CTV News | U.S. Afghan efforts won't affect 2011 deadline: Cannon

Politics -   

U.S. Afghan efforts won't affect 2011 deadline: Cannon

Viewer

CTV News Video

CTV's Question Period: Lawrence Cannon
CTV's Question Period: Liberal MP Navdeep Bains and NDP MP Paul Dewar discuss Canada's future in Afghanistan

Font-size:      Share  Print  Comments(36)

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Sun. Nov. 9 2008 10:38 PM ET

President-elect Barack Obama's pledge to boost U.S. military operations in Afghanistan "will not change Canada's position" on a troop pullout in 2011, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said Sunday.

Cannon said Canada will start to withdraw soldiers from the war-torn country on schedule, as promised by Prime Minister Stephen Harper during the federal election.

"While we welcome the Americans' renewed interest in Afghanistan, particularly president-elect Obama's position during the campaign, we nonetheless want to make it perfectly clear that the U.S. position will not change Canada's position as defined in our parliamentary resolution," Cannon said in an interview on CTV's Question Period.

"We will be pulling out our military forces in 2011 and this is quite clear."

The 2011 deadline was decided by Parliament last March. While campaigning in September, Harper said Canada would not extend its military campaign in Afghanistan any further, citing Canadians' growing weariness of the war.

But NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar said the sincerity of the announcement was suspect given that Harper made the promise during an election after refusing to set a hard date in Parliament.

"One just wonders if indeed we will be out because this wasn't brought to Parliament, it was simply an announcement during an election that we'd be fully withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2011," Dewar said on Question Period.

During the U.S. presidential campaign, Obama outlined his intent to divert military resources from Iraq to Afghanistan to fight Taliban forces and hunt down Osama bin Laden.

In a mid-October speech, Obama said he would send two or three more combat brigades to Afghanistan. One brigade usually has between 3,500 and 4,000 troops.

Although, Harper called to congratulate Obama shortly after his victory in last week's U.S. presidential election, it's unclear if the two spoke about the Afghanistan war.

The economy appears to be foremost in their minds, and the two leaders will work together on financial concerns that affect both countries, Cannon said Sunday.

He also speculated that Obama and Harper may begin work on a North American plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and tackle global warming.

Obama said during his campaign that he plans to implement a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gases 80 per cent by the year 2050. The Harper government's goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 20 per cent by 2020.

Harper will have difficulty reconciling his environmental plan with Obama's, predicted Liberal foreign affairs critic Navdeep Bains.

"Mr. Harper has to recognize that he can't defend or undervalue the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions that come from the oilsands," Bains said on Question Period. "Barack Obama has been very clear about his position on that as well."

Comments are now closed for this story

John
said

The Conservatives have made a grave error in setting a fixed date for withdrawal. Afghanistan is an incredibly fluid situation, so static timetables simply cannot work. If the circumstances change (including increased int'l support), then the policy should adapt as such. Instead, any Canadian gov't is now handcuffed.

And this is nobody's fault but our own. The Canadian population has turned sensible solutions into political poison, and so no politician is going to change the policy as it stands.

fitzz
said

Oh yeah, sure!

Just as Jean Chretien "brilliantly" avoided a commitment in Iraq just to become mired in Afghanistan at Dubya's behest, watch the current Canadian government get suckered again!

Canada doesn't really have a position to take here. Its "stance", as usual. will be as flexible as it needs to be to please our neighbour to the south at a minimal cost in life and treasure.


Raymond
said

Cue the howling left.

Let me guess...now that Obama has been elected, Afhanistan will become a 'vastly important, great humanitarian mission that requires Canadian involvement to the bitter end', and Harper will be seen an 'heartless bully, unsympathetic to the needs of the Afghan people, cutting and running when needed most...'.

Any takers?


hank
said

I understand the importance of reducing green house gases. However why is all the focus on the oilsands. I think most of the focus should be on some countries like africa and other countries that have no regulation at all when it comes to oil production. A friend of mine works in the oil fields in africa and told me there is no regulation on how things are contained or cleaned up. I understand they are not major producers, but nonetheless these issues need to be adressed. We certainly need to reduce emissions and clean up the mess in alberta, but lets not forget we're not the only contributers to the problem....


