Afstan: Dutch putting Canada in a pickle

Looks like the Dutch government will agree to an extension of their mission's combat role in Uruzgan; then diplomatic guns will be turned on Canada:

Canadians would do well to watch closely as Holland juggles the hot political potato of whether or not to withdraw from Afghanistan. Because the scalding question, according to Dutch military and political insiders, will soon be burning holes in Ottawa's lap.

Although it is not yet official, it is now clear the Dutch cabinet is girding reluctantly for the renewal of its controversial military deployment to fractious southern Afghanistan. The decision is expected to be made public later this month, sources tell the Toronto Star, despite the widespread misgivings of the Dutch public, only 30 per cent of whom favour the extension.

The final formula for renewal remains unclear, as Dutch politicians scramble to claim at least symbolic support from NATO allies thus far unwilling to tread the increasingly dangerous Uruzgan sector. But an extension is taking shape – and once the decision is made, Canada is expected to begin feeling the full intensity of international pressure the Netherlands has withstood these past months...

"The Netherlands is in the very unlucky position of being the first that must take the decision on whether or not to extend. And the agony of that is that we realize the question is bigger than Afghanistan itself," said Frank van Kappen, a senior analyst with the Hague Centre for Strategic Studies and a security consultant to NATO.

"The fear, the worry, is that the country that is first to walk away will become the scapegoat, with a huge mark on the debit side. Because if Holland leaves, it could trigger a process where Canada pulls out, and then Australia pulls out. And then, in the void, basically NATO fails. And if NATO fails, the United Nations fails," he said.

"Those are the stakes, because we are not talking just about Afghanistan but also about the model for conflicts to come. If this mission fails, you damage the capacity of the international community to deal with the future because the only instruments we have will be seen to have failed."..

Now why doesn't our government make an argument along those lines? After all an essential pillar of Canadian foreign and defence policy is supposed to be collective security.

Should we bug out of combat in 2009 (even under the government's first option), some speculation on who might replace us:

Whatever the panel recommends, Canada's policy will remain a hostage to negotiations with our NATO allies. Options one, two and three all require another country or countries to take over Canada's place on the line in Kandahar.

The most logical candidates are the British, who have just announced they are drawing down their force in Iraq and may withdraw their 5,000 troops completely by the end of next year. At the same time, there are reports of extra troops and equipment being sent to Helmand province in Afghanistan.

British General David Richards downplayed expectations that a surge in British forces would allow the Canadians to withdraw from a combat role.

"I'm aware of the speculation here, but we need what we're putting in there to make sure we succeed in the task we've currently got (in Helmand). There is no intention of picking up other people's responsibilities," he said...

Note that word: "responsibilities". And I still find it odd that a British Labour government--whatever more it may or may not yet do in Afstan--still treats the issue much more seriously and intelligently than our Conservative government (our opposition parties are simply farcical, when not downright disgraceful).