The government of Canada this week announced that Canada's military will keep 950 personnel in Afghanistan from 2011-2014 to help train the Afghan army. This decision is entirely consistent with the 2008 motion adopted by the House of Commons which has been widely misunderstood this week (particularly by the NDP) that the motion called for troops to leave Afghanistan when the combat mission ends in 2011.
In fact, the motion, which passed the House on March 13, 2008 by a vote of 198-77, says nothing about pulling Canadians out of Afghanistan but does say, quite specifically, that by 2011, Canadian troops will be pulled out of Kandahar.
And that, of course, is just what the government is doing: Pulling its troops out of Kandahar and setting up at a training facility in Kabul.
The full text of the motion is here [scroll down to the Government Orders section]. This excerpt seems clear to me that the motion directs the government to pull troops out of Kandahar but not out of Afghanistan:
Therefore, it is the opinion of this House that Canada should continue a military presence in Kandahar beyond February 2009, to July 2011, in a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate on Afghanistan …
And it is the opinion of this House that, consistent with this mandate, this extension of Canada's military presence in Afghanistan is approved by this House expressly on the condition that: …
(c) the government of Canada notify NATO that Canada will end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011, and, as of that date, the redeployment of Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar and their replacement by Afghan forces start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by December 2011;
Can you please provide a quote where an NDP MP said that the 2008 motion required that all troops be removed from everywhere in Afghanistan?
NDP Leader Layton stated as much just moments ago in the House.
The Conservatives were saying the same thing until very recently. MND MacKay in April:
'…
“We will work within the parameters of the parliamentary motion, which states very clearly that the military mission will come to an end in 2011,”..
Not just in Kandahar and not just combat. Plus foreign minister Cannon in March:
'…
“In 2011, we're out,” Cannon said during the daily question period. “Canada's military mission will end in 2011 and we will continue to have a development and diplomatic relationship with Afghanistan through the Canadian Embassy in Kabul,” he added at a Commons committee hearing later…'
Quite a few more examples can be found.
Mark
Ottawa
Adding to Mark's list, unless Lawrence Cannon was misquoted by AFP in August of 2009:
There are a number of media accounts out there paraphrasing such statements without including transcript-length quotes, perhaps feeding some misinterpretations misunderstandings.
Allow me to put in my 2¢'s worth.
This appears to be a battle over semantics, to wit: “military mission” vs “combat mission.”
Some people apparently understood the end of the “military mission” meant NO member of the Canadian Forces would remain on Afghan soil after 2011.
Others understood the end of the “military mission” to mean an end to combat with the Taliban, which is what the motion seems to suggest.
It appears the Liberals interpreted the March 2008 motion as meaning complete withdrawal, i.e. no CF members whatsoever in Afghanistan post-2011, which is why their leader stated in June 2011 that the mission should continue.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ignatieff-calls-for-canadians-to-stay-in-afghanistan-as-police-and-army-trainers/article1605071/
The fact the Liberal leader used the expression “cut and run” — mocking the PM's use of that expression on his first visit to Afghanistan — leads me to believe the Liberal leader was simply doing what he has often said is his only role: to oppose the government.
Thinking the government intended to completely pull up stakes, he naturally opined that would be the wrong thing to do and suggested the opposite: an extension of the mission.
But, perhaps to the Liberals' surprise and/or dismay, the government agreed to a significant training role until 2014, perhaps because of increasing pressure from NATO allies.
I wish I could believe there were absolutely no political — in the worst sense of the word — considerations in the Liberals’ newfound fervour for the Afghanistan mission.
This Thomas Walkom op-ed brings up some convincing arguments about why the mission has been extended to 2014, despite Walkom’s calling the Conservatives’ extension an “about-face.”
http://www.thestar.com/article/891715–walkom-canada-s-new-afghan-exit-date-jibes-with-obama-s-coincidence
Situations change, and wise people change position to deal with those new realities.
BruceR. at Flit does a very good analysis–which our major media have not–of NATO's requirements: what types of trainers, how many, and where they are needed–and considers the CF's position to help (Bruce is a captain in the Army reserve and did a tour in Afstan as a mentor with the ANA):
I hear Mazar in spring is even nicer than Kabul in winter