Too little, too late

It's well and good that Stephane Dion is pointing out the absurdity of keeping Canadian troops in Afghanistan for training purposes. But it's worth noting that Dion wasn't always asking such important questions - and indeed chose not to do so when it counted most.

After all, Dion himself was the leader responsible for setting the Libs' position on Afghanistan when they were strongarmed into voting for the current extension. Which is well worth keeping in mind, even if there isn't much new to say on the subject.

More to the point, though, Dion helped to lay the groundwork for the Cons' current "training" excuse even before Harper exerted any meaningful political pressure on him. Given the choice as to what submission to make to Harper's hand-picked extension approval panel, here's what Dion staked out as his party's position:

Federal Liberals formally outlined their position on Afghanistan Tuesday, arguing the combat mission should end as scheduled in February, 2009, but suggesting troops could remain in the country to perform other tasks.
...
While it was a Liberal government that first sent the troops to Kandahar in August, 2005, the submission said it was “never intended to be a life-long effort or even a 10-year commitment.” Since he was chosen Liberal leader 14 months ago, Stéphane Dion has unsuccessfully pressed Prime Minister Stephen Harper to give formal notice to the NATO alliance that the Canadian mission will not be extended past February, 2009 -- already a two-year extension that was approved by Parliament in 2006.

The Liberals say Canada’s “enormous sacrifice” in Afghanistan must be brought to a close by ending the combat mission in Kandahar, reducing troop deployments and shifting them to training, civilian protection and reconstruction in safer zones.
...
“We are open to other possible military roles in Afghanistan to continue training the Afghan National Army and police, protect Afghan civilians or for reconstruction efforts,” Mr. Dion said in a prepared statement.

So Dion's questions look to be simply another example of a prominent Lib stumbling into a principled discussion only when it's certain not to matter. And Dion and his party still own a substantial share of the blame for allowing the Cons to keep Canada in Afghanistan as a result.