A chance for leadership

When Deceivin' Stephen first cherry-picked his Afghanistan panel, he couldn't have asked for a more favourable - or less reality-based - media response than what the report has received this week. It's bad enough that Harper has somehow been portrayed as statesmanlike and humble even as he declared that anybody who disagrees with him isn't fit to govern. But press coverage of Stephane Dion's reaction looks to have been carefully crafted to push Dion into caving on one of the few bright lines he's drawn during the course of his leadership...leaving Dion with a choice between actually showing leadership, or winning media praise for a failure to do so.

From what I've seen this week, at no point has Dion wavered from his party's stance that Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan should end in 2009. But much of the media coverage since Monday has inexplicably focused on the idea that what should be a simple matter of holding that stance should instead be treated as a difficult decision for Dion. (Note that the Cons themselves have used the exact same phrase in trying to force Dion's hand.)

And some columnists have gone further in trying to invent reasons for Dion to cave in order to give Harper an extension. For example, John Ivison first went looking for reason for Dion to change his party's position, then claimed (without any apparent evidence) that Dion is already planning for a way to give Harper what he wants.

Based on the media reaction, it doesn't seem at all unlikely that Dion will conclude that it isn't worth his time to fend off the elite attachment to an Afghanistan extension. But it should be obvious that the easy answer in giving in to the Cons will only make matters worse for Dion in the long run.

After all, it should be fairly clear that the Cons' efforts to defuse Afghanistan as an issue and give the Libs a stake in the outcome are based on their recognition that it's a losing one for them. And even if there's any truth to the reports of any substantial disagreement within the Libs, it's hard to imagine what response would more clearly paint Dion as unable to stand up for himself than to give in on the Libs' opposition to a combat extension.

And if Dion stands up to Harper? It's still not clear that the result will be the election which the Libs have tried so hard to avoid (depending whether or not Harper makes any Afghanistan vote a matter of confidence). But the flip side to both of the above considerations would apply: the Cons alone would wear both the deception and the dissatisfaction associated with the combat mission as it stands, and Dion's internal competitors would be forced to acknowledge who's in charge.

Of course, part of the problem with Dion's position is that the 2009 date is indeed an artificial one - making it difficult to rationalize a strong stance to stay in combat only until then. But the more important question at stake is whether or not Harper will be given license to commit Canada to combat indefinitely. And if Dion is really prepared to cave to that demand contrary to his own firm position, then there's little reason to think he'll ever show the strength to lead either his party or the country anywhere worth going.