The toughest military operation is...
...a (sort of) fighting withdrawal--especially with a level of political uncertainty:
Canada's route out of Afghanistan will be bumpyMore on political manoeuvring here and here.
Best-laid plans could be derailed by a change in government in OttawaCanadian soldiers from Charles [sic, more here] Company of the 1st battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment pass through a field during an operation lead by the Afghan National Army in Panjwai district southwest of Kandahar City early Thursday [May 20].
NIKOLA SOLIC/REUTERS
The Canadian military’s plans to get every last soldier and tank out of Kandahar by the end of next year are detailed and well-advanced, even as it plans for contingencies ranging from exit routes to snap elections at home.
Internal documents obtained by the Star show the highly-secretive Mission Termination Task Force is grappling with the cost of an exit strategy that could be thrown into chaos if a new government in Ottawa decides to recommit to Afghanistan.
Between July and December 2011, when the withdrawal is to be completed, the Taliban insurgency is still expected to be active – despite a series of major offensives planned this year – and a substitute force to take Canada’s place has yet to be found...
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 7:28 a.m.
6 Comments:
Given the policy preferences of the average Liberal and NDP voter, it's highly unlikely either of those parties would reverse the withdrawal. Which party is on the cusp of doing this? Republicans-in-exile?
Actually Chris, I would argue that much of the Liberal base is not opposed to this mission, as it was their party who initiated the first 3 mandates and they still find a level of pride in their militaries accomplishments in Kandahar -- a pride that may be hurt if we left early.
Add to that, a great deal of the people against this mission seem to have the same sentiment as you - which is to relate the issue to Americans as quickly as possible. These people might swing when they realize Bush is no longer in power and in many ways the dems are more for this mission than anyone.
And I guess on top of that, there is a hope that the Conservatives could, er, act on principle.
Let's examine that assertion, shall we? Here are the House members of the 39th and 40th parliaments. In the 39th the Liberals had 103 seats; in the 40th the Liberals have 77 seats.
Here is a list of Canadian parliamentary events regarding Afghanistan. Let us see how deep Liberal support for Afghanistan runs, where the rubber meets the road, as they say.
May 17th, 2006: Parliament votes to extend Canada’s military presence in Kandahar until 2009. Prime Minister Stephen Harper announces an additional $310 million in development funding, maintaining Canada’s bilateral aid at $100 million per year through 2010-2011. The motion is debated, put to a recorded vote, and carried (yeas, 149; nays, 145). Of the 145 nays, 60 are Liberals —including future leader Stephane Dion and former MND John McCallum. That's 58% of Lib MPs voting for an even earlier departure than 2011.
April 19, 2007: The Opposition brings a motion to call upon the government to confirm that Canada’s existing military deployment in Afghanistan will be withdrawn at the end of February 2009. The motion is debated and on April 24 is rejected (yeas, 134; nays, 150). Among the yeas voting for Feb 2009 close-of-mission are 83 Liberals—including former MNDs Graham and McCallum, and future leaders Dion and Ignatieff. 80% of Liberal MPs voted for mission closure by February 2009.
April 26, 2007: The Opposition brings a motion to call upon the government to immediately notify NATO of Canada’s intention to begin withdrawing the CF immediately. The motion is debated and on April 30 is rejected (yeas, 28; nays, 225). Only NDP MPs voted in favour of this motion.
Perhaps, charitably, the majority of Liberal voters do support remaining in Afghanistan until the security situation can be best handled by the ANA. That message doesn't seem to be making it through to their MPs, though.
I should note that, obviously, I left out any accounting of the 2001-2005 votes (where the Liberals formed the government), as it can be safely assumed that the bulk of Liberal MPs voted in favour of their own government's motion.
But the Liberals do not seem to be swayed or even mildly influenced by the notion that leaving early would somehow be shameful. The majority of Lib MPs have voted for it two out of the three times they got the chance.
Sorry Chris - I never saw your response here until now.
I would argue that the Liberals who voted "against" the msission on the first vote did so more for political reasons and that they carefully crafted the voting so that the motion would pass by a very slim margin, and when any Liberals were asked about after the vote they said something to the ctune of they weren't voting against the mssion -- they were voting against how Harper handled it.
I know this is getting to be a little off topic but in regards to your earlier statement, I really don't think extending the mission in a smaller form is a major vote loser for Harper. Although many will say they don't support or desire the mission being extended I doubt they would make that a deciding factor in how they vote, and if they would, they likley are not the sort of people that would have considered voting Conservative anyways. Further I don't think the Liberals would really be against it. I think many parts of the Liberal party are actually shocked the gov't still hasn't approached them on an extension of some sort.
I don't think extending the mission would be a major vote-loser or even a bad idea. Quite the contrary.
But I do expect the opposition parties to drag out every shameful spin angle on it, .i.e. "supporting American imperialism abroad; refocus the mission from killing to helping (as if it were all about killing brown people right now); let someone else do it, we've done our bit."
These arguments will be publicly made regardless of the leaders' actual perspective on the matter, and regardless of whether or not the mission continues to serve Canadian national interests. Go have a look at some of the campaign rhetoric the last time around.
Ignatieff may well be mystified by the lack of any formal approaches to discuss an extension, but perhaps there aren't any because he is also on record several times saying there would be no extension for the security mission beyond 2011.
Which would of course put us in the position of relying on American blood and toil to ensure that Canadian trainers and aid efforts remain safe.
Nothing says "solidarity" like having a neighbour pay for and do the things we ought to be doing for ourselves.
Post a Comment
<< Home