has no basis in reality. Large-scale reconstruction is EXACTLY the kind of thing that requires the cooperation and logistics being discussed.

Third, your repeated premise that aid is "forced" on people who don't want it is absurd and baseless. Give some examples.

Fourth, insurgents target all kinds of reconstruction projects, including infrastructure like power, water and sanitation? It makes no difference 'who' works on them - they just want civilians to suffer and become frustrated. Again, terrorism 101. Plus they are having trouble finding contractors to do some jobs because of the security situation. Why do you think Canadian troops are part of the PRT (Provincial Reconstruction Team)? They aren't there to dig ditches, they are there to provide security. This is why it is called a "team".

Where did you get this from? Its nonsense. The only time this is true is when aid CANNOT be safely delivered due to security, which is not uncommon.

This is BULLSHIT. Other than US forces, most western militaries train extensively for UN peace-keeping and humanitarian missions. This includes Canada's military. Ever heard of DART? Do you think these are not 'real soldiers'?

You reference to 'temperment' is also exaggerated. Canadian soldiers are very capable of performing humanitarian missions - and have many times. If you want to compare 'temperment' with NGO staff, then put them into a combat situation where it is kill or be killed - then tell me how 'well tempered' they are. Or how about the NGO staff recently charged with raping and extorting sex from those they are supposed to be helping? There are bad apples in every profession - don't pretend isolated incidents represent the norm.

{ Mucked up the formatting! }

Murdock, you continue to try to paint the debate in the context of ONE country and situation - Afghanistan.

Why not use Somalia instead? There NGOs were helpless both before and after UN troops were in-country. That 'military' mission saved hundreds of thousands of lives, something the NGOs were unable to do alone. But when the NGO aid was again allowed to be subverted by warlords, it ended up in chaos and anarchy.

This is more empty rhetoric.

First, NGOs generally do not do 'reconstruction', beyond simple projects like wells. This is the point! The current situation is that there is often no coordination between reconstruction projects and humanitarian aid, even though we KNOW from experience that the two can compliment each other. This is what Dallaire is talking about.

Second, I am not swayed by empty rhetoric like "THEIR terms, not OURS" or "open hand, not closed fist" - it has no basis in reality. Large-scale reconstruction is EXACTLY the kind of thing that requires the cooperation and logistics being discussed.

Third, your repeated premise that aid is "forced" on people who don't want it is baseless.

Fourth, insurgents target all kinds of reconstruction projects, including infrastructure like power, water and sanitation? It makes no difference 'who' works on them - they just want civilians to suffer and become frustrated. Again, terrorism 101. Plus they are having trouble finding contractors to do some jobs because of the security situation. Why do you think Canadian troops are part of the PRT (Provincial Reconstruction Team)? They aren't there to dig ditches, they are there to provide security. This is why it is called a "team".

The only reason 'poor Afghans' will stay away from aid is if there is inadequate security. You also imply that al-Qaeda sympathizers refuse aid - they don't - they need food and medicine like everyone else. The calculus in driving out NGOs is that they do not want 'the population' to get aid so that they can maniplulate and channel their anger at not getting sufficient aid. And in cases where they really believe that NGOs are 'spys', then the motive is this, and NOT that they refuse aid out of principle.

Where did you get this from? Its nonsense. The only time this is true is when aid CANNOT be safely delivered due to security, which is not uncommon.

This is BULLSHIT. Other than US forces (who are not part of reconstruction projects), most western militaries train extensively for UN peace-keeping and humanitarian missions. This includes Canada's military. Ever heard of DART? Do you think these are not 'real soldiers'?

You reference to 'temperment' is also exaggerated. Canadian soldiers are very capable of performing humanitarian missions - and have many times. If you want to compare 'temperment' with NGO staff, then put them into a combat situation where it is kill or be killed - then tell me how 'well tempered' they are.

Or how about the NGO staff recently charged with raping and extorting sex from those they are supposed to be helping? There are bad apples in every profession - don't pretend isolated incidents represent the norm.

Murdock writes:

I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about here.

The LAST THING we need is a UN that goes back to being nothing more than a talk-shop. The UN has never had any "teeth" - that has been one of its biggest problems! Dallaire and 'his contemporaries' DO NOT want to return to anything like that. In fact, Dallaire is a huge supporter of the exact opposite.

There is very little demand for traditional 'peace-keeping' in today's world. What is in dire need is more robust mandates for UN missions - something you will hear Dallaire explain constantly. For example, the UN presence in Rwanda was a 'peace-keeping' or 'monitoring' mission. This means they had both hand tied behind their backs and could not nothing unless personally attacked. This means that UN soldiers had to stand by as rebels went into a school and pull out all the students. Then they had to watch as they made a game out of hacking off the heads of each and every child. This is your UN 'of old'. Are you impressed? Proud? Or are you embarrassed and ashamed as I am?

The mission in Sudan today is hampered by exactly the same restrictions. They really cannot do a damn thing to stop attacks on civilians, even if it happens right in front of them. This is why Dallaire is so vocal about calling not only for more military support for the African troops in the form of equipment and logistics, but also for giving them the mandate required to actually accomplish something concrete towards improving security.

By the way, the US paid all its UN dues years ago - soon after 9/11. As for 'respect', the US attitude towards the UN is little different today than it has always been. This particular US adminstration has spouted a lot of rhetoric on the topic, but they will soon be gone - and real terms, they haven't been that much different anyway. Let's remember that it was during the Clinton years that the US stopped paying their UN dues.

I agree 100% that the UN needs to improve, but going backwards is no solution and I know of no one that thinks it is. I have been waiting 30-years for the UN to get some 'teeth' and to start intervening when and where needed - like Rwanda and Sudan. I am encouraged by changing attitudes like those set out in "The Responsibility to Protect" and the expanding role of "Peace Enforcement" and "Peace Keeping". It is almost more than I expected - assuming it is not just words.

I am also encouraged by recent ideas for the UN to create a large emergency fund so that it can respond to emerging humanitarian crisis BEFORE it hits western television screens. I'd like to see a lot more improvements to the UN's independance and ability to be pro-active . This is where having other countries like Canada being willing and able to contribute troops to missions is important - it reduces reliance on the US. I'd like to see more expanded support for regional forces like the African Union and West/South Africa Peacekeeping forces.

I guess I am way off-topic here. Time for me to cut-out.

For Kevin Dalman,

Your views of what our military soldiers are doing in Afghanistan appear to be somewhat skewed.

See this article here on The Tyee:
http://www.thetyee.ca/Views/2005/11/15/LawsOfWar

You also try to take the discussion away from Afghanistan, saying:

Why not use Somalia instead? There NGOs were helpless both before and after UN troops were in-country.

The opening of the ORIGINAL article was about NGO's and PRT's in AFGHANISTAN, so I shall not change the subject, but only respond to your comment with the same line.

USE AN OPEN HAND - NOT A CLOSED FIST.

The open hand is better represented by NGO's like MSF, the closed fist right now is Globo-Cop, the US-led military anything.

If we want to change the view of these PRT's, we need them to have NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE US MILITARY, the association is ruining the reputation we have built since 1969 and doing no one in the areas we are sending the aid to any lasting good.