A brief history of Stephen Harper's dedication to ending our Afghanistan mission

As part of his sales pitch to try to extent the stay of up to 1,000 Canadian troops in Afghanistan to 2014, Stephen Harper is making some surprising claims about his own position on military deployment. So let's check his current attempt at position against his track record.

Here's Harper now:

“Look, I’m not going to kid you,” he said. “Down deep, my preference would be, would have been, to see a complete end to the military mission. But as we approach that date, the facts on the ground convince me that the Afghan military needs further training. I don’t want to risk the gains that Canadian soldiers have fought for and that they have sacrificed in such significant numbers for by pulling out too early if we can avoid that. I think if we can continue a smaller mission that involves just training, I think frankly that presents minimal risks to Canada but it helps us ensure that the gains we’ve made our continued ... to truly ensure that the Afghan forces are able over the next couple of years to take over true responsibility for their security. So I do this with some reluctance but I think it is the best decision when one looks at the options.”

So how credible is it for Harper to claim that he's really just a misunderstood peacenik who feels that this is the rare exception where he wants to keep Canadians in the line of fire? Let's take a spin back in the wayback machine, starting with those heady times of 2006, when he first pushed for an extension of the combat mission:

I think I also need to be clear, given the events over the last 24 hours or so, of what the consequences would be if there were a No vote. Let me be clear on this. This would be a surprise to this government. In debates in this chamber up until last month and in private meetings until very recently, we had every reason to believe that three of four parties, which have consistently supported this action, would continue to do so.

Should that turn out not to be the case, this government is not in a position to simply walk away or to run away. What the government will do, if we do not get a clear mandate, the clear will of Parliament to extend for two years and beyond, is proceed cautiously with a one year extension. We cannot walk away quickly. We will proceed with another year and if we need further efforts or a further mandate to go ahead into the future, we will go so alone and we will go to the Canadian people to get that mandate.

So not only was Harper not the least bit reluctant about pushing through an extension, he also said in no uncertain terms that he would take a "no" to mean "yes for a year", and keep the mission going regardless of what Canadian MPs said on the matter. And that, combined with Harper's apocalyptic language about the need to fight until the Taliban were destroyed for fear of their instead imposing "hell on earth", doesn't exactly sound like the opinion of somebody who's at all willing to set an end date to involvement in the war.

And Harper was far more clear on that point in 2008, when his hand-picked Liebermanley Group issued its report on the mission:

"The panel has made a clear case that there can't be a definitive timeline placed on when NATO has finished the job in Afghanistan and when Afghans can take responsibility for their own security. We agree."

And in keeping with that, he tried to push a motion which included an extension but no end date.

Eventually, of course, Harper was pressured to accept a motion that included notice of Canada's withdrawal in 2011 in order to win cover from the Libs - presumably secure in the knowledge that he could always change his mind as he has since done. But that didn't get him or his government to stop talking about the mission being indefinite in scope:

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.

So it should be glaringly clear that contrary to his current attempt to position himself as reluctantly abandoning a position of wanting to live up to his end of the bargain, Harper is simply following the Cons' long-standing pattern of committing as many troops as they can get away with for as long as they can. And the fact that this time they're cutting Parliament out of the process should signal that we're further than ever from having the desires or interests of the public taken into account.