Our government does not appear to care about either. A plea from the Afghan government:
Afghanistan asks Canada to extend its military mission
Afghans will die if Canada does not play a part in the Afghanistan recovery after the planned military withdrawal in July 2011, Kabul’s man in Ottawa said Wednesday.
But the commander of all Canadian troops overseas said the government has provided no indication of any such intentions beyond next summer’s deadline.
Afghanistan’s ambassador to Canada, Jawed Ludin, said even with Canadian troops in the country for the past eight years, there is still an enormous challenge to uproot Taliban militants from the country.
“The challenge is still there, but the guarantee for the success is also there,” he said, urging Canadian troops to remain in Afghanistan to forge a stronger partnership.
“This is a question of life and death. For us there is no Plan B,” he said.
“There is no doubt that Afghanistan is a country that needs everything it can get. From aid to development, to military assistance, too.”
Despite that plea, the commander of Canadian Expeditionary Force Command Lt.-Gen. Marc Lessard said Canadian military commitment in the country will end next year.
“Technically Canada is leaving,” he said, “We’re handing over to another ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] … whichever country, which will continue doing what we’re doing so well right now [guess flipping which].”
It is exactly one year from this Canada Day that the Harper government is slated to officially begin its retreat from Kandahar. Combat operations are scheduled to continue until the July 1, 2011 deadline, and all troops are to be home by the end of next year.
When asked if the Canadian Forces plan an continuing, non-combat role for troops [they are already in that role in the Kabul area] beyond next year, Lessard, who commands all Canadian forces overseas, said: “In fact, no. Because we haven’t been [given] any, any, any indication” by the government…
Latest about our government:
The final countdown to end of Afghan mission
When talk in Ottawa’s halls of power turns to Afghanistan, he’s known as the immovable object.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, once considered a hawk in the mould of George W. Bush, appears more and more like a dove as Canada enters what could be its last summer of war in southwest Asia.
Publicly, Harper’s Conservative government stands firm in its determination to end the country’s combat mission in Kandahar on July 1, 2011, despite a growing chorus of voices at home and abroad urging it to reconsider — or redefine and renew its commitment.
The message privately is the same: The army comes home from war-wasted Afghanistan, to be replaced by development and diplomacy.
In a city that’s accustomed to political back-room deals and obfuscation, the clarity and consistency of the refrain is startling, unnerving and even a little weird…
Hell yes, we’re gonna go
As for horses, most recently:
…
Other villages in this part of Paktika also signed agreements pledging to keep the Taliban away from their lands. “They’ve come to believe that we are the winning horse,” says the U.S. captain…
In my view that’s what Afstan is in the end all about. Osama bin Laden, November, 2001: “…when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse…”
US defense secretary Gates got that last December:
…
While Al Qaeda is under great pressure now and dependent on the Taliban and other extremist groups for sustainment, the success of the Taliban would vastly strengthen Al Qaeda’s message to the Muslim world: that violent extremists are on the winning side of history. Put simply, the Taliban and Al Qaeda have become symbiotic, each benefiting from the success and mythology of the other. Al Qaeda leaders have stated this explicitly and repeatedly.
Taliban success in re-taking and holding parts of Afghanistan against the combined forces of multiple, modern armies — the current direction of events — has dramatically strengthened the extremist mythology and popular perceptions of who is winning and who is losing. The lesson of the Taliban’s revival for Al Qaeda is that time and will are on their side. That, with a Western defeat, they could regain their strength and achieve a major strategic victory — as long as their senior leadership lives and can continue to inspire and attract followers and funding. Rolling back the Taliban is now necessary, even if not sufficient, to the ultimate defeat of Al Qaeda…
Consequences of Failure
Failure in Afghanistan would mean a Taliban takeover of much, if not most, of the country and likely a renewed civil war. Taliban-ruled areas could in short order become, once again, a sanctuary for Al Qaeda as well as a staging area for resurgent militant groups on the offensive in Pakistan.
Success in South and Central Asia by Islamic extremists — as was the case twenty years ago — would beget success on other fronts. It would strengthen the Al Qaeda narrative, providing renewed opportunities for recruitment, fund-raising, and more sophisticated operations. Aided by the Internet, many more followers could join their ranks, both in the region and in susceptible populations across the globe…
Mark
Ottawa
You need to re-write this posting, and replace every reference to the “Canadian government” with “Canadian Parliament”.
One does not rewrite words in quotes, and I use “our government” appropriately.
You do seem to miss the bigger picture.
Mark
Ottawa
Okay, I’m not clear on how you want us to proceed.
Do you want Cabinet to disregard the motion passed by Parliament in March, 2008 by a vote of 197 to 77 ?
If so, should Cabinet proceed with a different plan, without reference to Parliament ?
Or should Cabinet propose another motion to the House of Commons ?
Something else ?
As of now, our future actions in Afghanistan are guided by that motion.
Harper has established a different process for dealing with matters of war. He is not Chretien or Martin, who acted unilateraly, without any kind of vote in the House.
Harper is not bound by any motion on the deployment of our troops. The power to decide where they go and what they do is his. Even if that motion were binding, it only speaks to removing the troops from Kandahar, not from Afghanistan.
The only reason for the motion in the first place was because Harper is not comfortable standing alone. He does not want to be accountable for his decisions, so he wanted to ensure the liberals wear that decision too.
In any event, I doubt the government is going to reconsider its decision to bring the troops home, because wars cost money, and they have a huge deficit to deal with.
Calgary Junkie: By the way, Commons and Senate committees are also part of the “Canadian Parliament” and seem to have a rather less fixed view than the govenment.
I must say I (gasp) concur generally with Gayle’s first para–though the power to deploy forces, under the royal prerogative, belongs–at least it used to–to Cabinet rather than the prime minister.
I would also note that this government deployed the CF to Haiti without a vote in the Commons.
Nonetheless I would favour any further Afghan mission being voted on by the Commons since the issue is so contentious. But keeping a much smaller, non-combat training force in, say, the Kabul region is not prohibited by the current motion referring to Kandahar.
The government is lying when it repeats incessantly that the existing motion requires a complete military withdrawal from Afstan.
Mark
Ottawa
Gayle says:
Harper is not bound by any motion on the deployment of our troops. The power to decide where they go and what they do is his. Even if that motion were binding, it only speaks to removing the troops from Kandahar, not from Afghanistan.
True.
The only reason for the motion in the first place was because Harper is not comfortable standing alone. He does not want to be accountable for his decisions, so he wanted to ensure the liberals wear that decision too.
False. Now you’re trying to say that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a weak, spineless leader unwilling to make his own decision and stand by it? Really?
I suppose it also never occurred to you that the Liberals just knew it was the right thing to do? Unlike the cowardly NDP, who would plunge everyone in Afghanistan back into CIVIL WAR, killing tens of thousands (if not more), and condemning all the women back to slavery?
Oh yeah, you’ve really got the moral high ground here, Gayle. Well done.
I am not trying to say anything. I AM saying that Harper knew the Afghan mission was contentious, and he wanted to take it off the table as an election issue. The best way to do that was to put it to a vote, so if things went sideways he could point to the LPC and say “they did it too”.
If you have been paying attention, you know that Harper often points to the LPC and says “they did it first”, as do many of his supporters.
Contrast that to the liberals under Chretien, where the Prime Minister made a decision, acted on it, and accepted all responsibility for it.
[...] to this post, Who cares about the Afghan government? And strong [...]
[...] change of its course, the government and Liberals reach an agreement on some sort of post-2011 CF mission: The silent road [...]
[...] Ouch! And we too have a Conservative prime minister. [...]