Global PersPectives
reaffirmed the salience of the global terrorist
threat to Canadian territory. Conservative
prime minister Stephen Harper framed Canada’s
policy in realist terms: Canada’s participation
in Af ghan i stan, he argued, amounted to a pro-
jection of Canadian power in the national inter-
est, which was to protect itself and support
the United States, its closest ally. In Harper’s
view, these policies reaffirmed that Canada’s
security, borders, and economy are interde-
pendent with those of the United States.
Liberals in Canada initially supported Can-
ada’s involvement in Af ghan i stan, for reasons
beyond the terrorist threat. Would not the
establishment of demo cratic institutions be a
worthy goal? Doesn’t Canada stand for human
rights for women? Clearly, legitimate eco-
nomic development and res pect for human
rights were severely compromised under the
Taliban.
But liberals and conservatives alike
proved disappointed by the rate of pro gress
in Afghanistan. Representatives from the New
Demo cratic Party, in par tic u lar, argued that
reconstruction was being undermined by the
counterinsurgency operations themselves.
Women’s groups pointed to few improvements
in the emancipation of women— girls were still
being attacked and sometimes maimed for
attending school. Canada had finished few
development proj ects of any importance. Lib-
erals argued that the money would have been
better spent on social programs at home. ThisOn October 7, 2001, just hours after U.S. and
British planes began bombing targets in
Afghan cities, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien
announced that Canada would join the U.S.
war in Af ghan i stan. In early 2002, regular
military troops arrived in the country. These
troops—between 2,500 and 2,800—soon
became part of the International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF). One key part of
Canadian participation was its 330- person
Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team
(PRT), deployed to support reconstruction
efforts. Between 2001 and 2011, 158 Canadian
troops died in the cause, the third highest
number of deaths of any foreign participating
state. Given the rarity of foreign war casualties
in Canada’s history and Canada’s relatively
small population, the high casualties particu-
larly affected Canadian views of the war in
Af ghan i stan. Their experience contributed
to Canada’s decision to withdraw its combat
forces completely by the end of 2011, a deci-
sion revised following U.S. president Barack
Obama’s later decision to keep U.S. forces in
Af ghan i stan until 2014. Canada likewise
extended its mission (for non- combat forces
only), which ended on March 12, 2014.
In 2001, the Canadian defense minister
provided unequivocal support for Canadian
involvement in Af ghan i stan as the means to
address the prob lem of terrorism. The discov-
ery of the 2006 plot by an Al Qaeda cell
to carry out attacks in Ottawa and Toronto
State foreign policies tend to be rooted in a single theoretical perspective. Skeptics or
dissenters often have a dif er ent theoretical perspective. Their justifications and the
evidence they provide often reflect dif er ent international relations theories.Canadian Views of Foreign Military Intervention:
Af ghan i stan and Beyond