SF
said

No, Raymond, I don't think you'll find anyone "howling" on the left to extend the mission. This was a right-wing endeavour from the beginning - anyone to the left of the political spectrum wouldn't support any form of imperialism, no matter how "humanitarian" it might be. Your assessment of Harper, however, is dead on, although I might replace "Afghan" with "Canadian" - anyone who wants to send kids to jail for life is in no position to criticize the Taliban. Please let us "cut and run" from the disaster that is Afghanistan, the sooner the better.


Chris in Edmonton
said

Once again ignorance at its best. Fitzz please tell me how we are in Afghanistan at the behest of our neighbours to the south. I am sick of the uninformed making these completley unfounded accusations.

JK in the Rockies
said

I have been in support of having our Canadian armed forces in Afghanistan so far. But I think ending the mission in 2011 would be good for at least these two reasons:

1. Afghanistan's new constitution was applauded - but the constitution declared that Afghanistan had a state religion - Islam. Since Afghanistan is declared an Islamic state, that would negatively affect freedom of any other religion. Extremists would prevail. I doubt the mission could really achieve the desired objective.

2. The poppy crop essentially needs to be eradicated. This would drain the Taliban coffers. It would curb corruption. If this isn't done, we are kidding ourselves that the mission will have success.


Zwinky
said

Ok Raymond.

While the humanitarian plight of regular Afghan people touches us all, there can be no military "victory" that will incur any positive effect on their daily life.

People who really believe in humanitarianism understand this.

We should abandon all mlitary action as quickly as possible in favour of negotiation and compromise even if it means talking to all Afghan factions, even the violent ones.

Understand that Afghanistan is never going to reach the same level of democracy as a western nation.

This is not an attainable goal at this time because they are simply too far behind us as a nation.

We can however, get them to a higher level of peace, democracy and stability than they have ever experienced before if we stop fighting and start negotiating and helping the build a future.

Everyone has a price for their cooperation, even terrorists like the Taliban.

We have to abandon our primitive revenge strategy of "beating" the Taliban for what they have done to our people and their own.

We must understand that the Taliban know they cannot win either. They are simply waiting for us to decide to make them an offer for peace that leaves them with an "out" from declared defeat.

Continuing the fight won't bring back a single life that has been lost and will never succeed in ending further losses.

We must send the soldiers home, bring on the diplomats and negotiators and find a negotiated path to peace.

Sorry Raymond, seems only you are "howling" while I aim to provide some food for thought and discussion from a rational humanist.

DCR-Toronto
said

Just thought I'd point out that the people saying that this was a "Conservative" endeavor, and we are there under the US pressure, are completely WRONG! Must be nice living in a world of make believe eh?
Are the memories of these people so short as to nt remember only a few years ago when the Liberals sent us there. And the Liberals supported the extension? Were they asleep when Canadians were killed in 9/11. Do they choose to ignore the terrorist threats that are all across the western world?

We don't live in a world of eutopia. Sometimes we must stand up to those who threaten us.



Gord in Regina Sask
said

I don't believe for one minute that 2011 is the year for withdrawal. That promise was made to keep the left and the mainstream media from pouncing on Harper.

Doug BC
said

"John" clearly sees the situation as it actually is,and not through the clouded lens of political partisanship.NO ONE,left or right of centre can predict where the resolutions to this might lie tommorrow,much less than tree years from now.
I think it was an MP in England years ago,who was accussed of "flip flopping" on an issue.The which he responded,"when conditions on the ground change,I may also have to change my mind".
Or is that just to much like common sense for most partisan Canadians??
Some of the suggestions here are so blatantly ignorant of the facts that they lead me to believe they are posted by workers of one political party or another.
I would love to refute a few of them.But I'm sure even those who posted them realize the absurdity of what they just wrote.A battle of wits with some of them would be like fighting an unarmed opponent.
The subject does us all a couple of favours,however.It points out just how partisan our political system has become,and how absolutely atrocious our education system must be.Apparently many people in the country do not read.And,at the same time,many buy into anything their particular political party tries to shovel,and never ask for "just the facts,please".
Those are the real shames for Canada.A country that continues to deny it's history,and is populated by people who are ashamed of it's military.To be honest I wonder if we really deserve the freedoms that so many sacrificed so much for.
This is a national issue that should transend "spin" and outright lies for the benefit ot political partisanship.

