National Defence Committee on Oct. 18th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Ladies and gentlemen, I call to order the 16th meeting of the Standing Committee of National Defence, dealing with our Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on May 16 dealing with the study of Afghanistan.

I just want to remind the committee that this motion included: That the Committee examine the various aspects of the mission of Canadian troops in Afghanistan, such as its duration, the state of the personnel and materiel, the relationship between the mission's combat operations and its efforts to help reconstruct the country, and the criteria for assessing its effectiveness, with a view to determining whether it is possible to complete the mission successfully while still meeting Canada's other international obligations.

Today, we'd like to welcome the Honourable Gordon O'Connor, the Minister of National Defence, along with Chief of the Defence Staff General Hillier and Deputy Minister Elcock.

As usual, Mr. Minister, we'll give you some time for opening comments. Then we start a 10-minute round, as has been laid out previously. I'll turn it over to you for the comments, and then we'll move on.

Mr. Minister, go ahead.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it's nice to be back here at the committee again, in the War Room. I think it's quite an appropriate name for a defence committee.

This is my second time appearing as Minister of National Defence, and I welcome the opportunity to provide this committee an update on the progress we are making in this important mission.

Let me say a few words about why this is so critical for Canada. The reasons have not changed since the beginning of this mission. On September 11, 2001, terrorists crashed four aircraft, killing about 3,000 people, 24 of them Canadians. They forever changed the way we see our world. Subsequent attacks have reminded us of the threats that terrorists continue to pose to society.

Although we may feel safe here in Canada, we must remember to whom we owe much of that security. The Canadian Forces are in Afghanistan conducting military operations to protect Canadian interests. They are in Afghanistan rooting out those who harboured and supported the perpetrators of the attacks of September 11. They are working to protect us from suffering a violent attack in our own communities.

As you are fully aware, the Afghan mission is about much more than that. It's also about fulfilling Canada's international responsibilities. We aren't the only country threatened by terrorism; it's a global threat. NATO countries have been working together to defeat terrorism at its source, and Canada is playing a leading role.

I was pleased to note at a recent meeting of NATO defence ministers that Poland has pledged to increase its contribution in Afghanistan. I've also been encouraging other members of NATO to do more in southern Afghanistan, to share more of the burden. And we are looking for our allies to contribute more troops and to remove the restrictions on the forces they have already committed.

But we are also in Afghanistan because we have a duty as citizens of a rich and prosperous nation, a free nation, to help those around the world who do not enjoy the same advantages. We have a duty as members of the United Nations, of the G8, and of NATO. We have a duty because our government wants to restore its reputation as a leader and a dependable partner in defending freedom and democracy in the world.

Canadians like to lend a helping hand when they are asked. This is a tradition that has existed for generations.

We are in Afghanistan at the invitation of the Afghan government. You know that life for children born in Afghanistan is hard from their very first breath. They face inadequate medical care, poor housing, dismal education opportunities, institutionalized violence, injustice, and poverty. These are a few of the challenges almost every Afghan child has to deal with. That, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the big reasons why we are in Afghanistan.

This mission isn't easy. I know the price Canadians have paid. I've spoken to the families of the fallen soldiers and I've looked into the eyes of those who knew and loved them best. When we are faced with the news of a Canadian casualty, it's important to remember why Canada is making such a sacrifice. We cannot allow the Taliban to return to their former prominence, to take over Afghanistan and resume their regime of terror and tyranny, to flaunt their disregard for human rights, to punish and terrorize their own people, to murder innocents, to harbour those who would threaten us and our families at home and abroad.

As the Prime Minister mentioned, however, in his United Nations speech, success in Afghanistan cannot be ensured by military means alone. Reconstruction and development are our main objectives in Afghanistan and they remain an absolute priority for Canada.

This is why the Canadian Forces and the other government departments are taking a cross-jurisdictional approach to helping Afghanistan rebuild.

Their intent is to provide Afghans with an opportunity to rebuild the country under Afghanistan’s National Development Strategy, in cooperation with the international community.

