News

Canada's efforts in Afghanistan will carry a total price tag of about $14-billion to $18-billion by the time troops are withdrawn in 2011, about $1,500 extra for every household in Canada, Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page reported Thursday.

"Mr. Page's report says the real extra cost of the Canadian military mission — over and above would have been spent for the upkeep of the military anyway — is billions more than Ottawa has estimated, and perhaps almost twice as high," according to a Globe and Mail article Price tag of Canada's Afghanistan mission: up to $18-billion

"Ottawa has so far reported that extra "incremental" cost for the military mission alone, to the end of the 2007-08 fiscal year, has been about $3.8-billion. Mr. Page says it has been somewhere between $5.85-billion and $7.45-billion."

We are pleased that fledgling politician and leading foreign affairs scholar Michael Byers was online to answer your questions about the report, and an earlier report ( Cost of Afghan war will reach $20.70 billion, group says) by the Rideau Institute on the costs of the Afghanistan mission.

Mr. Byers is running under the New Democratic Party banner in the federal riding of Vancouver-Centre against long-time Liberal incumbent Hedy Fry.

Mr. Byers holds a Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia, where he also serves as Academic Director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues. Prior to July 2004, he was a tenured Professor of Law and Director of Canadian Studies at Duke University. From 1996-1999, he was a Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford University. His work focuses on the interaction of international law and international politics, especially with regard to international organizations, the use of military force, the law of the sea, human rights and Canada-United States relations. He is the author of Intent for a Nation: What is Canada For? and War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Estanislao Oziewicz, Foreign Editor, globeandmail.com: Michael, it's nice of you to participate in this discussion today, especially given the busy campaign you're running. Speaking of which, I'd ask that in responding to comments or questions you refrain from partisan political comment. So, without delay, I'll turn this over to our readers.

Sarena Waters, from Toronto: When will the Canadian government finally wake up to the reality that we cannot afford to continue 'propping up' the Karzai government by keeping Canadian troops stationed there at these abominable billion dollar costs? In light of present financial crisis, which is affecting every single Canadian in some way or other, we cannot afford this kind of 'peacekeeping' expense spent on one country (Afghanistan) alone. As peacekeepers, we can and should be sending medical aid, food, etc. — not soldiers. I am strongly of the opinion that we need to get our troops out of there as soon as possible. Your comments, Mr. Byers.

Prof. Byers: Dear Sarena, for the last two years, the NDP has argued that Canada's troops should be withdrawn from the counter-insurgency mission in Kandahar because it's not working. The commander of the British forces in Afghanistan, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, has bluntly stated that the war cannot be won. Today, a draft U.S. intelligence report admitted that the current situation is the worst since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001. So how many lives and how much money are Canadians going to spend for a mission that is futile and failing? The NDP is committed to giving reasonable notice to our NATO allies and withdrawing from Kandahar in six months time — saving Canadian taxpayers $7.7 billion. And we'll invest it in things that we know will deliver positive results: like training more nurses and doctors and delivering more skilled jobs training.

Mr. Oziewicz: The following is from Jan Driska, from Ottawa, commenting on the story about the Parliamentary Budget Officer report:

We're seriously in over our heads in Afghanistan. This is a mission that can only be successful with more troops, more deployment and more on-the ground presence in the villages, not just some raids and random fights with the Taliban. And it's doubtful that Canadian presence there will be boosted. Our allies should do more and our soldiers should all go home by 2011. I think that every war is basically a very expensive venture. It is expensive in money, in lives, in the continuing health care of the injured veterans, etc. Money matters, but it pales in comparison to the concerns of someone who has, for example, lost a leg or is recovering from shrapnel or bullet wounds. Ever been shot in the chest? Or in the leg? Or had your elbow damaged so that you can't lift objects, eat normally, let alone throw that baseball or paddle a canoe on a nice summer weekend? These are all real-life tragedies for the guys who are wounded, and no expense should be spared in helping them recover and lead lives as normally as possible.

