Canada to extend stay in Afghanistan another 2 years

[Guest trex]

Canada should stay in Afghanistan until 2011: throne speech

OTTAWA - Canada should stay directly involved in Afghanistan until at least 2011, the minority Conservative government declared Tuesday in its latest throne speech.

The new proposed deadline is two years beyond the current mandate approved by Parliament and repeats Prime Minister Stephen Harper's promise to put the future of the mission to a vote in the House of Commons.

The speech tied Canada's eventual exit strategy to the training of Afghan security forces, including the army and police, and their ability to stand on their own two feet in order to face threats from Taliban insurgents.

"This will not be completed by February 2009, but our government believes this objective should be achievable by 2011."

Former defence minister Gordon O'Connor caused a firestorm of controversy last spring by suggesting that the army would be needed in Afghanistan until at least 2011. That is also the same year that an international agreement - the Afghanistan Compact - expires.

To Canadians already weary of war following the deaths of 71 soldiers and one diplomat, the Conservatives tried to steel public opinion to the road ahead.

"Progress will be slow, but our efforts are bearing fruit."

The throne speech argues that staying the course in Afghanistan would ensure that progress made to date "is not lost and our international commitments and reputation are upheld."

Harper last week appointed a five-person panel, headed by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley, to examine options for the future of the mission. The panel is expected to consider four options. Among them is continued Canadian training of the Afghan army and police. The other proposals include moving towards a reconstruction mission, shifting the army away from volatile southern Afghanistan to a quieter sector or withdrawing altogether.

The NDP have called for an immediate withdrawal of troops and plan to vote against the throne speech in any event. Ending the combat mission on schedule in February 2009 is a demand of the Bloc Quebecois. The Bloc's leader, Gilles Duceppe, indicated his party would vote against the throne speech.

The Liberals also want the mission wrapped up in sixteen months - something they said last summer would be a condition of their support.

Steve Staples, of the Rideau Institute, an Ottawa-based think-tank, said the Conservative's "brinksmanship strategy" is now crystal clear. "They've been emboldened by both the byelection victories in Quebec and the disarray in the Liberals," said Staples, a vocal opponent of the war. They'll try to repeat the coup of last time by getting enough Liberals to vote with the Conservatives in order to extend the mission by two years."

The speech commits the Conservatives to further modernize the Canadian Forces beyond last year's multi-billion dollar purchase of support ships, battlefield helicopters as well as medium and high-lift transport planes.

Aside from equipment it also says it will work with the provinces to address the thorny issue of "reservist reinstatement policies." Many provinces have been under public pressure to enact laws to protect the civilian jobs of reservists who volunteer for active duty.

In addition, the speech says the Arctic Rangers, a volunteer force that patrols the country's far north, will be expanded in "size and capability."

------------

Nice how we didnt get to vote on such an important issue in Canadas current affairs, don't you think? So far, Dion is keeping qiuet. Is it ridiculous for Dion to accept this throne speech? Yes it is, and he will prove himself to be a spineless wimp for sure if he does not vote them down.

[Fortunata]

Nice how we didnt get to vote on such an important issue in Canadas current affairs, don't you think? So far, Dion is keeping qiuet. Is it ridiculous for Dion to accept this throne speech? Yes it is, and he will prove himself to be a spineless wimp for sure if he does not vote them down.

It's called picking your battles and I think that Dion'd be foolish to vote down a "a vague general plan" instead of a specific issue.

As for Canada staying involved in Afghanistan until 2011, I guess it would depend on in what capacity for the NDP and the Libs to disagree. Layton has said many times he wants an end to combat operations, not an end to involvement. I can't quite figure out what the Libs want exactly but pulling out entirely is not it. The Bloc, who cares?

[sharkman]

I think this could be called a poison pill. As far as voting on it, your NDP and Liberal representatives won't let you down.... too hard.

[Wilber]

Changes in Afghanistan are a dead issue until Manley's panel comes down with its recommendations.

[old_bold&cold]

Must be a slow news day again. There is absolutely nothing new in any of this and is just another person trying to stir the pot and see what boils up. Harper has said he will have a vote in Parliament on the Afghan mission and he also is waiting a report due in Jan -feb, that will then be used to draft ideas and possible approaches to the issue. That does not sell and news papers so they try this.

Maybe they should go look for stories at the liberal cacus, as that is where the back stabbing and underhanded politics will be found. As usual I might add.