This week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government served notice that it intends to introduce a motion in parliament that would seek approval for extension of Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan beyond February 2009.

The motion would mirror recommendations delivered by the panel led by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley. It won't be voted on until late March and will likely be a confidence vote. If defeated, it would trigger an election.

The Manley Report recommended that the Afghan mission be extended beyond February 2009 but without termination date, conditional on (i) the provision of another 1,000 troops from NATO countries and (ii) the contribution of additional helicopters and other military equipment by NATO members.

The notice of motion came as Defense Minister Peter MacKay was in Lithuania lobbying the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) leaders for more troops and more equipment to fight the war in southern Afghanistan.

The original decision to engage in Afghanistan was made by the Chrétien Liberal government following the 9/11 attacks on the United States. The mission was extended to February 2009 by Mr. Harper’s government in May 2006.

The arrival of NATO forces and U.S. forces in Afghanistan had initially shut down the Taliban and denied Al Qaeda its safe-haven in the country. Sadly, the Americans decided Iraq was more important than Afghanistan and didn’t leave significant force to finish the Afghan job. Nearly five years later, it appears that terrorists continue to operate from southern Afghanistan while the Taliban insurgency has re-grouped and appears to be growing, not shrinking in size.

This is a United Nations (UN) mission carried out by NATO forces. It operates legally under the Charter of United Nations which purpose is “to maintain international peace and security; to ensure “that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest” and to promote the “economic and social advantage of all peoples”. The UN Security Council has repeatedly and explicitly authorized international military presence in Afghanistan, most recently last fall.

There are two fundamental questions for me: can this war be won and second can the reconstruction of Afghanistan be completed without a win and how do we define a win?

I don’t believe in an open-ended commitment to combat in Afghanistan nor do I accept the notion that we abandon the country completely. It seems reasonable that Canadian forces should be rotated in and out of combat and that other NATO countries should also be rotated through combat until this thing is fixed.

Canada has invested too much in blood, sweat and tears to abandon Afghanistan. That said, should we or should we not continue to be engaged in a combat situation if there is no end in sight and no help from the sidelines?

The motion on Afghanistan needs to be debated long and hard by our political leaders without the emotionally charged, partisan shrieking that accompanies most public debate in this country. The issues must be discussed openly so that Canadians understand the Afghan situation and are able to support a rationale decision about Canada’s future commitments. We need to browbeat our NATO allies into providing more troops and more gear. If they are not willing, we may have
to acknowledge defeat and pack our (combat) bags.

Canada has poured hundreds of millions of aid dollars into Afghanistan. Manley has suggested that some of the Canadian money be invested in a “signature” project like a major hospital or a cluster of irrigation projects.

Mr. Harper’s government rejected that recommendation as a public relations stunt. I disagree. A major development project would give tangibility and positive recognition to Canada’s reconstruction commitment. It could help repair some of the bitterness towards Canada that will naturally emerge from armed combat.

As I understand it, the Harper motion will mirror recommendations in the Manley report and deliver an open-ended commitment to stay the course in Afghanistan subject to the NATO contribution of troops, helicopters and other hardware. The Liberal position, again as I understand it, is that Canada should withdraw Canadian forces from combat in February 2009 and redeploy them to non-combatant re-construction activities in Afghanistan.

The NDP and the Bloc Quebecois have stated categorically that they want Canada to abandon Afghanistan completely and withdraw all troops by February 2009. That makes no sense, nor does an open-ended commitment to combat.

It seems to me there is room for a middle-ground here. What if the Government forced the issue by announcing that effective February 2009, Canada’s military will take a time-out, a three year break from combat in Afghanistan to allow it to focus on re-building projects. When other nations have completed their combat rotations, Canada could return for a third round, if needed.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He can be contacted at bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com Atlantic Insight is a published Blog inventory of opinion articles published weekly in New Brunswick's print media as written by W.E. (Bill) Belliveau, who is a resident of Shediac, New Brunswick, and small business owner, operating his Moncton-based marketing consultancy, Bell Strategic. He can be reached by e-mail at mailto:bill.bellstrategic@nb.aibn.com