Let's all stay forever
said

"The Conservatives have made a grave error in setting a fixed date for withdrawal. Afghanistan is an incredibly fluid situation, so static timetables simply cannot work."


Absolutely right. Everyone from NATO and the US should rewrite their plans and promise the people of Afghanistan that they'll stay there FOREVER if they have to. Like, literally until the end of time. If it takes 10,000 years to teach the good guy Afghans how to shoot at the Taliban and chase them away, then so be it.

We'll even tell them that if greater and greater numbers of Afghans want us to leave, we'll still stay. And if some of the disillusioned Afghans turn around and starting shooting at us and screaming at us to leave, we'll still stay. No cutting and running. We'll stay until the job is done.


Kevin
said

It will be interesting to see if Obama Hussin keeps his election promises. Hopefully for our troops he does.

It is great to see a new Black & White president.

Good Luck.


Prof. Pye Chartt
said

Anybody with a brain and an ounce of common sense appreciates that military operations of any kind must be terminated only based upon actual results and the full accomplishment of the mission at hand.

Setting a timetable to withdraw, in advance, is foolish and, moreover, demeans the mission itself. Establishing a troop pullout date of 2011, to appease the Canadian peanut gallery that typically opposes ANY military operation, regardless of cause or effect, demonstrates softheaded thinking.

Unless PM Harper is absolutely certain that the "mission" will be fully accomplished by 2011, this conservative doesn't support the notion. (Besides, billboarding a withdrawal plan seldom proves to be a mark of strategic genius in military situations.)

Lastly, it's difficult not to cynically agree with "Raymond" here, that liberals will twist the facts and circumstances come 2011, and assert that PM Harper is a cold-hearted bastard for abandoning the Afghan people prematurely. Especially if/when Obama (World Saviour) gets the U.S. military kicked into gear there.


Allan Eizinas
said

We should never have been involved. The only light at the end of this bloody tunnel may be when/if Obama takes over and the USA gets directly involved in negotiations with the warring tribes.

There is only one possible solution and it is a political one. The northern part of Afghanistan might be split from the south with Kabul as capital and some form of democracy. The south would continue as run by the same old war lords with a loose central affiliation to a Pashtun/Taliban regional “government” in Kandahar – the same as it has always been. Those 15 million Pashtuns in southern Afghanistan will continue to be affiliated with the other 15 million Pashtuns in Pakistan.

Time for Canada to declare victory and go home – just like the Americans did in Vietnam!


Nancy - 7 more months until 10 Yr anniversary
said

10 years is a good commitment, we are going to be short about 7 months.

A 7th month extention until Sept 11, 2011 is in order.


GM
said

Zwinky;

I believe that you are missing a fundamental fact.

The Taliban is not interested in any kind of compromise.

They will accept nothing but a return to the dark past.

I will never understand why some believe if the free countries of the world dropped their arms, everyone else will too.

Many believed at one time that Hitler was unbeatable and that is was useless to fight the Nazis.

History has demonstrated that every "humanitarian" democracy has been achieved the hard way and in most cases with the help of others.

On November 11 "Lest We Forget".


Carol in NB
said

If we pull our troops out in 2011 like the government has said they would, then all those soldiers who gave their lives will have died in vain. The Taliban will end up on our shores for retribution and the people there will go back to the way life was when the Taliban were in power. The women and children (with the exception of male offspring) will be second class citizens again and they will again cry for our help. Zwinky just doesn't seem to understand that terrorists DO NOT negotiate and there will be no 'negotiated path to peace' until the extremists are stopped.


Wade: Green house gas wars are over
said

Liberals Bains party spent the better part of the last dozen years bashing America. Now going off on green house gases.
A reminder to Liberals & GHG
Elizabeth May - Lost
Stephan Dion - Lost
Al Gore - Lost
Hillary Clinton - Lost

Green house gas is off the table energy security is on with alternative fuels so call it global warming reduction if it makes you happy.


