Oh, deer. (Sorry; couldn't resist.) And this one for sure I won't be able to vote in, not being a Canadian citizen and all.However, it looks increasingly likely that the Conservative government will fall over Canada's role in Afghanistan. Prime Minister Harper is playing chicken with Opposition Leader Stephane Dion. So far, he's won every time.
This time, Harper is as well-prepared as ever. Last fall, he appointed a bipartisan commission to investigate, for three months, Canada's role in Afghanistan and to develop recommendations for future involvement. The Manley Report, as it's being called, was delivered a couple of weeks ago. John Manley is a former Liberal bigwig who served as head of the commission, hence the name. But the report itself is also quite manly, in a manly-manly way.
Canada's leadership in the south of Afghanistan is due to expire in a year. The Prime Minister, and others, want to extend the mission in its current form--which has evolved from peacekeeping to a combat role--beyond that time. The Manley Report urges the government to put limits on that, such as requiring NATO to cough up 1000 more troops and more equipment to support Canada's involvement.
The Bloc Quebecois and the NDP, the other opposition parties, are against extending the role beyond January 2009, period. This leaves the Liberal party, and Dion as its leader, in the decisive role.
The leader of Canada's forces, General Rick Hillier, chimed into the debate last week to say that there really isn't a non-combat role that Canadian troops can play. The state of Afghanistan is such that any time you're working on building roads, schools, bridges, or other infrastructure elements, you're putting troops at risk and they need to be defended.
So, let me get this straight. Hillier seems to be saying that the "peacekeeping" role, which UN and NATO forces have adopted for some conflicts in some countries and which Canada agreed to adopt in Afghanistan, basically doesn't exist. But is it just in Afghanistan, just this time? Or is it everywhere, every time that a non-combat/peacekeeping role is nonexistent? Or something in between?
If Hillier says that peacekeeping everywhere involves combat, then he should say so. If it's just in Afghanistan, just this mission, he should say that, too.
I hope Dion's people are gathering information like that, and I hope they're consulting other experts on the ground. General Hillier has made it plain that he wants troops to stay. What advice would one expect him to give in such a situation?
If the Liberal Party agrees to support extending the mission in Afghanistan--and Deputy Leader Michael Ignatieff is said to be in favor of it--then Canada will enter an Iraq-like situation. Who will hold NATO to any promise it might make about contributing more troops or equipment? What if, in a year or two, NATO hasn't lived up to its share of the bargain?
It's a reasonable expectation--Afghanistan was supposed to be secure for peacekeeping years ago. It hasn't happened, as Canadian forces on the ground can tell you. So what would make NATO forces any more successful in the coming year? What country will send more troops to support Canada?
And if NATO can't or won't live up to those conditions, then what? What does the Prime Minister think Canada will do at that point? Will the Prime Minister commit to pulling out of Afghanistan if NATO lets Canadian forces down again?
It's all well and good, in theory, to put conditions on Canada's future role. But when conditions contain only an "if" statement, with no consequences for failing to meet the conditions, then conditions become empty threats. Ask any parent.
Or ask the Bloc and the NDP to explain. They seem to understand.
