Afstan shocker! Canadian troops could stay

St. Steve Staples and Prof. Michael Byers--my favourite evil twins (see second part at this post) and strident opponents of Canada's mission, now seem to accept a possible Canadian military role (e.g. training) if the combat role ends in 2011. Moreover they do not make their usual demand for an end to NATO/US combat operations; nor do they mention their beloved UN and "peacekeeping" (see end here, and more here):

Saying no to Obama, politely
Canada should make the case that it cannot continue its combat role in Afghanistan past 2011, but it can help in a number of other important ways
...
As retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie observed, "The number of soldiers completing multiple tours in Afghanistan (some as many as four to date) and the one-year pretour training and temporary deployments on return to Canada to train recruits have broken parts of the army."

This led him to conclude: "The painful truth is that Canada will not be capable of remaining in Afghanistan in a combat role beyond 2011."

Nor is there any need to worry about holding up our share of the combat burden. Canada helped prop up the Afghan mission after the Bush administration became distracted; now that Mr. Obama is refocusing U.S. efforts, we can conduct a handover with our heads held high.

That said, and consistent with the concept of "smart power," we can and should offer to contribute in other ways. Our diplomats could help negotiate with tribal and insurgent leaders in Afghanistan, as well as with regional actors such as Iran, India and Pakistan. The Canadian International Development Agency could provide more reconstruction assistance. The RCMP could do more to assist with the training of the Afghan police.

Gen. MacKenzie makes the same point: "There is a crying need for additional instructors for the understaffed NATO teams training the expanding Afghan National Army. The international police currently training the problematic Afghan National Police are short some 3,000 instructors!"

In short, Canada's position on withdrawing troops from Afghanistan will cause no offence -- if the prime minister expresses it clearly, provides credible reasoning, and makes specific, tangible commitments in other domains.

Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia. Steven Staples is president of the Rideau Institute [do take a look at the website to see St. Steve's attitude to things military].

Lew MacKenzie, quoted so approvingly yet selectively, by the twins, actually supports a continuing CF presence in Afstan. Note the Messrs Staples and Byers never make it clear whether they themselves want all our troops out--which I am certain is their real position--or whether they would agree to some CF staying on in non-combat roles (though even proper training involves combat). Does anyone really believe their apparent, er, conversion is sincere--rather than a tactical one?

As for the state of the Army:

Canada's army is being pushed to the limit by the strains of keeping a 2,700-strong military mission in Afghanistan and the force will need at least a year to recover once the troops return on schedule in 2011, the top army commander said yesterday...