On important missions

With the House of Commons vote on a sudden Afghanistan extension set for later today, the question now is whether all of the opposition parties will vote responsibly - or whether one of them will go against all good judgment by propping up Harper's foreign policy. My hope is that this will be one more moment where Harper gets reminded both that he doesn't have a majority government, and that Parliament isn't going to give up on its oversight function in any event. But with the NDP already taking the right stance, it'll be up to the Bloc and the Libs to join in on the effort to keep Harper accountable.

Before looking at the party-by-party situation, I'll note first that the vote isn't a substantive one:

The issue will be debated for six hours this afternoon and put to a vote tonight. The vote is not binding...

Granted, Harper has a very recent track record of angry overreactions to non-binding motions. And there's not much doubt that similar histrionics would follow a defeat in the Afghanistan vote, presumably involving much gnashing and wailing about how Canada's involvement now can't continue past 2007.

But then, that isn't the question the Cons have put before the House. The question is whether or not any further involvement in Afghanistan will be left entirely to executive discretion, with at least symbolic approval of whatever measures (both military and civilian) Harper has cooked up or may cook up between now and 2009. And in deciding whether or not to accept Harper's future terms without notice, the opposition parties should keep in mind how far Harper's ideological ally to the south has gone in claiming substantive power based on symbolic language.

Moreover, all indications are that the Cons are doing their best to suppress current information. While the Globe and Mail notes that the apparent reason for the extension is to allow Canada to commit to lead the mission beginning in 2008, the Cons didn't even bother to make that possibility known while putting the motion forward. And by approving Harper's actions based on obviously-limited information, any opposition party supporting the motion would be taken to endorse similar tactics in the future.

In sum, the downside of voting against the motion should be nil: it would force Harper to actually answer a few of the questions his defence minister once posed about the mission, or perhaps to move another motion more limited in time and scope, but it wouldn't prevent another vote on the mission once some of the unknowns are brought into the open. A "yes" vote, on the other hand, will be taken by Harper to foreclose any further Parliamentary debate or oversight on Afghanistan, and will set a precedent that Harper can ignore the seat allocation in Parliament and play the Big Daddy role that he seems to long for.

So what will the opposition parties do? Thus far, only the NDP has stated its position:

The 29-member NDP will not support the government's motion to extend the Canadian involvement in Afghanistan, Leader Jack Layton said after the meeting.

"We've looked at the proposition that the Conservatives are bringing forward and we're troubled by it," Mr. Layton said. "We don't think there's a fully developed plan."

The Bloc apparently hasn't shown its cards yet...but given that it's apparently stuck supporting the Cons on confidence motions for the next little while, I have to think Duceppe will recognize the need to keep his party relevant by doing more than just rubber-stamping Harper's public message.

And that leaves the Libs. So far the commentary suggests the Libs are "divided" on the issue...presumably because some still associate the mission with what the Libs entered into, and don't want to see Harper receiving credit for past Lib decisions. But that calculation ignores both the political reality that Harper's government has gone out of its way to be associated with the mission, and the fact that good government (i.e. one based on reasonable defences of policy rather than on political games) should trump politics in any event.

As for the view that the motion should be supported based on agreement with the general mission, I'd argue again that the mere view that the Afghanistan mission is worthwhile doesn't justify voting for the motion. If the mission can be defended based on full information including a realistic scope, then let Harper make that case prior to a vote on a future motion. But all indications are now that the Cons want zero accountability and oversight over an extended timeframe. And the mere fact that the Libs have fond memories of similarly keeping the opposition in the dark doesn't offer any good reason to support Harper's efforts.

The question for the Bloc and the Libs now is whether Harper's administration should be handed a blank cheque, or a reality check. The choice should be obvious: Canada's citizens didn't see fit to hand Harper power to do as he pleases either domestically or abroad, and it would be an utter abdication of an opposition party's role to fold in the face of Harper's current jingoistic bluff. We can only hope that the Libs can swallow enough pride about their own actions in government to start holding the current government accountable.

Update: In addition to the CPA piece pointed out in the comments, note also that the Polaris Institute has pegged the cost of the mission at over $4 billion and counting.

Meanwhile, the Bloc has also announced its intention to oppose the motion. According to the same article, the Libs will treat the issue as a free vote...meaning that in the absence of any apparent agreement within the party, individual Lib MPs will get to determine to what extent they trust Harper with the keys to Canada's military.

(Edit: typos.)