What was the Minister of National Defence thinking?

Why did Mr O'Connor say he hopes the US won't reduce troop levels in Afstan as a consequence of the planned "surge" in Iraq. On the same day he said that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff made it clear the US has no intention of reducing troop strength in Afstan and indeed was "open" to raising the strength.

Canada’s defence minister is hoping the United States won’t shift combat troops from Afghanistan to boost its war in Iraq, although America’s top military official says it has no intention of doing so.

Gordon O’Connor said Friday that the possibility of fewer troops in Afghanistan was the main question he had regarding U.S. president George W. Bush’s plan to boost forces in Iraq by 21,500 troops.

"I don’t know if there will be any impact," he said after a speech to the Halifax Chamber of Commerce.

"My hope is they won’t draw any troops away from Afghanistan to reinforce Iraq. . . . That’s the only thing I’d think about."

The chair [that's not the US title - MC] of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff said Friday there’s no plan to reduce its military presence in Afghanistan.

U.S. General Peter Pace, speaking at the Senate armed services committee, said the units going into Iraq "were already in the pipeline and they will be moved forward in the pipeline in a couple of months."

He said there are about 22,500 troops in Afghanistan right now and that won’t change, adding: "We will be able to maintain that."

Pace also testified that if it’s necessary, the U.S. military could draw from the National Guard and reserves to send more troops to Afghanistan...

More:

Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, indicated that he was open to raising troop levels in Afghanistan as well as Iraq. Despite concerns that U.S. land forces are overstretched by their growing commitment in Iraq, the Pentagon could sustain an increase of forces in Afghanistan as well, he said...

The minister's speculation just fuels those eager to blame the US for somehow leaving Canada holding the Afghan bag (and to suggest the mission must fail). Let us see what a reporter at the Toronto Star wrote today:

It's known that Bush's plan to dispatch 21,500 new troops to insurgent-ridden Baghdad and Anbar province means pulling an infantry brigade (up to 1,000 soldiers) out of eastern Afghanistan [how is this "known"? and a brigade is around 3,000]. The timing couldn't be worse, U.S. military officials have told U.S. reporters...

Yet the Afghan front is to be deprived of troops in order to bolster the failed mission in Iraq, says Logan [foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute]: "There has always been an ambiguity of goals in Afghanistan."..

The origin of the US troop reduction idea seems to be this story Jan. 7 in the Baltimore Sun, which is hardly conclusive:

...a U.S. Army infantry battalion [not a brigade, maybe 1,000 max.] fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks in order to deploy to Iraq...

Conway [Marine Corps Commandant] said, he favored dispatching a Marine battalion here, a decision that must be approved by the new defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, and by the president.

"It has to be made pretty soon," Conway said. "We can't jerk the troops around and say, 'Hey, oh, by the way, you're going to Afghanistan in February.'"..

So, given the testimony to the Senate Committee, I would bet that army battalion will be replaced.

On the second page of the Sun story there are some quite critical things about the Canadian military effort.