4 More Canadian Soldiers Die in Afghanistan

A recent lengthy piece in Maclean's magazine about the war in Afghanistan, the country's history and Canada's role in the region ends with this conclusion:

Canadians may find consolation in thinking that the deaths of young soldiers add up to the price of continuing a proud history of helping out in the world. And so it is. But the duration of the NATO and U.S. stays in Afghanistan, and the pressure for Canada to keep sacrificing those lives and spending millions, may depend more on geopolitics than generosity. In the end, Canada might even stick it out in Afghanistan long enough for Canadians back home to gradually learn to understand the place a little -- even if their politicians never do get around to making much effort to explain exactly what's going on.

And, today, we've lost 4 more soldiers while another 9 were injured in a fierce battle with insurgents and NDP leader Jack Layton has once again called for the withdrawal of Canadian troops.

"We need a made-in-Canada foreign policy, not one that's ideologically imported that follows along the pathway that has been set by the Bush administration," Layton said.

Via Macleans:

"Afghanistan is a 20-year venture," Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie declared last summer, arguing that Canada had to help free the country from the grip of "warlords and tribalism."

Leslie's words generated a few news stories, but should have commanded much more attention. His is a highly educated guess. He was decorated for service under fire in Bosnia, the closest experience Canadians have to the sort of tough nation-building Afghanistan needs. He also led Canadian forces based in Kabul in 2003, and was recently named head of our land forces. Hillier has also mused about at least a 10-year stay, although he didn't specify if he meant Canadian troops, perhaps meaning that more generally NATO or other outside forces would have to remain.

Harper was prompted by Hillier's remark to issue a public reminder that elected politicians, not uniformed officers, decide when a Canadian military mission will end. True enough. But the Prime Minister has barely hinted at what signs of progress toward security in Afghanistan would indicate that Canada's army is no longer needed. That seems to violate Department of National Defence policy, which states that before sending troops into any failing country, the government should have a clear "exit strategy" or define the "end-state" conditions that signal mission accomplished. Senator Colin Kenny, chairman of the Senate national security and defence committee, has pressed for such clarity, first from the Liberals and now the Conservatives. "The committee is very critical of the government," Kenny says, "for not describing what it expects to achieve."

The lip service given to any form of an exit strategy in the rushed spring debate and vote this past spring in Parliament to extend Canada's committment through NATO another 2 years practically ensured that no matter what happened on the ground in Afghanistan, anyone who opposed the mission would be on the receiving end of American-style charges of 'cutting and running'. That, however, does not reflect the loss of support in the Canadian public who demand answers about the scope and effectiveness of the mission - which many still believe is one of peacekeeping, albeit on steroids.

Canadians who did support this country's involvement had done so first believing in the need to participate in America's war on terror and then in the idealistic promise that we would accepted as friends just there to lend a hand as they rebuild their country (flowers and candy, anyone?). The reality since the fighting increased this year, however, has shown that what we are involved in is still a full-fledged war.

Critics of those who want our troops to come home state that Canadians are not willing to make the necessary sacrifices in order to bring peace to Afghanistan and they have completely ignored the extremely troubled history of the region which shows just how difficult of a challenge Afghanistan has been to the largest of military empires in the past. Yet, they believe that modest amounts of foreign aid coupled with Canadian goodwill and a few firefights here and there will change the course of that history. And, with that, we are told to be patient.

Canadians have a right and a duty to ask their elected officials to be accountable for their military policy in Afghanistan. And, if Canadians collectively decide that it's time for our troops to come home knowing that any deficiencies in troop numbers can be made up by other members of the coalition of the willing - especially the United States, which is pulling its troops out now that NATO is taking over - our voices deserve to be heard. We should not be held hostage by the policies of other countries. Nor should we have treaded into an experimental NATO mission in which plans are made on the fly.

What does 'success' in Afghanistan look like?

That's the question PM Harper and Defence Minister O'Connor need to answer so the public can make an informed decision as to whether it will continue to support an open-ended committment without a clear-cut goal or whether it wants Canada's participation to end now.