Afghan mission becomes election fodder with tabling of confidence bill

OTTAWA - The future of Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan has been tossed into the election incubator.

The minority Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper introduced a confidence motion Friday that proposes extending Canada's "current responsibility for security in Kandahar" by almost three years.

"It requires other parties to make a simple decision," government House leader Peter Van Loan told a news conference. "Either you support the military mission in Afghanistan or you don't."

Van Loan's tough talk sets up the Afghanistan question as a possible spring election trigger when the matter comes to a vote in Parliament next month.

It was the second confidence motion introduced by Van Loan in as many days, establishing the combative House leader as the Dr. Kevorkian of a minority government apparently determined to euthanize itself.

The opposition Liberals have consistently said they want Canada's combat role to end on schedule when the current mandate expires next February, but they maintain Canadian troops should stay on in Kandahar to help train Afghan forces and provide security for humanitarian projects.

It's a scenario that was explicitly rejected in the panel report on the mission delivered last month by former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley. Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of defence staff, has also dismissed the concept.

But the Liberals are sticking to their guns, saying Canada's combat role must end.

"Our position is that combat aspect of the mission has a deadline, which is February 2009," Dion said Friday in Vancouver.

The government motion proposes an "increasing emphasis on training" in coming years and suggests "Canada's combat role should be commensurately reduced."

The extension is also predicated on NATO finding another 1,000 troops for southern Afghanistan and helicopters and unmanned drones to assist Canadian troops there, as recommended in the Manley report. The Liberals back those recommendations.

NATO defence ministers were meeting Friday in Vilnius, Lithuania, where France suggested it might be prepared to come to Canada's aid in Kandahar.

Ottawa responded by sending the prime minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie, to Paris for followup discussions.

But French officials have suggested a firm commitment won't be made before April, and they can't provide the entire 1,000-soldier contingent that Canada is seeking.

The Manley panel suggested the government wait until after NATO's critical planning session in Bucharest scheduled for April before putting the mission's future to Parliament.

That suggests the Conservative and Liberal positions could converge at some point - a point emphasized Friday by Liberal deputy leader Michael Ignatieff - but not necessarily before the arbitrary end-of-March deadline set for a vote by the government.

"We have a motion that we cannot accept today," said Dion. "We'll come with our own proposal next week, and we'll let the Parliament (do) its job."

While both Van Loan and Dion said they're looking for compromise, both seemed to indicate it had to come on their terms.

Critics pointed out the Conservative ultimatum could now force Canada into an election campaign during this crucial period of NATO decision making.

"The prime minister has to explain how he's manoeuvred and levered us into a situation in which it is possible . . . that we'll be in Bucharest without a Canadian government," said Liberal deputy leader Michael Ignatieff. "And who's responsible for that? Stephen Harper."

Green party leader Elizabeth May said in a release that Harper may be jeopardizing Canadian soldiers by "further polarizing the mission."

"When the Taliban realize that our continued presence in Afghanistan depends on the results of an election, their insurgents will undoubtedly target Canadian soldiers in a move to influence public opinion in our country," said May.

Both Conservatives and Liberals insist they don't want to fight a campaign on the issue.

"In terms of prompting an election, I don't think any political strategist - and I've spent my bit of time in back rooms - would be there going, 'Hey, have an election on Afghanistan, that's a real winner for you,"' said Van Loan.

Yet a former Harper adviser gave a more nuanced assessment this week.

"Afghanistan is a risky thing to force an election on, but I actually think it could work out reasonably well for the government," political scientist Tom Flanagan said Thursday in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"They are the only party that's clearly in favour of the mission now, so there would be four parties denouncing it," - and splitting the vote on the left.

He noted that roughly 45 per cent of Canadians say they'd consider voting Conservative, about the same number as supports an ongoing Afghan mission. Flanagan posits they're the same constituency, and theoretically more than enough for a Tory majority.

Yet Flanagan raised the same concern as the Green party's May, saying Taliban insurgents might see a Canadian election as the perfect opportunity for a "Tet offensive" - an allusion to the 1968 Viet Cong offensive that turned American opinion against the Vietnam War.

"That's obviously got to be a concern (for the government)," said Flanagan.

The more salient question is why either Tories or Grits would want to fight an election at this time.

The Tories have generally maintained a slim lead for months in public opinion surveys - albeit firmly in minority government territory - and yet have recorded below Liberal support in two recent polls by Harris-Decima Research and pollster Nick Nanos.

What seems more likely is that the Afghan question falls into the ongoing Conservative campaign to castigate Dion as a weak leader unprepared for the big job.

Van Loan missed no opportunities to work that theme Friday when he unveiled the latest confidence motion.

"At the end of the day this is a question of leadership," Van Loan said to close the news conference. "It needs strong leadership, not dithering. That's what we're providing."

Canadians have been in Afghanistan since 2002 in a mission which has cost the lives of 78 soldiers and a diplomat. It's estimated that the mission will have cost $6.3 billion by the end of next February.