I would just say that it is disappointing to me when I hear this referred to as “Bush's war”, because just maybe he did something right in his presidency and maybe Afghanistan was one of those things. Not only that, I think half the Canadian population genuflects in the direction of UN headquarters in Manhattan on a daily basis, even though the only characteristic of most UN operations in the last 12 years has been the apology that follows the Srebrenicas, Rwandas, Bosnias, Croatias, and Somalias. They don't have a sterling record. Nevertheless, there's a UN resolution and the NATO charter was called, and that's 26 nations. They might not be doing a great job, but it is very much a multinational organization.
Did the Americans reduce their number of soldiers too much and send them to Iraq? Yes, but they should have been able to predict the future, I guess, and that's unfortunately the way it's turned out.
As for the end date, it's this damn UN resolution. That's what it is, the mandate--it's always been six months. UN mandates were always six months, from 1956 until now. Why? Because the Security Council only votes funds for six months and the UN Assembly only approves them for six months. So we all get used to six months. It doesn't apply to non-peacekeeping operations, but it is sort of in Afghanistan. Some troops are there for six months, some for nine, some for twelve. Nevertheless, to predict an end date.... I was asked that on television the other night: “What's going to happen in 2011?” I said, “I don't even know if I'm going to be here.” Who the hell can predict what's going to happen in the world, let alone Afghanistan, in 2011? At least word it in such a way that we'll take a look at it a year before 2011, but not in 2008.