• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Afghanistan: Why we should be there (or not), how to conduct the mission (or not) & when to leave

The Agenda - Video - Sept. 12: Michael Byers | The Ambiguity of Afghanistan

http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/tvoutils/globalfiles/VideoPop.cfm?spot_id=2947&sitefolder=theagenda

A little lengthy, and the m byers stuff is just awful (u can see paikin's intellectual frustration just simmering below the surface throughout the interview, hilarious), but if u can make the time to listen to the following debate (including CF representation!), it provides a much more nuanced take on our mission to a-stan than the simplified and agenda-oriented political drivel we're being fed from our dear 'roosevelts and churchills'. personally, i find the canadian political 'foot-balling' of the a-stan issue by our dear leaders even more frustrating and enraging than good ole-fashioned g bush II rhetoric (ie 'liberating the poor people of ... [fill in whatever middle-eastern slave-nation that's suddenly realized that conducting an international oil exchange in US dollars isn't necessarily the most profitable way to go], ie 'looking for weapons of mass destruction that surely must be there' ie ... )... at least GBII sticks to his lies.  :salute:

 
Just a little clean up and I, (at least I), can read it more easily:

The Agenda - Video - Sept. 12: Michael Byers | The Ambiguity of Afghanistan

http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/tvoutils/globalfiles/VideoPop.cfm?spot_id=2947&sitefolder=theagenda

A little lengthy, and the M. Byers stuff is just awful (You can see Paikin's intellectual frustration just simmering below the surface throughout the interview, hilarious), but if you can make the time to listen to the following debate (including CF representation!), it provides a much more nuanced take on our mission to A-stan than the simplified and agenda-oriented political drivel we're being fed from our dear 'Roosevelts and Churchills'. Personally, I find the Canadian political 'foot-balling' of the A-stan issue by our dear leaders even more frustrating and enraging than good ole-fashioned G Bush II rhetoric (ie 'liberating the poor people of ... [fill in whatever middle-eastern slave-nation that's suddenly realized that conducting an international oil exchange in US dollars isn't necessarily the most profitable way to go], ie 'looking for weapons of mass destruction that surely must be there' ie ... )... at least GBII sticks to his lies.  :salute:

 
A football analogy for the Canadian mission:

Suppose you are on a football team playing in a close game. Some members of your team aren't exactly playing hard, increasing the chance that the team will lose. Do you then decide to dog it too, or do you keep playing as hard as you can, still working for the win? And increasing the chance that you'll be injured.

It all depends on your attitude--and principles.

Mark
Ottawa
 
I'm hurling to the max--just lost any respect for puffed-up, pseudo hard-boiled Don Martin of CanWest News.  His lead paragraph today:
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=2df2cdaa-a960-43f8-907c-380d6016966d

Many Canadian soldiers were pledging a return to Afghanistan even before they left the last lethal rotation, tempted as much by combat pay premiums of about $3,000 a month as by the mission's merits...

:rage:

Mark
Ottawa
 
George Wallace said:
James Travers hasn't said anything new.  He has written a piece to fill space in a newspaper and completely missed the point.  The "General Public" has always been 'relatively' sophisticated.  Decisive military victories have never been the "be all - end all".  They have never brought peace.  They have had to be followed by strong "Statesmanship" on the part of our political leaders.  Without the strong Statesmanship amongst the world's leaders, military victories are all for naught.  Conflict will only continue.  It is the Statesman in the end who must forge the final articles that bring about Peace.

Unfortunately, as we look around, do we see any Roosevelts or Churchills? 

This is where we are loosing our wars. 

Different times call for different types of leaders with the strengths required for the particular times. Having said that I agree with your sentiment entirely. 
It's been a long lonely time since I have seen a "statesman."
 
The G&M takes a stand.  :salute:


Canada must stay the course

Saturday, September 22, 2007 – Page A24

Canada cannot abandon Afghanistan. We have made a commitment to the Afghan people and to the international community, and if we believe the governing structures there can be stabilized, we are obliged to stay on ethical, humanitarian and practical grounds that relate to our own national security interests and those of our allies. Canada therefore must make clear to its NATO partners, and to the Afghan people, that it has no intention of quitting Afghanistan until the job is done. Since the job will not be done by February 2009, the expiration date for the current mission in Kandahar, Prime Minister Stephen Harper should affirm a commitment to remaining in Afghanistan beyond 2009 - and call a vote to that effect this year. It is time for the Prime Minister to unambiguously sell the necessity of the mission to Canadians. It is time to end the notion that Canada is withdrawing from Afghanistan. To do less, to wait and see, is unfair to the Afghans and represents a failure of leadership.

