'The government would look at the possibility' - Macleans.ca

‘The government would look at the possibility’


Around the same time Mr. Harper said publicly that the post-2011 mission in Afghanistan would be a “strictly civilian mission” that would not require “any kind of military presence, other than the odd guard guarding an embassy,” he apparently indicated to the NATO secretary general privately that he was open to the possibility of a training mission.

NATO’s secretary general pressed Harper and Defence Minister Peter MacKay in a series of meetings in Ottawa in January 2010 to join its newly established training mission command in Kabul. Anders Fogh Rasmussen “sought Canadian commitment to a post-2011 role in training Afghan security forces as part of the NATO Training Mission in Afghanistan,” said a cable released by WikiLeaks on Thursday. The Jan. 20, 2010, summary of the discussion from the U.S. embassy in Ottawa noted that “Harper promised that the government would look at the possibility.”

Five months later, the Foreign Affairs Minister dismissed any interest in a post-2011 training mission.

Five months after that, the Prime Minister confirmed that Canada would be pursuing a post-2011 training mission.


‘The government would look at the possibility’

  1. Jeez Aaron, you’re absolutely obsessed with politicians who say they they will do one thing and then say they’ll do another thing and then say they’ll do the first thing again and then eventually do one or both or neither of those things. Well sooooorrrrry, Constable Consistency, but what are you gonna do about it? And then bad cop Coyne comes in and says he’ll throw those liars in the slammer if they don’t smarten up. It’s like Macleans is trying desperately to establish a convention that politicians in a democracy should do what they tell the voters they will do – it’s kinda adorable, actually.

  2. Like I’ve said before, Canadians don’t want politicians that tell them the truth….so that’s what they get.

  3. Germany, Demark, UK, Australia, NZ were all flip-flopping because they were coalition or minority governments plus some were in election mode. The Dutch government fell over pulling out their troops or extending the mission. They were all dancing to the tune the voters were singing.

    Nothing to see here….zzzzzz

    • @Le_o:disqus   (and possibly @Olaf_Raskolnikov:disqus Flip-flopping is not a problem. Circumstances can change and so too must policies. (It is nice though when politicians explain why they have changed their policies, rather than ignore such questions)

      But that is not what is being considered here. According to Aaron’s post, this is an example of a government publicly espousing one policy (the complete withdrawal of Canadian forces) while secretly pursuing the opposite.

      This is kind of dishonest isn’t it?


  5.  Kinda opens the floor to questions of the Conservative Hidden Agenda, don’t it?  To the voters, he says the abortion debate won’t be reopened.  What does he say to Charles McVety?