http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/101116/national/afghan_cda_replacements
So as the story goes, The United States, England and an unspecified few NATO allies launched a clandestine mission to have Canada keep troops in Afghanistan past 2011.
Well I guess it's nice to be wanted. And a little sweet-talking seems to be able to go a long way with this perpetually embattled Conservative government.
The question remains however, how long ago did the Canadian Government know about out Allies desires to have our troops remain "in country" and how long have these negotiations been going on? According to the Canadian press:
"Documents obtained by The Canadian Press under access to information laws show military planners have long been skeptical about Prime Minister Stephen Harper's pledge to pull Canadian soldiers out of Afghanistan entirely by 2011.
"It was recognized that a residual CF elements may remain in Afghanistan in a non-combat role post-2011," said a mission analysis briefing for the country's Ottawa-based overseas commander, Lt.-Gen. Marc Lessard.
It urged planners to be flexible because the drawdown to "zero" forces might not happen.
"What does zero mean?" said one slide presentation, which went on to joke that at CEFCOM, Canada's central military command in Ottawa, "there is some thought that zero is an imaginary number."
The report went on to note the "uncertain" planning climate and that "zero may not mean zero."
Nonetheless, in a recent interview with The Canadian Press, Lessard said he was instructed by the country's top military commander to do "no planning for a follow-on mission."
So it seems that, either Harper really didn't know ahead of time what was going to happen with the Canadian troop deployment, in which case his commanders knew better than he the dynamics of the situation, as they should. In which case, the Harper Government was negligent in telling Canadian Commanders to do "nothing" in the way of planning for a full withdraw of all Canadian Forces.
Or it could be that Harper knew all along that a residual contingent would need to remain in Afghanistan. Which would make it equally negligent on his part as he was impeding the ability of his Commanding Officers to adequately plan ahead for the new Troop Deployment for purely political reasons. He didn't want to look bad for having gone back on his promise that all Canadian Forces troops would be out of Afghanistan by 2011.
So he was either lying to us yet again, which people have come to expect now from the Harper Cons, or he was just plain stupid. Neither of which is a particularly good scenario. And as an aside here, I have to wonder out loud why 1/3 of all Canadians would still vote for Harper tomorrow according to the latest polls.
But I also have to wonder aloud, if, as we have been told, it is so vital for a NATO contingent to remain in Afghanistan in a training capacity, Why us? Yes according to Canadian Press, American Officers have claimed that we were a very "significant presence" in Kandahar Province. There are now 15, 000 American Troops doing what it took 3,000 Canadian troops to do for the past eight years. And I am a little taken aback now by this "3,000" figure. I thought all along the number of Canadian Combatants in Afghanistan was 2,000. This is the figure I have seen in print repeatedly over the past few years. Was that a lie also?
But we are now looking at about 1,000 Canadian Soldiers remaining for this training mission. Considering the Americans once had 100,000 troops deployed in Iraq, it would seem that designating an additional 1,000 as trainers would be a mere drop in the bucket for them. Are the Americans saying that our forces are better trainers than theirs? Hardly. Same with the British. And there were any number of other NATO allies who were willing to be in Afghanistan in Non-combat rolls, especially when our forces were streched to the max and punching far above their weight.
So where are they now? It would be extremely presumptuous of us to assume that our forces are better than the French, German Spanish or Dutch. I'm sure anyone of those countries would have jumped at the opportunity for this supposedly safe, non combat mission. But there is no word from the EU on further European troop deployments.
There could be a legitimate answer for this rather odd puzzle. No one for example, with the possible exception of the British, is as well acquainted with the Afghan conflict as us. We've been there for eight long years trying to help rebuild the province with one hand while using the other to fight the ever increasing Taliban forces to a perpetual draw. We know the enemy, we know their tactics and most of all, we used our natural "peace keeping" instincts to build bridges between the Afghans, various factions and ourselves.
In the eyes of the Afghans at all levels, we have earned their respect and trust much more so than say, France which is becoming decidedly anti-Muslim or the U.S. who has the appearance of becoming anti-Muslim, mostly due to the rise of the "Tea-Party" and the radical right-wing conservatives in the States.
And despite the influence of the Harper Cons, the average Canadian unit on the ground has the reputation for being one of the most level headed and effective "Peace Keeping" forces in the world. We invented it and no one does peace keeping like us. And this requires having a good rapport with the locals, which again, aside from the British, no one else has.
So on the one hand, I would like to think that our NATO allies have come to understand and also respect our connection and understanding of the Afghan situation. That quite possibly, because of our Peace Keeping nature, no one else is as equipped to fulfill the roll required of a NATO training force in Afghanistan.
This is what my patriotic side would like to believe. But I also have this damn skeptical side as well, thanks to the current political climate in Canada. I doubt there is a single solitary move made by this current Reform Conservative Government that isn't calculated to in some way, paint them in the best possible light, or at the very least, discredit the Liberals and the evil coalition. So what is to be gained here for Harper and his Zealots?
Of course I don't have the real answers. We won't know that until someone gains the right documents from the Federal Government under the Freedom of Information Act. But because the extreme secretiveness of this government, that isn't likely to happen until The Harperites are long gone.
But lets not forget that the 2011 withdraw date was set in 2008. And what was happening then? Yup, Harper was doing his best to discredit Stephan Dion in a federal election, and to keep Mr. Dion from successfully staging a "Palace Coup" thereafter. So it was politically expedient for Harper to come up with an "End Date" at the time. And let us also not forget that this was at the same time that Canada's appeals to it's NATO allies for more support were falling on deaf ears, so this seemed like the "'get tough" thing to do.
So extending the end date by three more years to 2011 seemed like the right thing. Give NATO and the U.S. enough time to get things done in Afghanistan and still sound like he was supporting the U.S, but appearing to be "tough" with regards to the length of our presence in that war-torn country. It was certainly enough to keep the highly combative NDP down on the farm.
But Harper probably knew soon thereafter, with the advent of Barrack Obama in the United States and his shift in focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, that 2011 wasn't an attainable goal. But be that as it may, it highly probably that Harper knew well before we were told about the mission being extended yet again. Take a look for example, at the "Camp Mirage" fiasco.
Why, after all these years of free use of The UAE as a staging ground would our Persian Gulf allies suddenly and arbitrarily want "pay back" in the form of greater access to Canadian Air Space? Could it be that Canada was attempting to renegotiate the deal for Camp Mirage, to extend it's free use of the land for an additional three years past what had previously been agreed upon? Quite possible say's this writer.
The timing then may have been all wrong for the beans to have be spilled about an extension of the mission. But The Americans and our NATO allies gave Harper the face saving "we need you badly" scenario. It gave Harper a way to weasel out of his 2011 promise and the optics of it may have been payback from the allies for staying the course in the worst Province in the most war-torn country in the world for the past three years.
So it goes with out saying that Canada has gone over and above when it comes to our efforts in Afghanistan. We stayed the course at the behest of our allies when no one else was willing to step up. We kept the peace and fought the good fight, practically all by our selves in the most volatile province in Afghanistan. No one could have given more than Canada was asked to give. But whether or not we continue to give, long after we have met all that could reasonably be expected of our tiny army, because no one else can do what we do, based on our experience, or because it is the politically expedient thing to do, is anybody's guess. A question that will only be answered long after the last Canadian Soldier has left Afghanistan.
No comments:
Post a Comment