On worthwhile missions

Politicians from all parts of the political spectrum (and both in Canada and internationally) have decried the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. Which will make it difficult for anybody to criticize the NDP's recommendation that Canada make Darfur its top international priority:

The federal NDP says Canada should take a lead role in any UN mission to stop the bloodshed in Darfur, even if that means scaling back its commitment in Afghanistan...

He says an intervention in Sudan's Darfur province, where hundreds of thousands have died and millions are refugees because of a bitter civil war, is more like the traditional peacekeeping mission Canadians support...

NDP defence critic Dawn Black says it's unlikely the armed forces can make the necessary commitment to a Darfur mission and still maintain its forces in Afghanistan at current levels.

She says once Canada fulfils its Afghan commitment in February, it should look at returning to a more traditional peacekeeping role in a place like Darfur.

We'll find out soon whether the Libs and Cons who have claimed to be interested in stopping genocide and securing peace in Darfur care enough about the issue to commit Canada's troops. It seems all too likely that the talk by the other parties isn't intended to turn into action. But thanks to the NDP's willingness to point out how much good can and should be done by Canada's military in Darfur, the other parties will have to answer for any gap between their rhetoric and their ultimate position when the issue gets dealt with in Parliament.

Update: Gordon O'Connor responds to the idea by saying that due to Afghanistan, Canada can't spare troops for any other deployments:

There have been suggestions Canada might play a role in an eventual international effort in the Darfur region of Sudan, but O'Connor says the military already has its hands full with Afghanistan.

He told a Senate committee that the Afghanistan operation can essentially be maintained at the present level forever, but there's nothing to spare for any other deployments.

Left unanswered is the question of whether Canadians want to be locked into the Afghanistan mission "forever", especially if it leaves Canada unable to assist anywhere else in the world.