Afstan: "Can we resist the pressure to stay?"
There is a new spectre haunting Canada's military and I am not talking about the detainee issue.
It is the prospect of what the generals are bluntly calling Mission Termination, the label they have given to Canada's departure from Kandahar in 2011.
The painful irony for our military is that the images of our leave-taking, in a little over a year from now, may come to define Canada's Afghan mission around the world far more than all the sacrifices and long years of campaigning.
For there will be nothing swift or subtle about it. Instead, Canada's problem will be how to finesse a total pullout in the face of a world media that will inevitably portray our mission's end as a vivid symbol of Western war weariness...
Follow the Dutch
From a PR standpoint, what's even more troubling is that Canada can no longer count on the neighbouring Dutch battle group in southern Afghanistan to take most of the critical heat by being the first to go.
The Dutch were preparing to pull out as early as next summer. But the new U.S. surge, along with considerable diplomatic pressure, has given The Netherlands serious pause.
Should the Dutch stay — whether as military trainers or mentors or combined military-civilian development promoters — that could paint Canada in a uniquely awkward corner.
It would make the Canadian contingent the first to abandon the struggle in the key battle zone that is Afghanistan's south.
Canada's argument — that it's done its duty — may resonate well at home but will carry little weight abroad.
Let's be honest, most Americans and Europeans know as much about our efforts in Afghanistan as we know about those of the Danes, Dutch, Romanians [middle of this post] or Australians: effectively zero [they should read The Torch, Mr Stewart omitted the Poles (see "Poland" under "Plus" here) and Estonians]...
Creative ambiguity [or strip-tease]
At the moment, Canada's true position on the Afghan mission is wrapped in "creative ambiguity," observes Jean-Yves Haine, a leading European defence expert.
By keeping everyone confused about his real intentions, Stephen Harper can dodge making decisions that are politically risky [emphasis added, dance, dance, dance].
But at some point, surely, Canada's confusion needs clearing up.
This week there was another layer of bewilderment added when Canada's top diplomat in Kandahar, Ben Rowswell, insisted that at least the 300-strong military-civilian Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan will likely remain, in partnership with Americans. These PRTs have not been put on notice to depart in 2011.
The statement was lost in the current storm over detainees, but is highly significant if true. For it would suggest that a military training mission should also remain as both are part of the nation-building that's required.
Both these efforts require serious military protection, which would likely keep somewhere between 500 to 800 soldiers in the key battle zone, under a Canadian flag, and facing some risk of casualties.
So, the Harper government faces a profoundly important military-diplomatic decision in the months, or perhaps weeks, ahead.
Is Canada really ready to pull off Mission Termination before the world? Or are we simply waiting for more pressure to build or even, perhaps, guidance from the Dutch?
In military circles, the problem these days seems not so much government dithering over decisions, as it is in a government declining to discuss decisions at all [emphasis added].
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 4:31 p.m.
3 Comments:
Don't worry so much. This period of "creative ambiguity" is almost certainly a PR prelude to a decision to renege on the government's earlier promise to leave by 2011.
David V.: There is no government "earlier promise to leave by 2011." There is a March 2008 Commons' motion that the Canadian military (not "combat") mission in Kandahar/Kandahar will end in 2011. You could look it up. Texts are important:
"...it is the opinion of the House,
that Canada should continue a military presence in Kandahar beyond February 2009, to July 2011, in a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate on Afghanistan, and that the military mission should consist of:
(a) training the Afghan National Security Forces so that they can expeditiously take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole;
(b) providing security for reconstruction and development efforts in Kandahar;
(c) the continuation of Canada’s responsibility for the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team;
that, consistent with this mandate, this extension of Canada’s military presence in Afghanistan is approved by this House expressly on the condition that:
(a) NATO secure a battle group of approximately 1000 to rotate into Kandahar (operational no later than February 2009);
(b) to better ensure the safety and effectiveness of the Canadian contingent, the government secure medium helicopter lift capacity and high performance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance before February 2009; and
(c) the government of Canada notify NATO that Canada will end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011, and, as of that date, the redeployment of Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar and their replacement by Afghan forces start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by December 2011..."
Should the government wish to change the effectual consequence of that motion it will undoubtedly seek the approval of the Commons. Not that one approves of the current strip-tease.
Mark
Ottawa
In 2011, "the mission, as we've known it, we intend to end it," saith Stephen in 2008. A bit waffly even then, although not at all like some of the current rhetorical meandering. There is more than a simple Commons motion, but since you bring it up, if I recall correctly, that was a Conservative-sponsored motion, so I take it as at least vaguely an expression of government policy at that time.
Now, you're quite correct (at least, I believe you are) that any extension of the mission will be accompanied by some sort of new parliamentary rubber-stamp.
And what I am saying is that the current round of uncertainty is probably an attempt to clear the way for an extension of the mission later on. 2011 has stuck in people's heads and it will have to be unstuck first . Personally I do find it odd to fight wars on the clock, but, in fairness, I was against the whole thing to begin with, regardless of when it was going to end.
Post a Comment
<< Home