Afstan: Strategy and negotiations

A thoughtful piece in the Ottawa Citizen; I agree with the conclusion; but I think the bit about "no negotiation" being possible is rather a straw man as clearly some sort of negotiations with some elements of the Taliban will take place--it's not an all or nothing proposition. And clearly foreign troops will be withdrawn in any case if and as the situation improves; nobody just wants to stay there:

...
The choice that faces Canada may come down to whether serious negotiations with some important elements of the Taliban are possible or not. If there is some glimmer of hope that the Taliban, or even some of its factions, may be considering a negotiated alternative, then withdrawal from the combat role may be the worst tactic at this time. If Canada is convinced that no negotiation is possible, then abandoning Afghanistan to its fate may be a sensible option -- although there are no guarantees that it will not again be used as a base for terrorist attacks against the West, thereby requiring us to go back later at even higher cost than today.

But between these two extremes may be a third option, which would be to accept that the February 2009 deadline is an arbitrary one that is relevant to Canadian politics but not to the situation in Afghanistan [emphasis added]. Instead of focusing almost entirely on political issues in Canada, the leaders of all our parties might do well to ask why we are in Afghanistan in the first place and what interests there would be served by a debate that frames the issues around a requirement that we decide today whether we either totally withdraw from or stay in the combat role over a year from now. The training of the Afghan National Army continues and we simply do not know where negotiations with the Taliban, or elements of the Taliban, may be in early 2009.

Perhaps a wiser course would be for Canada and NATO to hold out the prospect of phased withdrawal of combat forces as the situation improves. That may provide an incentive to the Taliban, or its moderate elements.

Peter Jones is associate professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa.

Update: Susan Riley, a Citizen columnist who really does seem to think that PM Harper is a clone of President Bush, inadvertently (I am sure) identifies the sheer absurdity of opposition posturing on Afstan:

If we do have an election over Afghanistan, we would likely end up with another minority. Harper would campaign to send more troops, the opposition would prefer conflict resolution teams and social workers.

Meanwhile, new Foreign Minister Bernier gives a pretty decent defence of the mission and concludes:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said it several times in recent weeks: Any extension of our military mission past February, 2009, must be approved by Parliament. We must pursue this debate as realistic and responsible adults who are aware of our obligations to our allies and to the Afghan people.

Good luck finding "realistic and responsible adults" amongst the opposition.