Be open to a new mission in Afghanistan

In a recent column, the National Post’s John Ivison noted that Canada would be wise to avoid a renewed military engagement in Afghanistan, “the country justifiably known as the ‘graveyard of empires.’” We certainly aren’t eager to see our forces return there. But our columnist is right to note that the likelihood of Washington requesting this has increased since President Donald Trump announced this week that he was reversing his prior call for the U.S. to withdraw from Afghanistan, would in fact be sending more troops to fight the Taliban, and would be calling on NATO to assist with that effort. If such a call comes, Canada must be ready with a better answer than, “Sorry, it’s too messy for us.”

As it happens, Canada actually has a plausible answer at the ready. History may not repeat, but it rhymes, and that’s certainly true here: one of the reasons Canada originally agreed to make a major, long-term commitment to Afghanistan was to placate American officials angered by our refusal to commit to the Iraq War. That was in 2003. Now, in 2017, as Afghanistan heats up again, Canada could, if asked to send troops there, note that it’s already involved in a war in Iraq, helping the Iraqi government crush the Islamic State. would point out that a G7 country that’s recently boasted about playing a greater role on the world stage ought to be prepared to field more than two modest missions at once. Even with the deployments in Iraq and Europe, Canada still has most of its major combat units available. We could contribute more.

If we receive that response, what does Canada do then?

It’s not an entirely hypothetical question. Canada rejected a request from NATO to send troops to Afghanistan to train local forces as recently as June of this year.

But that doesn’t quite close the book. In June, Canada could plausibly claim that, with Trump saying he wanted America out of Afghanistan, there was no point in Canada going back. That’s no longer the case: the president has committed the U.S. to another surge of troops, with no timetable for their removal.

There might not be a military “solution” to Afghanistan, but there’s a role for the military to prevent the Taliban from conquering it anew, in hopes of more substantive progress in the future.

And there’s no obvious reason why Canada could not play a part in that mission. This is not to say that we must, or that we owe it to Afghanistan. But we are a member of the Western alliance, and the United States is not wrong to expect more of its allies.

There are ways for Canada to contribute that wouldn’t require us to send a massive battlegroup, like the one we sent to Kandahar. We could send trainers, as NATO requested.

We could contribute a small special forces unit for direct combat against the Taliban. We could contribute a small number of jets for airstrikes. We could send officers to assist in headquarters roles and strategic planning. And yes, if so inclined, the government could make a contribution of ground forces for combat — this is unlikely, but it’s possible.

Our point here is not to make a specific suggestion; much will depend on the scope of America’s commitment, its demands, and how NATO chooses to respond as an alliance.

The point, rather, is to note that with our closest ally and trading partner recommitting itself to Afghanistan, Canada will likely be asked to do more, and we shouldn’t dismiss that request out of hand. Canada has the right to say no to any request. But it also has the duty to carefully consider whether there are ways for us to meaningfully contribute, and whether it is in our national interest to do so, if asked.