Our military is supporting these objectives by providing a safe and secure environment, an environment that will, in turn, accelerate the pace of development and aid delivery, prerequisites for effective and long-lasting stability. As Afghan President Hamid Karzai stressed during his visit last month, a democratic nation is not built overnight or in one or two elections. So as I've said numerous times, we will know we have been successful in Afghanistan when the country and its government are stabilized, when the terrorists and their local support networks are defeated and denied sanctuary, and when the Afghan security forces are well established and under the firm and legitimate control of the Government of Afghanistan.

When it is clear that these developments are irreversible, then we will know we have reached our goal, but we have made measurable progress in Afghanistan. I know you've heard of some of the bigger, well-publicized successes. Afghanistan has implemented its first multi-party elections, millions of refugees have returned, children have started to return to school, armed insurgents have been demobilized, and the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police force have been stood up.

But I also want Canadians to be more aware of our recent successes. Ladies and gentlemen, despite great challenges, we have taken concrete steps forward in the last six months. Our progress in the Kandahar region has laid the groundwork for continued improvement. Operation Medusa is but one of our recent successes. This past summer the Canadian Forces provided the necessary security for our allies, the British and the Dutch, to deploy in southern Afghanistan. Without Canada's support, NATO expansion into southern Afghanistan could not have happened this soon.

In July the Canadian Forces, working under the NATO umbrella, took command of operations in southern Afghanistan, and we are now patrolling and conducting combat operations in areas previously considered Taliban sanctuaries. Daily our Canadian Forces men and women are meeting ordinary hardworking and peace-loving Afghans, they are conducting meetings with elders, delivering development aid, and making a difference in the everyday lives of Afghans. We are helping to build up the Afghan National Army through our work at the national training centre and through joint combined operations with the Afghan authorities, such as the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police.

All this builds Afghan domestic capacity and helps us move closer to our ultimate objective of a fully independent and stable Afghanistan. Our operations in the Pashmul and Panjwai areas have also planted vital seeds for development. We are building an Afghanistan development zone in strategic areas, pockets of stability and reconstruction from which future renewal can spread.

Change, though, takes time. Here in Canada we don't always appreciate the impact of what is going on so far away. We miss the smaller but critically important steps forward that are happening every day, projects like the water distribution system that Canadian PRT members constructed at Kandahar University, or the positive effect that a simple donation of Canadian medical supplies and bed linens has on an Afghan hospital, or the women's wellness sessions our PRT members have provided--concrete steps Canadians have taken to improve the quality of life for Afghan women. These projects, in many ways things that we take for granted here, result in a lasting gratitude of the Afghan people for the work of Canadians.

I've seen the good work that our men and women in uniform and their civilian counterparts are doing and the results they're achieving, but Canadians are not just conducting combat operations. The Canadian Forces are there to help to create an atmosphere of stability and trust where, frankly, it will be impossible for the Taliban to again take hold.

I visited Afghanistan nearly two months ago to see with my own eyes how our troops were doing. I wanted to talk to the men and women on the ground about the challenges they face. At the end of my visit, I said Canada could do more—and we need to do more—and I asked how we can support our forces better, and what they asked me for was new equipment and more personnel.

To ensure that our vital reconstruction efforts could continue, our government immediately took steps to enhance our military task force in Afghanistan. We are deploying an additional infantry company to protect the provincial reconstruction team, along with engineers to manage construction projects. As well, we are sending a tank squadron and armoured recovery vehicles to provide support to our battle group. We are also providing our forces with a counter-mortar capability, including a radar system to locate enemy weapons. This government is seeing to it that our troops get what they need to do their job, and this commitment is about a 450-troop increase in the area.

Ladies and gentlemen, Canada knew from the beginning that this mission would be difficult, but the Canadian Forces are among the best in the world and they are making progress in one of the most volatile regions of Afghanistan. We are proud of them.

Ladies and gentlemen, if Canada and its coalition partners abandon Afghanistan now, the Taliban would regain their power over the Afghan people. They would again ban women from the workplace, leaving thousands of families without an income. They would shut down girls' schools and colleges. Cultural institutions and monuments would be thoughtlessly destroyed. The soccer stadium would again be used for weekly lashings and executions.

