Ottawa—The deaths of four Canadian soldiers and the wounding of 10 others in three separate incidents near Kandahar yesterday have sparked calls from critics for a complete re-examination of Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

"The news is sad, frustrating and troubling," said Peggy Mason, who served as Canadian ambassador for disarmament under the Brian Mulroney government. "What are we doing there?"

The question was blunt and penetrating. Recent public opinion polls show that more and more Canadians are asking themselves the same question.

Only a few years ago, Canadian troops were sent off to Kabul on what was billed as a peace mission. Today they're poised at the pointy edge of the bloodiest region in the country as the death toll rises.

Fifteen Canadian soldiers have died in the last six months and that tragic trend may continue, worries Steven Staples, the director of security programs for the Polaris Institute, a privately funded public research institute.

Staples reacted to yesterday's news with "sadness, alarm — but not surprise," he said.

"The trend lines have been moving down this path," he noted. "The increasing effectiveness of insurgent attacks suggests that our defences have been eroded.

"And we're seeing an increased sophistication in the tactics used by the insurgents."

Parliament should be recalled, former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy said in a telephone interview from Manitoba. The crisis in the Middle East and the tragic news from Afghanistan demand it, he said.

"I don't think Parliament should be on summer holiday," Axworthy said.

He said the discussion should focus on how Canada's original peace support operations in Afghanistan have evolved into what now appears to many as all-out combat.

"We were originally told that we would apply the concept of the 3-D approach in Afghanistan — the application of defence, diplomacy and development," he said. "Now it has become one big `D.'

"The diplomatic and the development? These things have been pushed to the margins," he said.

"That's become the real issue."

Axworthy said Canadians have yet to get a satisfactory explanation from the federal government as to how and why that shift in Canada's Afghan mission occurred.

"But," he added, "there's an innate sense among the public that this is not right."

The devastating news from Kandahar came a day after the deputy minister of foreign affairs, Peter Harder, issued a memorandum to all staff and diplomatic missions abroad putting everyone on notice that, "Afghanistan is a priority for the government."

The missive went on to proclaim: "We are helping Afghanistan to achieve remarkable successes and can take pride in our contributions."

International analysts' reports in recent months, however, have continuously noted the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, especially in the south, which has become so dangerous that almost all development aid work has stopped.

Mason, who has tried to spark a national debate about why Canadian troops are in Kandahar, spoke plainly: "There is no military solution to Afghanistan's problems," she said, suggesting aggressive combat operations have simply made the situation worse.

Mason, a faculty member of the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, said that "instead of focusing on a losing military battle," Stephen Harper's government should be urgently working with NATO and its North Atlantic Council, "to develop a new strategy, a winning strategy."

She, too, emphasized that there has been precious little diplomacy in the once much-trumpeted 3-D approach.

"The government should throw its energies behind an effort to have the North Atlantic Council strike a renewed negotiation process in which everyone would participate," she said. By everyone, she meant all of the combatants, including Taliban insurgents.

Calgary-based defence analyst David Bercuson, however, had a different view. Saddened by the news of the four Canadian deaths, he insisted, however, that this was no time to doubt the validity or value of the Canadian mission.

"If there is any mission in the world that we should be doing," he said, "this is it."

He said Canada has a clear national interest as a result of Sept. 11 and its aftermath.

"A number of Canadians were killed in New York; billions of dollars of damage was done to our economy; we've had to shoulder all kinds of additional costs to increase our security; and we've had to place restrictions on our individual freedoms. Canadians have also been killed in the field," Bercuson added.

"Any Canadian who feels we can separate ourselves from the Western, liberal, technologically advanced way of life that is under attack by radical Islamists is just being foolish," he said.

While Axworthy stressed the bravery and courage of our troops on the ground, he also asked: "How much security is actually taking place for the Afghan people? The truth is there has been very little (Canadian) assessment."

In a paper delivered at Queen's University just six weeks ago, CARE Canada chief John Watson said that aggressive military manoeuvres on the ground had made the delivery of development aid — a key component of the Canadian mission — all but impossible.

He said vigorous foreign military manoeuvres in the country make it "more dangerous for both national and international aid workers."

He also worried that "the deployment of our troops in a war-fighting capacity in Afghanistan is making Canada a more likely target for terrorist attacks."