The Canadian debate over the Afghanistan mission can boost confidence among the Taliban, says a top US military leader.
Admiral William Fallon, chief of the U.S. Central Command, told CTV's Question Period that he sees political debate as a normal part of the process.
But he seemed to agree with Gen. Rick Hillier that the insurgents can use any perceived lack of commitment to gain strength.
"They're very clever, and they take advantage of information technology, both in gathering information and trying to use that for their purposes," Fallon said. "If they perceive that there's little commitment, or it's words and not a lot of action to back it up, they're going to gain confidence."
On Friday, Hillier said that the Taliban are watching the political debate in Canada about the mission for signs of weakness.
With a parliamentary debate beginning on Monday, NDP leader Jack Layton echoed his earlier disagreement with Hillier's remarks. He said engaging in debate over the future of military engagement is a sign of strength.
"To suggest that it's a sign of weakness to have a democratic debate I think is seriously misguided," Layton told Question Period on Sunday.
"It is Parliament's determination to decide whether or not Canada engages in combat or war and then the military follows the decisions of Parliament."
Fallon said that the forces in Afghanistan will do whatever it takes to let insurgents know that they're committed to helping the country.
"If they sense that this commitment is real and it's genuine and it's deep, then their life's going to be a little harder," he said.
Layton also said that using NATO as principal instrument for the mission and its focus on counter-insurgency is not working.
"Violence against civilians has gone up," he said, "and then we've seen poppy production up, we've seen crime and corruption rising in the country."
NDP deputy leader and finance critic Thomas Mulcair re-emphasized his party's opposition to the mission on Sunday.
"I profoundly disagree with the mission as does every member of the caucus of the NDP," Mulcair said. "It's our official position that we should not be involved in that combat mission."
Liberal industry critic Scott Brison told Question Period that he feels Parliament has a responsibility to seek common ground, but emphasized his party's focus on a more balanced approach.
"It has to shift from what has been an almost exclusively military and combat role to more of a development and social and economic development role," Brison said.
One of those areas of common ground between the Liberals and Conservatives is the 2011 end date.
Fallon admitted he didn't know how realistic the Manley Report's end date for Canada's involvement is, but he's "not looking for a 30-year commitment."
"We're looking to get this mission done as quickly as we can, but to do it right, be effective, and providing safety and security," he said.
A group of senior U.S. diplomats completed a nine-month study, similar to the Manley Report, called the Afghanistan Study Group. Ambassador Gary Matthews, one of the report's principal contributors, told Question Period that support for the mission in Washington has been strong on both the Democrat and Republican sides. But it will require a doubling of the allied effort to succeed.
"It's an effort and a commitment where we can prevail, but it's going to take more resources, more burden-sharing and a commitment,"
Matthews said. "There's a very strong consensus that we need to double our efforts in Afghanistan, and together with our allies of course, including critical ones such as Canada."
Fallon does not foresee a time when it becomes an exclusively U.S.-led mission due to the country's high number of military commitments, but he does see the Afghan people taking control of the effort.
"What I'd like to see is a day in which the Afghans take over ... responsibility for security in this country," he said. "That's what we're really striving to do."