We would have to stand shamefully by as Afghan civilians were summarily executed, as houses were burned, as private property was destroyed. We would have to wait in fear as al-Qaeda got settled in, making a home for itself from where it could again haunt the world.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, there is no doubt that the work accomplished in Afghanistan by our soldiers, sailors, and men and women of the air force is of national interest.

There is no doubt that that is what we should be doing. Their efforts are helping to protect Canadians against terrorism. Furthermore, the military are helping Canada to assume its responsibilities on the international scene. They are helping to improve the lives of people who are fighting to gain the rights and privileges that numerous Canadians take for granted.

This is why the government is determined to continue this mission to the end.

I would now be happy to entertain your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

We'll open it up for the first round, which will be 10 minutes. We're going to start with Mr. Dosanjh.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Minister and General Hillier, for being with us today. Clearly, this is a very important issue, and we all support our troops and the purpose of the mission.

I have two or three questions. Hopefully, we can get through them in 10 minutes.

Mr. Minister, in May the government clearly wanted to have a debate and a vote in Parliament on the extension of our mission in Afghanistan, but once the government committed to taking that step, you would agree that the government had an obligation to provide Canadians and parliamentarians with the kind of information you may have been working with in deciding to extend that mission for two years, or at least placing that motion before the Commons.

One assumes the Government of Canada had access to intelligence from DND, from Foreign Affairs, from NATO, and from allies about the situation in Afghanistan at that time, information about such things as the strength of the Taliban resurgence; the cross-border flow of the Taliban from Pakistan to Afghanistan; the sanctuaries in Pakistan; the issues of government corruption in Afghanistan, and how that was inhibiting the reconstruction and the development work and the training of the forces; the lack of commitment from other NATO allies in terms of troop strength and, in fact, substantial national caveats; lack of reconstruction taking place at that time; and of course, the severity of the poppy crop and the attendant problems therewith.

The government, if I can recall, Mr. Minister, said absolutely nothing about any of these issues during the debate in terms of the intelligence the government had with respect to these issues.

The government's propensity for withholding information continues. Your department has refused this committee's request for biweekly briefings. We have been told by your bureaucrats, under your stewardship, to essentially get lost as a committee of parliamentarians, and I don't believe that's acceptable. It is, in fact, reprehensible.

Let me get back to the issue. By rushing to extend this mission with a brief debate and a vote, without sharing the basic information with Canadians about what the government knew or ought to have known, do you not believe the government actually perpetrated a fraud on Canadians?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

I'll try to answer that complex question as simply as possible. Yes, we had a debate in May for the extension of the commitment to Afghanistan, and during that debate you had a chance to ask questions and try to determine those questions from your point of view. But let me remind you that May is only three months beyond the commitment made by the Liberals. The Liberals moved that battle group and that PRT into the Kandahar region effective in February. What did the Liberals know? What did your government, of which you were a member, know about the Taliban and all those other issues you brought up to me?

In those three months, nothing essentially had changed from what your government knew and our government knew. So no, I don't think we're committing a fraud upon anybody.

Let me try to answer your other question, because you've asked multiple questions there. You can have before this committee any official of our department, and any other department, I assume, that has an interest in defence. All you have to do is ask for an official to come forward. So you will never be short of information. I, the CDS, the deputy minister, and any of the members of our department are on call to come and testify to this committee, so there is no hiding of anything. All the information you need that will be provided by officials of this department.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Minister, not to belabour the point, but the fact is that you knew at that time that the Taliban were going to be more resurgent than before. You didn't put that before the House. Whether or not I knew isn't the issue. The issue is whether Canadians knew. Maybe the people in cabinet knew. Did Canadians know? The Minister of Defence, before you went across the country making speeches as to the issues we might face in Afghanistan...but no information came from you.

Let me just move on to the next question, which is with respect to the Taliban. In fact, we find out, of course, from the public statements that General Hillier recently made, that he has spoken openly of the Afghan government's ongoing negotiations with the Taliban, Taliban leadership included. Recently when you were asked about this, sir, you admitted that you didn't know about the state of negotiations and implied that you didn't need to know because--and I'm quoting your own words here--about the Afghans you said, “It is their insurgency.”

