No Afstan April Fool

Foreign affairs minister MacKay supplies, at last, a firm timeline for a decision on the future of the Canadian mission:

Canada will advise NATO whether it will extend its combat mission in southern Afghanistan by April of next year, Defence Minister Peter MacKay says...

"There is a NATO meeting in April, 2008," Mr. MacKay said in Orleans, an Ottawa suburb. "It will be necessary to communicate a final decision before that meeting."..

So, unless the Conservatives win an election in the meantime, or enough opposition members (Liberals?) vote against their party to support the government--most unlikely, our combat role will end in February 2009.

What if we do quit? Richard Gwyn of the Toronto Star (surprise!) provides an excellent analysis of the consequences of such a decision, and of a foolish reason to oppose the mission:

...noteworthy is the fact that one principal reason why many Canadians today oppose our involvement in Afghanistan will have vanished by the February departure date.

By then, George W. Bush will no longer be president of the United States. Ever-increasing media attention to the U.S. presidential contest will cause more and more Canadians to realize global power decisions will soon be made by someone else – perhaps by a President Hillary Clinton, but certainly not Bush.

Though it's relatively easy to argue that it's best for us to leave Afghanistan, it's difficult, if not impossible, to argue that our doing so would leave Afghans better off...

If we go, it's virtually certain the Dutch will go. If the Dutch go, the Australians have already said they will go.

In the words of a spokesperson for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, that has "consequences for the whole alliance and for the whole western world."

The solution of course would be a real contribution – a fighting one – by the major NATO nations like Germany, France, Spain and Italy.

A precondition for that solution to be possible would be for Canada to stay. No less so a precondition for Canada to stay would have to be for those nations, at last, to make serious contributions.

It's not about cutting and running. It's about standing back – we've more than contributed our share – and then watching, as the gap we'll leave behind turns into a huge hole into which the entire country eventually tumbles...

But I still can't accept the notion that we pick up our marbles and quit if more players don't join in. If the goal is worth achieving it's worth continuing unless our situation gets much worse and no realistic hope of achieving our goal remains at any reasonable cost.