When Canadian peacekeepers landed in Afghanistan in late August 2003, it marked Canada's second major deployment to the war-battered country in as many years. The first was Operation Apollo, Canada's contribution to the U.S.-led military campaign against terrorism.

Two contingents of 1,800 Canadian soldiers each have been deployed in consecutive six-month rotations. The first group will be relieved by the second in February 2004. The Canadian mission consists mainly of commanding the Kabul Multinational Brigade as part of the International Security Assistance Force.

The Canadian presence in Afghanistan has been mired in criticism since it was announced. When the federal government announced in February 2003 it would send peacekeepers to Afghanistan rather than provide military support to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, many pundits said it was because the military was too small and already stretched too thin.

Then-Defence Minister John McCallum denied the claims. "The government's commitment to Afghanistan does not reflect any lack of confidence in the combat capabilities of Canada's army," he said, speaking at a defence conference in February 2003. "Quite the contrary, our soldiers are outstanding Canadians who are fully capable of carrying out difficult combat missions."

But some high-profile military critics have questioned the timing and wisdom of the mission.

Prominent among those is retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie, a veteran of nine peacekeeping tours, and commander of UN troops during the 1992 siege of Sarajevo in the Bosnian war. He says Afghanistan will by no means be a cakewalk.

"The idea of peacekeeping as being helping old ladies across the street in Bangladesh is false," he said in an interview with CBC News Online, explaining that peacekeepers are very much in a dangerous position, especially in Afghanistan.

"Looking from the Canadian soldiers' perspective, they'll be well-trained to do the job, but they'll have to be alert," said MacKenzie.

He's not alone in raising concerns about the potential dangers of the mission. A few short days after Ottawa announced it would send the peacekeeping force, the man responsible for charting possible directions for Canada's military, Maj.-Gen. Cam Ross, voted with his feet and resigned his post.

In a commentary written for The Globe and Mail, military analyst Scott Taylor says Ross's move came in apparent protest against the government's decision not to follow his recommendation to stay out of Afghanistan.

MacKenzie shares Ross's skepticism and says it probably would have been safer, and more politically astute for the government to commit troops to the invasion of Iraq.

"It would have been much more effective if (the government) would have supported the U.S. in Iraq," he said. "That's where the geopolitical Brownie points are."

And, he said, an offensive on Iraq would have been relatively safe compared with the daily grind of a peacekeeping mission. Afghanistan, he explained, is still controlled mostly by warlords. Only in Kabul, where the Canadians will be stationed, will there be any real show of force or control by peacekeepers.

But Taylor's Globe and Mail commentary points out there are also calls to expand the ISAF's mission in Afghanistan to include patrols moving outside of the secure zones around Kabul.

The patrols would attempt to bring law and order to the warlord-controlled regions outside the main urban areas in preparation for the country's first general election in the summer of 2004.

Taylor says the Canadian troops' resources are also stretched because they have little support from the U.S. The previous deployment of troops in 2002 arrived courtesy of the U.S. air force, and relied on U.S. military services for such things as transportation and laundry service.

Now, with U.S. and British forces busy in Iraq, supplies for the Canadian troops will have to be shipped commercially through a new staging area in Turkey, at elevated prices because of the increased demand in the area.

MacKenzie says the federal government's decision to send a peacekeeping contingent to Afghanistan was a convenient way of solving a tough ethical dilemma: how to show support for the war on terror on the one hand, while avoiding war in Iraq on the other.

"Was it a coincidence that (Canada's decision to commit peacekeepers to Afghanistan) happened at the same time as the U.S. was calling for support in Iraq? I don't think that's a coincidence," he said.

"The government saying that (it is) going to war on terror in Kabul is a lie," said MacKenzie. "The real war on terror is taking place in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. I chuckled when I heard the announcement… It certainly raises one's suspicions."