Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to seek immediate opposition support for a two-year extension of Canada's mission to Afghanistan is first and foremost a blatant attempt to neutralize the issue until well after the next federal election.
It may be fair game politically, but the move also signals that the Conservative government does not expect public opinion to come around to a more positive view of the deployment as the human toll of the mission and its attendant trade-offs in terms of Canada's non-presence on other fronts become more apparent.
It is recognition on Harper's part that he cannot assume that multi-party support for the mission can be sustained for much longer under any scenario.
With some polls showing support dropping for the deployment, the government is basically attempting pre-emptive damage control by trying to force the opposition to shoulder part of the political burden of Canada's extended presence on the Afghan front line for its duration.
The rationale is that parliamentary support for an extension has probably already peaked and can only decrease as time goes on.
By putting the question of the future of the mission beyond its current expiry date of next February before the House of Commons today, Harper is asking the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois, in particular, to either put their money where their mouths so recently were or to eat their own lofty words.
Just a bit more than a month ago, the two parties outbid each other with arguments to support Canada's beefed-up military role in Afghanistan.
While both were careful to keep the option of their support for an extension open, precious little time has elapsed between one debate and the other.
If the Liberals and the Bloc will not now agree to an extension, they will have to explain how a mission they are on record as heartily backing only a few weeks ago is not worth supporting beyond the next nine months.
The choices facing the two parties are therefore stark:
They can turn on a dime and reverse themselves on the basis that the government is asking for a blank cheque or else help innoculate Harper against a potential backlash over the mission in the next election.
If they shift, they could be accused of putting partisan interests above their principles by bending to the political winds.
If they don't, they will be accused of ignoring the growing reservations of many Canadians.
As for the NDP, it will have to determine in very short order whether it moves from a position of vocal skepticism toward Canada's more robust role in Afghanistan to one of open opposition to an extended tour.
While the upcoming vote places the opposition parties between the rock of their recent qualified support for the mission and the hard place of their evolving partisan interest, none is more likely to feel the squeeze quite as much as the Bloc.
Opposition to the deployment runs highest in Quebec and among francophones.
A clear majority of Gilles Duceppe's supporters are against it, including many of his party's civil society partners.
By supporting an unpopular extension, the Bloc can only give more impetus to the ongoing debate about its relevance on the federal scene.
On the other hand, the government move to secure early approval of the extension may be good news for at least one of the front-runners in the Liberal leadership campaign.
Alone among all the contenders, Michael Ignatieff took part in last month's parliamentary debate and he came down squarely on the side of the mission.
His stance is reminiscent enough of his past support for the U.S.-led Iraq war to make it a lightning rod for some of his leadership opponents.
Liberal support of a two-year extension later this week could go some way to removing the mission's potential as a wedge issue in the campaign.
At a minimum, the debate will force the other leadership candidates to stand up and be counted on one side or the other on the issue.
The one thing this week's vote will not do, even if it is won by the government, is ensure that support for the mission does not continue to plunge.
As the evolving American debate on Iraq has demonstrated, public disengagement from a war can happen even in a relative political vacuum.
Chantal Hébert's national affairs column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. chebert@thestar.ca.
