Future military options for Canada in Afstan

Four proposals from an academic:

...
For Canada...2009 may be crucial. Although 2011 seems far off, we'll soon have to decide whether to continue our Afghan engagement, and in what form if we do. NATO is already planning for the arrival of new U.S. forces in Kandahar. If we wish to carve out specific responsibilities for ourselves, we'll need to make a claim to them, probably before 2010.

Such decisions, however, presuppose serious public debate in Canada over the next year [emphasis added--see this post, "Afstan and Canadian public discourse"], informed by the evolving circumstances of the mission.

Apart from withdrawing our 2,700-strong contingent or simply continuing the existing deployment, four other options should be examined:

1. Move Canadian troops to safer parts of Afghanistan (although this is not where NATO forces are most needed).

2. Focus our military mission on Kandahar city and the strategically important districts of Panjwai and Zhari (which may be possible with a reduced force of about 1,800 soldiers, including support elements).

3. Keep only a garrison in Kandahar city to provide security for residents and Canadian development officials (requiring a few hundred soldiers, including support elements).

4. Shift entirely to a training mission for Afghan army and police units (the risks should not be underestimated, since trainers typically accompany their units on operations).

But first, we must decide whether it's in Canada's interest to remain in Afghanistan at all. We have no obligation to make further sacrifices, particularly if the mission's prospects do not improve. But the costs of allowing Afghanistan to collapse back into civil war would be enormous – for regional security (the stability of nuclear-armed Pakistan is at stake), for our own security (as we learned in the 1990s when al-Qaeda used Afghanistan as a base for global attacks), and not least for ordinary Afghans, who have suffered through decades of war.

Roland Paris is director of the Centre for International Policy Studies and associate professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa.

Another military option I raised some three weeks ago:

...
Thoughts for after 2011. How about keeping the PRT and a fair number of troops to mentor the ANA. But focus the mission on the Air Force, using the CH-47Ds and also new build CH-47Fs as and when we ever get them, Griffons, Heron UAVs, and C-17s and C-130Js to support our force and allies. Troops at KAF to provide force protection and support the mentors in the field when necessary, with required armour, and some JTF2 too. Probably a maximum of around 1,000 from the Army (about what the Aussies now have). No real idea of Air Force numbers but should be I imagine in the mid-hundreds actually in country (then there's Camp Mirage).

That would be a significant and useful contribution that the CF should be able to implement, and that I think would be welcomed by NATO and President Obama. I don't see why, in principle, the Canadian public could not be convinced to go along.

Moving from Kandahar would be very expensive and forgo all the local knowledge and familiarity acquired.

Update: The greater Air Force role now:

Joint Task Force Afghanistan Air Wing