There is a strong case for extending the deployment of Canada's troops in Kandahar itself. It is a dangerous place. It is also a place where this country, through the bravery and sacrifice of its soldiers, has been able to make a difference in the world. Kandahar is the front line in the fight for Afghanistan's future and the war on terror. It is in places like Kandahar that the old Afghanistan of the Taliban not only defiled the Afghan people but incubated terrorism spread around the globe. It is in such places that the new Afghanistan must be built. Kandahar is an important mission.

But the decision to remain in Kandahar is ultimately a decision for the Parliament of Canada. The mission has been weakened by the Prime Minister's inability to maintain bipartisan support - manifest in the astonishing climb-down of Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, who is ignoring his party's lead role in sending Canadian troops to Kandahar in the first place in order to portray Mr. Harper as a George W. Bush clone. Mr. Dion is capitalizing on the Conservative government's own failure to explain to Canadians why it is important for our troops to be there. For many people, the loss of 70 soldiers is an extremely high price to pay. It is Mr. Harper's job to persuade them that the sacrifice is worthwhile, that stability can be won in Afghanistan and the West made safe. The Prime Minister must do more in Parliament, and in the country, for this mission.

If we are boxed in politically, there is another option for Canada: redeployment elsewhere within Afghanistan. Contrary to what Mr. Dion implies, Canada's presence in Afghanistan is not the product of Harper unilateralism, but is the fulfilment of a multilateral commitment. Canada is on the ground as part of a NATO mission operating under a United Nations mandate. Afghanistan is not Iraq. It would be regrettable, but if politically absolutely necessary Canada could announce its intention to end the Kandahar mission in February 2009 and declare its availability to take up another assignment in Afghanistan - one involving an ongoing substantial commitment of troops.

If Canada is to remain in Kandahar, it must be contingent on its NATO allies also doing their part. This is not our fight alone. Here, Canada has leverage it can use on countries like France, which have so far acted largely as cheerleaders. France is a big country. It is, at least on paper, a powerful country. Yet it has only one-third as many troops in Afghanistan as Canada. Its new president, Nicolas Sarkozy, is more inclined to support NATO and value the transatlantic alliance than his predecessors. That support needs to be tested. Pressure must also be brought to bear on Germany, Italy and Spain.

Canada should remain true to its own commitment to the Afghan people. As part of next month's Throne Speech, the government should announce its intention to retain a sizable force of Canadian troops in Afghanistan until 2011, and to hold a vote on such an extension within this calendar year.

http://tinyurl.com/23bvd2

 
Baden Guy: Some stand :'(:

If we are boxed in politically, there is another option for Canada: redeployment elsewhere within Afghanistan...

Mark
Ottawa
 
Many Canadian soldiers were pledging a return to Afghanistan even before they left the last lethal rotation, tempted as much by combat pay premiums of about $3,000 a month as by the mission's merits.

Yea, stupid remark. Turns the whole comment into a cheap shot.

Fortunately, it looks like one.

He deserves more than a few PFO letters for that.

 
Flip said:
Yea, stupid remark. Turns the whole comment into a cheap shot.

Fortunately, it looks like one.

He deserves more than a few PFO letters for that.

- I have no doubt that he came by that opinion honestly.  Was it a scientific poll?  I doubt it, but we know there are enough soldiers in our ranks who would agree to that statement if a reporter presented it to them.
 
Conclusion of a fairly thoughtful piece in the Ottawa Citizen today:
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=336f30b3-5181-42c6-8d7a-9944fa8e7eb6

...
The choice that faces Canada may come down to whether serious negotiations with some important elements of the Taliban are possible or not. If there is some glimmer of hope that the Taliban, or even some of its factions, may be considering a negotiated alternative, then withdrawal from the combat role may be the worst tactic at this time. If Canada is convinced that no negotiation is possible, then abandoning Afghanistan to its fate may be a sensible option -- although there are no guarantees that it will not again be used as a base for terrorist attacks against the West, thereby requiring us to go back later at even higher cost than today.

