« Previous · Home · Next »
Canucks Out of Afghanistan ?
By Charlie
...If NATO doesn't pony up troops to share the combat burden. They tiptoe around whether "NATO" means "America", or other European countries in the article, but I think it may be the latter. This is bad news if it is true, I’ve heard good reviews of the Canadian troops from my buddies who have served in Afghanistan . They’ll be missed if they pull up stakes.
TORONTO - Canada will extend its military mission in Afghanistan only if another NATO country puts more soldiers in the dangerous south, the prime minister said Monday, echoing the recommendation of an independent panel to withdraw without additional forces.Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government is under pressure to withdraw its 2,500 troops from Kandahar province, the former Taliban stronghold, after the deaths of 78 soldiers and a diplomat. The mission is set to expire in 2009 without an extension by Canadian lawmakers.
European allies' refusal to deploy to Afghanistan 's dangerous south and east has opened a rift with Britain , Canada , the Netherlands and others which, along with the United States , have borne the brunt of Taliban violence.
Previously on Op-For:
NATO Intransigence is Official
Petraeus Eyed for NATO Command?
Where for Art Thou, NATO?
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://op-for.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1546
Comments
The 1000 troops are hoped to be coming from Europe, but realistically it's hoped that 1000 of the 3000 marines going to southern afghanistan will stick around as a last resort.
Politically its almost like the 2006 surge. Like the Republicans, our conservatives are in the minority when it came to keeping the mission going. And so the republicans are doing what bush did, call for more troops.
It's a shame Canada can't send a thousand more of our own, but we're working on expanding the military. C-17s, Jercs, Chinooks, trucks and Leopord 2's are all bought or on order.
It's sad, but the european 'allies' will not. Three cheers to Canada though for having bollocks and actually participating. Maybe somehow they will vote to let you all stay.
Post a comment
Potential comment conditions listed here. Oh, and you may use basic HTML for formatting.










This is a far more complicated question in Canada than it should be.
Many of our citizens, erroneously indoctrinated for years with the idea of the Canadian military solely as blue-beret-wearing U.N. "peacekeepers" are concerned about our "combat" mission in southern Afghanistan. If it were explained to them properly - something our government seems singularly unable to do - they might support it. But as it stands, about half the population of Canada doesn't support the mission. Worse, in Parliament, only the minority Conservative gov't supports extending our military mandate beyond February 2009 - the opposition parties uniformly want Canadian troops out no later than that (and the socialists want us out even sooner).
The gov't convened an "independent" panel made up of some pretty well-respected folks, headed by a former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister (arch-rivals to the Conservatives) under a previous gov't. This chairman, John Manley, just released the panel's report, which made a number of recommendations, including more diplomatic and development work on the civilian side, better communications, and better coordination among the defence, development, and diplomacy elements of this mission (known as the 3D concept up here in the snowy north).
He also recommended making our participation beyond Feb 09 contingent upon finding 1,000 additional front-line troops to help us out in Kandahar province, getting some medium- to heavy-lift helos so we're not so reliant upon the U.S., British, and Dutch for air mobility, and obtaining better UAV coverage (the TUAV's we're using are Sperwers, and they're...how to put this politely...not optimal).
The gov't seems to have agreed to make an extension of the mission conditional upon those elements, but it remains to be seen whether the opposition will support the idea, even if the conditions are met. We're probably going to have an election in the spring anyhow, which throws all of this up in the air.
And you guys think YOUR politics is stupid...