Afghanistan: Canadians in Action

[davidbfpo]

I am told by another SWC member that cellphone use would not be appropriate, OPSEC aside, there is poor coverage etc. Not sure culturally how Pashtuns would regard speaking via a handset to a strang, remote voice. Any Afghan veterans know?

Technical, cultural and more aspects to consider.

davidbfpo

[Seahorse]

Agreed that there are other aspects to consider and in fact I would expand the concept one step further to consideration of an Avatar based solution which would present a real-lifelike caricature on the phone/PDA to actually interact with the local Afghan. Such Avatars can be tailored right down to the specific tribe and sex and incorporate facial body language and mannerisms to reinforce the interaction.

Cell phones work in the majority of the populated areas and can be augmented to interface with radio or satcom where necessary. As one already mentioned, cellphones were being used so effectively that insurgents began attacking towers. Lastly, there will always be those that decry the operational classification issues but these are mostly invalid arguments. Most classifications are way too restrictive and severely limit the implementation of solutions. Protective solutions exist to safeguard the communication as well and the benefits could far outweigh any classification concerns.

David

[Rex Brynen]

Not sure culturally how Pashtuns would regard speaking via a handset to a strange, remote voice.

I know how Canadians would respond if foreigners with guns made us speak via a handset to a strange, remote voice. It is hard to believe that Afghan reactions would be any more positive.

As an emergency measure it might have some utility, but if it becomes a technological alternative to employing the appropriate number of well-trained interpreters it seems highly problematic.

[Rex Brynen]

Canada complicit in torture of innocent Afghans, diplomat says

Ottawa — From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published on Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2009 10:08PM EST

In a damning indictment of how Canada handled prisoners early in its southern Afghan mission, a government whistleblower says all captives that Canadian soldiers transferred to local authorities ended up being tortured – even though many were likely innocent.

The revelation to MPs by Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin, who served 17 months in Afghanistan, is the first ever testimony by a government official that says the country's military handed over detainees to certain torture.

The Harper government has never admitted it knew this was happening.

In his remarks to a Parliamentary committee on the Afghanistan mission, Mr. Colvin also described a startling pattern of indifference and obstruction to his attempts to warn higher ups of what was happening in 2006 and 2007.

He said Canada's “complicity in torture” ultimately thwarted its military aims in the southern Afghan province of Kandahar.

“Instead of winning hearts and minds, we caused Kandaharis to fear the foreigners. Canada's detainee practices alienated us from the population and strengthened the insurgency.”

On a personal note, I know Richard quite well, and have worked with him in other capacities. He's an outstanding diplomat.

[Rex Brynen]

Conservatives shoot the messenger over torture allegations

Don Martin
National Post
Posted: November 19, 2009

OTTAWA — In an organized smackdown rarely seen in Ottawa, the government turned inward on Thursday to attack a new enemy in its Afghanistan conflict — senior Washington embassy intelligence officer Richard Colvin.

After 15 years of steadily rising through the foreign service ranks, Mr. Colvin now stands accused of being a Taliban stooge, someone so easily duped by torture complaints that he shredded his diplomatic reputation by passing along their accusations.

Mr. Colvin became fodder for such accusations the minute he told MPs that a full year of warnings about detainee torture had been ignored at the highest levels of the military and public service.

He even hinted at tentative, but unproven, connections to the government itself. That made his testimony very, very dangerous — and that’s why the Conservatives have launched a campaign to discredit Mr. Colvin.

But it faces a big problem. Every action by this government to date has only enhanced the diplomat’s credibility.

Mr. Colvin was promoted to the Washington job under a Conservative reign after 16 years of unblemished duty in hotspots like Sri Lanka, Russia, the Palestinian territories and Afghanistan. While serving in Kandahar, he was told his insights were too sensitive to be put in writing, he says. His emails have been declared off limits on national security grounds. And he’s been told to shut up on this file or risk being charged under the Canada Evidence Act.

Those actions all speak to the significance and sensitivity of his input, not the ramblings of a rogue diplomat spreading stories from his imagination.