But between these two extremes may be a third option, which would be to accept that the February 2009 deadline is an arbitrary one that is relevant to Canadian politics but not to the situation in Afghanistan [emphasis added]. Instead of focusing almost entirely on political issues in Canada, the leaders of all our parties might do well to ask why we are in Afghanistan in the first place and what interests there would be served by a debate that frames the issues around a requirement that we decide today whether we either totally withdraw from or stay in the combat role over a year from now. The training of the Afghan National Army continues and we simply do not know where negotiations with the Taliban, or elements of the Taliban, may be in early 2009.

Perhaps a wiser course would be for Canada and NATO to hold out the prospect of phased withdrawal of combat forces as the situation improves. That may provide an incentive to the Taliban, or its moderate elements.

Peter Jones is associate professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa.

I agree with the conclusion; but I think the bit about "no negotiation" being possible is rather a straw man as clearly some sort of negotiations with some elements of the Taliban will take place--it's not an all or nothing proposition. And clearly foreign troops will be withdrawn in any case if and as the situation improves; nobody just wants to stay there.

Mark
Ottawa


 
http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20British%20Retreat%20From%20Iraq.txt

20 August 2007

British Retreat From Iraq
                                                         
By Gwynne Dyer

        "The British have given up and they know they will be leaving Iraq
soon," said Moqtada al-Sadr, head of the Mehdi army, the country's most
powerful militia group, in an interview with the Independent.  "They have
realised this is not a war they should be fighting or one they can win."
Every word he said is true, and most senior officers in the British army
know it. As General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the British army, said
last year, Britain "should get out (of Iraq) some time soon."

        Being prime minister is hard. Gordon Brown waited ten years for
Tony Blair to pass on the prime ministership, and no sooner does he finally
inherit the job than he has to figure out a way to pull the British troops
out of Iraq in the middle of the American "surge." That will not be seen as
a friendly gesture by the beleaguered Bush administration.

        There are 5,500 British troops in Iraq, by far the largest foreign
army after the Americans, but they control almost nothing except the ground
they are standing on.  Five hundred of them are under permanent siege in
Basra Palace, in the middle of Iraq's second-biggest city, and the rest are
at the airport outside of town, under constant attack by rocket and mortar
fire. They have almost no influence over the three rival Shia militias and
the associated criminals who actually run the city and fight over the large
sums of money to be made from stolen oil.

        Forty-one British soldiers have died in Iraq already this year,
compared to 29 in the whole of last year. The deaths are wasted and it's
high time to go home, but Prime Minister Gordon Brown is reluctant to anger
the White House by pulling all the British troops out before the Americans
are ready to leave. That, however, is unlikely to happen before President
George W. Bush leaves office in January 2009, as British generals are well
aware.

        The Democrats in Congress have clearly decided that they prefer to
see the Republicans go into the election late next year with the albatross
of Iraq still tied firmly around their necks, rather than mount a
Congressional revolt, cut off funds for the war, and take the blame for the
defeat.

        President Bush says his policy is to "wait to see what David
(Petraeus) has to say" when the commanding general in Iraq reports on what
progress the "surge" is making in mid-September.  But Mr Bush didn't fire
the previous US commanders in Iraq and give Petraeus the job without
knowing in advance what he would say.

        Petraeus will see light at the end of the tunnel, as he always
does. The Democratic majorities in Congress will criticise his report but
not rebel against it, and US troops will probably stay in Iraq at roughly
the present numbers until President Bush leaves office seventeen months
from now.  Several thousand American soldiers will have to die to serve
these agendas, but so will around a hundred British troops.

        British generals are deeply unhappy at this prospect, but as
students of the indirect approach in strategy they have chosen to argue not
so much that the war in Iraq is lost (though it is), but that the war in
Afghanistan is still winnable. So the reason we must get British troops out
of Iraq now is not just to avoid more useless deaths, but to win by
reinforcing our commitment in Afghanistan, which is the truly vital theatre
in the "war on terror."

        General Dannatt was at it again last week, telling the BBC during a
visit to Afghanistan that "the army is certainly stretched. And when I say
that we can't deploy any more battle groups (in Afghanistan) at the present
moment, that's because we're trying to get a reasonable balance of life for
our people." The too-frequent cycle of combat deployments is certainly
harming Britain's forces, with divorces and suicides soaring and retention
rates plummeting, but Dannatt's unspoken sub-text was: you can fix this by
pulling us out of Iraq.

        There are already more British troops in Afghanistan (7,000) than
in Iraq, so the argument makes a kind of sense: concentrate your resources
where they will make a difference. Except that Afghanistan, in the end, is
also an unwinnable war, at least in the ambitious terms still used in the
West.

