- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Comment Link
Rosie says......
Will Canada stand with its allies?
Oct 29, 2007 04:30 AM
Rosie DiManno
Nations, like people, are known by the company they keep. There are formal alliances for the purpose and informal affiliations.
Sometimes, though, a common principle – moral prerogative, security, commitment to a foreign undertaking – is the tie that binds, most especially between individual countries with a shared history and similar values. These are the key relationships within a coalition.
NATO is a western bloc, with newer additions. Afghanistan was to be NATO's 21st century reinvention and relevancy in a post-Cold War world.
It's not working out that way, with European capitals unbudging in their refusal to commit sufficient combat troops and treasure to the mission. They'll deploy soldiers but remain insistent on keeping them out of harm's way.
But what they do – or rather don't do – can't be the deciding factor for what Canada itself decides in the coming months. The chimera of military involvement in Afghanistan for a majority of European nations must not be used as an excuse for pulling our frontline troops out of Kandahar.
It has become obvious that only a handful of nations are in for the long haul, which will be very long indeed. Will Canada stand with its traditional allies and do the same? The answer to that question is about us, not anyone else.
The Americans will stay because Afghanistan, despite the U.S.-led coalition that deposed the Taliban in 2001, is primarily their war. No Democratic presidential candidate has said a word about retreating from Afghanistan; quite the opposite, even as they rail over Iraq. The British, as Prime Minister Gordon Brown vowed last week, will not abandon Helmand province, however protracted the mission – and they twice suffered defeat on Afghan soil in the 19th century. The Dutch have given notice they will hang in beyond August of 2008, the deadline originally set, doing far more conventional fighting in Uruzgan than had been anticipated.
Canada is ... thinking about it, Prime Minister Stephen Harper indicating in the throne speech he would prefer troops to remain beyond 2009, at least till 2011, possibly in an exclusive training capacity.
This, I think, is a fig leaf – political cover to render the mission more palpable to both opposition parties and the public. Afghanistan doesn't need our 2,500 troops to train their security forces. They need them to fight, as warranted, and to provide protection for reconstruction projects and aid agencies.
There were embarrassing contradictions last week between the PM and Gen. Rick Hillier even about the training timeline, the latter suggesting it would take a decade before the Afghan army is ready to take over after Harper predicted the army could defend "its own sovereignty'' by 2011.
While Hillier has since clarified his comments – he'd meant Afghan troops assuming responsibility for the whole country, not just Kandahar – he was actually right the first time. Afghan's army, unlike the Afghan police, is immensely respected by the civilian population. They are professional soldiers, relatively free of corruption, and brave. But only two brigades have graduated and are now in the field, with another coming down the pipe. That's nowhere near enough to hold the insurgency at bay and they won't be close to having reasonable troop strength in three years time.
Further, those troops are abysmally lacking in proper military vehicles and equipment. On joint missions, the ANA goes out front – in pickup trucks, with exposed machine guns propped in back.
So, forget pleading with NATO members for more boots on the ground. Won't happen. Hit them hard for money, for helicopters, for kitting out Afghan security forces.
They won't risk blood. But there's no risk in cold, hard cash. They've got it.
