Politics -
News Sections
U.S. Afghan efforts won't affect 2011 deadline: Cannon
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be out because this wasn't brought to Parliament, it was simply an announcement during an election that we'd be fully withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2011," Dewar said on Question Period.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."
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
John
said
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
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
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
SF
said
Chris in Edmonton
said
JK in the Rockies
said
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
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
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
Doug BC
said
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
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 is great to see a new Black & White president.
Good Luck.
Prof. Pye Chartt
said
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
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
A 7th month extention until Sept 11, 2011 is in order.
GM
said
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
Wade: Green house gas wars are over
said
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
Zwinky
said
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
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
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
Lost Cause
said
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
"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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
not in service
said
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.