News Sections
Harper, Dion in tug of war over mission's end date
Font-size:
Share
Print
Comments(36)
CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Thu. Feb. 14 2008 8:24 PM ET
Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he understands clear timelines are essential in getting Canada out of Afghanistan but won't accept the Liberal proposal to stop all combat by the Feb. 2009 end date.
Responding to demands from the Liberals to determine clear deadlines for the mission, Harper said Thursday he is unwilling to take control away from the military leaders on the ground, saying they best understand the reality of working in the dangerous Kandahar province.
"It isn't the role of politicians to dictate their mission," he said to jeers from the opposing side of the House of Commons.
Liberal Leader Stephane Dion replied:"It is up to politicians to establish clearly what the mission is."
Despite a refusal to cooperate with Liberal demands to move to a support and training role next year and set a firm 2011 end date for the mission, Harper continued to remind Parliament that the option being proposed by the Conservatives wasn't really that different.
"This government has indicated a wish to put an end to the mission in 2011," said Harper, although making no firm commitment to a withdrawal at that time.
"I realize the Liberal Party has said something that is different but more or less the same. We are seeking common ground. The Liberals and Conservatives.... must work together here."
As the clock ticks toward a series of confidence votes that could bring down the government in March, the Conservatives seemed increasingly interested in showing themselves as willing to cooperate.
Barring deals on the extension of the Afghanistan mission, the federal budget and an extensive Tory crime bill, the opposition parties could bring the government down, taking the country to the polls as soon as mid-April.
However, the Liberals recently said they would support the extension of the Afghan mission until 2011 if Ottawa will notify NATO that it is pulling out at that time.
Harper has said leaving in 2011 would be the ideal situation but he's not sure it's a realistic goal at this time.
User Tools
Related Stories
CTV News
Canada in Afghanistan
The latest news, photos and interactives from Canada's mission in Afghanistan.
Bios and Pictures
Canadian Casualties
We remember those who lost their lives in Afghanistan since the mission began in 2002.
In Pictures
Hockey night in Kandahar
Hockey night in Kandahar? Soldiers let off steam playing desert ball hockey.
Corrections Canada
Corrections Canada and Canadian Forces reconstruct and train at an infamous Afghan prison.
User Tools
About the tools
Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.
-


Font-size
Print Article
Comments(36)-
Feedback
Share it with your network of friends
Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.
Most Viewed News Stories
Most Talked about Stories
I applaud the budget, even though Health Care and education may stay unscathed. Sadly this cannot last and I worry to later this year where cuts will become enviable. If anything, this provides the Wildrose Alliance plenty of ammo when an election is called.








Comments are now closed for this story
Concerned_Canadian
said
Dustin
said
We still need to stay in the role of fighting. Split half the soldiers on the training and defensive, the other half could still do dangerous missions but only when needed. We need NATO's full support if we want to bring peace to Afghan mission.
cantuc
said
Mike - Liberal
said
John
said
Kanatian
said
Tommorrow, each of the three will be saying something entirely different, once again.
What does it matter what Liberals say, since they change their minds every day?
DCR
said
hk
said
When you listen to the spin they have put on Afghanistan mission you really wonder if they think that Canadian people are really stupid. They are now starting to attack the mentality of the people who elected them. To think that they can get people to believe that they did not do a complete turn around on Afghanistan issue is just mind boggling. Most people do have a memory span of more then 2 days. It’s a good thing that Dion is not in the military. This country could not afford all the bullets he’s been firing in his own foot.
I do not like the Liberals but did respect Iggy who was one of the shining lights in their party. He just blew out that light by his “we said, they said” remarks in question period on Feb. 13. To think that people would miss the little tidbit of “2009 being replaced by 2011” and “ending combat but we will let the military decide what is best” is totally apprehensible. The people of Canada deserve and expect better leadership then this by a party leader and deputy leader. How pathetic they are.
Boggy
said
Troy
said
Dave H
said
David Dunlop
said
Give the soldiers the support and tools they need and let them do the job without interference from politicians.
Martin
said
Robert Yates
said
Truthful Joe
said
John
said
J-F (Ottawa)
said
The longer they are in power, the more I will feel like an American rather then a Canadian citizen.
The bully tactics constantly used by the Conservatives, makes me wonder why they don't just call themselves "Republicans"?
How can any Canadian be against bringing our troops home?
Are they fighting a worthy cause? YES.
Are too many soldiers dying?
Yes.
Which is more important to you?
You have to set a date, otherwise Afghanistan will become the next "Vietnam".
