Canadian military to stay in Afghanistan past 2011?

It looks as if "Call me Steve" Harper has caved in to pressure from the USA to keep Canadian troops bleeding and dying in Afghanistan past the previously agreed pullout date of July 2011.

The Americans have said more than once that they would like the Canadian battle group to remain where it is, in one of the most dangerous sectors, the area around Kandahar. But recently Hellery Clinton said they would settled for Canada's continuing presence in a slightly different role, training the Afghan army/police.

Apparently Mr. Harpoon has been "conned" [geddit? ed.] by this suggestion, which he has now referred to an all-party House of Commons committee on the "conflict". (Walt wonders why they never refer to it as a "war". That's what it is!)

According to a report from Canadian Press, the committee seems set to agree. The Liberals, having ordered our troops into Afghanistan (to make up for having declined to join the party in Iraq), and having voted last year to extend the mission, don't want to be seen as turning tail now.

Even the leftish NDP don't want to be seen as "soft on the Taliban". Their defence critic said today that a post-2011 role for Canada is in the works, but suggested a military presence was not the only option on the table.

Questions from Walt: First, does Mr. Harpoon realize that his good friend Dubya is no longer in power?

Secondly, has everyone forgotten that the Americans first went into Vietnam as "advisors" to the ARVN? Did we believe, when they did so, that they were only advising and trianing, not directing the war which they eventually lost? And did the Vietcong draw any distinction between the ARVN forces and their foreign "advisors"? Thousands of American casulaties say not.

The sad truth is that as long as Canadian forces remain in Afghanistan, they will continue to be targets for the "insurgents". And we will continue to see "ramp ceremonies", "repatriation ceremonies" and motorcades along the "highway of heroes".

It's all like trying to win a prize at the shooting gallery at the state fair. Canadians, Americans, Britons etc. etc. will keep spending more and more of our treasure -- notably the lives of thousands of good men and women -- until finally we realize the prize can never be won, and quit the game.

Am I being defeatist to say we can't win? Am I a Taliban sympathizer or something? Certainly not! I am only pointing to the lessons of the history of Aghanistan.

In the 19th century, the British failed. See The Great Game: the Struggle for Empire in Central Asia, by Peter Hopkirk. In the latter part of the 20th century, the Soviet Union failed. Doing so bled the Soviet Army white (not red -- forgive the pun) and led to the break-up of the USSR.

So what makes America and its "coalition of the willing" think it can do any better? Answers on the back of a postcard, please, to Walt, at the usual address.