Mission creep

A month after the Cons barely won a motion on Afghanistan in Parliament, Gordon O'Connor lets Canadians know that the Cons plan to ignore their own statements as to the meaning of the vote:

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says Canada will have to send more troops to Afghanistan if it takes command of NATO forces in the country.

O'Connor has formally told NATO that Canada is willing and able to take command of a larger military force in southern Afghanistan...

O'Connor says it will mean a larger commitment of troops - but only about 100 more than the 2,300 currently deployed in Afghanistan.

Most of the additional soldiers would likely be involved in non-combat roles.

The problem with today's position is that at the time of the motion, the motion itself made no mention of additional troop deployment, and the Cons suggested that there would be at most minimal further deployment to facilitate the leadership role.

From the actual motion:

That the House support the government’s two year extension of Canada’s deployment of diplomatic, development, civilian police and military personnel in Afghanistan and the provision of funding and equipment for this extension.

In other words, the motion as written involved support for increased funding and equipment, but merely for an extension of the existing deployment.

In fairness, the Cons did interpret the motion at the time to involve a small additional deployment, but only a minimal one based on sending one additional general and associated staff. In question period, Stephen Harper described the planned increase as follows:

One addition is being made to the military mission: Canada is requesting general command of the International Security Assistance Force, which requires the deployment of a high-ranking general and subordinates for one year, probably in February 2008. This is the only addition to our military mission.

And then during the debate:

(A)ll the engagements that we are asking Parliament to back, with the one exception of command of ISAF as I mentioned, are all engagements as undertaken at the present time. These are extensions to Canada's current involvement, not changes.

In other words, it could fairly have been assumed that any additional commitment of troops would reflect only the necessary staff to support the commanding general. And it would certainly be expected the increase would not encompass additional combat troops.

Today's message, on the other hand, makes clear that the increase in troops is a sizeable one in comparison to the scope of the mission (a boost by roughly 5% of the current deployment). And moreover, O'Connor is now qualifying the presumptive lack of additional combat troops with a declaration that "most" of the additional deployment would "likely" be for non-combat purposes.

In other words, the Cons are predictably using last month's motion as justification to extend Canada's involvement as much as Harper sees fit, with no apparent regard for what was actually voted on in Parliament. And while that only vindicates the concerns of those who chose not to follow Harper blindly, it'll take some quick public attention to make sure that the Cons' perceived authority to expand the mission ends with O'Connor's announcement.