What more Canadians need to understand

Rosie explains the ramifications of the Liberal position regarding Afghanistan in stark, simple terms. No spin and nuance required here. Politicians are trying to sell Canadians a bill of goods that they won't have to pay, the troops will.

Dion's ploy will get soldiers killed

Feb 11, 2008 04:30 AM
Rosie DiManno

Number of Canadian troops killed in combat in Afghanistan last year: 0.

This would be the combat component of the mission that Liberal leader Stéphane Dion wants ended by next February and upon which he seems prepared to trigger a national election that Canadians don't want.

Number of Canadian troops killed by improvised explosive devises in Afghanistan in 2007: 12.

Number of Canadian troops killed by roadside bombs and land mines in 2007: 11.

The last Canadian casualty in conventional combat – died fighting – came during the latter stages of Operation Medusa, four servicemen perishing during a ground offensive on Sept. 3, 2006.

Since that time, there have been deaths in rollovers, helicopter crashes, suicide bombings and accidents but none from aggressively engaging the enemy.

If Liberals are trying to spare Canadian lives – by venturing passively, ducking into calmer territory and promoting reconstruction in the absence of a secure environment – an anti-combat insistence is utterly without merit.

But it might get Canadian troops killed. An enemy that knows troops won't fight back, can't fight back because of political handcuffs slapped on half a world away, is an enemy given a blood-embossed invitation to attack at will.

An enemy that knows – as the neo-Taliban command indisputably does – how undermining a rash of killings would be in the midst of a federal election here, would predictably target Canadian troops with renewed vigour. It serves their purpose if an alarmed electorate casts ballots in favour of the get-somewhat-out party.

This is as stupid, tactically, as giving the Taliban an exact withdrawal date.