May not have clear victory in Afghanistan: MacKay

[CHIMO]

Mr. MacKay denied the Polaris figure, and stated: “Canada's total commitment to the year 2010 is $1-billion. As for what amounts have been previously committed or spent, I can't speak to that.”

A Defence Department spokesman later said the incremental military cost of the mission from 2001 through 2006-07 will total about $2-billion — not counting fixed costs like soldiers' salaries and equipment depreciation.

The confusion over spending highlighted one of the Senate committee's concerns. The Canadian mission is being touted as a new integrated hybrid of humanitarian aid, civil society rebuilding and aggressive military security.

With at least three federal departments involved, Mr. MacKay was unable to answer who was the lead minister on the overall mission.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060529.wMcKay0529/BNStory/International/home

[Spazito]

1. Hmmm, no exit strategy, no single overarching control over the

mission, conflicting missions ie humanitarian aid/civil society rebuilding/agressive military security.

Does this sound eerily familiar to the bush admin's "plan for success"? Does to me.

[MrPrax]

2. Now wonder he doesn't want

press conferences...

"Mr. Prime Minister, your Foreign Affairs minister doesn't know who's in charge of the mission according to his testimony, can you tell us who's in charge?"

"Mr. Prime Minister, your Foreign Affairs minister is saying 1 billion, but your Defense Department is saying 2 billion...can you tell us what the right amount is, Mr Prime Minister?

"Mr Prime Minister, your Foreign Affairs minister doesn't know what was spent last year, will he be brought up to speed by your government?

...and with Harper, the whole time, claiming, that everyone is 'ideologically' BIAS against his incompetent, stupid low-rent pretender ass.