ACTION ALERT: Demand that your MP vote against extending the war on March 13

March 10, 2008

As reported by CTV.ca this morning, "A crucial vote is expected in the Commons this week to extend Canada's mission in Afghanistan. The vote is expected Thursday (March 13)."

The Council of Canadians is calling for the immediate, safe and orderly withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan and a return to Canada fulfilling its traditional international role of peacekeeper.

The ‘Don’t extend it. End it.’ campaign notes that, "The Conservatives need Liberal votes in order to extend the mission. The New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois have said they'll vote against it. If the Liberals decide to oppose it too, they'll have enough votes to stop the extension - and to end Canada's war in Afghanistan.”

In the few days that we have before this critical vote in the House of Commons, please contact your Member of Parliament, particularly if they are a Liberal, and tell them that you oppose the extension of the war. To find the contact information for your Member of Parliament, please click here.

When you send your message to your MP you may choose to use some of the following arguments:

1. CANADIANS DO NOT WANT AN EXTENSION OF THE WAR
An Angus Reid Strategies poll released on December 31, 2007 shows that 61 percent of Canadians oppose an extension of the military mission beyond the current deadline of February 2009. 53 percent of Canadians want Canadian soldiers to come home before that date.

2. THE COMBAT MISSION WOULD CONTINUE
There have been numerous media reports that state, as CTV reported this morning, "The motion would extend Canada's military mission in Kandahar to July 2011, but would refocus that mission on training Afghan military and police forces, as well as reconstruction and aid efforts."

Yet the Canadian Press has also reported Defence Minister Peter MacKay saying, "I think there is a general acceptance by the Liberal party, certainly an understanding on our part, that these operations decisions often do involve combat, that involve in engaging in fighting with the Taliban, when the Taliban confront them. That capability remains. It has to. If you check the record you'll find its littered comments from people like Mr. (deputy Liberal leader Michael) Ignatieff, (defence critic) Denis Coderre and others who have said quite clearly they understand there's a necessity for combat." That article is available at www.ctv.ca.

3. MILITARY INTERVENTION HAS NOT BROUGHT SECURITY TO AFGHANISTAN
The threat assessment maps produced by the United Nations demonstrate a steadily deteriorating situation from May 2005 (with no districts in Afghanistan identified as “extreme risk”) to December 2007 (with 14 of the 17 districts in Kandahar marked as “extreme risk”). The Globe and Mail reported on March 1 that "Last year, more than 6,500 people, most of them ordinary Afghans, were killed in violence, as compared with roughly 4,000 in 2006, and 1,000 in 2005."

The so-called 'Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan' headed by John Manley acknowledged that, "By many knowledgeable accounts, security generally has deteriorated in the South and East of Afghanistan, including Kandahar province where Canadian Forces are based, through 2006 and 2007."

Back on January 6, 2007, CanWest News Service reported that, "...a new article in the prestigious international journal Foreign Affairs warned Afghanistan is "sliding into chaos" and that the NATO-led coalition is doomed to fail without a dramatic change in strategy...(the article's author) says fighting battles against the Taliban will achieve nothing in the long run unless the NATO coalition can solve the problems of Afghan poverty, corruption and meddling by Pakistan."

Additionally, the Globe and Mail has reported that, "More than 220 foreign soldiers, most of them American but also dozens of Canadian and British troops, were also killed in 2007, by far the deadliest year since the United States invaded. Those early years of fighting, in 2001 and 2002, caused 80 deaths among US troops and their foreign allies."

4. CANADIAN SOLDIERS HAVE SUFFERED DISPROPROTIONATELY HIGH CASUALTY RATES
The Ottawa Citizen reported on January 4 that, "The death rate among Canadian soldiers fighting around Kandahar has outstripped not only that of US and British troops in Afghanistan, but Americans in Iraq war as well, the forces' own figures indicate. A Defence Department analysis of casualty rates in the first year of operations in and around Kandahar - obtained by the National Post under Access to Information legislation - confirms unofficial reports that Canada has suffered a lopsided toll in the conflict. Canadian soldiers died at a rate 2.6 to four times higher than the British and Americans in Afghanistan and two to 2.6 times higher than US forces in Iraq, according to the April 2007 number-crunching by Barbara Strauss, an official with the Forces' health services group."

