Skip to main content
Access every election story that matters
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Access every election story that matters
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

United States Ambassador to Canada David Jacobson smiles during an interview June 17, 2013 at his official residence in Ottawa.

Dave Chan

The behind-the-scenes role that U.S. ambassador David Jacobson played in convincing the Harper government not to quit Afghanistan remains a point of pride for the American envoy as he prepares to leave his post.

His intervention came in 2010, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper was preparing to pull Canadian combat troops out of Kandahar. Mr. Jacobson played a major role in convincing the Harper government to send 950 troops to Afghanistan as trainers so that the end of the Canadian combat mission would not mark an abrupt Canadian exit – one which might be followed by other allies.

"That is one of the things that I am very proud of," Mr. Jacobson said in an interview at the Ottawa residence he is leaving this month. "It wasn't just me, but I did have a role."

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Jacobson said that it was important to Canadians who "kind of drew the short straw" in taking on operations in the southern Afghanistan province of Kandahar and suffered heavy casualties, not to "give that all away."

"But it was important to the future of the generalized mission in Afghanistan that Canada, which had played such an important role, did not leave. It would have been harder for others to justify staying," Mr. Jacobson said. "And so it was one of those things that was important."

Canadian Forces troops ended their combat mission in Kandahar in July, 2011, but the contingent of trainers, mostly based in Kabul, is to continue through next year.

But while the Canadian training mission in Afghanistan has proven largely non-controversial, Mr. Harper's government wrestled with it for months – as Mr. Jacobson and others prodded the prime minister. Canada wasn't the only country looking to withdraw, but the NATO plan was an orderly exit -- to gradually hand more control to Afghan forces, who would take the lead role in 2014.

Mr. Harper had already extended the Canadian combat mission before, and by 2010, he was skeptical of the potential results, and knew that the public in Canada was growing weary of the Afghan mission.

But Defence Minister Peter MacKay was keen on having the Canadian Forces remain in a non-combat role, and Liberal MP Bob Rae played a key role in convincing the government it would have support from what was then the main opposition party. In the end, the government agreed to send a large training mission of 950 troops for three years, until 2014.

"I don't think anybody was rushing to stay in Afghanistan. But I wouldn't say that they were reluctant," Mr. Jacobson said of the Harper government. "They understood the importance of it. There was significant discussion over the extent to which they would stay, the period of time that they would commit to stay."

Story continues below advertisement

"But I think ultimately when we talked it through and they understood the importance of it to Canada, to the United States, and to Afghanistan, we came to terms, and I think it was a very, very positive result."

The U.S. Ambassador said he believes that Canada's role in Afghanistan did a lot to make Canadians feel good about their role in the world, and bolstered the country's reputation on the world stage. "I think Canada earned a lot of credit around the world, not just I the United States but around the world, for their work in Afghanistan," he said.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies