OTTAWA - Canada is heading into what is supposed to be its last full year of combat in Kandahar, just as the U.S. pours thousands more troops into the embattled province in what experts believe will be the ultimate showdown with the Taliban.
The increased fighting is expected to unfold against a backdrop of a widening political controversy in Ottawa over the alleged torture of Afghan prisoners early in the war, what the Conservative government knew about it, and what it did to stop it.
There is no denying 2010 will be the watershed year in the eight-year-old Afghan conflict.
NATO's top commander and architect of the rebooted war strategy said recently it will be the end of 2010 before the allies know if they are winning or losing,
The Conservative government and war-weary Canadians will have a choice to make whether they like it or not: Stick to the country's self-imposed 2011 withdrawal date and perhaps risk alienating the Obama administration; continue with the reconstituted war effort; find some other way to remain meaningfully involved?
Everyone from Prime Minister Stephen Harper on down has taken pains to emphasize that the strategy is to remain involved, but out of combat. It's a position critics question, given Kandahar's tenuous security.
U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who commands the International Security Assistance Force, boldly predicted that by July 2011 NATO will be able to turn to the Afghans and declare that the Taliban "will not win."
Coincidentally that's when Washington plans to begin drawing down its own troop numbers, a timetable that dovetails with Ottawa's long-stated exit goal.
But both McChrystal and President Barack Obama, in recent interviews, have said that the scale and speed of the departure will depend on the situation on the ground. A number of experts have said the forces that propelled Canada into Kandahar in 2005-06 -- including the desire to appease our largest trading partner -- are still present.
All indications are that Kandahar, spiritual home of the Taliban and a province Canadians have fought and died to hold for four years, will be a major battleground.
McChrystal called Kandahar "the most strategically important city in Afghanistan" because its capture is the holy grail of Taliban ambitions. He suggested a sizable portion of the 30,000 U.S. reinforcements approved by Obama are destined for the province.
"There will be additional forces securing Kandahar," the general said following a recent meeting with Canadian commanders in Ottawa.
He wouldn't say how many additional soldiers would go in, but there have been reports that 800 U.S. marines will deploy in early January with more to follow. They will flood districts around the city, places that have etched themselves into the consciousness of Canadians -- Panjwaii, Zhari, Shah Wali Kot and Argandaub.
There are currently 6,000 Canadian, U.S. and Afghan combat troops in the province and a Washington-based think-tank estimated last fall that as many as 15,800 more would be needed to stem the insurgent tide.
The Institute for the Study of War followed up that assessment with a new report in December that paints a stark picture of not only the battle ahead in Kandahar, but how the United States, Canada and NATO have stumbled to this dire crossroad.
Beyond the well-worn argument that NATO has not provided enough troops for the campaign, the paper argues that commanders overemphasized the neighbouring province of Helmand, centre of the opium trade and the Taliban's so-called pocketbook.
"The Taliban, therefore, met minimal ISAF resistance as it expanded its control over Kandahar City and its suburbs in 2008 and 2009," wrote researcher Carl Forsberg, a former marine intelligence officer.
With Canadian troops tied down for years in hit-and-run battles west of the city, the Taliban have been able to build up in the lush farming area of Argandaub to the north.
That is where Forsberg suggests the majority of action could come this year.
"If ISAF does not generate sufficient force densities in critical areas, its attempted counteroffensive will fail, giving enemy fighters a permissive environment and allowing the Taliban's campaign of terror to continue in Kandahar City," said the report.
"Destroying the insurgents in Kandahar is a critical and necessary first step for reversing the Taliban's gains across southern Afghanistan and neutralizing their effects on the entire country."
Washington recently placed another U.S. battalion under Canadian command in Kandahar, creating a so-called super-brigade. It's a signal that Canadian commanders and troops will be at the leading edge of the coming fight.
But while Canadian soldiers head into what could be their decisive year, the attention in Ottawa will be fixed at least initially on the Conservative government's management of prisoners and their possible torture in Afghan jails during the critical early years of the war.
Michael Bliss, a historian and former University of Toronto professor, is disturbed by that.
Canadians have had a tough time grasping what was going on in Afghanistan, why we were there and what the impact of our involvement might be on the region, he said.
"We didn't understand the small things and we haven't understood the big picture," Bliss said in a recent interview. "We should be focusing on the big picture."
In his estimation, the federal government should be focused on what happens after the pull-out in 2011 and paying more attention to what he calls the disintegration of Pakistan.
"We've sacrificed 133 lives and what do we have to show for it? A war that's going nowhere," Bliss said. "When the government thinks about Afghanistan, I don't care terribly about the side issue of the detainees. The really important think for them to be focusing on is how we can use the leverage that our mission has given us with the Americans to persuade the Americans that they have got find a solution to Afghanistan that stops us from draining the lives of young people in this Godforsaken place."
Diplomat-whistleblower Richard Colvin's allegation of abuse and cover-up rocked Parliament throughout the fall.
The opposition has demanded a public inquiry, a position that has only been fuelled by an unprecedented series of document leaks that have served to undermine, if not completely contradict, federal ministers who've scrambled to defend the government.
The government's main line of defence -- that no Canadian-captured prisoners were abused -- was shredded by none other than the country's top military commander. Gen. Walt Natynczyk, the chief of defence staff, revealed in early December that a Taliban suspect turned over to Afghan police had to be rescued from a beating.
It was only one case, but it was enough to propel the controversy to new heights.
As with last year's opposition coalition that sought to unseat the Harper government, the Conservative political strategy on Afghan prisoners has been to hope that everyone will cool down during Parliament's long winter break. The House of Commons is not slated to return until Jan. 25, but there are rumours that the session might be prorogued until after the February Olympics.
The opposition said that would be an attempt to avoid further investigation of the torture allegations.
Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh predicted the Conservative strategy will fail because allegations of a government cover-up, perhaps more than those of abuse itself, have struck a chord with Canadians.
"They have followed very simplistic logic, ignoring the very important responsibility of the Canadian state and the Canadian society in conducting ourselves and upholding our own values to the highest of standards," said Dosanjh. "I think that's what has driven this."
Opposition parties have vowed a new year re-start for parliamentary hearings that have led to the most explosive revelations.
Suspicion of the government was only heightened with the scorched earth attacks on Colvin's credibility, which were led in the Commons by Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Transport Minister John Baird.
Although they backed off, they prompted a furious response in the form of an open letter signed by over 100 ex-diplomats, who said foreign service officers should not be muzzled.
Desmond Morton, a former history and political science professor at McGill University, said the government has only itself to blame for the crisis.
The strategy of portraying each question as an attack on the troops and the flamethrower response to Colvin had the effect of treating the public with a "severe and underlying contempt," said Morton, a former soldier who advised both Tory prime minister Brian Mulroney and the federal NDP.
"You have to be very intelligent to lie successfully and that hasn't been evident," he added.
But Bliss said he doesn't believe the controversy has resonated with Canadians.
"I don't think anybody watches the endless coverage from Ottawa, except the people in Ottawa and the small and shrinking class of extreme partisans," he said.
Another seed of controversy, which will lie dormant until spring, is the separate investigation by the Military Police Complaints Commission. The military watchdog's public inquiry is slated to resume on March 22, pending the disclosure of censored government documents.
It was the government's heavy-handed treatment of the commission and the summary banishment of its former head, Peter Tinsley, that prompted the opposition to open its own investigation.
The agency's lead counsel, Ron Lunau, has tried to be optimistic, even though the government has dragged its feet in appointing a new commissioner.
"We expect the government will take the process seriously," he said. "The government has told us on a number of occasions that they are prepared to co-operate and we take them at their word."