        Almost thirty years ago the Soviet Union, backing another
modernising regime in Kabul against the deeply conservative prejudices of
the countryside, committed an average of 200,000 troops into Afghanistan
and kept them there for ten years, and it still lost. There have never been
more than 50,000 Western troops in Afghanistan, and there is zero
probability that the number might ever even double. Let alone that they
might stay there for ten years.

        The war in Afghanistan is unwinnable, too, in the long run, and
President Hamid Karzai's best chance of survival is for the Western troops
to leave soon.  Then he would at least be free to make the deals with
warlords, drug-dealers and renegade Taliban, in the traditional Afghan
style, that would secure his authority and prolong his life. But if false
hope about Afghanistan provides the pretext for pulling British troops out
of Iraq, why not?
        When Gordon Brown faces parliament again in October, his biggest
Iraq problem will not be pressure from the public. It will be pressure from
the army.

.


 
Pardon my anglo-saxon, but Gwynne Dyer can sit on it (to paraphrase Fonzie, Potsie, et al)
 
I used to respect Gwynn Dyer - But I was young then.... :(
The guy is a populist opinion authour - he has the opinion he thinks he can sell.
Eric Margolis is much the same kind of animal.

To be fair, both guys are very bright and informed.
Just end up in the (consistently) wrong place is all.

Naturally, the above is my opinion only....
 
New Foreign Minister Bernier gives a pretty decent defence of the mission (usual fair use copyright disclaimer):
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=8f282b6a-cbff-403b-b9e7-da151fc2c110

A debate is under way about the nature of Canada's mission in Afghanistan's Kandahar province after its mandate expires in 2009. Today, we are hearing mostly criticism from the opposition parties in Ottawa, which is normal.

This criticism will perhaps have caused many people to forget that it was the previous Liberal government that launched this mission, and that the Liberals support Canada's commitment to continue its military efforts within the International Security Assistance Force until 2009.

Canada currently has troops in Afghanistan under a UN mandate. We are there at the invitation of a democratically elected Afghan government, with 36 other countries, including France, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Sweden.

Moreover, more than 60 countries and international organizations are taking part in the Afghanistan Compact, which sets out a number of clear objectives for rebuilding the country up to 2011.

Why are we in Afghanistan? First, to stabilize the Afghan nation, ravaged by decades of war and tyranny. We are working to strengthen the democratic regime and ensure that the country does not fall back into the hands of terrorists.

Canadian soldiers, diplomats and humanitarian workers are in Afghanistan to defend the universal values of respect for basic human rights, as enunciated by the Afghans themselves in their constitution.

We are there to fight poverty, injustice and corruption-- fertile ground for terrorism. We are accomplishing this goal in a variety of ways.

First, by helping to train over 30,000 Afghan National Army soldiers. Security in that country will not be truly consolidated in the medium term until Afghans themselves can provide it. And that is what we are helping them do.

Canada has also helped train dozens of judges and lawyers so that a credible and effective judicial system can be put in place. Without such a system, justice and basic human rights will continue to be ignored in Afghanistan.

The other major purpose of the Canadian mission is a humanitarian one. Today, more than 80% of Afghan citizens have access to health care, up from only 9% five years ago. This is progress by any measure. In Kandahar province alone, 350,000 children have been vaccinated against polio.

Canada has helped set up 4,000 schools and train 9,000 teachers. This will benefit 120,000 children, more than 85% of them girls. In Kandahar itself, several thousand adults have learned to read and write because of Canadian aid.

Canada is the main donor country behind funding for a micro-credit program, which has given 360,000 Afghans in 23 provinces access to loans to set up small businesses.

Canada has also contributed to hundreds of community development and infrastructure projects in Kandahar province, such as the construction of wells, roads and bridges.

Between 2001 and 2011, we will have allocated more than one billion dollars to development assistance and reconstruction in Afghanistan. That makes Canada one of the top five donor countries.

Our mission in Afghanistan is about helping people rebuild their lives after years of oppression. It is about ensuring they have the resources to realize their aspirations.

It is a stabilization mission. A development mission. A mission that promotes freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. For that to be accomplished, though, there must be security in Afghanistan. That security is still threatened by the Taliban, who want to bring back their totalitarian regime.

This is why our soldiers are playing such a vital role. True, their mission is risky. They are all aware of that, but have nonetheless chosen to serve. The men and women in uniform are ready to risk their lives to serve their country and help others.