Richard L. Provencher
said

What are the NDP whining about now? They are never happy, always complaining. But then, what else can they do to earn their massive salaries. And if they don't think that is very much, then I'll trade for my OAS plus CPP. The NDP should do something plausible like helping cut out the clawback, such as a $300 cut from my CPP when I qualified for OAS. I'm glad our Conservatives will be leaving in 2011, and that should allow Afghanistan the responsibility of running their own country. Why aren't the NDP, an irrelevant party these days, complaining about the many years the UN is still involved in Greece?


Zwinky
said

Some Taliban leaders HAVE approached Middle Eastern go betweens" with interest in a non-military compromise end to the insurgency.

They requested some involvement in the new government of Afghanistan and while not an ideal situation for the growth of democracy they would certainly hold influence far short of the control they had when in power.

The negotiation was never pursued because this was not the direction that NATO wanted to go at the time.

Some of what you say plays into the "we must get even for the past" argument which I question and frankly dismiss as a rational reason for continued warfare.

Fianlly, while the military sacrifices of the past were noble and necessary and even effective at the time they were made and must never be forgotten, military battle is not what it was at the time of WWII and has ceased to be a viable tool in fighting an insurgent war such as we are involved in in Afghanistan.

I stand by what I said.


Gwillimbury
said

I agree with Raymond. Now that Obama wants to make the mission in Afghanistan his priority, the Liberals and NDPer's in this country will want to follow him like a puppy and yes, all of a sudden to them, Afghanistan will become this great humanitarian importance all of a sudden.

Although Canada will want to pull out it's troops in 2011, somehow I believe that the Liberals and NDPers will want to extend our mission longer and even may want to expand our mission.

I guess this is what we're going to get, for electing another miniority government.

Proud Canadian
said

The USA, other NATO countries and the UN have acknowledged and commended Canada's efforts and accomplishments in Afghanistan.

Sadly, Paul Dewer and company do not want us to believe in the mission keep suggesting the mission is not working.

Is this not an insult to those who do believe and are over there risking their lives because they believe?

Never before has Canada been against anything the UN supports.

I am proud of our troops, aid workers and diplomats.

With November 11 approaching I will remember and honor those who served and those who gave the ultimate sacrifice.




MM
said

I hope the government stands on its words. I'm getting sick of our taxes going into military investment while we have so much problems ourselves in this country.


Lost Cause
said

To GM - You say that the Taliban is not interested in any kind of compromise? That they will accept nothing but a return to the dark past?

If you believe this and your belief prevails in driving the Afghanistan mission, then it will become true.

The US was in negotiations with the Taliban in the 1990's. Yes, negotiations. With the Taliban.

The Taliban also offered to deliver Bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country after 9/11, if the USA could present evidence that Bin Laden orchestrated it. It was a bargaining situation with the enemy, brought about at the time with the help (yes, genuine help) of Iran, who was sympathetic to the USA in the aftermath of 9/11.

The USA refused all of this, saying "we don't negotiate with terrorists". That statement right there has morphed and wormed its way into the brains of individuals like yourself. It is the unwavering belief that negotiation is totally impossible that is one of the biggest problems right now. It's a lie, and a very dangerous one.

I wish people like yourself would stop spreading this lie around so stubbornly and fanatically. It's not helping anything.


Prof. Pye Chartt
said

@ "Allan Eizinas":

"Time for Canada to declare victory and go home – just like the Americans did in Vietnam!"

That's a great idea, my friend. Abandon the mission. Void the cause. Admit defeat. Abandon the Afghani people. Set a new precedent for military stupidity. Stamp "Died in Vain" on all the coffins of our fallen soldiers. Let the U.S. and other allies show us how it's done.

Thank goodness most people with your backward mindset and twisted logic are sitting in the political peanut gallery and not in a high-ranking government office.

Your post professes a genuine understanding of the situation in Afghanistan; yet, with all due respect, you seem to be ignorant (or stubbornly dismissive) of the facts surrounding the positive impact our efforts are yielding.

