Well, this is noteworthy and dare I say it, encouraging, from a Prime Minister who hasn’t exactly been known to be the master of compromise:
Mr. Harper said his government will seriously consider the Liberal proposals, which include an end to combat operations in 2009 and full troop withdrawal from Kandahar in February 2011. Mr. Harper said the Liberal commitment to a continued military presence in the country post-2009 is “really very close to the government’s position” and he raised the possibility the Conservatives would introduce a new motion on the matter
Knb said over at her blog it will be interesting to see how the Cons. and the supporters spin this sudden flip-flop on accepting the Liberals position (if they do indeed accept them), which as you note, does contain a definitive end-date. I agree with her that it will be interesting to watch the reaction, particularly when their position has been to argue you can’t set an end-date on combats (such as noted conservative cheerleader Aaron in my comments section in the prior blog-entry saying apparently we should stay there till we win - a la John McCain wanting to stay in Iraq 100 years if necessary. That ought to be a big winner in 2008 down south.. cough… but I digress)
So, if Harper accepts this as part of the Liberal amendments, does that mean Aaron and folks like him all of a sudden think end-dates are good, merely because Harper said it was ok to like them, or will he and his neocon friends skewer Harper for betraying their principles? On another note, I also agree with Jay from the Sleveen Institute, who said over at Knb’s site that Dion has shown real leadership on the Afghanistan issue.
Update: Aaron has clarified at Far and Wide in comments that he still opposes the fixed date of ending the mission. At least he’s being consistent. It will be amusing to see the reaction of him and other Blogging Tories imploding if Harper actually accepts this amendment.
UPDATE 2: One Liberal MP anonymously says in that Globe article this will all be a moot point anyway, as the Liberals will probably bring down the Harper government on the Budget before the Afghanistan motion is brought to the House to vote on. True, but showing in greater detail what you proposed for the mission and showing you were willing to work with the Harper government rather then oppose for the sake of opposing will count for a lot on the campaign hustings.
1. We most certainly should "stay until we win". Otherwise Afghanistan loses - and Canada’s credibility goes into the toilet (i.e. what good is a promise to the Canadians to help a country in need if they bail out when the going gets tough?) Then again, my position on this comes from principle, not political popularity.
2. I don’t see why it would be ‘amusing’ to see my reaction if Harper accepts Dion’s amendment lock stock and barrel: my reaction is entirely predictable, which is that I wouldn’t like it, because it don’t agree with fixed end dates, which is what I’ve said all along. And I will say so. (It’s more likely there will be a counter-proposal and both sides will concede something anyway)
3. The notion that only Dion is going to get credit for compromising is laughable. Both Harper and Dion will get credit, and they both deserve it. I don’t suppose you see the irony, Scott, of you trying to take a partisan angle on a compromise that is an attempt by both Dion and Harper to rise above partisanship.