Angry in the Great White North

John Manley makes two important points in his report on Canada's mission in Afghanistan:

Canada should indefinitely extend its military mission in Afghanistan, but only on condition of additional equipment and more support from other countries, says a high-profile panel headed by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley.

The panel also suggests gradually refocusing the mission on reconstruction, training and diplomacy rather than combat.

The blue-ribbon panel concluded that Afghanistan's security situation has been deteriorating amid increased insurgent attacks, but noted that the country has also made economic and social progress.

“Many would have preferred us to find a basis on which to recommend an end to the Canadian military roles by a certain date,” the report states.

“The hard truth is that an ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] retreat from Afghanistan, before that country's own forces can defend its security, would most likely condemn the Afghan people to a new and bloody cycle of civil war and misrule – and raise new threats to global peace and security.

The military mission in the war-torn country is due to end in February 2009, but the 90-page report says the mission should be extended if:

• A new battle group – about 1,000 soldiers – is deployed by the ISAF to Kandahar province, enabling Canadian forces to accelerate training of the Afghan National Army.

• The government secures new, medium-lift helicopters and high-performance unmanned aerial vehicles by February 2009.

“The most damaging and obvious deficiency in the ISAF mission in Afghanistan is the insufficiency of the military forces deployed against the insurgents,” the panel wrote.

One is that the ISAF needs to step up and provide more troops in Kandahar.  Not replace Canadian troops but add 1,000 soldiers.  If Canada is not threatening to leave but rather stay and see the job through, I think that will go a long way to convincing other NATO countries to contribute troops. [Update: I needlessly and incorrectly dumped on the Netherlands and other NATO members.  I've rectified that.] 

The other is also very important.  The Conservative government needs to give the troops the tools they need to do the job.  In particular, the troops need unmanned aerial vehicles and medium lift helicopters.

Helicopters?  Did the Canadian almost get new helicopters 15 years ago?  Oh right, the Liberals cancelled that program and never purchased replacements.  Then the Liberals sent the troops into Kandahar without airlift capability, forcing the troops to traverse the roads where they are exposed to mines and IEDs.

John Manley is right.  That Liberal error has been allowed to stand for far too long.  It's well past time that this particular Liberal legacy is erased.  New helicopters are on the way, but won't arrive by 2009.

Now Stephane Dion has indicated that he won't force an election before the budget is presented.  Let's assume that the Conservatives table this report along with a promise that new helicopters will be made available by year-end, and then demand a vote from Parliament to extend the mission beyond February 2009, with a gradual shift to more training (which is happening anyway).  In presenting this package to Parliament, the Conservatives promise to address an egregious Liberal error that has seriously compromised the ability of the Canadian Forces to do the job assigned to them by the Liberals by accelerating the arrival of the new choppers.

Stephane Dion doesn't want an election yet.  Will he again order his MPs to sit on their hands?  Or will he force an election because the Liberals are adamant that the Canadian Forces are not going to get their helicopters, not if they are going to be used in Afghanistan?