Try reading more than just The Anti-War Advocate.


james
said

Wow..the saviour of the left, the prophet that will lead the world to utopia is committing MORE US military forces to combat!


I'm waiting for the posts from Liberal and NDP supporters explaining why this is a good idea. I can't wait to hear from Tailban Jack why Canada should increase and extends its mission now that the the saviour Obama has spoken. After all, wasn't it Jack that said Obama was most like him?



GM
said

Zwinky;

I appreciate your rebuttal.

Could it not be that the Taliban is desperate and the proposals made are propaganda intended to mislead and buy time, or at the very least retain influence on the future?

If the Taliban was sincere about any compromise one would have to acknowledge that NATO has accomplished something legitimate militarily as they were definitely not suggesting compromise five years ago.

I do not believe in any kind of revenge and if an acceptable peaceful resolution was made tomorrow, I would be as happy as anyone.

I am jut not as optimistic about the Taliban's intentions.

It would be a greater tragedy if we had to return.




Linda in Vancouver
said

Unless I'm missing the point here,I though that negotiations have always been on the table.And that it will be up to the government of Afghanistan yo actuall set those wheels in motion.
Some have stated that the solution is not going to be a military one.DUH !! Talk about stating the obvious in spades.Everyone knows that full well.No war ends without a political solution.The military's role is to secure the country,and make sure that negotiators are not forced into talking whilke they are in a position of weakness.The Taliban will concede nothing to the citizens of Afghanistan as long as they think they can use terrorism to extort an unconditional surrender from the elected government.
I'm not sure this conflict is being handled very well.I do,however,think that millions of people in Afghanistan will suffer greatly if the so called developed world,just picks up and leaves them to the mercy of the Taliban.
Perhaps those who think we should do nothing would like to go there and tell this to those people.In fact,the Taliban would be so grateful they may even invite them to stay for the stonings and the beheadings.
The UN cannot solve this via NATO troops.But they may be able to mitigate the torture,and push the extremist demands off of the negotiating table.
God bless all who defend freedom against extremism of all kinds.


Michael from Toronto
said

Negotiations work when you can trust the other party to deliver. Some people negotiate to deceive or stall the other party. Others negotiate because they just want to wash their hands of a situation and get out. The latter two both work on a principle of delusion.

Now I ask you if the Taliban is a regular party one would negotiate with, as a peer, simply as someone you have been competing with but have no deep-seated unresolvable animosity with. I remind you the Taliban is a fanatical religious group.

Religion is never negotiable - Westerners tend to forget this because so many Westerners have distanced themselves from religion to the point of assuming all people behave selfishly. Truly religious fanatics don't care if they die or lie to you so long as they are true to their own religion.

Fanatics do not negotiate and if they do you cannot trust them to deliver. Westerners who say they do just want to get out at all cost (selfish) or they are simply deluded.


GM
said

Lost cause:

Thanks for the cheery response.

Perhaps you can enlighten us all on what happy ending the Taliban is interested in negotiating.

Democracy?

Human rights and freedoms?

No terrorist training?

Control of the poppy exports?

Would the handing over OBL have been the end of all terrorism?

The fine print in such an agreement would be interesting.



Dean Edmonton
said

fitzz
Oh yeah, sure!

Just as Jean Chretien "brilliantly" avoided a commitment in Iraq just to become mired in Afghanistan at Dubya's behest, watch the current Canadian government get suckered again!


Afghanistan wasn't a "Dubya" thing, it is a UN thing...


Layton B in Moncton NB
said

Raymond and SF, I am on the left and I for one think we should extend the mission, and here's why. Because if Osama Bin Laden was really behind the attacks on the United States on 9/11 then it IS still the mission to bring him to justice for a couple thousand murders, that's why. Remember that is why Canada entered this godforsaken dirt hole in the first place? We didn't get involved in Iraq because they had nothing to do with 9/11 and they had no weapons of mass destruction after Gulf War Episode I, we didn't drink the kool-aid like most of the rest of the world.
Afghanistan and its tribesmen should never be under estimated. These people with US training and weapons toppled the Soviet Army, and now we have OUR military in their country. Yes it IS a humanitarian mission as well, why? Because we must gain the trust of the average Afghan villager. To do that we must engage with them, assist them in projects, school and hospital construction. Personally I would like to see Canada help rebuild Afghanistan on one hand and with the other purging the Taliban and Al Qaida from the planet. So if a US President is offering up troops, well hey, lets finish what we came there to do. Especially since we're getting the help we've been screaming for, the least we can do is keep troop levels even. So how's that for the LEFTS view on our military commitments. Afghanistan, right war for the right reasons; Iraq, blatant oil grab in the Gulf sold to the world on a bed of lies.