They have been specifically trained to carry out this task. And all of them are proud to serve Canada and help the Afghan people, despite these risks.

Members of Quebec's Royal 22nd Regiment -- the famed Van Doos -- are now serving in Afghanistan. To those Quebecers who want an immediate end to this mission, I would say this: I know that you are proud and responsible people, people of your word. Quebecers finish the job they have started when they have made a commitment to do so.

Canada cannot, without losing all credibility in the international arena, simply go back on its word and abandon such a crucial mission.

We also cannot simply abandon the Afghan people to their fate, without jeopardizing all the development work and security building that has been done on the ground.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said it several times in recent weeks: Any extension of our military mission past February, 2009, must be approved by Parliament. We must pursue this debate as realistic and responsible adults [emphasis added] who are aware of our obligations to our allies and to the Afghan people. - Maxime Bernier is Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. This article was adapted from a speech delivered on September 19 at a Montreal colloquium on Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

Good luck finding "realistic and responsible adults" amongst the opposition.

Mark
Ottawa
 
MarkOttawa said:
Good luck finding "realistic and responsible adults" amongst the opposition.

There are some.  Mr. Ignatieff comes to mind.  Maybe he'll lead a "velvet revolution" within the Liberal Party, taking maybe 30 or so with him and cross the floor en masse with the understanding that they will revert to the Liberal Party during the next general election.  And maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.
 
Susan Riley, an Ottawa Citizen columnist who really does seem to think that PM Harper is a clone of President Bush, inadvertently (I am sure) identifies the sheer absurdity of opposition posturing on Afstan:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=1789be1b-6244-43cc-a32d-f4c945bc5110

If we do have an election over Afghanistan, we would likely end up with another minority. Harper would campaign to send more troops, the opposition would prefer conflict resolution teams and social workers.

More on negotiations:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2007/09/24/4522076-cp.html

Canada is throwing away an opportunity to help Afghan President Hamid Karzai fracture the Taliban by not actively supporting his repeated peace overtures to moderate insurgents, an international think-tank charged Monday.

The Senlis Council, a European-based agency that's conducted extensive research in war-torn southern Afghanistan, says the appeal to less-dogmatic Taliban has a good chance of succeeding if NATO countries throw their full support behind it.

Norine MacDonald, a Vancouver lawyer and council president, says separating hard-core Islamic fundamentalists and Al-Qaeda supporters from moderates would weaken the insurgency and reduce its offensive capacity.

It's time for Canada to take the diplomatic lead and step out from the shadow of U.S. foreign policy, she said...

This so called fast track for peace and stability should also include keeping Canadian troops in Afghanistan past the February 2009 deadline [emphasis added] and opposition to a U.S. demand that opium poppies be eradicated with aerial spraying...

MacDonald said she believes the opposition has "shown some willingness to fall in line behind a proper, well thought out plan."..

Bloc Quebecois defence critic Claude Bachand, who attended the Senlis conference, says it's already too late to salvage the current Canadian mission politically
[emphasis added]...

Publicly taking the diplomatic lead is rather easier said than done; quite backroom work with the Afghan government and NATO allies would be more to the point at this time, to explore what in reality might be achieved by "negotiations" and with whom.  And any efforts to negotiate either around or behind the government would be deeply mistaken.

Mark
Ottawa
 
What the CP story above on the Senlis Council did not mention from the Council's news release; No wonder Canadians are ill-informed about Afghanistan:
http://www.senliscouncil.org/modules/media_centre/news_releases/89_news

MacDonald also called on more NATO countries to take the burden off Canadian soldiers [emphasis added] currently fighting in Kandahar. “It is imperative that NATO has more troops on the ground in the south to secure a decisive military victory [emphasis added],” she said. “This would reduce the need for bombing campaigns, which are causing enormous suffering and turning the local population against us.

“The lack of a sufficient NATO deployment means that the military do not have the troops necessary to hold territory. Often, when they move on to another hot spot, the Taliban simply return to areas already cleared, meaning our troops are having to go back and fight over and over again for the same territory,” said MacDonald.

And a post at The Torch:

No Afstan April Fool
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/09/no-afstan-april-fool.html

Mark
Ottawa
 
Mortarman Rockpainter said:
There are some.  Mr. Ignatieff comes to mind.  Maybe he'll lead a "velvet revolution" within the Liberal Party, taking maybe 30 or so with him and cross the floor en masse with the understanding that they will revert to the Liberal Party during the next general election.  And maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.

