Now, if the Libs wanted to, they could point out that the motion they agreed to also suggested that development work should be proportionally increased to change the balance of the mission. But it seems far too likely that they'll let the whole matter slide to avoid any reminder of just how irresponsible the Libs were to put their desire to be seen as "bipartisan" ahead of any effort to extricate Canada from Afghanistan combat.
As an aside, a quick trip in the wayback machine turns up this from the time of the first extension:
There have been suggestions Canada might play a role in an eventual international effort in the Darfur region of Sudan, but O'Connor says the military already has its hands full with Afghanistan.Does anybody else find it interesting how the Cons have stuck to the position that Canada's can't spare military resources for any other international mission, but apparently haven't had any trouble rounding up enough additional troops to expand combat operations in Afghanistan by nearly 20% in the meantime?
He told a Senate committee that the Afghanistan operation can essentially be maintained at the present level (then 2300 troops) forever, but there's nothing to spare for any other deployments.
(Edit: fixed wording.)