Here's a question for Jack! Layton

Given his position on Afstan...

Following the death of yet another Canadian soldier in Afghanistan, NDP Leader Jack Layton says he hopes Canadians will ask the government to take a different approach to combat in the war-torn country.

Cpl. Matthew McCully, 25, was killed by a roadside bomb on Friday in the Zhari district of Kandahar province.

In an interview with The Canadian Press in Toronto, Layton said his heart goes out to the family and friends of the fallen soldier, but stressed the need for a continued debate about the mission in Afghanistan.

"Our soldiers will risk their lives, according to what we request them to do. We saw yesterday the profound reality of that commitment," he said.

Layton said his party is concerned about what he calls an "aggressive" counter-insurgency campaign being waged by Canadian forces.

McCully was participating in Operation Hoover, a major anti-Taliban offensive, alongside Afghan and Portugeuse troops when he stepped on an anti-tank mine that instantly killed him.

On Saturday, eight members of McCully's squadron carried his flag-drapped coffin into a Hercules aircraft that would take him home to Ontario.

It was the first Canadian death since mid-April, when eight soldiers were killed by a massive roadside bomb.

Layton said it is "distressing" that the prime minister has opened the door to a prolonged mission in Afghanistan, where 55 Canadian soldiers have been killed since 2002.

In a surprise visit to Afghanistan last week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told troops it would be wrong to guarantee a pull-out date in advance.

"You know that your work is not complete," Harper told the assembled troops. "You know that we can't just put down our weapons and hope for peace." The NDP has called for an immediate withdrawal, while the Liberals want Canada to pull its troops when the current mission expires in 2009.

Citing the rising costs - both human and financial - Layton said multibillion-dollar purchases of tanks and helicopters could have been avoided if the military was not engaged in a "search and destroy mission."

First off, I'd just like to point out how impressed I am that Jack! can take a relatively reasonable and reasonably non-partisan stance on the issue... unlike Dion, whose behaviour on this matter raises questions about his loyalties in a way French citizenship never could.

But beyond that, what gets me is the last set of lines, in which Jack! argues that were Canadians not on an offensive "search and destroy" mission, McCully wouldn't have been killed by a landmine. Now, if we assume that this is the case in spite of the fact that landmines are all over the place in Afstan, Jack! still won't have any excuse for Canadians getting hit by roadside bombs which, of course, have killed far more Canadians than proper enemy action or landmines. Those can hit no matter where you are, hein?

Okay, so maybe Jack! wants us to get our troops into a strictly non-combat role, staying in the cities in that counter-insurgency strategy that worked oh-so-well for the French in Vietnam. But still, that wouldn't explain things like this.

So basically, I'm wondering what Jack! (or a Dipper) would say to that. Jack seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth on this one, and his ideas don't seem to make a hell of a lot of sense in practice.