 Jodie Sinnema, The Edmonton Journal
Military personnel in Edmonton yesterday examine equipment, including tents, stoves, rations and ammunition which is loaded on to toboggans, as they prepare to depart for Afghanistan.
|
OTTAWA - Canada's plan to send 1,000 infantry troops into Afghanistan as part of an international stabilization force might be shelved because of federal government concerns the soldiers are not welcome and could draw heavy fire.
"The principal role that we hope they will have if, whenever and if they go there -- because there is no final conclusion -- will be to make sure [aid gets] to the people who need it," Jean ChrŽtien, the Prime Minister, said yesterday.
"Of course, we don't want to have a big fight there. We want to bring peace and happiness as much as possible."
Three rifle companies from Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, an engineer squadron and combat support company have been on 48-hour standby for deployment to Afghanistan since Wednesday.
But senior government officials are now reconsidering the soldiers' role after Britain delayed the deployment of 2,000 of its troops yesterday because Northern Alliance commanders said the foreign soldiers would not be welcome.
Members of Britain's 16 Air Assault Brigade were to arrive this week at Bagram air base outside Kabul, but their landing was cancelled after Alliance chiefs said the foreigners were not needed.
John Manley, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Art Eggleton, Minister of National Defence, cited that development as the primary reason Canada's plans are in flux and said it is possible the Canadians will remain at home.
"Obviously we are not going to send our people into a condition in which they are unwelcome," Mr. Eggleton said.
Mr. Manley said foreign troops will never be welcomed by all the factions in Afghanistan. "But clearly, we'll want to be very closely co-ordinated with other members of the [international] coalition before we go in."
Initial tension between Britain and the Alliance over the presence of British troops at Bagram is now being called a "misunderstanding" by both sides.
Northern Alliance military commanders were apparently angry that Britain failed to ask their permission before sending in an advance team for the stabilization force, which is to include the Canadian troops.
British diplomat Stephen Evans said yesterday that there was "no problem about the current level of troops at Bagram." But he acknowledged there was still no progress on further troop deployments.
The uncertainty prompted the Canadian Forces yesterday to postpone the departure for Afghanistan of a small reconnaissance team, which was supposed to scout possible areas for the Canadians to patrol.
Military officers are still planning specifics of a possible Canadian mission in conjunction with U.S. commanders at the coalition against terrorism's central command in Florida, Mr. Eggleton said.
"I still hope that our troops will have a role," he said.
The Defence Minister has been under fire from opposition parties and some military analysts for signalling last week that Canadian troops would be pulled from Afghanistan if they encountered heavy fighting.
Their mission would be to secure transportation routes to allow the delivery of humanitarian aid. They would not be equipped with heavy artillery or armoured personnel vehicles necessary to engage in front-line warfare, Mr. Eggleton said.
"If they suddenly face that kind of situation without the proper equipment, without the proper preparation, it would only be appropriate to pull them back," Mr. Eggleton said.
Dr. David Bercuson, the director of the Centre of Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, said Mr. ChrŽtien's statements suggest the government has a "bizarre" notion of what soldiers are supposed to do.
"Perhaps the Prime Minister has found a new role for the Canadian military," he said. "Instead of fighting and winning wars, he seems to think they're for handing out humanitarian aid or helping out with disasters."
Dr. Bercuson said the government's reluctance to commit ground troops to Afghanistan is all the more puzzling since he is convinced the public supports the idea.
"We need to commit ourselves to this war ... [and] the people of Canada clearly want to be involved in this war," he said. "I think the government just doesn't want to do it."
Stockwell Day, the Canadian Alliance leader, accused the government of sending mixed signals about Canada's commitment to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with its allies in the war on terrorism.
"I do not know if the Prime Minister has been watching the news. There is a big fight there," Mr. Day said. "Canadians will always work on plans for peace, but we have never run from a fight for freedom."
He expressed concern over the possibility the light infantry companies on alert for duty in Afghanistan will not be fully equipped for intense fighting.
"If they are going into a highly intensive ground combat situation, they need to be prepared to be able to do that. And we are getting a mixed message from the government. They need to clarify it."
The confusion surrounding the multi-national mission has put Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, on the defensive. For one thing, his office at 10 Downing Street had to deny Mr. Blair's ambitions for a large multi-national force had opened a rift between London and Washington, which holds a dimmer interest in presiding over what follows the bombing in Afghanistan.
"Simply not true," said a Downing Street spokesman about reports of a British-U.S. schism.
As well, there have been numerous reports of unhappiness among British military planners over what they see as a mission with no clear aims and no exit strategy.
The British government insisted the Northern Alliance had come around to the idea of a multi-national force after receiving assurances its mandate would be to help the humanitarian relief effort.