The prevailing view is called "gloomy". Why? I suppose because the mission is so worthwhile and virtuous by the lights of this National Post reporter! Perhaps the author is correct that Canada might continue with a non-combat role. However, even a non-combat role is in effect bolstering a Western established government with a prime minister who has to be defended by US contractor security guards!
Canada could shift combat role
Afghan Mission May Trade Within NATO Alliance
John Ivison
National Post
Saturday, September 08, 2007
The gloomy but prevailing view of Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan is that it will end when the current mandate runs its course in February, 2009, at which point no other country will take our place in the line and Kandahar province will slide back into chaos.
It seems all but certain Canada will notify its NATO allies that it will not renew its combat commitment in the dangerous southern province. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is expected to provide more details on a parliamentary vote in next month's Throne Speech.
It is understood he plans to indicate that his governing party will back a motion ending the mission in its current form, in a bid to secure support for the speech from Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe and neutralize Afghanistan as an election wedge issue.
But government sources in Ottawa are far more optimistic about finding another country to rotate into Kandahar than the received wisdom might suggest.
The feeling is that Canada can credibly argue the NATO alliance should be a division of labour and that, 18 months from now, it will be time to trade a combat role for another that concentrates on institution building.
Recent international developments suggest this may not just be wishful thinking on Ottawa's part. The British have started drawing down troop levels in Iraq, amid speculation that the new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is keen to get out of the "bad war" (Iraq) and redeploy resources to the "good war" (Afghanistan).
One source said he viewed the British draw-down in Iraq as "significant" and characterized the conversations between NATO allies at the moment as "fairly fluid."
Also, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said last week that it was France's "duty" to step up efforts in Afghanistan as part of the fight against Islamist terrorism.
"Sarkozy accepts there is a degree of moral commitment to Afghanistan and if there is a moral commitment, a country may have to do difficult things and pay a price for that commitment," said one insider.
Still, there is no doubt that the ending of combat missions by Canada and the Netherlands, which is mulling whether to pull out its 1,500 troops next year, will pose a serious test for NATO.
The strain was apparent in comments made in London this week by Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO's Secretary-General, who expressed his disappointment that some members will not send troops to the south -- a veiled criticism of Germany, France, Italy and Spain.
He said members should show more solidarity and that he would applaud the French if they decided to rejoin the alliance's military structure. (France rejoined NATO's military command in 1993, after leaving in 1966, but remains outside the formal integrated structure).
If and when Canadian forces do redeploy from Kandahar, potential roles could include bolstering the rule of law --Canada has already helped train police, judges and prosecutors, as well as building correctional facilities -- or helping to manage the Afghan-Pakistan border crossing.
One government source said rotating out of Kandahar would not be a sign that Canada had lost its stomach for the fight against terrorism. "We can walk out of Afghanistan with our heads held high. We've been leaders and carried more than our weight," he said.
jivison@nationalpost.com
© National Post 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment