Mature

It's so very heartening to see Canadian political debate take this form:

Afghan troops "still have a long way to go," before they can stand alone," Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier said Sunday, "so it's going to be two to five years before we can do the change."

Harper's government has dug in its heels on the issue, linking political critics with the insurgents.

"The UN, NATO, every country on earth wants us to be there, except some members of the Liberal party, the Taliban and the NDP," said Tory House leader Rob Nicholson.

The people of Afghanistan, apparently, were unavailable for comment. The people who are available for comment are the people of Canada (refresher: Your employers, Mr. Nicholson) who are increasingly wary of supporting the war in Afghanistan.

Currently, 49 per cent of Canadians oppose the Afghanistan mission, 38 per cent support it and 12 per cent have no opinion, according to an EKOS poll done for the Toronto Star.

The article also implies - but doesn't state clearly - that positions are hardening: The undecideds/no answer have been relatively stable at 20% until recently, and they're now almost half that. So support is lower, and opinions are more firm. And Stephen Harper and his party are on the wrong side of the issue. So I suppose it's no surprise they'd resort to such idiocy.

The Liberals made a smart tactical choice in minimizing their connection with Afghanistan while they were in power. Harper - for reasons known only to him - thought it would be a great idea to jump head first in to the Afghanistan file. Judged simply on political skill alone, this might mean that Harper is that rare breed: A political leader with even less natural skill than Paul Martin.

On the plus side (if you support this war) the Canadian Forces is seeing a boom in recruitment. Soldiers are, according to recruiters (grain of salt mandatory) coming in eager to go to Afghanistan. It's no secret that Canada needs more troops, nor should that be controversial at this point. Even if we don't stay in Afghanistan much past the next election, we need to figure out a way to hold on to our troops.

Whatever the political decisions made at home, it's natural and understandable that the soldiers coming home will feel like they weren't given a chance to win. This, though understandable, is not by itself a sufficient reason to keep the soldiers there. The situation has to get pretty fucking bad - and wars are already pretty bad - before the military loses hope for victory. The objective for political leadership is always to end the war before the military thinks it's time to go, because by the time the military gives up, you've seriously hurt your forces manpower and morale. Put bluntly, Generals historically do not (with exceptions, obviously) have a great track record of understanding when the war needs to end. To be fair, however, neither do a lot of politicians.

An example or two: When was the right time to leave Vietnam: 1968, or 1973? When was the right time to leave Iraq? Now, or long before now? Speaking strictly in terms of preserving the military, the answer to both is the earlier one. Whether "victory" is still possible in Afghanistan is an answer that eludes me. What I do believe is that this war cannot be allowed to do to our army what Iraq has done to the American one.