The mission creep continues

I noted yesterday how the Cons' Afghanistan mission creep is based on dishonesty with the public when it comes to the terms of motions in Parliament. But let's note that the Cons have been equally deceptive when it comes to justifying increased troop levels based on Canada's actual operations, as the Cons' planned numbers run contrary to their own stated reason why the number of Canadians in combat was increased from 2,300 to its current level of 2,500:

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

Given that Canada increased its troop levels for the specific purpose of supporting its command role, one would expect that the numbers would then drop back down when another country rotates into the command responsibility. And that's due to take place this November.

But based on David Emerson's comments yesterday, the Cons don't have any intention of reducing the current contingent of 2,500 troops by the first part of 2009, even though the reason for the previous increase will have ended months earlier. Instead, they're apparently planning on ignoring the possibility of reducing troop levels at the end of the command stint, using the 2,500 level as the new baseline, then adding to that in order to reach 2,700 troops in combat in 2009.

All of which goes to reinforce a couple of points which are far too familiar based on the Cons' stay in government. First, the Cons' strategy in Afghanistan is simply to be seen expanding Canada's military role, with no regard for whether there's any link between military commitments and end goals. And second, the Cons still can't be trusted to provide honest information about the mission - which should make it all the more obvious why it's long past time for both Canada's Afghanistan combat role and the Cons' stay in power to end.