A Report Card for Rick Hillier

Isn't it about time that someone came up with some meaningful way of assessing just what we're actually achieving with "the mission" to Afghanistan?

Perhaps we should break down the mission into its constituent elements: military, civilian aid and government support.

Let's face it, Afganistan is the mission with no end. It'll be over when we decide to leave, no sooner and no later. It's not like either of the Great Wars. There isn't going to be any capitulation, no surrender. Don't hold your breath waiting for any victory parades on Parliament Hill. It's not even like the Korean War - no armistice or truce, no ceasefire across some prescribed demilitarized zone.

If there's nothing for us to "win" maybe we should focus on what we have to lose. Truth be told, we're really not there fighting for the Afghans. If we were we'd be gone because they want us gone. No, we're there because we think it's in our interests to fight the Taliban and al-Qaeda there so that we don't have to fight them in the streets of Toronto, right? Sure.

So, how are we doing with the fight? We (our side) has been at these guys for six years with everything short of nuclear weapons. Six years. That's more than enough time that we should at least expect our military leaders - such as Rick Hillier - to show us just how much progress we've really made in crippling the insurgents.

How's it going, Rick? Have you finally got the Taliban on the run? Just how much of Kandahar province do the insurgents really control? How much of 'our' turf did they control last year and the two years before that?

How are we doing at undermining the locals' support for the insurgents? This is all about 'hearts and minds' after all, isn't it? So, Rick, how are we doing on that score? Are we making a lot of friends with our tanks and artillery and air strikes or are we making new friends for the Taliban?

Now Rick, is marking time a good enough approach to waging the war you talked us into fighting? Is this really all about just putting in an appearance, letting your buddies know that we're there in the flesh?

So, Ricky boy, just how does this one end? How does "the mission" play out? How do we know if you're really Canada's Warrior in Chief or just a goof who likes to use words like "scumbag" and "pissed off"?

Don't mean to be critical Rick but it seems you've set the bar pretty low for yourself. There are no benchmarks, nothing for you to win or lose. The great generals of recorded history from the pharoahs to Caesar, Napoleon and Wellington to Patton, were all about winning and losing but mainly winning. All those generals had wars to win and so they always had the real risk of losing. Best of all, everyone could see whether they were winning or losing. That's not what we see when we look at you Rick.

I wish you could give us a handle on "the mission", Rick. Just what the hell is it anymore? What are we really trying to accomplish? How are going to meet those goals and when? How long is Canada going to be held captive to Afghanistan?

If we can't even define, with real clarity, what we're doing in Afghanistan, how we're going to succeed and when we're going to have that job finished, we're not supporting our troops but merely feeding them into a gaping maw of political posturing.