A refusal to reevaluate

The Cons are willing to talk about Canada's role in Afghanistan...but only as long as that talk can't possibly lead to action:

MacKay said Canada has pledged its support to NATO's work in Afghanistan, and intends to follow through with it. He also said that questioning the decision now could be devastating to Canadian troops who are risking their lives in the field...

MacKay said the government is considering opening the issue for discussion, but not likely to a binding debate or vote. He said it may have been more helpful to have debated the issue before the decision was made by the previous government.

Note that the Cons' refusal to have a binding vote seems to extend not only to Canada's current plans, but also to the prospect of being mired in Afghanistan past the existing nine-month commitment - even as MacKay claimed only to be avoiding reconsideration of the past decision to get involved.

MacKay's willingness to confuse those two issues speaks rather poorly to the Cons' willingness to make sure that Canada will reevaluate where its troops may be best used in the future. The Cons seem prepared to blindly assume that as long as Canadian troops are present somewhere, there's no role for Parliament to play in determining how long that presence should be extended. Which can't be particularly comforting either for Canadians who want to ensure that our foreign policy is based on current needs rather than past decisions...nor for Canadian troops who might prefer to know that there's some present reason for their deployment abroad.