You walk by the cenotaph in Ottawa and see that each year their numbers dwindle, even as the crowds get bigger.

The veterans of the Second World War and the Korean conflict are now in their eighties.

As they march by, they get the applause and recognition they deserve. But the Silver Cross Mother is now half their age and looks like anyone you might pass on the street.

Remembrance Day began in 1919 to honour the fallen of the First World War. Casualties from the Second World War, Korea and peacekeeping operations were added as events in the 20th century unfolded.

But it is the ongoing conflict that began in this century and is still unfolding that is swelling the November 11 crowds.

Afghanistan

The war in Afghanistan has so far killed 133 Canadian soldiers.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay, right, and Chief of Defence Staff Walter Natynczyk at a ramp ceremony in Kandahar in December 2008. (Canadian Press)

It is the one that has created the middle-aged, or even younger, Silver Cross Mothers.

It is a war that Canadians say makes them proud of our refurbished Armed Forces and the role they are playing.

At the same time, it is a war where Canadians now say they want our troops to stop doing what they are doing and get out by our self-appointed deadline of 2011.

How did we get to this confusing situation?

Partly it began on March 13, 2008 when, following a series of heated and very partisan debates, the House of Commons approved a resolution that extended for two more years, the 2009 deadline to bring the troops home.

The revised deadline of 2011 is a date, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said, that will definitely be respected.

He said that when he was campaigning in the general election later in the fall of 2008.

And he said it without consulting with either our allies or Canadian military brass on what that withdrawal could mean or how it would be accomplished.

Time for a serious talk

Since then, the prime minister as well as Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon have all talked about a continuing military presence in Afghanistan, albeit in a "nation-building" role after the combat duties end.

But recently, the chief of the defence staff, Gen. Walter Natynczyk, said the military is now making plans to have all Canadian troops out of Afghanistan by mid-2011.

What this means is that it is time for Canadians and their politicians, regardless of party, to have a serious discussion about Afghanistan and what comes next.

The 133 soldiers killed so far, the Silver Cross Mothers and all those with a personal interest in this sad list, deserve no less.

Defining moment

Serious discussions by rival politicians are difficult to hold at the best of times. Serious discussions in a minority parliament are even more difficult.

But they can be held, and in fact must be held and held soon.

In 2007, the prime minister cleverly asked a high-profile panel headed by John Manley, the former Liberal deputy prime minister, to recommend the way forward in Afghanistan.

With certain conditions — which were partially met — the panel proposed the extension to 2011, which the governing Conservatives and the opposition Liberals eventually supported.

This time parliamentarians are going to have to bite the bullet and figure it out themselves.

The New Democrats and Bloc Québécois have already said they want an immediate pull out from Afghanistan. Don't even wait until 2011.

While they are free to make those arguments again — and definitely will — that makes them irrelevant in charting what comes next.

In this minority Parliament, that means it falls to the Liberals, the party that, in government, first sent Canadian soldiers to Afghanistan and then supported the resolution to extend the mission until 2011, to seriously consider what should happen next.

The leadership on this debate, however, must come from the Conservatives. It was the prime minister, remember, who first pushed for the mission extension and who said in 2006 that Canadians would not "cut and run" in Afghanistan.

More importantly, it is government that has the ultimate responsibility for setting policy.

Need to be friends

In this case, too, the debate must be held against the realistic background of what is happening in Afghanistan.

The situation there is getting worse. The Taliban is gaining strength. NATO allies, who would not help out in the tough Kandahar region when we asked them before, are not going to be willing to replace us whenever we leave.

The corruption of the recent election there, which ended with a second term for President Hamid Karzai, shows that "nation building" works better as a concept than as a reality.

Add to that why we went to Kandahar in the first place.

We went because we wanted to show the Americans we were serious about fighting the so-called war on terror. Serious about getting rid of the Taliban, the government that allowed Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to prepare and train for the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

We wanted to show the Americans that they could trust us, that there was no need for tighter border controls between our two countries.

Now, of course, U.S. commanders want more troops in Afghanistan. If we pull out just as they are sending more American soldiers there, how will that convince Washington we are good and faithful friends in a time of need?

What would that mean for the already thickening Canada-U.S. border?

There are now reports from Washington that President Barack Obama is unhappy with each of the options he is being offered for Afghanistan.

Mr. President, we share your pain.

But the Obama administration has been openly debating its future Afghanistan policy and will come to a decision of its own.

It is time for the Canadian government and Canadians to do the same.