OTTAWA — Members of Parliament voted to keep Canada's fight in Afghanistan going until 2011, even though the financial and human costs remain shrouded in the fog of war.

The Conservative government, backed by the Liberals, passed a motion that extends the deployment of troops, as long as certain conditions are met. The vote was 198-77 in favour, with the NDP and Bloc Quebecois opposed.

Critics were quick to warn the decision could push the Canadian military to the breaking point, the way the U.S. Army has been worn down by Iraq.

To remain in Kandahar, Ottawa has demanded NATO provide a minimum of 1,000 reinforcements, something the United States and other allies have quietly suggested will happen.

"We intend to hold them to this motion and it's pretty clear if they don't come up with the 1,000 troops and the (helicopter) airlift then all bets are off," said Liberal MP Byron Wilfert.

He warned that the Liberals, who've taken credit for crafting the wording of the government motion, want an answer within weeks on whether it can meet the conditions, which include the purchase of six CH-47D Chinook helicopters and high-performance unmanned aircraft.

Passage of the motion gives Prime Minister Stephen Harper the clear political mandate he wanted heading into a meeting of NATO leaders in Bucharest, Romania, early next month.

But Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, head of the Senate security and defence committee, says MPs paid too much attention to the high political ideal of why we are in Afghanistan.

They often failed to ask substantive questions, he said, such what the ramifications might be on both the federal treasury and a military that increasingly relies on reservists and equipment under stress from continuous combat.

Last fall, the country's top military commander, Gen. Rick Hillier, promised that until 2009 every effort would be made to limit soldiers to one combat tour in Afghanistan. Despite that, some troops on the current six-month rotation were members of the original battle group that went into Kandahar in February 2006.

The head of army, Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie warned last year that improvised explosives and Kandahar's rutted roads were taking an unexpectedly harsh toll on armoured vehicles and equipment.

It was only in the waning hours of debate that MPs began to consider the question of financial cost, with published reports that the war was $1 billion over budget. The Defence Department countered that the figures were only projections until 2009 and that estimated costs beyond that had not been made final.

"This war is going to take a lot more money than this government is prepared to admit," said Kenny. "This government is also clearly not prepared to invest in it."

The Conservatives have made much of their promise in the latest federal budget to increase the Defence Department's funding by 1.5 per cent a year until 2011 - the year Canada is expected to withdraw from Afghanistan - and two per cent a year after that.

The increase barely keeps up with inflation and could leave the military with less money in the long-term as costs rise, Kenny said.

Jerrod Riley, of the Navy League of Canada, says the cost of the war is mixed in with the Defence Department's operating budget and that's why it's been hard to pin down.

Whenever the Kandahar mission has exceeded projections, the military has been forced to go back to the government and ask for a budget top up - something the Conservatives warned wasn't going to be possible this year.

The federal government funded the First and Second World Wars, as well as Korea, as separate budget items. It was only during the 1960s as Canada entered the era of peacekeeping operations that overseas deployments were mixed in within the overall Defence Department budget.

"We would like to see the entire cost of the operation funded separately," said Riley.

"After all, it's not the Canadian Forces that go to war, it's the government of Canada that goes to war and the Canadian Forces enact that on their behalf.

"It's our duty to provide them the funding, the equipment and the support they need so they can carry out their mission."

New Democrat Dawn Black said the idea would make the funding the war more transparent, but added for that reason alone the Conservatives wouldn't be interested.

"Clearly, if they can downplay the costs in both human terms and in dollar terms, they think that will work to their advantage," she said.

In the dying hours of debate, opponents of the war made a last-ditch and seemingly half-hearted attempt to avoid what for weeks seemed inevitable

The Canadian Peace Alliance, a collection of interest groups, appealed to MPs to vote against a Conservative government motion.

Brent Patterson, of the Council of Canadians, warned that his organization will keep tabs of who votes in favour of the extension and possibly campaign against them in the next election.

He says the Conservative government is being dishonest with the public by labelling it a training mission when Defence Minister Peter MacKay made it clear that combat will continue.