Extend the Mission

Today is a big test for Canada's commitment--rather, the commitment of Canada's politicans--to the war on terror. It's such a big test that I'm going to take the afternoon off from writing my thesis to watch as much of the debate as possible. Since yesterday's announcement of a vote on extending the mission until 2009 (see below for my original comments), it has been learned that the reason behind holding the vote now is because Canada has been asked to assume command of the entire sphere of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2008. We would be taking over from the British, who are taking over from the Americans. It is thus all the more crucial that Canada reveal its plans now; our actions have an impact on the decision-making process of our allies. The sooner they know where we stand, the sooner we can coordinate with them to build a strategy for the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
Already we know that the NDP will be voting against extending the mission. No big surprise there. We can probably also expect a significant contingent of the Bloc to vote against it. It is from the Liberals, however, that I find the comments most troubling. Ujjal Dosanjh, unaware of the NATO ramifications, said this: "I don't know what has intervened between then and now to make this urgent now." I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he made this comment before the news broke that Canada has been asked to lead the Afghanistan mission. That would constitute a pretty significant "intervention," so hopefully that is the case.
John McCallum, however, said this: "Stephen Harper would like to divide our party. I can tell you that there is absolutely no reason other than Conservative politics that any decision had to be made now. . . . speaking from my time as defence minister and with NATO, some advance planning is needed, but nowhere near this much time."
No, no reason at all. It's all about the politics. The crass attitude that some Liberals have been displaying towards our military forces has been steadily increasing, and to suggest that there is any reason beyond mere partisan politics for committing Canadian troops--that's Canadians, not Conservatives--is breathtakingly appalling. How about giving the CF, the DND, and our allies a clear signal of our intentions beyond February 2007? I know it sounds like a long way off, but in reality it's only nine months from now. Better to give more time to devise better strategies, coherent policies, and stronger demonstrations of commitment to seeing this mission to its successful conclusion than to put it all together as the clock runs out. Canada's military deserves to be treated better than a university term paper. Extend the mission now, and use the additional time to coordinate all of our resources and work with our allies.

It's readily obvious that Afghanistan will not be a fully stabilized, peaceful democracy by February 2007. The question for Canadians is thus: do we extend the mission by two years to continue with our important contributions, or do we exit the country and leave it to other states to rebuild that nation?
For myself, the answer is easy. We stay the course, and we finish what we started back in 2001. This is not the easy way out for Canada. It will be difficult, there will be challenges, and there will, sadly, also be casualties. To signal that Canada will withdraw its troops at the earliest opportunity is to signal that we are not serious about the commitments we make to other countries and to our NATO allies. It will indicate that we are not interested in fighting the war on terror until such time as we are directly attacked by al-Qaeda or any of the offspring groups that have spawned in its wake since 9/11. Make no mistake: Canada has been targeted by Osama bin Laden. Of the 20 states he has listed as being potential targets for terrorist strikes, we are one of two that has not yet been hit. CSIS has unequivocally stated that it is only a matter of time until an attempt is made. To pull out of Afghanistan before we have defeated and eliminated the threat posed by al Qaeda and the Taliban is to take a reckless risk with the lives of Canadians and the citizens of our allies.
To hear the comments made from some Liberal leadership candidates who want to get us out of Afghanistan prematurely is disheartening and sends the wrong message to our troops, our allies, and the enemy. A recent Globe article discussed how the Taliban views Canada's public opinion as soft, and if enough attacks are perpetrated and enough soldiers killed or wouned, Canadians will start to demand we end the mission early. Considering that it was the Liberals who first voted to get us into the war on terror's initial front, to hear them being the first prominent party raising calls for withdrawal demonstrates a lack of resolve and commitment. This used to be the party of Mackenzie King and Lester Pearson. The more Liberals who call for bringing the troops home before the mission is complete, the more they tarnish that legacy and lose credibility in laying claim to being its heirs.
Canada does not look to take the easy way out. Not the Canada that I know and am so deeply proud of being a citizen. Hopefully this latest debate will bolster the spines of our elected officials and give them the resolve to see this mission to its conclusion. The people of Afghanistan are depending on us, our NATO allies are depending on us, and if Canadians truly value the "international community" they will choose to be a part of it.