No, no, Mr Rasmussen! Danes in Afstan noticed!

The Conservative government just can't say no fast enough:

NATO's new secretary-general is broaching what is apparently the unthinkable in Canadian politics today, urging Ottawa to keep combat troops in Afghanistan past a planned exit date of 2011.

But Anders Fogh Rasmussen's appeal is already meeting stiff resistance from both the Harper government and the Official Opposition Liberals, both of which are unwilling to reopen a debate over this country's future in a war that's seen 127 Canadian soldiers die and is projected to cost taxpayers more than $11-billion...

Mr. Rasmussen said, when asked about Ottawa's 2011 end date for its combat mission. "At the end of the day, it is a question of our own security - we cannot allow Afghanistan once again to become a safe haven for terrorists - and I also think it is in Canada's interest to ensure a peaceful and stable Afghanistan."

Mr. Rasmussen is the former prime minister of Denmark, which has lost a relatively large number of soldiers in Afghanistan relative to its small population [nice that someone in our major media finally noticed the Danes' disproportionate sacrifice, roughly the same as Canada's--more here and here]. His comments come amid rising violence in Afghanistan as elections loom.

Ottawa's response to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization secretary-general was swift and unyielding.

The Conservatives and Liberals have no interest in reopening the issue by discussing a mission extension that might cost them votes or divide their parties as a possible fall election nears.

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said Ottawa won't be swayed by Mr. Rasmussen's comments.

He said Ottawa is intent on ending Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan in 2011. That's the plan laid out in a House of Commons motion adopted in March of 2008 by the Conservatives and the Liberal Opposition - a deal that ended their back-and-forth feuding on the length and purpose of the Afghan mission.

"As you know, the resolution calls for us to end and stop our military intervention in 2011, and that is exactly what we will be doing," Mr. Cannon said. "That decision's been made known ... and we are going to stay the course."

It's not as if Canada will pull all its soldiers from Afghanistan in 2011, though.

Alain Pellerin, a retired colonel and executive director of the Conference of Defence Associations, said he thinks Ottawa will end up with as many as 1,500 troops in Afghanistan after 2011, focused on assisting development, reconstruction and police and army training.

Mr. Pellerin said he expects that as the 2011 deadline draws nearer, Ottawa will pitch Canadians on a scaled-down version of the mission, a task force that analysts say would lack a battle group needed to mount significant combat operations.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said he thinks there will be a non-combat role in Afghanistan beyond 2011, but rejected doing anything more than that. "The parliamentary resolution remains the position of our party - the combat mission in Kandahar should end in 2011."

Retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie said he doesn't think that Canada has the
infantry strength to keep a 1,200-soldier battle group in Afghanistan beyond 2011.

"It's not a matter of will we extend ... we can't. We will have people on their fourth rotation by 2011 [see this post, 'End of the road (for a while) for expeditionary Army']."

More from Raphael Alexander:

It’s Way Too Late To “Sell” The Afghan Mission To Canadians

Certainly a continuing serious combat mission, I would agree--but there are other possibilities (more here).

Update: The end of a post at The Canada-Afghanistan blog:

...rightly or wrongly, if Canadian soldiers aren't dying, there won't be pressure to bring them home. After a short break, a new mission in another part of Afghanistan, or in a pacified Kandahar, would be politically achievable.

I know this still isn't quite right. I'm sympathetic to the argument that Canada has done its part and deserves a rest, but shit, you don't really get that option in war. Somebody needs to be doing the tough, bloody work in the violent parts of the country, and ideally we'd have a European ally who would rotate in to relieve us of our post. But we all know it will be the Americans, who already have enough on their plate.

As I've said from the beginning, if I could have my way our Prime Minister, Conservative or Liberal, would just stick their neck out on this and say: we are staying until the job is done. We believe in this mission. We're in this for the long haul.

You know, like what Rasmussen said.