An independent panel in Canada, which reported this week on whether to keep its troops in Afghanistan, has produced an astute and moving description of the dilemma that will ring true for any Western country.

Its broad answer is that Canada should not pull out quickly but its presence should be conditional on more support from other Nato countries and, in any case, it should begin to ratchet down its efforts.

Behind those carefully phrased recommendations is a mixture of powerful sentiments: that Canada's contribution — and casualties — have not always been acknowledged enough (by the US, is the implication); that there are good, idealistic reasons why it should not pull out quickly; but there is real alarm about the prospects of the Nato mission.

“We find ourselves, with our allies, in a situation of conflict in a land that is far from us, little known by us and where our interests do not seem self-evident,” the panel says. “We are trying to help a country whose recent history has been one long, unending tragedy, and whose prospects still appear bleak.”

That expression of commitment tempered with unease will ring true for many of the 39 countries taking a military part in its revival. The panel expresses deep unease about the lack of benchmarks for progress and the rise of the drug trade, even if education is one of the few solid improvements. The panel's recommendations have weight. Formally called the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan, it was created by Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister, on October 12 and was asked to advise Canadians and Parliament on options for the mission after the current mandate ends in February 2009. Parliament will make the decision, he has said.

Public opinion has been turning against the engagement, particularly with the heavy casualties suffered by Canada's 2,500 troops. The total, including one soldier killed this week, is 78 military deaths and one diplomat. Canada has also authorised $1.2billion in aid to Afghanistan between 2002 and 2011. Last week's remarks by Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, that other countries' troops in southern Afghanistan lacked counter- insurgency skills, did not help.

The panel calls in detail for more coherence in international efforts; more Nato troops; “forceful representations with Afghanistan's neighbours, in particular Pakistan”; and concerted efforts by the Afghan Government to tackle corruption, provide basic services, and pursue political reconciliation.

This is reasonable, but also wishful thinking. More Nato troops cannot be summoned out of thin air after a year's efforts to boost numbers. President Musharraf is only just in charge of Pakistan; the same is true of President Karzai in Afghanistan itself. In these, the panel (and Canada) is bound to be disappointed although it may have more luck in its call for more helicopters and surveillance planes.

Its message otherwise is clear: that Canadian forces should begin to hand over responsibility for security to Afghans, that their combat role should then “be significantly reduced” and that its aid should be spent on practical projects in Kandahar province.

The report shows that support is falling — and alarm is rising — in a country which has played a crucial part in a conflict which is a long way from coming right.

Times Recommends

• A new kind of western conservatism
• Georgiana is the wrong role model
• Alaska, where cops don't bother you