John Manley wrote, "The Panel could elicit no conclusive explanation for the disproportionately high casualty rates suffered by Canadians in Afghanistan. This issue warrants closer scrutiny by the Government."

According to the Globe and Mail, there were 712 Canadian casualties in Afghanistan in 2006-2007, including 264 soldiers wounded in action. To date, 79 Canadian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan, 71 of them since 2006, while 8 were killed between 2002 and 2005.

Moreover, the Canadian Press reported on January 8 that, "At any given time up to 20 per cent of the troops serving in Afghanistan are reservists and are usually involved in the dangerous resupply convoys that keep the forward patrol bases running...Reservists are part-time soldiers who usually have full-time jobs or are students but spend their weekends and vacation time in the army, navy or air force."

5. CANADIAN OFFICIALS HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT CANADA IS IN AFGHANISTAN "TO APPEASE" THE UNITED STATES
It has been suggested by a former government minister and a high-level ministry official that Canada is in Kandahar not strictly for noble reasons, but rather to repair relations with the Bush administration given their anger over Canada's refusal to join in its invasion of Iraq and the controversial missile defence system, and to protect our trade relations given the United States consumes nearly 80 percent of Canadian exports and provides nearly 65 percent of our foreign direct investment

David Pugliese wrote in the Ottawa Citizen on March 25, 2006 that, "In a July 2005 interview...(then Defence Minister Bill) Graham acknowledged that mending fences with the Bush administration played a role in the government's decision to take on the Kandahar mission. The U.S. was still angry over Canada's refusal to join its invasion of Iraq and it didn't help that the Martin government had declined to participate in the Pentagon's controversial missile defence system."

The "Soldiers, Not Peacekeepers" article in the March 2006 issue of The Walrus political affairs magazine noted, "Those who see a link between trade and foreign affairs believe Canada has good reason for...(sending troops to Afghanistan). The American security agenda extends overseas and across North America, and, as the United States consumes nearly 80 percent of Canadian exports and provides nearly 65 percent of our foreign direct investment, its demands for beefed-up Canadian military support...can be rebuffed for only so long...In the entwined corridors between (the ministries of) Defence, Foreign Affairs, and International Trade, and through shuttle diplomacy between Ottawa and Washington, the thinking may be that we will finally resolve the softwood-lumber issue and keep our border open to trade by lessening America's burden in Afghanistan."

Lawrence Martin wrote in the Globe and Mail on April 6, 2006 that, "A former, highly placed Defence Department official, whose hands were all over the Afghan file...tells me the reason the Liberals took up the mission was not out of any great noble purpose. It was principally because they had no choice. They had to appease Washington for not having joined the invasion of Iraq."

Additional argumentation against the war can also be found at endit.ca.

THE DEMAND
You may use the sample letter below to send your message to your Member of Parliament:

Dear <the name of your MP>,

It is my understanding that the vote on the motion to extend Canada's military mission in Afghanistan to July 2011 will take place this Thursday March 13. I implore you to vote against this motion. The majority of Canadians do not want this military mission to be extended. Despite assurances that the focus of the mission will shift to reconstruction and training, Defence Minister Peter MacKay has acknowledged that Canadian troops will still be engaged in combat missions. It is clear that the war has not improved the situation in Afghanistan - the United Nations threat assessment maps prove that. I am also very concerned by the fact that Canadian soldiers are experiencing disproportionately high casualty rates in Afghanistan, as acknowledged by the John Manley panel. This is particularly worrisome given the increasing number of reservists that Canada is sending to Afghanistan. I do not want to see more dead and wounded in Afghanistan. The 79 military deaths that Canada has suffered in Afghanistan and the 264 soldiers who have been wounded in action over just the last two years is too many. I will watch how you vote on March 13 and this will be a deciding factor in how I vote in the next federal election. I join with the Council of Canadians in calling for the immediate, safe and orderly withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan and a return to Canada fulfilling its traditional international role of peacekeeper.

Sincerely,
<your name>

For additional information, please go to the Council of Canadians website at www.canadians.org/peace.  You may also want to go to the “Don’t extend it. End it.” campaign website at endit.ca. They encourage that messages be particularly directed to Liberal MPs Stephane Dion, Michael Ignatieff, Denis Coderre, Bob Rae, Ralph Goodale, and Byron Wilfert.

Brent Patterson, Director of Campaigns, Organizing