More motion creep

Following up on yesterday's post, it looks like the Cons indeed have previously-unannounced assurances that the U.S. will provide enough added troops to meet the requirement in the Con/Lib Afghanistan motion. But Peter MacKay still can't help looking for excuses to avoid living up to the motion:

In an interview Sunday with The Canadian Press, Defence Minister Peter MacKay confirmed weeks of speculation, saying the Americans have “signalled that they will backstop” Canada with reinforcements in Kandahar after February 2009 if necessary...

Speaking to reporters in Brussels, Mr. MacKay cautioned against talk of a NATO exit strategy...

“This type of insurgency is a long and abiding challenge. This is going to take a consistent, long-term effort,” Mr. MacKay said.

Now, it's bizarre enough to suggest that there should be no exit strategy whatsoever. Surely if there's any purpose at all to NATO's presence, there must be some accompanying expectation as to the circumstances under which an exit would be anticipated, and some planning to accomplish the task.

But the statement is all the more dubious based on the extension motion. After all, one of the supposed victories of the Libs in negotiating the terms of the motion was their obtaining a firm exit date (and accompanying strategy):

(T)his extension of Canada’s military presence in Afghanistan is approved by this House expressly on the condition that:...

(c) the government of Canada notify NATO that Canada will end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011, and, as of that date, the redeployment of Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar and their replacement by Afghan forces start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by December 2011;

(T)he government of Canada, together with our allies and the government of Afghanistan, must set firm targets and timelines for the training, equiping of the Afghan National Army, the Afghan National Police, the members of the judicial system and the members of the correctional system;

At best, one could argue that MacKay's expectation is that other NATO countries will take over combat in Kandahar beginning in 2011. But then the motion itself makes little sense in referring specifically to timelines for training the Afghan forces who are supposed to serve as permanent replacements, rather than simply stating that somebody else would take over any continued NATO role.

Which means that once again, MacKay looks to have wasted no time in taking back what little ground the Cons may have given in the interests of a supposed compromise. And if the Cons end up in a position to renege on the 2011 end date as well, the responsibility again lies with a supposed opposition party which should have known better than to think Deceivin' Stephen would deal with them in good faith.