Out of Afghanistan

Prime minister Harper has said the Canadian combat mission in the country will end in 2011--not just the mission at Kandahar. The latter was what the motion passed in the Commons this March said, which left some wiggle room to take on some sort of major role elsewhere in Afghanistan.

Canada will withdraw the bulk of its military forces in Afghanistan as scheduled in 2011, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper pledged on Wednesday, saying the Afghan government "at some point has to be able to be primarily responsible" for the country's security.

Speaking to reporters at a breakfast briefing in Toronto, Harper said the Canadian public has no appetite to keep soldiers in the war-torn country any longer than the pullout date agreed on by Parliament.

"You have to put an end date on these things," Harper said.

He added that while Canada's military leaders have not acknowledged it publicly, a decade of war is enough.

"By 2011, we will have been in Kandahar, which is probably the toughest province in the country, for six years," Harper said.

"Not only have we done our bit at that point, I think our goal has to be after six years to see the government of Afghanistan able to carry the lion's share of responsibility for its own security.

"At that point, the mission, as we've known it, we intend to end."..

While there may be a few Canadian soldiers who stay on after 2011 as advisers, the bulk of the troops will be home by then, Harper said.

"I don't want to say we won't have a single troop there, because obviously we would aid in some technical capacities," he said.

The prime minister's assurances come as the death toll for Canadians in Afghanistan since troops deployed there in 2002 approaches 100. One Canadian diplomat has also died in the mission.

Taliban insurgents have stepped up their attacks in Afghanistan in the last month, in what they claim is an attempt to influence Canada's federal election.

More:

A candid Harper said the Canadian public — and even the Canadian military — would not want to continue on the mission past the currently scheduled exit date.

“I think we have to say to the government of Afghanistan, we have an expectation that you are going to be responsible for your own security,” he said. “We’re not there to permanently manage your security. We’re there to assist you in building up your capacity to manage the security situation. That’s what we’re working towards.”..

Some initial thoughts. A brilliant domestic political move that will make it virtually impossible for M. Dion to call for an earlier withdrawal if there is a sudden spike in fatalities and if the Liberal election situation looks desperate.

Canadians really do not have the stomach for prolonged combat, even with casualties far below those of other wars we have fought. And I do not think Mr Harper's heart has really been in the mission. His reference to the Canadian Forces may well undermine morale.

The Taliban on the other hand will get a big morale boost; this can only encourage them to try to hit us and wobbly ISAF members (most of them) harder.

The Dutch will almost certainly now stick to their 2010 withdrawal date from Uruzgan province north of Kandahar.

While the rapidly improving Afghan National Army should be in pretty good shape by 2011 it will still need a lot combat assistance, though no-one can now say how much. There is simply no way to judge, and even if the ANA still requires a great deal of help that still doesn't mean that the war cannot eventually be settled on terms favourable to the Afghan government. An arbitrary deadline that takes no account of future developments is an easy out.

Dutch and Canadian withdrawal will leave a very big hole in ISAF Regional Command South, a hole that only the US and UK can fill (perhaps with an increased Australian commitment--they're now in Uruzgan with the Dutch, more below--and, much less likely, something from the French). In fact the two withdrawals will clearly demonstrate that the US and the UK are the only sizeable and committed fighting members of pre-expansion NATO. I can't see how NATO ISAF can continue to command large numbers of American and British combat troops in that situation and expect major changes to the structure and command of foreign forces in Afghanistan. The credibility of NATO will be greatly undermined; I wonder how long it will go on in its present form.

Back to the Aussies:

...

The work being carried out by Australian troops in Afghanistan was dangerous, but essential, [Australian foreign minister] Mr Smith said.

"Work in Afghanistan is hard and difficult and dangerous, but it is, in our view, essential work in the interest of the regional and the international community.

"So Australia is in Afghanistan for the long haul."..

Their military effort may soon be stepped up--see the Upperdate here.

Australians remember the 2002 Islamist Bali bombings and take terrorism seriously. Canadians do not and the government has not convinced them of the significance of Islamist terrorism (it's barely tried). Our media have generally focused on the "death watch" aspect of the mission and ignored what our allies are doing--along with developments in Afghanistan as a whole. End of story.

Unless the Conservatives get a majority, our allies put on an awful lot of pressure, things seem to be going much better at Kandahar and Afghanistan generally...two years are a very long time in politics.

Update: A final thought: from what the prime minister says it would appear that no vital Canadian national interests are involved since we will pull out regardless of whether our goals are achieved or not. Then why are members of the CF fighting and dying for so long?

Upperdate: On the other hand the very political Mr Harper did promise a "Canada First Defence Strategy".

Uppestdate: Hard slog ahead--and the US too is finding it hard to meet the challenge:

The nation's top military officer issued a blunt assessment yesterday of the war in Afghanistan and called for an overhaul in U.S. strategy there, warning that thousands more U.S. troops as well as greater U.S. military involvement across the border in Pakistan's tribal areas are needed to battle an intensifying insurgency.

"I am not convinced that we're winning it in Afghanistan," Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee yesterday. But, he added, "I'm convinced we can."..

"Frankly, we are running out of time," Mullen said, adding that not sending U.S. reinforcements to Afghanistan is "too great a risk to ignore."

He said the new influx of U.S. forces into Afghanistan that Bush announced Tuesday -- an Army brigade and Marine battalion with a total of about 4,500 troops -- does not meet the demands of commanders there [emphasis added: 'A very "quiet surge" indeed' and a rather remarkable public separation from the president], but is "a good start."

...Many NATO countries restrict their troops' combat roles; others have set an end date for their involvement in the war, with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper saying yesterday that all of his country's troops will withdraw in 2011, according to the Associated Press...

As for the president:

Bush Said to Give Orders Allowing Raids in Pakistan

As for the Pakistanis:

Pakistan’s Military Chief Criticizes U.S. Over a Raid

As for the Afghans:

Karzai backs U.S. strategy on militants in Pakistan

Relations in the 'hood are going to get very strained.

Finally, audio of an interview on Afghanistan with Maj.-Gen. (re'td) Lew MacKenzie by Steve Madely, CFRA Ottawa.