| Submit your comments on this article | ||||
| Great White North | ||||
| Canada needs to 'play chicken' with NATO allies to get help | ||||
| 2008-01-23 | ||||
The United States may be called on to help meet conditions set down by a blue-ribbon panel for Canada's continued involvement in the Afghan war, but international observers say the government shouldn't let European allies off the hook. "It's not very hard for NATO to come up with another 1,000 (troops) - it's always been a question of political will, not capacity," said Paul Heinbecker, a former diplomat who represented Canada at the United Nations.
"We need to be very direct with NATO," said Manley, who once served as foreign affairs minister. "Either they mean it, that this is the most important mission, or they don't. And if they don't, well then we need to look at the well-being of our young people."
"There has to be more boots on the ground for the mission to succeed and it has to play chicken to some extent with its NATO partners to get them to take their responsibility," Heinbecker said in an interview. "To my mind, this is not a bad way of doing it." Fulfilling the panel's key conditions of more troops, helicopters and unmanned surveillance aircraft will likely depend on the willingness of the United States to lend a hand, say defence observers. In releasing his report, Manley made clear he hopes the preconditions will not end up driving Canada out of the war. "We hope this is not a poison pill because we believe the mission is an important one," he said. In addition, the panel says the federal government must secure battlefield helicopters and sophisticated unmanned surveillance drones within a year to ensure troop safety. Both projects have been stalled within the National Defence bureaucracy. Canada has 2,500 troops on the ground in Kandahar, whose current mandate expires in February 2009. The appeal for NATO and the international community to "get its act together" in Afghanistan will probably fall on deaf ears in Europe. The major countries already in Afghanistan - France, Germany, Italy and Spain - have refused to commit more troops or lift combat restrictions on the soldiers already there. The Dutch, after going through a similar soul-searching last fall, reluctantly extended their deployment to 2010, but not before that country's defence minister was forced to make a near-tearful plea for support to recalcitrant NATO allies behind closed doors. Britain has twice increased its troop strength to fight insurgents in Helmand province, next to Kandahar. That pretty much leaves the United States, which last week grudgingly committed 3,200 U.S. Marines, complete with helicopter support, to a seven-month deployment beginning in April.
In fairness, newer members of the military alliance such Poland have answered the call and other former Warsaw Pact countries are eager to participate, but much of their equipment is in need of upgrade.
Last week, the air force acknowledged a deal is not expected to be signed until late this year, meaning delivery likely won't happen until 2011. National Defence has tried without success to persuade other countries to let Canada butt ahead of them in the aircraft production line. In the spring of 2006, National Defence was told it could get its hands on used U.S. Army CH-47D Chinooks under a program called Cargo Helicopter Alternate Procurement Strategy. But the Harper government accepted the military's argument for new CH-47 F-model Chinooks, for which the air force has demanded modifications. It's been suggested Canada lease helicopters, an idea the air force has repeatedly rejected. Similarly a program to acquire 12 sophisticated Predator aerial drones (UAVs) from the U.S. Air Force was halted by the federal cabinet before it got off the ground last spring. Two senior ministers apparently objected to the military doing another sole-sourced contract and the Canadian air force has since been forced to review its UAV programs. | ||||
| Posted by:tipper |
| #8 I think you'll see some major improvements in NATO military capabilities over the next 20 years or so. Will twenty years be soon enough, Old Patriot? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-01-23 21:11 |
| #7 Lot's of nice thoughts, Old Pat, but Ima thinkin it's too late. And I see no evidence that this is anywhere near bottom. The Euro citizens may sense the threat, but the Euro politicians don't and certainly aren't willing to present the bill to their taxpayers. And maybe they're right. The Euros are getting old and need the muzzies for their old age like so many Americans need the Mexicans. Just finish off the next few years and let the children emigrate to Canada, Australia or Argentina. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-01-23 16:26 |
| #6 The longer you wait,the higher the butcher's bill will be. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-01-23 16:20 |
| #5 I'll bet the EU component of NATo is saying" The Ukranians just joined. Let them go." Personally, I'd like to see Szark walk the walk and not just talk the talk. |
| Posted by: Dopey Thrinetch9037 2008-01-23 14:44 |
| #4 I think we're on the base of the curve in European military rearmament, and we'll see much more in the coming years. Two things drive this: the only way you can sell military equipment to others is to show you're willing to use it yourself; and Putin keeps trying to rebuild the old Soviet Union. There have only been one or two articles about it, but I've noticed that ALL the new NATO members (the former Warsaw Pact members Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Romania, etc.) are all looking to either Europe or the United States for the military equipment they need to upgrade their existing forces. Most of central Europe was well behind the West in infrastructure, technology improvements, and environmental concerns when the Soviet Union imploded. It's taken them awhile to catch up, and many still aren't the equal of the Western nations. They're getting there, and I think they all understand the threat from the east. We're also seeing more and more non-NATO countries aligning their equipment and personnel with NATO standard procedures (because they work), and commit to operating with NATO in exercises and some peacekeeping operations (the Finns, the Irish, etc.). I feel that most of Europe is also beginning to recognize the growing threat of Islamism, and understands the need to mobilize against it. I think you'll see some major improvements in NATO military capabilities over the next 20 years or so. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-01-23 14:12 |
| #3 The Europeans still view the threat from Iran and the other jihadist states as remote and more of a problem for the US and Israel than themselves. They probably won't ramp up their militaries unless Putin keeps throwing his weight around as with the gas shutoff in 2006. Then, European military spending and capability will go up due to "Concert of Europe reasons" rather than "NATO reasons" |
| Posted by: charger 2008-01-23 10:40 |
| #2 The appeal for NATO and the international community to "get its act together" in Afghanistan will probably fall on deaf ears in Europe. Geez. Stop the presses, boss? Ummmmmmmmm...no, Johnson. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-01-23 08:44 |
| #1 ...Everyone needs to remember that after the Soviets went down the NATO allies (with the qualified exception of the UK) did their damnedest to eliminate their militaries altogether - and sadly, that includes Canada (I spoke to more than a few Canadian military types who swore it was an open secret that Jean Chretien wanted to do so to leave a legacy of being the first major Western nation to dismantle its armed forces - and pick up a Nobel Peace Prize along the way.). The sad, brutal fact is that for all practical purposes, ALL the other NATO forces are basically show units supported by nice safe admin outfits, and will remain so until we lay down an ultimatum: rebuild your militaries or we're going home. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2008-01-23 04:41 |