On mixed messages

Impolitical theorizes that the effect of a few recent statements on continued combat in Afghanistan is to isolate Rick Hillier against military and civilian leaders. But while I'd agree that there are some mixed messages on the future of Canada's stay in Afghanistan, the split looks to me to be somewhere else entirely.

Specifically, in the public appearances cited by Impolitical, Hillier, Lt.-Gen. Michel Gauthier and Brigadier-General Tim Grant all take the position that there's little prospect of training Afghani troops to take over the combat role now occupied by Canada. It's only the consequences of that premise which are in dispute among the military officials who have commented publicly: Hillier takes a strident "Canada must stay" position, compared to Gauthier's message that "troops from other countries" can handle Canada's current role and Grant's openness to reshaping Canadian involvement.

Now, I certainly don't agree with Hillier's attempt to spin the lack of progress to date as reason to stay in combat indefinitely. But at the very least, all three military officials appear to want Canada's debate about Afghanistan to be based on a realistic assessment of how much slack can be taken up locally over the next year and a half.

In contrast, Deceivin' Stephen and his embattled lackey are claiming that Afghani troops can be trained to be just as effective as Canadian ones over the next year and a half (and indeed sooner in order to enable Canada to take a "reserve" role in the meantime). Once again, the message is "as they stand up, we'll stand down", accompanied by a claim that a substantial number of Afghani troops will have "stood up" on those terms by 2009.

Now, I don't think for a second that the Cons actually believe the claim. Instead, they likely figure that they have a better chance of winning an extension vote which supposedly involves only training and reserve status, rather than one which is premised on continuing combat as a first option. And once they have that vote to extend the mission, they can claim that the scope of the extension includes the ability to continue combat as usual, based on the shocking realization that the training hasn't gone as "planned".

In sum, the real difference in message right now is between honest military officials who are willing to acknowledge the implausibility of the government's plan, and Con partisans who see the truth as an acceptable casualty if it means furthering their political goal of winning an extension vote. And in that contest, it's the Cons who deserve blame for undermining both the troops and the truth.

Update: The Globe and Mail discusses the Cons vs. troop split as well. But it looks like the Libs are being far too generous to the Cons, as Ujjal Dosanjh is merely talking about a "need to know who's in charge" rather than the sheer implausibility of the Cons' position or its likely strategic purpose.