Canadians struggle with army's new role

By Lee Carter
BBC News, Toronto

The presence of Canadian troops in Afghanistan has divided parties

The Canadian military role in southern Afghanistan stirs strong and sometimes contradictory emotions and opinions amongst Canadians, as Wednesday evening's debate in the country's parliament demonstrated.

For six hours, MPs passionately debated a motion by the minority Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper to extend the Canadian mission in Afghanistan by two years.

Some 2,300 Canadian troops are based in Afghanistan, mainly in the Kandahar area in the south.

Around 4,000 British troops and a further 1,000 from the Netherlands are joining them.

Divisions within

Most recently, Canadians have been involved in dangerous missions to flush out Taleban and al-Qaeda insurgents. Sixteen Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed there.

Only hours before the debate began, the news broke about the latest Canadian casualty. A female captain, 26-year-old Nichola Goddard, was killed in a gun battle with Taleban fighters.

In the end the motion passed by the narrowest of margins, 149-145.

Capt Goddard was Canada's first female soldier to die in combat

For the opposition Liberals, whose MPs were allowed to vote freely, Afghanistan has clearly become an issue that has openly divided the party, even though it was a Liberal government that sent the troops to Afghanistan in the first place.

Two smaller opposition parties both opposed extending the mission - the regional Quebec party, Bloc Quebecois, accurately representing anti-militaristic opinions widely held among French Canadians, and the left-wing New Democratic Party.

Nevertheless, in an example of how the issue has even divided Canada's left, the NDP said they would have supported the extension if Canada's role had been limited to peacekeeping and reconstruction.

Waning support

The result was a political victory for Mr Stephen Harper, who can now characterise the Canadian mission as the will of the country's parliament while exposing deep divisions within the ranks of the Liberal Party.

Mr Harper said extending the mission was the very least that the parliament owed the Canadian troops, Canada's allies and the Afghan people, to finish the security and reconstruction projects that had already been started.

Some say Harper is engaged in a strategy to alter perceptions

"Canadians accept risks when those risks are in the service of a greater good, and we honour those who take risks and make the ultimate sacrifice by staying the course and supporting their mission." he said.

The political divisions in the Canadian parliament mirror those to be found in public opinion polls. A recent Strategic Counsel survey of 1,000 Canadians found 54% of those polled oppose or strongly oppose Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, up from 41% two months ago.

Even in past polls when Canadians generally seem to have been proud of their military's presence in Afghanistan, support dropped dramatically away when those polled were asked specific questions about whether their troops should be involved in direct combat roles.

'Fifty years asleep'

John Ferris, professor of history at the University of Calgary, says Canada's military has dramatically changed, from being a robust ally of Britain during World War II to a nation of peacekeepers seeking to preserve an international liberal and political order through large organisations like the United Nations.

He says that as a result, Canadians have found it hard to understand their more engaged role in the Nato-led mission in Afghanistan.

"What is occurring in Canadian minds is something they're not quite familiar with. Canada in a way has slept-walked through much of the past 50 years. It's one of the charms of Canadians, that you can think of them as being Hobbits on the international scene," Professor Ferris says.

Canadians are said to have struggled with their army's more active role

"Since 1945, when Canada has used force abroad, it has been in pursuit of a peculiar strategy. We haven't used our armed forces to pursue strict national interests."

The image of Canadian troops as peacekeepers and nation-builders is one that successive Liberal and even previous Conservative governments have nurtured since the mid-1960s, when the country's armed forces were restructured.

Many analysts believe that, since forming his government in January, part of Mr Harper's strategy in stubbornly staying the course in Afghanistan is an effort to start the process of dismantling decades of liberal social engineering in defining the role of Canada's armed forces.

'Not a neutral country'

Many Conservatives believe that Canadians need to be reminded that, far from being a neutral country, Canada is a Nato ally and that the United States in particular should be treated with more respect, particularly with regards to the US-led war on terror.

"It's very clear that Harper has decided that playing on national security and a latent underlying military pride that's always existed in English Canada, will build up his political position." Professor Ferris says.

But Mr Harper is also taking a considerable risk. He is committing Canada's military to become more deeply embroiled in deadly counter-insurgency operations.

Many of the Canadians killed so far have been victims of crudely made roadside bombs. As Canadian casualties mount, it may take a long time to convince the public, whose support already appears to be wavering, that this is the best road for its military to take.