Prof. Byers: Dear Jan, Canadian troops ended up in Kandahar Province because other NATO countries such as France and Germany were aware of the considerable risks. These countries were also opposed to the U.S.-led counter-insurgency approach, which relies heavily on air-attacks that tend to cause civilian casualties and thus impedes efforts to win "hearts and minds." In the last three years, Canadian troops have suffered the heaviest casualty rate, with 97 brave soldiers dead and hundreds more grievously injured, both physically and psychologically. In normal circumstances, our troops would have been rotated out by now. But the fact of the matter is: none of our NATO allies wants to take over a futile and failing mission involving such high human and financial costs. It's time to give reasonable notice of our withdrawal. We can help Afghanistan and other countries by taking a different, better approach that is focused on Canada's traditional strengths: diplomacy, development and peacekeeping.

Sin Akal, from Toronto, also commenting about the article:

What we really need now is a debate on the merits of being in Afghanistan. I'm prepared to hear that there is a good, positive side to what NATO and the UN has asked us to do. Simply pulling out violates commitments to NATO and the UN. So, over to Prime Minister Stephen Harper to explain what (if anything) we have accomplished, and over to New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton to tell us what happens to the people of that region once we withdraw. In their absence, Mr. Byers, can you tell us?

Prof. Byers: Dear Sin, the NDP opened up the national debate on Afghanistan three years ago, taking a position (in favour of immediate withdrawal) that was widely derided then but is now supported by the majority of Canadians. We also raised concerns about prisoner abuse and stressed the need to negotiate with the Taliban — two positions which have also attracted considerable support, not least from Afghan president Hamid Karzai.

The NATO mission in Afghanistan has been authorized by the UN but it is not a UN mission, so we don't owe obligations there. As for NATO itself, the alliance has always been a fluid construct. To give just one example, in 1992 the Mulroney government announced that it was withdrawing all Canadian combat forces from Europe. The NATO Secretary General responded "with considerable regret, given the political and military importance of the presence of Canadian forces in Europe." But the Canadian prime minister has made the right decision, and he stood by it. Canadian politicians are responsible for Canadians first and foremost, and especially for the well-being of the brave women and men they send in harm's way. If Kandahar is the wrong mission, it's the wrong mission now and there's no reason to stay. And nobody can predict with any accuracy what will happen when we leave. What we do know is that our presence there is exacerbating the situation. It's time for a different approach.

'Charlie Brown,' from Canada: Prof. Byers, do you know the breakdown of Afghanistan costs related to the previous Liberal government and those related to the current Conservative Government?

Prof. Byers: Dear 'Charlie,' here is what we know from the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) report. The total cost to date of the Afghanistan mission is $10.5 billion. The total cost if the mission continues to 2011 will be $18.1 billion. These figures are incremental costs, in other words, costs that would not have been incurred except for the mission. The federal government could save $7.7 billion by leaving Afghanistan now.

In addition, the PBO report suggests that some of the remaining $4.9 billion has not been budgeted: "the actual incremental costs of the mission could exceed the Parliamentary appropriations." Proponents of staying in Afghanistan through 2011 must explain how they would finance these unbudgeted costs.

We have also learned from the PBO report that military costs will grow as a percentage (from 70% to 74%) of the total cost during the next three years while the percentage spent on veterans will drop (from 20% to 17%) as will the percentage spent on aid (from 10% to 9%). In other words, Canada's efforts in Afghanistan remain heavily tilted towards military operations.

Finally, the Conservatives and Liberals both support the continuation of the war until 2011 notwithstanding the opaque and unaccountable funding situation. Canadians deserve better, much better, especially in a time of looming economic crisis.

S. Garlick, from Canada: Prof. Byers, I fear that our participation in the invasion of Afganistan and some of the resulting activity in the seven years since, could leave us accused of war crimes. Is that a justifiable fear, or a manifestation of my dismay at the situation?

Prof. Byers: Dear S. Garlick, Canada's presence in Afghanistan is not illegal because of the UN resolutions authorizing the NATO mission. Last year, the NDP and I raised concerns about possible war crimes in the context of transfers of prisoners from Canadian to Afghan authorities without adequate assurances and verification procedures designed to prevent torture. At the time, those concerns were belittled by the Harper Government but, thanks to the persistence of NDP defence critic Dawn Black, a new prisoner transfer agreement was eventually negotiated and Defence Minister Gordon O'Conner reassigned.

Mr. Oziewicz, globeandmail.com Foreign Editor: Michael, thank you once again for doing this important discussion. It promises to be a busy weekend for you. Good luck.