Mr. O'Connor, as a former general, you know how deeply we're invested in Afghanistan. The fact that you would say you did not know it was their insurgency--and in fact, General Hillier was much more open in terms of sharing the information that the Afghans are talking to the Taliban leadership, most of whom are moderates according to General Hillier--disturbs me, because you are the steward of this mission, along with the Prime Minister.

We want to know several things. How thorough and how extensive are the negotiations that the Afghan government is conducting with the Taliban? Who are they conducting negotiations with? Are they conducting negotiations with the same people who were trying to kill yesterday or might try to kill tomorrow?

The other more important question is that the definition of Taliban is evolving. We don't know how many Taliban fighters we're facing in Kandahar or in the country at large. I would like to know how you would define Taliban in today's world in Afghanistan, and how many Taliban fighters are we facing with our 2,000 troops.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Minister, there are just under three minutes left.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Well, again, there are multiple questions.

I've said in Parliament, and I'll say here again, it is the responsibility of the Afghanistan government to negotiate with the insurgency. If they are negotiating, it's their responsibility. It is not the responsibility of Canada to participate in any negotiation with the insurgents.

Canada is also part of NATO, as are some other friendly countries that are there in Afghanistan, numbering more than 30 countries. The ISAF commander and the ISAF headquarters deal on a regular basis with the Afghan government, and it's their responsibility to manage the whole insurgency in the country with the Afghan government. They would probably be in contact with President Karzai and his ministers to talk about any negotiations, if they're going on at all. But it's not the responsibility of the Canadian government or the Canadian troops to get involved in negotiating with the Taliban. We have our clear responsibilities and we are staying within that area.

As to how many Taliban there are or any other details about the Taliban, I'm going to turn to General Hillier and see if he can answer the question.

[Gen R.J. Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence]

Minister, perhaps I could just say first, negotiations or encouraging defection--I didn't say that anybody was negotiating with the Taliban. That would presume that you were talking with them about what they would accept and maybe that you would hand over southern Afghanistan to them, etc. None of that, to my knowledge, is occurring anywhere, certainly not from the Government of Afghanistan.

What I talked about was a program they have, which is called peace through security, in which they encourage people to come out of the Taliban, defect to the political process, and use words in Parliament instead of bullets in Kandahar to achieve their ends and purposes. They have had some success with that program, and we have been on the periphery, on the margin, of seeing some of those things occur, and that's a very positive thing for the benefit of Afghanistan.

To define the Taliban we use our intelligent sources. We know where their commanders are; we know who they are; we know which units they have; we know where they're operating. And in southern Kandahar there is a very clear delineation of the Taliban from a variety of other groups that might be in the area or not. Those who are attacking us we have defined clearly as Taliban by that intelligence process, while working with the Afghans, working with the international community. As we look at the numbers in southern Afghanistan, they vary. And that's not to try to avoid your question or not answer it whatsoever, but they vary. They vary depending on whether they're trying to get more fighters into Helmand province or whether they're focused on Kandahar for a period of time.

During the operation that we called Operation Medusa in the Panjwai, we faced anywhere up to 1,000 Taliban fighters in that area. They augmented that number by coercing and forcing young men in the area who had no jobs, who had fear of the Taliban, who didn't want them there, to come and pick up a weapon and sometimes fight for them. We believe the number would be somewhere plus of 1,000 in the southern part of Afghanistan where we are. How many of those are exactly hard-core fighters? You simply can't determine.

But truly, we're after their leaders in that region--the folks who direct them, who facilitate them, who get them money, who get them weapons, who get them ammunition, and who direct them first of all at killing other Afghans and then at trying to kill our soldiers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you very much.

We're going to move on to Mr. Bachand for 10 minutes, then to Ms. Black.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome to our guests.