Lost Cause
said

GM - you asked me some questions. How could I or anyone else possibly know what "happy" ending the Taliban could be interested in negotiating if all we do is categorize them as impossible to negotiate with and only worth slaughtering.

If you brought the various factions in Afghanistan to the table to start some kind of bargaining talks and cease fire conditions (like President Karzai has repeatedly called for) you might be able to at least find out what might be possible.

Why that scenario is such a difficult one to consider or give a real chance to, I don't understand.

As for human rights and freedoms, do you mean human rights and freedoms as we in the west see them, or human rights and freedoms as they are seen through the hardline Islamic theology of those we are fighting to secure into power in Afghanistan? That's two different answers. You and I would have one thing in common on this question, and that is that our answer would be far, far too liberal and secular compared with what the Taliban or Karzai's regime would ever settle for. Both of their answers would in many ways be barbaric and totally unacceptable to us.

If OBL was captured, it would not be the end of terrorism, just as OBL was not the beginning of all terrorism. There is no beginning or ending to terrorism. That was a bizarrely conceived question so I'll just hand it back to you with that answer.

Hope that helps you see what I'm trying to say. You described my response sarcastically as "cheery" but I'm not the one who is arguing for a perpetual cycle of endless violence and killing as the sole way to solve the problems in Afghanistan.


Murray Thompson
said

I've sadly come to the point where I understand that terrorism means there is no end to war, although there may be a change in the places where it is waged. This kind of war is like the dam holding back water - always needed to hold your position. As soon as you stop, you become inundated. That being said, I'd prefer the war not engulf North America. I really wish there was a better answer, but as yet, I haven't seen one


not in service
said

fitzz
I think you got history mixed up a little. You see America went to war because OBL was in Afghanistan and America said OBL did 911. We supported America along with the rest of the world in that war. America INVADED IRAQ for their oil and said Saddam was a bad man ( no worse than bush) Canada didn't want to be what turned out to be an illegal invasion as the majority of Canadians agreed with the Gov move.


Share with your social Network:

 

Advertisement

Contest

CTV News

Canada in Afghanistan

Canada in Afghanistan

The latest news, photos and interactives from Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

Janis Mackey Frayer

Janis Mackey Frayer

A long way to the exit: Training the Afghan police force

Exit Strategy

Exit Strategy

What's the real plan for Canada's 2011 exit strategy?

Canada's new ambassador to Afghanistan, Bill Crosbie, visits Sayad Pacha School near Kandahar Airfield in this Sept. 8, 2009 photo. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Bill Graveland)

CTV.ca Exclusive

Janis Mackey Frayer sits down with Canada's new ambassador in Afghanistan.

Petawawa

Petawawa

Two-part series on Canadian actor, director and playwright Christopher Morris.

Bios and Pictures

Casualties

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

Hockey night in Kandahar? Soldiers let off steam playing desert ball hockey.

Helping conflict victims in Kabul

Helping victims in Kabul

A Red Cross orthopedic centre gives new hope to disabled Afghans in Kabul.

Corrections Canada

Corrections Canada

Corrections Canada and Canadian Forces reconstruct and train at an infamous Afghan prison.

After the surge

After the surge

A look at life in Afghanistan after the U.S. troop surge.

User Tools

About the tools

Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.

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.

Share this article with Facebook

Share this article with Digg

Share this article with Newsvine

Share this article with delicious

Share this article.
Send Email

Share this article with Twitter

Share this article with StumbleUpon

Share this article with Reddit

Share this article with Yahoo! Buzz