Liberals do support the troops

It's fine after all for the Canadian Forces to stay in Afghanistan--just as long as they don't have to fight. Which prompts the question: on what grounds (other than political) do the Liberals decide how much combat is enough? We know the NDP thinks no combat is what good soldiering is all about.

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion yesterday opened the door to keeping Canadian troops in Afghanistan after February, 2009, but insisted they would have to be withdrawn from their current combat mission in the volatile southern region.

Speaking to reporters, Mr. Dion said he wants the combat mission of Canada's 2,500 soldiers based in Kandahar to end, but said Canada could still retain troops to assist the NATO mission...

The Liberals have been adamant in saying that Canada should advise NATO that it will be ending its military commitment in Afghanistan in early 2009 and pulling out its troops. But in recent weeks, the Liberals have been expressing a more nuanced [emphasis added] view, saying that they would be willing to support a scaled-back military presence, provided Canadian troops were redeployed to less dangerous parts of the country.

They have begun to talk about "rotation" among the NATO troops, implying that they would not be opposed to the Canadian troops switching places with soldiers from another coalition partner...

Defence critic Denis Coderre... insisted that the Canadians should be removed from the line of fire.

"The troops have done their job in the south," Mr. Coderre said. "We're done in terms of combat."..