Mr. Chair, you opened the meeting by reading aloud the Bloc Québécois motion adopted on May 16, which dealt precisely with duration, equipment, etc. You did not mention, however, the motion tabled by the Bloc Québécois on October 4. In it we requested briefings every two weeks.

Indeed we expected a senior official from the Department of National Defence to come every other week and tell us where the troops had got to, what the plans were, what took place the week before and what would probably happen the next week. This is not what the department has told us, though.

I wish to recall the arguments underlying the committee’s statement concerning the briefing motion. Here they are: Canadians do not have information from their government at the time we are speaking; Quebeckers do not have information from the federal government about what is happening in Afghanistan; members of Parliament do not have any information about what is currently happening in Afghanistan; and worse yet, the members of the Standing Committee on National Defence do not have any information about what is currently happening.

We are told that Lieutenant-General Gauthier will come and see us and that Brigadier-General Benjamin has already been, but they each have their own jurisdicitions and do not go beyond them. So we do not get a real briefing when General Benjamin comes as we just talk about the arrangements made so that the troops will not be short of munitions, food, and this and that.

General Gauthier, in turn, will tell us about the arrangements made to increase the troops and perhaps add an infantry company or some tanks for some reason or another. This is not what the committee wants to know, however; it wants to know what is happening. Since this government has always been in favour of transparency, this type of answer is very disappointing. That is my first question.

Before you answer me, Mr. Minister, I wish to tell you that, if we lose the information battle in Canada, we will lose the battle in Afghanistan. That is how it has always gone. The battle in Vietnam was lost on American territory, not in Vietnam. It is the same thing for us, since we are now headed in the same direction. This is why, with the responsibility incumbent on us, we want to have this type of information. I do not see why you want to keep it from us.

Mr. Minister, did you agree to have the Standing Committee on National Defence kept in the dark?

Are you linked to the decision whereby we are only sent to visit the bases or we get to listen to generals who visit us from time to time?

Is this your personal decision or did your department staff make this decision?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Go ahead, Minister.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Thank you very much.

I saw the request and I made the decision because I understand that you want details of what's going to happen. You will not get details of what's going to happen, because these are military operations. I am not going to endanger the military in Afghanistan by providing information to this committee ahead of time about what's going to go on in the Kandahar area.

At any time, you can have any official from the defence department, any military officer, who can explain to you what has happened or give any details you want to know about the defence department. But I'm not going to come here, and I'm not going to have people come here, to tell you what's going to happen next week or the week after in Kandahar.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, this is not what the resolution says. It says that the committee will be informed every two weeks as to the state and progress of the intervention.

I understand that you do not wish to place the military in danger by telling us a week in advance, perhaps before a large gathering of journalists, that we will be at such and such a place to conduct a secret operation. I know that you cannot do that. However, every other week, you could provide us with information on the progress of the situation. At present we are learning absolutely nothing.

What we do learn, Mr. Minister, is very worrying. You know the three Ds, which are in Englih: security, development and governance. Well, I think that the three Ds are being turned into: diversion of the mission, departure from the mission objectives and disaster in losses of life. Soldiers are dying every week, and we do not know exactly what has happened these past two weeks. Nor do we understand the progress of the mission. So when we shift from the three Ds, security, development and governance, to diversion, disaster and departure, I think that there is a serious danger that you absolutely have to do something about.

And please tell me what you think of the statement by General Richards, whom I myself met in Kabul. According to him, if things do not improve in the next six months, 70% of the population will give its support to the Taliban. We will lose the battle. And to win the battle you have to inform Canadians and Quebeckers of what is happening so that they can see that there is a certain progress and that the sacrifices imposed on our soldiers are not in vain. If you do not do that, we will see each other in six months and see how much things have deteriorated.

So I would like your reaction to these comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Go ahead.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

First, with respect to General Richards' comments, I think he is trying to communicate to NATO and the public that NATO needs to make a greater effort in Afghanistan. But when General Richards starts making comments like six months, that's his own choice, his own judgment.

I can tell you that the problem will last a lot longer than six months. There's nothing magic about six months. Whether or not substantial progress is made in the next six months, it isn't going to mean that 70% of the people in the south are going to go to the Taliban. That is General Richards' way of expressing the need to have more NATO troops in Afghanistan and have the restrictions taken off the troops, so we can employ them.

