A change in command

I mused a few weeks ago that a likely influx of U.S. troops into Afghanistan might offer an ideal opportunity for Canada to put an end to its current combat mission. But the Times reports that the rationale for withdrawal may be even stronger than I'd figured, as the U.S.' plan involves a radical restructuring of the current multilateral command structure:

The United States is planning to take control of all military operations in Afghanistan next year with an Iraq-style troop surge after becoming frustrated at Nato’s failure to defeat the Taliban.

Plans are being drawn up to send as many as 15,000 extra troops to Afghanistan with a single US general always in command, as in Iraq, defence sources said.

The Pentagon is also pushing for a permanent “unified command” in the south of the country that would sideline the Dutch and the Canadians.

At present, control of the south is rotated between the British, Dutch and Canadians, the three countries that provide the bulk of the troops.

In other words, the planned U.S. surge doesn't just figure to add more than enough troops to offset the effect of a Canadian pullout. Instead, the U.S.' plan is also based on the assumption that the current NATO mission structure needs to be broken down - with the effect of putting all command responsibilities (and presumably plenty of associated decision-making authority) in the hands of the U.S. alone, rather than any coalition where Canada could possibly influence how the mission is carried out.

Which means that the assumptions underlying the last extension vote no longer seem to be operative. And if staying in Afghanistan under a NATO-commanded mission isn't even an option, then it should be obvious that there's a need to reconsider whether Canada wants to dedicate troops to a purely U.S.-led mission - and likely to conclude otherwise.