On poor excuses

The Star reports that Gordon O'Connor's repeated claim that Canada can't spare troops to help in Lebanon, Darfur or elsewhere in no way reflects Canada's actual capacity to deploy troops:

Canada has 1,200 troops available to respond to global missions, a military briefing note says, contradicting claims by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor that the army is stretched too thin to consider other big deployments...

Calling for immediate deployment of troops as peacekeepers in Lebanon, NDP Leader Jack Layton said Prime Minister Stephen Harper and O'Connor haven't been "fully truthful" about the state of the military.

"Given that we quite clearly ... have the capacity to assist ... what's the real reason we're not responding?" Layton asked in an interview.

"The fact that Canadians have been denied the knowledge that we have the ability to assist is certainly shocking to me."

The capacity of the Forces was spelled out in a briefing book handed to O'Connor right after the Tories took power in February and he was sworn in as defence minister. The 231-page document was obtained by the federal New Democrats under the Access to Information Act.

Of course, the Cons' consistent unwillingness to tell the truth shouldn't come as much of a shock to anybody who's been closely following their actions in office - though sadly that track record hasn't been as well reported as it might have been during PMS' supposed honeymoon phase. But this should serve as a strong example of the Cons' distaste for the truth when it comes to informing Canadians both of what kind of resources they have available, and what their actual reasons are for refusing to lend assistance to countries in need.

Update: In fairness, it's worth considering whether the Cons may have an honest explanation for the discrepancy in the argument by a spokesman that increased commitment to Afghanistan has reduced the number of available troops from 1200 to 500. Lest there be any doubt, there's no way to explain that decrease innocently.

In fact, the Cons' message as to the increase in the number of troops required in Afghanistan ranged from claiming only a negligible increase at the time of the vote, to grudgingly admitting afterward that up to 100 additional troops might be needed. And it certainly isn't plausible to claim that an extra 600 troops are needed to train an Afghanistan contingent of less than four times that size based solely on the Cons' extension of the mission.

At best, one could claim the Cons are telling the truth now only by admitting that they were lying through their teeth earlier. But based on the track record, it looks all the more likely that none of the Cons' claims to do with Afghanistan have had the slightest basis in reality - and there's no reason to think that's changed now.