OTTAWA - Somewhere along the way Stephen Harper realized that the war in Afghanistan wasn't about us, it was about them - them being the Afghans.
One thing became crystal clear at last week's NATO summit in Bucharest: the old rhetoric about the fight against the Taliban being a blow against terrorism has been officially jettisoned.
In its place was an understanding that, in order to win the hearts and minds of Canadians, the political message would have to be phrased in terms that were less - well, less American.
The mantra almost from the time the Conservatives took office had beent that Canada had a responsibility to ensure Afghanistan didn't revert to the status of a failed state that could serve as a launching pad for terrorist attacks against North America.
That rang hollow in the ears of many Canadians, a fact that Harper has apparently come to appreciate.
"What we've actually found is: when you argue our self interest, that's actually less appealing to Canadian public opinion than the argument that we are actually concretely helping the Afghan people with their lives," he told a panel discussion of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, an American policy group, in Bucharest.
It was a surprisingly candid admission for a prime minister with a hawkish reputation.
Some on the Conservative benches would argue that's the message they've been trying to get across all along. But the fact that they'd been hopelessly inarticulate about it was one of the main findings of the advisory commission headed by former Liberal minister John Manley.
It didn't help that former defence minister Gordon O'Connor once told an Edmonton audience that our presence in Afghanistan was about retribution for the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.
Instead of examining their own failure to get a more palatable message across, the Tories - Harper included - preferred at that time to shoot the messenger for crumbling public support. The media were failing to report the "good news" out of Afghanistan, the prime minister said at a Parliament Hill ceremony marking the fifth anniversary of 9/11.
It was an often repeated line.
But Conservative insiders say that, if there's one thing about Stephen Harper it's that he learns from his mistakes. They often point to the 2005-06 election campaign, where the errors of the 2004 campaign were not repeated.
Afghanistan is the new example they cite.
More nuance, Less Hillier
The message now is far more nuanced. Canadians recognize the country is doing something important and even noble in Kandahar, Harper argues.
"Coverage of successes is always drowned out by coverage of casualties," he told reporters during his one and only media availability during the NATO summit. "I believe, to the extent the Canadian public has concerns about the Afghan mission, it comes primarily - not exclusively - but primarily from the frequent and high casualties of Canadian soldiers."
Implicit in that comment is the recognition that, during a war, the public needs reassurance - constant reassurance.
Harper seems prepared now to hold the public's hand in a way that goes beyond issuing condolences every time a soldier is killed and demanding support for the troops.
"In our judgment those are awfully high casualties that we're taking and we hope the very steps we're taking helps minimize those casualties," he said.
By contrast, in the spring, summer and fall of 2006, when casualties were mounting and Kandahar was spiralling into a cauldron of bloody roadside bomb and suicide attacks, Harper's government was virtually invisible.
So much so that the military, in the form of Gen. Rick Hillier, the loquacious chief of defence staff, had to step into the breach with public speeches and his now-famous slide presentation. He even sent returning generals and soldiers out to speak to local chambers of commerce, dinner clubs and anyone else who would listen.
Hillier and his soldiers became the face of Canada's war, and a lightning rod for the political opposition. And as the casualties continued to mount, so did the public outcry.
At last week's summit, however, it was Hillier who was virtually invisible.
He shared notes with his counterparts from other countries but was spotted only once by reporters who travelled with Harper, as he was entering a meeting.
Unlike the NATO summit in Riga, Latvia 17 months before, Hillier did not travel on the prime minister's plane. He made no public comments, gave no briefings and didn't even attend the news conference where Harper announced that Canada's conditions for remaining in Afghanistan until 2011 had been met.
The Manley report was critical of Harper, saying he must take charge personally of the Afghan file. It was finally evident last week he was doing so.
Frustrated with the cumbersome bureaucracy that NATO - and more importantly the United Nations - can be, Harper served notice that Canada would set its own benchmarks and goals for Kandahar, its area of military responsibility, with an eye to leaving on schedule in 2011.
"I think ultimately it's that success that sells the mission," he said. "Success sells, and the perception of failure is what causes problems."
Beyond politics there is a more basic, personal concern driving Harper.
Insiders recount how, a few weeks ago when six female Afghan MPs visited Ottawa and sat in the public gallery of the House of Commons, Harper turned to Industry Minister Jim Prentice and gestured to the visitors.
"If we don't succeed in Afghanistan, the Taliban will return and they'll face execution," he said.
