Manley report won't call for Canada to leave Afghanistan

OTTAWA -- There will be no dramatic reduction of Canadian troops from volatile southern Afghanistan called for by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley in his eagerly awaited report on the country's military future there.

After touring NATO headquarters, Afghanistan and receiving hundreds of submissions, the independent commission created by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to advise his government on the way forward is not expected to recommend any significant scaling back of Canada's commitment of 2,500 soldiers in the Kandahar region, or any profound change in their current marching orders.

While it is expected Mr. Manley will emphasize the need for Canada to continue contributing to the training of Afghan national army and police personnel, the panel's findings, to be released as early as Tuesday, will not recommend a significant shift in the mission that Canada is currently conducting there with its 25 NATO allies and 11 other partner countries.

A published report earlier this week suggested that the Manley commission would recommend a phased reduction of Canadian personnel in Afghanistan to as low as 1,500.

A source familiar with the content of the final report told Canwest News that it would not contain any specific calls for troop reductions.

Many people who have contributed submissions to the panel say they came away with the impression that Mr. Manley and his fellow members are essentially in favour of staying the course in Afghanistan. That is, continuing combat operations while simultaneously training Afghan security forces towards the mutually agreed NATO endgame of withdrawal at a later, undetermined date.

"I basically said we should stay and continue our role," said Canadian military historian and author Jack Granatstein, summarizing his submission to the panel last month.

"Their questions seemed to be of a kind that when people ask you questions you get a sense of what way they're leaning," he added. "I had the sense listening to them and watching their body language they agreed with what I was saying."

Granatstein's impression indicates that the commission is likely to reject three of the four possible options in its terms of reference: an end to Canada's current combat role, and a shift towards development and diplomatic efforts; large-scale withdrawals of Canadian troops starting in February 2009; or a shift to a less volatile part of the country.

That leaves one option on the table: continue the current mission until western troops can begin a "phased withdrawal" starting no earlier than February 2009 and "consistent with progress" in training Afghan forces.

Mr. Harper wants the panel to advise him on a course of action after Canada's current commitment to NATO expires in February 2009, but he has repeatedly said that Canada will not pull out of Afghanistan until it is secure.

The Conservatives would like to extend the military commitment to 2011, but the three federal opposition parties, who hold the majority of seats in the House of Commons, are opposed.

Mr. Harper has pledged to bring the matter to a vote in the Commons, but has said he doesn't want the issue to be decided by partisan politics.

"If they put it to a vote in the House, I don't see how it can pass unless there's a sudden outbreak of influenza on the opposition benches," said Mr. Granatstein.

Mr. Granatstein said it would be "calamitous" if the Commons rejected continuing Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan because it would negatively ripple throughout NATO, which is still short of troops and military hardware.

"It will knock our reputation, which was wobbly under the Grits, back to what it was. We will be, once again, unreliable Canada."

When Mr. Manley was foreign minister in the former Liberal government, he was openly critical of Canada for not pulling its weight on the international stage.

Afghanistan Ambassador Omar Samad said his country will respect whatever decision the government makes, but he noted that it would have international ramifications far beyond Canadian domestic politics.

"This is not purely a bilateral issue between Canada and Afghanistan. This is an issue between a recipient country such as Afghanistan and the international community at different levels. On the security side, you have NATO as a body, which derives its legitimate actions from a UN-mandated mission," Mr. Samad said.

"It's going to be important to take decisions, taking into the account the NATO and UN mandates and to do so in a coherent and coordinated fashion."

In their submission to Mr. Manley, the Liberals stressed the need for Canada to notify NATO of its intent to pull out of Afghanistan on schedule so replacement troops could be found in another country.

But any reduction in Canada's commitment would appear to cut directly against the current tide of international momentum that is building towards April's NATO summit in Romania, which will also host UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

NATO officials have said both publicly and privately -- including on a below-the-radar visit to Ottawa this past week -- that Canada's contribution to the south is as necessary now as it ever was. No one, quite simply, is waiting in the wings to replace Canada in Kandahar.

U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said this week that other NATO countries had better start looking for a replacement for the 3,200 extra marines already headed to the Kandahar region in April because they aren't staying there longer than seven months.

The parliament of the Netherlands, one of Canada's key allies in the south, has granted an extension to 2010.

Mr. Granatstein said Mr. Harper could chose to delay the vote in Canada's parliament until after the NATO summit.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay suggested earlier this week that there isn't another country waiting to replace Canada, and that it has no intention of leaving its allies in a lurch.

"I have concerns about other NATO countries and their capacity and willingness to do more," Mr. MacKay said.

"What we're trying to do is see that this mission succeeds, first and foremost. That means NATO, all for one and one for all ... and a big, big part of it is the training element."

To: Alberta's Child; albertabound; AntiKev; backhoe; Byron_the_Aussie; Cannoneer No. 4; ...

To: Clive; GMMAC; exg; kanawa; conniew; backhoe; -YYZ-; Former Proud Canadian; Squawk 8888; ...

4 posted on 01/19/2008 5:13:01 AM PST by fanfan ("We don't start fights my friends, but we finish them, and never leave until our work is done."PMSH)

I truly believe that we need to stay there, and get the job done. I say this, as more from my military family prepare to go, and we scramble to support their families. It is a difficult contradiction between my heart, and my brain.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.