Well, I, for one, am shocked - shocked - by this story in Saturday's National Post, which reveals that the "eagerly awaited" Manley report "won't call for Canada to leave Afghanistan," and will instead recommend no "significant scaling back" in troops, or "any profound change in their current marching orders."

Wait, did I say shocked? Because I meant the exact opposite. Honestly, did anyone really think that the former Deputy Prime Minister and his co-panelists would come up with anything other than what can only be described as a "stay the course" strategy on Afghanistan? Yes, he's a Liberal - at least, in name, but that's a big L, not a small one; even before he was drafted by Stephen Harper, he was known to be among the more hawkish alums of the previous government, which is why I never quite got the argument - put forward by more than a few of my gallery colleagues. By choosing Manley to head up the panel, the theory went, the PM had sprung a cunning trap on the current Liberal leader. How could the party vote against the advice of one of its own? Surely, this would force at least one opposition party to support the government when it came time to vote on extending the mission past 2009.

Except that, you know, it really doesn't. Yes, John Manley is a Liberal. A Liberal. One - and not even a terribly active Liberal, at least at the moment. Although there are likely some members of the current caucus who will nod their heads in agreement at his conclusions on Canada's future in Afghanistan, they're the same ones who would have veered towards the Conservative position anyway. They also represent a minority in the caucus, and the party - and a dwindling minority at that. It's not clear that there are even enough of them to tip the scales in favour of the government when it comes time for the House to vote. Since both the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP are certain to oppose prolonging the mission (unless the NDP perversely votes with the Conservatives because it wants the troops brought home immediately, rather than in a years' time), Harper will need forty-odd Liberals to break ranks with the leader - an unlikely outcome, even with John Manley on his side.

The National Post story could, of course, be wrong. Even if it is accurate, the Prime Minister is under no formal obligation to submit Manley's proposals, as written, to the House; he could come up with his own motion, deftly worded so as to leave the door open to the Liberals to side with his government.

At the same time, the Conservatives - and the Prime Minister - have, up until now, been utterly unwilling to acknowledge the reality - borne out by poll after poll - that Canadians, as a whole, are bitterly divided on the mission. A recent survey showed that nearly half the country wants to see the troops brought home now - not in a years' time, and certainly not sometime after 2009. More than 60% opposed any extension of the current mission. The numbers bounce around a little, but not by more than a few percentage points, and the running average is surprisingly consistent.

Given that, it's hard to see how a report from a former  cabinet minister, no matter how Liberal his pedigree, that simply restates the same position that the government has been trying to sell for the last two years will do much to change their minds.