That's his style of announcing this need to the public, which, by the way, we agree with.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

All right.

You have already stated, Mr. Minister, that a solution based on defence alone will not lead us to victory. This is my last question.

Do you still think that? I would also like you to talk to us about the information battle. Do you think that you can go on for long keeping not only Parliament but also the Canadian people in the dark?

I congratulate the journalists, though, who often have the courage to go there and cover events. They are the ones who bring us back the information, not the Canadian government. Do you plan to correct that? Can you review your position, on the basis of my earlier argument?

We do not want to know where the troops will be next week. But in our bi-weekly briefings, we will see what they did in the past two weeks, and parliamentarians, along with Canadians and Quebeckers, will see how fast the mission is progressing for now.

Would you be ready to reconsider your decision, on the basis of briefings being about the past two weeks, rather than on what will happen in two weeks?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Mr. Minister, there are two minutes left.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Yes, Mr. Bachand, I do believe in the three Ds. Our government believes in the three Ds, and we haven't varied from the original commitment in the Kandahar area. All three Ds are in operation—security, development, and governance—and our country is making efforts in all three areas, not only Afghanistan-wide but in the Kandahar area.

Now, with respect to information, as I said before, you can have anybody before this committee you want to get any information that we can provide from the department. But I'm willing to reconsider your motion, given that my understanding was that you wanted to know what was going to happen. As I think we agree, that wouldn't be appropriate for our troops. So we'll have a look at your motion, and I'll get back to you on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Casson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

Ms. Black, and then on to the government side for 10 minutes.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you very much.

And thank you to all three of you for appearing at the committee today.

I want to get right into my questions. I only get one round, so I'll be as brief and quick as I can.

There are a range of different groups--different tribal allegiances--in Afghanistan, particularly in the southern region. Some of them are interested in peace and security; others have an interest in increasing and continuing the violence. I'd like to ask how you distinguish between these groups in your combat operations and how you ensure that our operations in Kandahar province are not driving people to the insurgent side?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Ms. Black, I'm going to have to turn this over to General Hillier. I think he'd be able to answer that question better than I could.

[Gen R.J. Hillier]

We do that first of all by supporting the Afghans, because we are in their country; it's their political process. They've built the political process based on the constitution they developed and they're working through it. As the President works through the Governor of Kandahar, with the Government of Kandahar province specifically, they help define those who are coming into the political process and those, like the Taliban, whatever tribe they may come from or whatever region they come from, who don't want to go on the political process and want to use violence. By working with the Afghan National Army, a most professional organization being developed at a very rapid pace, and picking up a possibly increasing percentage of the security duties; by working with the Afghan National Police, but specifically by working with the government institutions in Afghanistan, we help support them in the delineation of who is helping build the political process and who is coming at it violently. If somebody is coming at it violently, we help them mitigate that threat, neutralize that threat, reduce that threat, and at the same time assist in accelerating parts of the reconstruction and the development of government capacity.

We are always extremely careful during combat operations. First, we don't conduct operations unless there's a need to. Second, we don't conduct them unless there is a very real threat to life and limb for Afghans, us, or other members of the international community. Third, when we do them, we do them with a very precise targeting, in conjunction with Afghan forces, to make sure that collateral effects--driving people away from their homes, destroying homes, etc.--are reduced to the absolute minimum, and we only have to do that kind of thing or even get engaged in it if the Taliban forces it in a region.

As an example, during Operation Medusa in the Panjwai, the destruction that was caused in some of the villages there, and the folks who were forced to leave because they did not consider it secure enough to stay, that occurred because the Taliban came into the area, used violence--

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

But there's much more there than the Taliban; there are more allegiances there that are similar to the Taliban.

[Gen R.J. Hillier]

That's all fine, and that's why the elected government of Afghanistan, with their leaders, walk through that...and we support the security process and the reconstruction part, but they walk through those complex relationships with us supporting them, as opposed to our walking through them.