More Troops To Afghanistan

Is there any coherence to what we hear coming from Canadian officals on Afghanistan? Earlier in the week, our NATO commander said you could "smell defeat" when speaking of the latest offensive. The very next day, the NATO commander in Brussels said he was "surprised" at the resistence and argued for more troops. O'Connor pipes in, admitting we "can't defeat the Taliban militarily". We're winning, they are doomed to defeat, but we need more troops and it likely won't lead to victory. Huh?

The confusion doesn't stop there, and in fact it takes a dangerous turn. The Defense Minister responded to the call for more troops with "Canada has more than met our commitment", acknowledging our disporportionate contribution. However, a quick scan of these comments suggest we are already laying the groundwork for more troops:

The Canadian military is keeping tight-lipped on the extent of the potential deployment and when it may take place, but it is understood that, if government approval is given, it would happen as soon as possible.

"As part of prudent contingency planning, the army is conducting staff checks to determine what additional personnel and equipment could be made available for augmentation of ongoing missions or commitment to new operations depending on the government of Canada's direction," said Canadian Forces spokesman Maj. Daryl Morrell. "We're not going to discuss further details of this planning at this time."

"Augmentation" is the key term and suggests military officials have determined we need more troops. Does anyone believe Harper will deny the military request? I suspect our military will play the same game the American military played, wherein they mask the numbers within the cloud of tour overlap and logistics. What are we doing here?