Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

  • Advertisements

Afghan mission: As vets are honored, concerns grow

Since May, Britain has lost more troops than in Iraq; Canada's per capita casualties are NATO's highest.



  • Print
  • E-mail
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Digg
  • Add This
  • Permissions

By Mark Rice-Oxley, Correspondents of The Christian Science Monitor, Rebecca Cook Dube, Correspondents of The Christian Science Monitor / November 9, 2006

LONDON AND TORONTO

When 3,000 British troops headed to Afghanistan in May to lead efforts to secure an unruly southern province, the government said the aim was to accomplish the three-year mission "without a shot being fired."

Since then, more British soldiers have died in Afghanistan than in Iraq, in what commanders say is the fiercest fighting Britain has faced in more than 50 years. Canada, meanwhile, has sustained more casualties per capita than the US, Britain, or any of the other NATO partners, making its combat toll the highest since the Korean War.

As both countries prepare to remember their fallen on Armistice Day this weekend – now known as Remembrance Day in Canada – there is a growing realization that the task they face in the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar will prove far tougher, deadlier, and longer than originally projected.

"If we are going to achieve what we set out to achieve – a stable society with a democratic government – we will be there for 15 to 20 years," warns Mark Lancaster, a British Member of Parliament and reservist who completed an eight-week tour with the Army in Helmand Province this summer.

The dramatic escalation of conflict in the area is straining NATO, which has overall command of security in Afghanistan. And in both countries, it is sharply changing public commitment to the mission. Now, less than half of Canadians and Britons are in favor of their troops' involvement in Afghanistan.

Originally, the mission in southern Afghanistan launched in May was billed as an exercise in "reconstruction and stabilization," an effort to help the Kabul government extend its writ into the lawless south and deal with the poppy cultivation that fuels the heroin trade at the same time. NATO troops would stay until Afghan forces were capable of assuring security themselves.

But between the resistance that military commanders say was far greater than anything they anticipated, a now-regrouping Taliban, and the vast, hostile terrain, both countries are having to adjust to a mission significantly different in both nature and scope.

"For 40 years, we've been thinking of the Canadian forces as peacekeepers," says Tim Woolstencroft, managing partner of Toronto-based polling firm The Strategic Counsel. "This is clearly peacemaking, with an emphasis on war."

With that shift in emphasis has come a noticeable uptick in casualties: Forty-two Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan, all but 10 of whom were killed this year; 32 British soldiers have been killed since May. Such tolls have stirred considerable debate in recent months on both sides of the Atlantic, though the Afghan mission is still largely perceived as more justifiable and worthwhile than the Iraq war.

In Canada, public support reached a mid- summer low of 37 percent but has since climbed to 44 percent as the conservative government has focused on reconstruction efforts benefiting women and children and emphasized Canada's role as part of a larger NATO effort.

Page: 1 | 2 Next Page

  • Print
  • E-mail
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Digg
  • Add This
  • Permissions