Angry in the Great White North

I mean, think about it for a minute.

Let's say Stephane Dion gets his way.  In February of next year, Canadian troops cease all operations that take the fight to the enemy.  Our troops cease engaging in combat, and are limited to security.  Let's also be realistic -- there will be no effective replacement for the Canadians, and least not by February.

Not that Stephane Dion cares.

According to Stephane Dion, the right strategic move is to have soldiers supply security to NGOs and local workers building schools in Afghanistan.

For the Taliban, education is a symbol of all they oppose.  Ignorance is what they want, so schools are a likely target.

Without Canadian troops aggressively moving through the countryside, the Taliban can quickly move in close to towns and cities.

When does security cross the line into combat?

Do the Canadians enforce a quarantine zone around the towns?  But then isn't that what they're doing now, just on a larger scale, throughout the entire province of Kandahar?

Does such a "security" cordon stay only as long as there is a reconstruction project underway?  Once the school is built, do the soldiers leave?

Then what happens?  The Taliban stroll in, torch the school, murder anyone who helped the reconstruction teams, and stroll out?

So maybe the Canadians continue to provide security after the reconstruction team leaves.  But what if the Canadian troops learn of Taliban force massing for a raid?  Remember that in all this time, Canadian commanders have probably established some level of trust with the locals, who in turn are providing intelligence to our forces.

Do we engage in "proactive" security?  Do we send a force to engage the Taliban?  But that's combat and that's no longer allowed?  Does this mean that Canadian troops will maintain static positions while the Taliban finishing collecting a force together?  Does that mean the Taliban will be allowed to pick the time and place and manner of the attack, knowing that the Canadians are not allowed to fire the first shot?

That can't be right, but then what does "no combat" mean?  Does it mean the Canadians leave at the first hint that they've been outflanked, which is when the first Taliban is spotted peaking over the nearby ridge?

But that doesn't make sense either.  What sort of security is that?

Let's say the Afghan army is trying to fill the gap left by the Stephane Dion's retreating Canadian troops.  The Canadians fall back to the relative safety of the towns.  Meanwhile an Afghan unit is shot up badly and needs help.

Is rendering aid considered security or combat? 

If it's security, do Canadian troops limit their actions to getting the Afghans out, forgoing any opportunity to press an advantage on retreating Taliban attackers? Do the Taliban take advantage of those limitations to raid and harass with near impunity?

And if going into the field to help out other units is considered combat, just how long will Afghans tolerate Canadian troops sitting on their hands as their own half-trained soldiers pay a heavy price for the "no combat" rule?

Is intelligence analysis combat or security?  If Canadians get wind of a Taliban force, do they share that intel with the Afghans?  But that information will form the basis of an attack, and Canadians can't be involved in combat. 

If the intelligence points to an attack on Canadian security positions, then maybe it's ok to share.   Then our troops sit back and hope that the Afghans are up to protecting them.  That's not a comforting position to be in.  But what if the information describes a limited attack, targeting only Afghan positions and deliberately avoiding Canadian positions?  To avoid "combat", do the Canadians sit on this information and let the Afghan troops (last week's training class) get killed?

If so, then it is very likely that these are exactly the sorts of attacks the Taliban will make.

Clearly that's not right.  But if Canadian troops are allowed to share intel, do they also help in planning based on that intelligence?  Does that cross the line into combat, or that a real-world training exercise?

If we are going into an election over Afghanistan, then Stephane Dion has to stand up and give a clear indication of just what it is that he thinks Canadian troops are going to be allowed to do, under any of the circumstances that they are likely to face, after February 2009.

Because without an explanation from him, I have to say that it seems to me that a "security only, no combat" mission makes no sense at all.