It takes one to know one

Over here, we have a self-described True Blue Tory making a convincing case that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his inner circle are "anti-military and, at the very best, weak sisters when it comes to the Afghanistan mission."

Harper and his cronies have worked overtime to undermine General Rick Hillier, says the brave Tory (E.R. Campbell, veteran). He goes on to say the reason Harper has handled the Afghanistan file so badly is "he only considers the mission as a partisan political device that he can use to sow dissention in the ranks of the Liberal Party of Canada. . . his only concern is the next election."

I'd add that the other federal party leaders also seem to care far more about partisan advantage than the well-being of the Afghan people or the Canadian soldiers in their country. But if Campbell's right - and I suspect he's at least pretty close, because I've never seen any evidence that Harper is truly and morally committed to the mission - then there are a number of important implications. Here are two.

1. All the Harper-haters who persist in slagging off General Hillier - who is as decent and honourable a man as Newfoundland ever gave us, which is saying something - are saps, and they've been playing Harper's game for him from the get-go.

2. Not only is it stupid and wrong to call the Afghan mission "George Bush's war," it isn't "Stephen Harper's war" either. I'm with Mark Collins. It's Ban Ki-Moon's war (the argument is advanced here).

And I'm with Ban Ki-Moon.

I've also been a fan of Hillier from the minute he got himself into trouble for calling the Taliban "scumbags and murderers." I like people who use the language of common speech to make their points. I'm rather less impressed with the all the people who protested that Hillier's comment would give "offence" to Muslims. You'd have to have a horribly low opinion of Muslims to think something like that.

Here's Hillier today.

As always, regards to Le Tendence Torchiste.