NATO shenanigans

Here's the headline I saw scrolling across the bottom of my CNN World screen today: NATO's Afghan mission 'in jeopardy'

But then I read the article at CNN.com, which states, "Canadian forces will remain in Afghanistan beyond February 2009 only if another NATO nation sends an additional 1,000 combat troops..."

Not sure who to be madder at here: CNN or Canada? I'm not one to quarrel with Canadian foreign policy very often (as they are a mild bunch up there) and I have no problem quarreling with CNN... but this time I have to pick Canada.

What is Canadian Primer Minister Stephen Harper thinking? Who runs their foreign policy shop like this? Shouldn't troop levels and military commitments in general be based on something a bit more solid, like say strategic interests or military objectives, than on what other countries are going to bring to the table? I understand that Mr. Harper is just endorsing a panel recommendation here and that politically he arguably had to make some sort of response to US Defense Secretary Robert Gates' boneheaded remarks last week, but this move just seems like, for lack of a better term, playground diplomacy. Of course it is reasonable for NATO members committed in Afghanistan to want other NATO members to step up their troop commitments to Afghanistan, and I don't fault Canada for using its troop levels as negotiating leverage in this effort. Instead, I fault Mr. Harper for doing so publicly, signaling to all (including its own troops) how non-strategically Canada makes its military decisions.

As for CNN, what an alarmist and misleading headline. Sure Harper used the term "jeopardy," but where do they get the idea that the whole NATO mission is in jeopardy? Harper certainly didn't say that.