Heh... now THAT, I'd like to see :)

The monkeys, not Iggy
 
....Canada is throwing away an opportunity to help Afghan President Hamid Karzai fracture the Taliban by not actively supporting his repeated peace overtures to moderate insurgents, an international think-tank charged Monday.

The Senlis Council, a European-based agency that's conducted extensive research in war-torn southern Afghanistan, says the appeal to less-dogmatic Taliban has a good chance of succeeding if NATO countries throw their full support behind it.

Norine MacDonald, a Vancouver lawyer and council president, says separating hard-core Islamic fundamentalists and Al-Qaeda supporters from moderates would weaken the insurgency and reduce its offensive capacity.

It's time for Canada to take the diplomatic lead and step out from the shadow of U.S. foreign policy, she said...

Forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't it the US, in the form of General Petraeus, that "appeal(ed) to less dogmatic" Iraqi Insurgents, thus  "separating hard-core Islamic fundamentalists and Al-Qaeda supporters from moderates" and as a consequence "weaken(ing) the insurgency and reduc(ing) its offensive capacity."

It doesn't appear to me that the strategy/tactic espoused by Ms. MacDonald is at odds with U.S. foreign policy, rather it is at the heart of it.  And not just on the ground in Iraq but broadly, internationally.  While Bush is busting 2x4s over the heads of donkeys to get their attention the U.S. actively seeks to engage allies (both those that control governments and those that would topple governments) and "manages" threats.  This is not peculiar to the U.S.  It is what governments do.

This includes the Afghan government - for which the Canadian Forces work while they are in Afghanistan (imho the CF is on loan to Hamid Karzai by Stephen Harper in much the same way we might loan him a lawnmower or a generator).  Karzai has always kept the door open for EX-Taliban to come in from the cold and be part of the system of governance.  The appropriate point is that they must be EX and not current.  This is an ongoing strategy of separating leaders from followers.  To the extent that it has succeeded and there is more "Government" territory, more "Government" tribes, more "Government" cities and more "Government" people now than in 2001 it seems to me that Ms. MacDonald is calling for more of the same. 

My ideal conclusion to all of this is the coming of the day when Messrs Bin Laden, Zawahiri and Omar are confronted in a cave or hotel room with no remaining supporters and offered the opportunity to negotiate on behalf of themselves.

I have a great deal of respect for much of Ms. MacDonald's work.  I think she and Senlis are fundamentally right on the poppies: price the drug barons out of the market.  I think she is very clear on the need to keep good, impartial, troops in the field to provide security and has been quite vociferous on the point.  This sets her well apart from the opposition herd on Parliament Hill. However there is a tendency for Anti-Americanism/Anti-Bushism to drown out the message - at least for my ears. 

Whether or not this is just because she is a Canadian liberal and it is a reflex, or it is an honestly held opinion, or it is necessary to maintain credibility with domestic donors and supporters and allied facilitators such as those found in the BeNeLux triangle and the likes of MoveOn.org I don't know.  But I don't believe it serves her cause well. 

On the other hand - If Stephen Harper could get her endorsement on the need to extend the mission for security purposes....... Now there would be a coup.  Almost as interesting as watching Mortarman Rockpainters monkeys fly  ;)


 
Being cowardly about being cowardly
Posted by Ezra Levant on September 27, 2007
Article Link

It's a legitimate point of view to argue that Canada should abandon Afghanistan. I disagree with it, but I can understand it. Quitting Afghanistan makes sense if you think that Canadian soldiers should never fight real wars, but should only be "peacekeepers" after the dangerous work is done; if you think that Canada has no national interest in Afghanistan; if you're a politician and want to win peacenik votes; to name a few reasons.

The Globe and Mail has uploaded a recording of  Stephane Dion's comments to their editorial board about pulling out of Afghanistan. Pressed repeatedly, Dion -- who was part of Paul Martin's cabinet that decided to send troops to Afghanistan in the first place -- simply refused to answer whether he'd pull out Canadian troops if no other country would replace them. He just wouldn't acknowledge the serious fact that Canada quitting means that the Taliban, not the Americans, would rule Kandahar. He just didn't want to talk about it, switching the subject repeatedly. This is not a man ready for the life-and-death decisions of foreign policy.

With a little editing, the tape is a ready-made radio ad for the Conservatives in the next election.
More on link
 
Back
Top