Tory secret agenda on Afghanistan?

This doubles as nomination news: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-liberals-wanted-him-the-tories-won/article1292241/

Former ambassador to Afghanistan Chris Alexander will run for the Tories in Ajax-Pickering, apparently after declining to run for the Liberals over disagreeing with the party stance on Afghanistan.

As recently as six weeks ago Canada's former ambassador to Afghanistan met with Mr. Ignatieff for what party sources said were talks about a Liberal candidacy – a conversation culminating with Mr. Ignatieff stating the party would not budge from its support for ending Canada's combat role in Afghanistan in 2011.

...He said he at no time demanded the Liberals change their policy on ending Canada's combat role as a condition for running for them. He said he would not challenge a decision made by Parliament. The 2011 deadline was approved both by the Liberals and the Conservatives.
Mr. Alexander has said there should not be a deadline for terminating combat operations and there should be more international troops on the ground.

So here is the thing. He said he won't run for the Liberals because he is against the Liberal policy of ending the combat role in 2011....which is a policy also shared by the Conservatives, at least in theory. Did the Harper Tories cut a deal on a crucial policy issue to land their first star candidate? Are the Conservatives planning on re-thinking the combat mission if re-elected?

MacKay's Iran fear mongering doesn't hold up to facts

Peter MacKay dropped a lovely Christmas present on Canadians when on Christmas day he said that:

""We're very concerned that weapons are coming in from Iran, we're very concerned these weapons are going to the insurgents and keeping this issue alive."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071225/hillier_afghanistan_071225?s_name=&no_ads=

This attempt to link the Taliban to the Iranian government surprised many, as anyone who knows anything about the religious geo-politics (and one would hope a Foreign Affairs Minister turned Defense Minister during wartime would) that the Taliban and the Iranian government have a very poor relationship, almost going to war before 9/11. MacKay was both trying to help out his buddy the American ambassador, whose government was quite embarrassed by the intel report showing Iran had halted its nuke program years ago, and score some points on the domestic front, as most uninvolved Canadians would readily believe that two particularly nasty groups of Islamic fundamentalists would work together.

However, MacKay's beating of the war drum is somewhat out of tune with reality:

"There is no evidence the Iranian government is behind the export of weapons that end up in the hands of Taliban fighters"

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080103/iran_ieds_080103/20080104?hub=TopStories

While the article rightly points out that weapons are coming from Iran, and all parties involved have a vested interest in a secure Iranian-Afghan border, this shows that MacKay and the Conservatives have little real interest in the troops and the Afghan mission beyond how useful they can be used to score points at home or curry favour with the Bush administration. We as Liberals, who believe in a progressive and independent foreign policy can never forget to remind Canadians that the Conservatives would prefer Canada had taken part in the Iraq quagmire, and if the Bush administration in its dying months does anything as foolish as attack Iran, that you can expect Harper, Bernier, and MacKay to be ready to say "Aye, Ready, Aye".

I'll be canvassing for Bob Rae today, so hopefully I can get a reminder of what clear-viewed foreign policy looks like.