It probably shouldn't have come as a surprise. The scenario had been floated for weeks leading up to the NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania.

France would send troops to Afghanistan, possibly as many as 1,000. The troops might go to Kandahar to back up the Canadians. But if they didn't, they'd go somewhere the Americans were operating. The Americans would then move some of their troops south.

The common wisdom was that this would all be sealed at the Bucharest meeting. The conditions Canada set out to extend its mission would be met, and everything would be in place for the Canadian Forces to keep rotating troops through Kandahar until 2011.

But as the summit drew near, the signals became more mixed. Prime Minister Stephen Harper began hinting that maybe this wasn't a done deal.

For everything to fall apart, for a NATO summit to end in disappointment for Canada, wouldn't be unprecedented. In 2006, Harper went into NATO's meeting in Riga, Latvia, looking for more troops. Back then, the issue was caveats, the conditions NATO countries place on their troops that limit where they can serve and whether they can actually engage in combat.

In 2006, "caveats" was a four letter word in defence circles. NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer opened the Riga conference with a warning about "national caveats that take away our commanders' flexibility and undermine our operational effectiveness."

Bracing for disappointment

Despite those warnings, not a lot changed at Riga. A few countries with troops in Afghanistan said they'd allow them to move south in an emergency, but it was still the same small group of nations — Canada, the United States, Britain, the Netherlands and a few others — that was left doing the most dangerous work in the most dangerous regions.

In the days leading up to the Bucharest summit, it began to sound like Canada might once again come away disappointed. On the flight from Ottawa to Romania, Defence Minister Peter Mackay seemed to be preparing for the worst.

"As far as getting those commitments for every single piece of equipment and personnel, that remains to be seen," Mackay said.

Whether it was just a political tactic of keeping expectations low or whether the Canadian delegation really didn't know what would come out of Bucharest is hard to say. In the end, though, Canada didn't get everything it was looking for but came away with what appears to be a fairly substantial helping hand.

At the NATO leaders' dinner, the event that opens the summit, France made it official. It would send a battalion — about 700 soldiers — to eastern Afghanistan. The U.S. would move troops from the east to the south to work with the Canadians.

Happy endings

De Hoop Scheffer and Afghan President Hamid Karzai both heaped praise on the agreement

.

"Canada has been at the forefront of help to the Afghan people," Karzai said. "Canada needed a partner there, and we are glad the United States is going to be a partner with Canada in southern Afghanistan."

For both Karzai and NATO, this was a victory. Canada, a major contributor to the Afghan mission, was staying put. Crisis averted. A repeat of Riga avoided.

Harper came away from the summit saying NATO has met Canada's conditions for keeping its troops in Afghanistan. He chalked it up to NATO realizing it could not afford to lose Canada's support.

But what does the agreement really mean? Canada will get more support in Kandahar. The Americans will likely come with helicopters so Canadian troops can move around by air and avoid roadside bombs. That should hold the Canadians over until they get airlift of their own.

But the deal with Washington does nothing to address what some perceive as the fundamental imbalance in the Afghan mission. The U.S. is already part of the small group of countries engaged in the toughest regions of Afghanistan.

Its decision to come to the aid of Canada doesn't change the fact that there are still two groups of countries taking part in the mission: those doing the fighting in the more volatile parts of Afghanistan, and those keeping the peace in the more stable areas.

Did France disappoint?

Politically, it would have been better for Canada to have France come riding to its rescue. It would counter critics who argue Afghanistan is an American war, or even worse, George W. Bush's war.

But heading into Bucharest, Harper said he didn't care who stepped up to support Canada as long as someone agreed to help. Militarily, the Americans might prove to be a more appropriate ally in southern Afghanistan. Battle-hardened U.S. troops know how to conduct counterinsurgency operations.

Also, Canadian and U.S. militaries have spent years working closely together and know how each side does business.

In the end, what will matter most will be whether this agreement means anything to Afghans. Will it bring greater security to the south and help push back the Taliban?

If it doesn't, if NATO can't improve the lives of Afghans after years of fighting and billions of dollars in foreign aid, maintaining the confidence of the Afghan people will be difficult, if not impossible. That would be a whole new crisis for NATO, a topic for leaders to wrestle with at some future summit.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]