Prime Minister Harper on Afstan

Video of interview on CTV's Question Period, March 29 (recorded March 28). The PM says that President Obama's announced strategy...

...I think mirrors the Canadian government's position, frankly mirrors the great work done by John Manley and his counterparts [sic], I think it mirrors it just about as closely as it possibly could and we were a couple of years ahead of the curve.

What self-serving tripe. Moreover, since the Manley report was issued just some fourteen months ago, and since the House of Commons' resolution extending our mission until 2011 only passed just over one year ago, we certainly have not been "a couple of years ahead of the curve."

As for 2011, the prime minister was very clear indeed:

...we are planning for the end of the military mission at the end of 2011.

So far as I can see from everything he's been saying there is no inclination to change that planning.

Update: Further misleading political spin from Mr Harper. In response to a question about the effect the American troop increase (one doesn't say "surge" in polite company) will have on Canadian operations at Kandahar, he responded:

...this is very good news. One of the conditions of the extension of our mission in Kandahar was getting a military partner in Kandahar province. Obviously the Americans are that partner and the Americans, quite frankly, are bringing in far more troops than we had initially believed we needed, or hoped for.

What a load of codswallop. The prime minister is implying that only now are we finally receiving a military "partner" at Kandahar. Somehow he's overlooked the US Army battalion that has been an operational part of the CF's Task Force Kandahar since last August. That unit was the "partner" the Manley panel said was needed.

That a US Army brigade combat team, plus a US Army aviation combat brigade, are to be deployed in addition, largely to the Kandahar region, in fact demonstrates how seriously the Manley panel underestimated the need for additional forces.

Pity the interviewer, Craig Oliver, didn't know enough to bring to the prime minister's attention that the "partner" had already been provided, and that the new troops are something quite different. Typical of our media. Moreover, I can't remember any example of a government minister stating that the 2-2 Ramrods (more here) are that partner. MND MacKay provided an egregious example last November.

Upperdate: From the transcript of the prime minister on Fox News Sunday, March 29:

...
WALLACE:
...
Prime Minister, does that mean that we're going to have to learn to live with Al Qaeda and the Taliban in that part of the world?

HARPER: No, I wouldn't — I wouldn't put it that way. I think what Secretary Gates said is correct, that first of all, we absolutely have to see the elimination of any kind of threat to the wider world, to North America.

Obviously, the Al Qaeda insurgency and the Al Qaeda element of this has to be — has to be eliminated. I think we agree with that...

Funny, I don't recall Mr Harper ever telling a Canadian audience that al Qaeda must be "eliminated", or that "elimination of any kind of threat" is a goal of his government's policy. In fact, this is what he said in an interview with Canwest News the same day:

...You may notice the (Obama) administration is much more clear on eliminating al-Qaida than eliminating the Taliban...

Rather a different emphasis, wouldn't you say? And nothing about his government's interest in "eliminating" al Qaeda. Different strokes for different folks. Hmmm.