Parliamentary Consensus

With the introduction of a new motion on Friday and the first day of debate on Monday, it looks likely that the Conservatives and Liberals have managed to compromise on extending the mission.

Kady O'Malley has the full text of the new motion up at her blog.

A few things stand out:

• There won't be any serious caveats on what our soldiers are able to do
• The motion binds us to inform NATO that we will be withdrawing our battle group from Kandahar in July 2011
• It instructs the government to 'provide the public with franker and more frequent reporting on events in Afghanistan', though the implementation of this is a bit vague

So it seems to me that only really significant change to the motion is to commit us to withdraw in three years. This goes against what the Manley panel recommended, which saw 'no operational logic' in forcing ourselves to end the mission in 2011.

I'm sure I speak for everyone here when I say that it would be nice if we based such decisions on the situation on the ground, not on artificial political timelines back home. But it looks like Dion has decided he won't budge on this point.

There is also a recap of the parliament debate at Aaron Wherry's blog.

A few interesting excerpts:

For instance, [Mackay] recalled handing out books, pencils and backpacks to small Afghan children during a trip last year. He remembered one girl, clutching the gifts tightly. "In that face and those eyes," he said, "I could see hope."

At the conclusion of the Defence Minister's speech, the Bloc's Claude Bachand rose on a point of protest. "Things are not all rosy," he lamented. Perhaps there was hope in those eyes but surely too there was despair and fear in the eyes of those displaced and killed in the conflict.

"Unfortunately this member is pessimistic," MacKay sighed. "I am realistic."

The NDP's Dawn Black pointed out that the Russians too once handed out school supplies and candy. MacKay deemed her "delusional" and dismissed her party's policy as one dependent on "minstrels and fruit pickers."

Notice the NDP making the shameful comparison between our soldiers and the Russian occupying force, which indiscriminately slaughtered thousands of civilians and filled mass graves with political opponents.

But if MacKay's contribution was an ode to the obvious and simplistic, Dion's was a tribute to nuance and philosophical difference. In the parlance of the times, it was what it was—a copious and instructive lecture from a former university professor.

The government, he said, is right to term this motion not a Liberal motion nor a Conservative motion, but a Canadian motion. And yet, it is a Liberal motion from which they have borrowed much of the text. And still, the text fails in numerous ways.

The Liberals agree that Canadian troops should remain in Afghanistan until 2011. And yet, they would prefer they not actively participate in combat. And still, the Liberals would never micro-manage the military's commanders.

And so on.

So our politicians continue to grandstand, bicker, and slander each other, but at least we have the good news of three more years for the Kandahar PRT to continue its work.