Go Liberals! Bring our troops home to their families.
A soldier
said
S Dion stick to your guns. We must have a firm date.
DCR:Were you as worried about A-stan when it was being pounded by the russians in the 80's?
freedom lover
said
Only a fool would think the Afghanistan situation will be any different in 2011 than it is now.
This is all just a stall by weakling politicians whose primary loyalty is to their US masters, not to Canadian values and interests.
Dan Dan
said
Shawn
said
What's stopping 2013 from being the new 2011 once we get there?
A few dozen Canadian lives later, a few thousand Afghan civilian lives later, $100 billion later, little to no progress, a new generation of insurgents against the occupying forces...
And somehow the right wing will again manage to accuse everyone else of being "unpatriotic" and "abandoning" the Afghan people...
And we will do it. All. Over. Again.
jeffw
said
what happens when 2011 strikes midnight and the problems in Afgan are far from over? should we keep our promise and pull out anyway? do we then say to the world "sorry, but it's no longer our problem"? how would we then look in the eyes of the civilized world, no matter who is governing our country?
this is a very real scenerio and it is why the current gov't does not believe we can accurately commit ourselves to a specific date. i also believe that ALL of the parties, both ruling and opposing, know of this reality. yet that doesnt stop them from their own partisan politics.
it is the job of the opposition to "oppose" but at the same time, while our country is being ruled by a minority gov't, all parties SHOULD work together on common sence issues and save the politics for less crucial (non-global) positions.
tired of the spin
said
The US wants it for them. Another installed government for them to control remotely from 1600 Penn.
The best friends of the US in the war on Terror are not democratic... Saudi Arabia.. is NOT a democracy... nor is Pakistan.
They want a democracy so long as it suits their purpose. I am embarrassed to be Canadian.
alberta view
said
Scott M.
said
After 2009:
They have clearly said that they would not lead in search-and-destroy counter-insurgency missions.
They have clearly said that they will have the army focus on training Afghan army (including going on Afghan-led missions) and reconstruction efforts.
They have clearly said they would fire back if fired upon.
They have said that NATO should plan on rotating a new country in as of February 2011 and that the last soldier should leave as of July 2011.
--
Yes, it's more nuanced and complex then the Conservative position of just "continuing what we're doing today" and "leaving it up to the generals on the ground". Unfortunately in today's media world, people expect 1-sentance explanations and throw up their hands in confusion when presented with more.
That being said, there is one important note that the Liberals have not made clear: Canada has not been involved in major counter-insurgency missions for a while now... our casualties come from various IEDs and bombs that lay in wait for passing vehicles. In other words, the Liberal position won't necessarily dramatically lessen our casualty count from 2009 to 2011 if we continue doing what we're doing today.
That slight-of-hand doesn't negate the validity of the Liberal position, it just underscores the fact that politicans of all stripes tend to focus on those things that make their argument sound the most appealing.
larry
said
Jim
said
The Afghan compact ends in 2011. That is the end of the NATO/UN mandate. We are committed til then and we will continue to do the reconstruction work that we have been doing all along, but to reconstruct an area it needs to be secure first. Security involves pursuit and destruction of the enemy from that area...end of story.
Mark
said
Bernard Romanycia
said
Calgary Dan
said
Martin
said
Jim
said
You do know that this mission is a UN/Nato sanctioned mission, right? Do you also know that it was the Liberals that committed our troops to Kandahar? Maybe check your facts before you assign blame as to who screwed up.
And to Calgary Dan
There is one party who clearly does not know the situation in Afghanistan and it ain't the Conservatives. Maybe the Liberals are the solution...then we can invade Pakistan.
Yep, obviously the Libs have their finger on the pulse of the region.
Sarcasm off...
Moe
said
Oh J.F. I love guys like you....NOT! Is there no worthy cause enough for you? This is nothing like Vietnam at all. Hitler, Stalin and Hirohito made a living from guys like you.
Balgonie Bob
said
allan
said
Jim McB
said
I believe this to be the case with Dion. He is mixing up the partisan politics he uses to gain popularity with the left with a combat and reconstruction mission. One gets you elected but if the second is not attended to, many victims will get dead. Most will be unarmed.
The NDP and the BLOC seem to have ignored the deaths their positions of withdrawal would cause. Do they think that if you abandon your duty it doesn't count. If we withdrew all the credit we have gained in the conflicts where we were present would be spent for nothing.
Afghanistan will go the way the PM wants it to. Dion and his caucus collectively don't have enough backbone to build a single skeleton.