ICOS/Senlis Report On Afghanistan Flawed Methodology

An international think tank is being cited in the media as having reported that the Taliban now has a permanent presence in 72 per cent of Afghanistan “as the Taliban continues to expand its territorial influence”. The report by the International Council on Security and Development [formerly the Senlis Council] says that it’s up from 54% last year. Some of the other frightening developments say that Kabul is under siege, the current ISAF forces are woefully inadequate [true], and “the Taliban has rooted itself across increasing swathes of Afghan territory.” “The Taliban are now dictating terms in Afghanistan, both politically and militarily,” said the report.

Now, I don’t have reason to believe the Senlis Council has a partisan bias or intent to spread propaganda for the Taliban as suggested by Ron Hoffmann:

“On one hand, the report points to the effectiveness of the Taliban propaganda efforts. But I have to say that whenever a Senlis report comes out, it must be a red letter day for the Taliban propaganda machine,” Ron Hoffmann, Canada’s ambassador to Afghanistan, told The Canadian Press from Afghanistan.

They supported John Manley’s multipartisan recommendations to the Prime Minister during the assessment of the Afghan mission early this year. They also believe the solutions to the military conflict include an increase in NATO troops to quell the violence. No, what seems to be flawed here is their methodology:

It defined permanent presence as being the site of at least one insurgent attack each week.

[...]

The ICOS said “the West is in genuine danger of losing Afghanistan” and that the Taliban is gaining support because of poppy eradication, continued poverty and civilian casualties.

It recommends a doubling of NATO forces and more aid programs along, with greater efforts by the West to cut down on civilian casualties in the fighting.

I don’t see anything partisan or propaganda about that, but I think it’s safe to say that one insurgent attack per week does not constitute a control of territory. Brigadier-General Denis Thompson estimates insurgent groups command no more than 20 per cent of support from the Afghan people and disputes the claims made by ICOS/Senlis. Also from the comments of CTV, the true story from the boots on the ground:

A Canadian In kandahar,

I am there now. I call b******* on the report! I can show you first hand we are killing them at least 100 to our 1. I also shake hands daily with the local population and look them square in the eye. They want to win, and they are on our side. However, more Troops will show the local population, and the Taliban, that we are serious about securing Afghanistan and rebuilding its country!

I don’t think we should be shunning the ICOS evaluation as propaganda, but using their recommendations as a means to promote the mission among NATO nation members and reminding this country of the imperative of success and the importance of finding some stability and security for the country. The fact is that much of the Taliban’s “presence” is based on nothing more than intimidation and IED’s. Canadian soldiers are never beaten in armed combat against the Taliban, nor are there reports they fight them openly very often. This is a guerrilla insurgency, and by using the methodology that one insurgent strike per week is what constitutes an area of “permanent presence” is not helpful to the true assessment of the situation.

addthis_url=”; addthis_title=”; addthis_pub=’raphaelalexander’;

Dion Finally Done Like Dinner, But With Leftovers

So apparently Stephane Dion, the would-be King of Canada’s coalition, has grace[insert your preferred suffix here]ly stepped aside to allow the Liberal leadership to come down to two possible outcomes. You have your choice of also-ran exhibit A or also-ran exhibit B from the Liberal leadership race from 2006. Stephen Taylor now posits whether it is more advantageous for Michael Ignatieff to scuttle the coalition, or take his own chances of sitting on the unelected throne. This latest development leaves Bob Rae in a precarious position of choosing between joining the coalition now as a caucus member doomed to step aside for Michael Ignatieff, or else insist upon the leadership race proceeding as directed by the party’s constitution, but possibly queering the deal for the coalition:

This late development means that Bob Rae, who is beating a path coast-to-coast promoting the coalition concept, finds himself further behind now that Ignatieff enjoys an even more comfortable lead among caucus colleagues. Somewhat ironic is the fact that the coalition deal was struck out of a sense of urgency (or opportunity) to topple the Harper government and that this sense of urgency is also driving the Liberal party to select a leader via caucus selection. Strategically, Rae should now advocate for a period of Liberal introspection, an abandonment of the push to a coalition with the Bloc and to have a real (yet delegated) full-blown leadership election. As it stands, Rae would fare worse under the urgent scenario than that which allows the Prime Minister to stay in power for now.

It seems the obvious direction the Liberals are proceeding in would be the one that least displays the democratic principles they hold such favour to. I mean, if Dominic LeBlanc’s sidestep isn’t based upon a strategic move to install Michael Ignatieff then I have a 9/11 conspiracy theory I’d like to sell you. And now it’s Bob Rae left to “take one for the team” and step aside with some convenient and tidy excuse [sickness in the family?] in order to complete the appointment of Michael Ignatieff.

It seems certain, then, that Mr.LeBlanc and Professeur Dion’s departures are based upon a grand strategy. But what path does that strategy lead down? The strengthening of the Liberal brand for a possible election showdown between Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff? Or another turn at pitch and toss to get Iggy to lead the coalition to usurping power when they defeat the Conservative budget on January 27, 2009? If a poll by Angus Reid is any indication, the Liberals may want to take their chances in another election with Iggy behind the wheel [but another poll suggests the public would be unconvinced by a coalition government led by Michael Ignatieff].

In the end it may be ironic that the Liberals who claim that the coalition represents the democratic interests of the voting public will appoint a leader post-haste in order to be able to appear united when they make their decision on January 27. One only wonders whether the Canadian voters will be receptive to a new leader who arrived in the leadership by falling into the hole that his predecessor dug.

RELATED

Calgary Grit: Iggy hits up the faithful for cash.

Daimnation!: Four days ago the Liberal party was united behind Dion becoming Prime Minister. Today he resigns to applause.

addthis_url=”; addthis_title=”; addthis_pub=’raphaelalexander’;