Federally, Canada has been in a bad way as far as leadership goes for a long time. How many years, how many elections since we were fairly satisfied that someone knew how to run the shop well? Today's news is no comfort to those who would wish that these days provided any glimer of hope:

"These are operational matters of the Canadian military," Mr. Harper said as opposition MPs hammered the government for a second day in Question Period with accusations of excessive secrecy and mismanagement of the Afghan mission. "If the Canadian military chooses to reveal that information that's their decision, but the government certainly isn't going to reveal it on their behalf," the Prime Minister told the House of Commons.

What is sad is not that he passes the buck but that he seems to suggest or imply that there is a division, that the human rights polices of the military are not those of Government, somehow not really subject to the Government. This the day after he made the bold step to confirm he has accepted someone else's plan to define the Afghan mission.

Aside from the policy and even the mission, what does this tell you about this Prime Minister's perception of the role of a Prime Minister? It can't really be about leadership if these are acceptable actions, can it?

Update: Great, now the alliance has called us a bunch of chicken littles:

"I think that making links between this (Canada’s possible withdrawal) and NATO’s credibility are frankly . . . unnecessary," he said. "We understand the Canadian position that a thousand more troops are needed in Kandahar. But let's not link what is a successful mission with 37 countries (or) NATO's 60-year credibility to this. That simply is not really relevant."

Hmmm...called an "official" in the item, the person making the statement, James Appathurai, is actually just the talking head - but a Canadian talking head.