On conflicts

Robert points out that the government of Afghanistan is now looking to turn local drug lords into the main backers of the Afghan economy, in direct contrast to Harper's apparent vision for Afghanistan. But the need for a debate on at this aspect of the mission is even more clear than Robert makes it out to be.

From the Star's article, take a look at the U.S.' position on the matter:

A U.S. diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the drug trade was so entrenched it was difficult to confront the drug bosses head on.

The government could grant them an "informal amnesty" if they end their involvement in drugs, swear allegiance to President Hamid Karzai's government, invest their money at home and pay taxes, he said.

And while one or two major traffickers have approached the government for talks, no deals have been reached. Most of their money is stashed in banks in the United Arab Emirates, the diplomat said...

As a tangent, that position itself is typically hypocritical given the U.S.' strong condemnation of the same type of policy elsewhere:

The U.S. has accused military-run Myanmar — once the world's top producer of opium — of allowing drug kingpins to invest in commercial banks and other businesses.

But Bushco's foibles aside, the article makes clear that it isn't only local Afghan policy which conflicts with Harper's stated goals: one of our allies in the mission appears to be fully on side with the accommodation of the traffickers as well.

There's certainly room for a number of different views as to how the traffickers should be dealt with. But not only can Canada not claim any agreement with Afghanistan's government on the matter, the occupying coalition hasn't even worked out its stance on what's bound to be a key issue in trying to rebuild the country. And when the coalition is so obviously lacking for unity even now, surely there can be no rational basis to commit Canada's troops indefinitely.