| Ander Nieuws week 37 / nieuwe oorlog 2006 |
Leadership rivals split on exit strategy - Most agree we must fulfil commitment
Toronto Star
September 5, 2006
By Robyn Doolittle
Although divided on an exit strategy, Liberal leadership candidates are calling for a major re-evaluation of Canada's role in Afghanistan.
These demands for a change in mandate from fighters to peacekeepers were renewed after five Canadian soldiers were killed in 24 hours since Saturday during a major Kandahar offensive.
"This mission now has the appearance of being almost entirely a counter-insurgency effort that is being fought overwhelmingly on a military basis," Bob Rae said. "I think we have to look carefully at the original purpose of the mission."
It was a common theme among the eight candidates reached yesterday: After Sept. 11, 2001, Canadian Forces were deployed to help oust the Taliban, build an Afghan infrastructure and bring about a democracy, but now those goals are not being addressed.
Gerard Kennedy likened the Canadian mission in Afghanistan to the American war in Iraq.
"The Canadian strategy in Afghanistan is similar to the U.S. strategy in Iraq ... and it's a losing strategy," Kennedy said. "Canada is now occupying parts of Afghanistan and that is not a traditional role for Canada."
While troops have been focusing on eradicating poppy crops - opium being the major mainstay of Afghanistan's economy, Kennedy said there has been no effort to replace those lucrative crops with alternatives. This, he says, is driving farmers into the arms of the Taliban.
"We can't win the hearts and minds of the Afghani people if we can't win their stomachs," he said.
Many demanded the government begin talks with other NATO countries to develop an exit strategy, and lambasted NDP Leader Jack Layton's call for withdrawal soon and at the latest by February 2007.
"The idea of Mr. Layton for immediate withdrawal is completely irresponsible. It's as irresponsible as the decision of the Prime Minister (Stephen Harper) to extend the mission there," Stéphane Dion charged.
Hedy Fry, on the road campaigning yesterday, agreed.
"I think pulling out right now, as others have suggested, would put the other troops in jeopardy. We would not be pleased if others (in NATO) pulled out and left us to stand alone," she said.
Most shared Joe Volpe's position that since Canadian parliamentarians committed our Forces to Afghanistan until 2009, Canada must honour that promise. Volpe said we need to be firm on there being no extension of that mandate and on Canada being a peacekeeping nation, not one being called on for combat.
"We're asked to take on a role that the Americans couldn't handle, one of the most equipped of the world powers. Something the Russians and the English couldn't do, and we were asked to do it with an armed forces of about 55,000, and only about 11,000 are deployable at any time," he said.
Active combat and search and destroy missions are not what Canadians signed up for, Carolyn Bennett said, even though "Traditional peacekeeping isn't possible any more.
"We are now dealing with terrorism and civil war and a set of different circumstances that puts soldiers in harm's way ... (so active combat) may not be what Canadians thought we signed on to. The agenda was for better schools and foreign aid."
Martha Hall Findlay said the situation has become so unstable that it would be a mistake to set any withdrawal date.
"We need to collectively determine that we need to exit ... (a strategy) far more effective, if we do it collectively with our other NATO partners."
Michael Ignatieff, who voted to extend the Afghanistan operation from 2007 to 2009, sent an email declining comment.
Scott Brison and Ken Dryden could not be reached.
Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited
Original link
| Ander Nieuws week 37 / nieuwe oorlog 2006 |