In the run-up to the coming election, some argue one issue is not receiving as much attention as it should. The Afghanistan mission already has a high death toll and an even higher price tag and is opposed by a majority of Canadians, yet has not become a defining campaign issue.
A poll done for The Strategic Council earlier this month found that 61 per cent of Canadians disapproved of the Afghan mission, marking the highest disapproval rate since May 2006 – and yet the war was just extended until 2011, a deadline which some fear will be pushed back even further.
Estimates show the Afghan war has cost Canada up to $22 billion, both in money actually spent on the mission and future payments to rebuild equipment and provide long-term care for veterans. That number is billions more than the projected amount. The figures are from a yet-to-be-released study by security analyst David Perry, former deputy director of Dalhousie University Centre for Foreign Policy Studies.
The Liberals, NDP, Bloc Quebecois and Green Party called for the release of a separate parliamentary mission financial cost report, which the Conservatives decided to release to the public, only weeks before election day.
It remains to be seen if the cost report will corroborate other studies, such as that by Perry. Whether it does or not, the figures involved are likely to be significantly higher than the $ 8.1 billion given by government the last time it counted.
Add the human cost, too. So far almost 100 Canadian soldiers have been killed during the course of the Afghan mission, including nine this month alone.
Even considering these controversial issues, politicians are still not being made to answer questions as to whether Canada is gaining or losing by staying in Afghanistan, although some issues are beginning to resurface in the media and the public agenda. After all, massive amounts of taxpayer money are being spent on this mission, and voters may wonder how much it will cost them and where their money is going. It may seem ironic that the two main parties in Canada have conceded on such a contentious issue. Opposing political players rarely agree on significant issues, but have come to a consensus on Canada’s military involvement in Afghanistan. However, the Liberals may not want to remind Canadians that they were in power when the mission originally launched by drawing attention to the mission’s weaknesses and the Conservatives, who have inherited the responsibility for the last two years, may not want to carry the brunt.
Even though an even larger proportion of Liberal voters disapproved of the mission, Liberal Stéphane Dion still approved the new agreement. So for many Canadian voters, casting a ballot for either of the two main parties still means a vote for a longer stay in Afghanistan. That means Afghanistan is no longer a central election issue, but without letting the voters decide if it should be.
The NDP and the Green Party have called for a troop withdrawal. Whether or not Canadian voters will reward that stance with more votes come election time remains to be seen. But it remains fairly certain that either the Liberals or Conservatives will be in power at the end of the election. That means that Canada is not going to bring its troops home until at least 2011.
But for an election that has seen a lot of financial pledges, weighing the $22 billion war cost becomes even more imperative. Consider that the Liberals are promising to spend $70 billion on a multi-year project to refurbish the infrastructure.
The NDP is pledging to commit $2.5 billion for home care. And the Tories are talking of putting an extra $150 in the pockets of seniors by increasing their tax exemptions if they got re-elected. Will all these ambitious plans not require, especially at a time that the economy is weakening, a lot of budget shuffling?
Taxpayers are eventually going to be asking if this $22 billion could have been spent on health care, infrastructure, or education. But just because it’s expensive doesn’t necessarily mean the mission was justified.
Rebuilding has occurred in Afghanistan, democracy has taken root, if tenuously, and schools have reopened. There is some debate as to whether this is a battle that can be won, but that doesn’t take away from the good things that have been accomplished along the way.
The cost report for the Afghan mission, however, could spark new debate on the financial burden of this undertaking. If the budget far exceeds what the Conservative government originally predicted, it could sway voter’s decisions on Oct. 14.