Canada's gaining world's respect

[GAP]

Seriously, folksThanks to our military success, Canada's gaining world's respect
By PETER WORTHINGTON September 14, 2007
Article Link

For as long as most Canadians have been alive, a succession of federal governments has sought to have Canada taken seriously as an influence on the world stage.

Frustratingly, this has largely been an unrequited yearning.

Nations of the developed world regarded Canada fondly, but patronizingly, more or less ignoring what we said.

We were "nice" people without clout who wanted to be loved -- except when we played hockey, then we were brutes.

After 9/11 (starting with the previous Martin government) Canada, began to have impact in international matters -- thanks almost entirely to our revitalized military in Afghanistan, doing both fighting and reconstruction.

 

Sadly, for purely political purposes, Prime Minister Stephen Harper now seems eager to pull back from the thankless task of imposing peace. Maybe a safer, more passive role. He says early 2009 is the date for withdrawal -- by which time no one expects Afghanistan to be pacified.

Why this sudden change of mandate? It's surely not because our troops are unwilling to stay the course, or because Canadians want out.

No, it's because there's a political perception that Quebecers will not vote for a government that is resolved to stay in Afghanistan for as long as fighting soldiers are needed.

Harper so lusts for a majority government that he seems willing to trim our mandate in Afghanistan in hopes of winning Quebec votes. Like previous Tory parties, he bows to polls and listens to faint-hearts who fear a "conservative" agenda turns off voters.

We now have the unprecedented situation where Germany is "begging" (according to a Globe and Mail headline) Canada to continue in Afghanistan beyond 2009, with NATO echoing this theme.

Again, why is this?

Simple. It's because the Canadian army has been so damn good at its job that its continued presence is seen as essential if the volatile Kandahar region is to have a chance at achieving peace and security.

Germany sees this clearly -- perhaps because Germany has chickened out of the heavy peacemaking process, and won't let its troops near the danger zones.

If Canada cuts and runs (and that's precisely what Harper is suggesting, prodded by the Dion Liberals and hopeless NDP) then others won't be far behind.

Pulling out too soon means every casualty and death incurred will be meaningless. Canada will again retreat into military torpor where few take us seriously, and our word is no longer our bond.

All because of conventional political timidity that (I think) does Quebecers a disservice and betrays our soldiers.

No one relishes casualties, or coffins unloaded at Trenton. But our staunchest citizens have been families of the fallen, who recognize that their loved ones volunteered, took pride in their job and realized they were fighting on behalf of people who had nothing.

CASUALTIES LIGHT

Although every death is a family tragedy, in global terms Canada's casualties have been relatively light.

And we are winning in Afghanistan -- witness the Taliban resorting to roadside bombs.

If the Taliban win the subversive war that they lose on every encounter on the battlefield, what does that say of our resolve?

If the PM trusted the Canadian people, stayed the course and showed courage, confidence and leadership, maybe he'd be rewarded with the majority he seems to want more than standing up for principles.

In Afghanistan, for the first time since Suez, 1956, Canada, is being taken seriously by those who matter, thanks to our military.

Don't blow it.
More on link

 

[geo]

Interesting,

Wonder how the gov't will respond to this article.... or if they will at all.

 

[Jed]

An excellent article; I hope someone takes note; even to attempt to disparage it. IMHO this is the essence of why we as a 'have country' must stay the course.

 

[retiredgrunt45]

Great article, I just wish there were more like it coming out of the MSM.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

One thing I would like to make note of............in my experience other countries fellow soldiers always had respect for our men and women, who were getting the job done with what seemed at times like 'smoke and mirrors, even if the general public did not.

 

[jimb]

For those who don't know about  Peter Worthington.........

He served in both WW2 and Korea.  First, as a young RCN seaman, in 1944/45,  and later as a Infantry officer in Korea.

His father was General Worthington, who led the fight to create the Canadian Armoured Corps, in the late 1930's.

He was one of the original founders of the Toronto Sun newspaper, and he can still run a mean mile, on the track at the central Y in Toronto.

Of all the current day  Canadian newspaper writers he is one of the VERY few who can honestly say he "knows about combat " first hand.

I would value his judgement on this topic over most  other reporters  points of view.

Jim B. Toronto.

 

[RangerRay]

According to <a href="http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/66004/post-613207.html#msg613207">this</a> that I earlier posted, the PM will only allow a vote in Parliament if there is enough support to finish the job.

 

[Simon]

In response to Worthingtons zinger at Harper, Could it be that Harper is repeatedly making it clear, over and over to get it on the record that a majority of MPs 50%+1 is required to extend the mission. He is clearly on the record as staunchly supporting the mission, he knows he cant get his way, so he diffuses the matter for now.

By doing so he has knocked the wind out of Dion and Duceppe and oh yes who can forget Taliban Jack for the duration of the byelections, which if the polls are correct, I suspect will shut up everyone except, (oh jeez) Jack.

Harper clearly wants to see where the 3 byelections go, and that will write the throne speech for Oct. 16. the opposition have no idea what he will do, but they are all likely to think, (except for Jack),  "damn he's good, never saw that coming."

If dion loses Outremont, hes possibly toast, It is feasible Dion will never face Harper in an election, look at Johnny C, a street fighter,
June to August 2002- Martin supporters (both in Parliament and in the riding associations) publicly call for a leadership review and the replacement of Chretien.
August 18 2002- Over half of Liberal members of Parliament sign a letter declaring their support for PM Chretien.
August 19 2002- Liberal senators publicly state their support for PM Chretien.
August 21 2002- Chretien announces that he will step down as Prime Minister in February 2004.

Ignatieff is on the record as supporting the mission in Afstan. Cue the Leadership convention, Iggy wins, Harper gets his support, no need for a federal election. (note to self, lower meds)

If duceppe loses Roberval-Lac-Saint-Jean, where the provincial Action democratique du Quebec made big gains in Prov. election in March, how excited is he likely to be about going to the polls, especially after the shellacing they got in march.

And as for Jack, it doesnt matter what happens, he just wont shut up anyway.

Could it be politics?

 

[Bobby Rico]

I don't know if it's irony or poetry, but it always seems to be the military that gets people's attention and respect when it comes to this country.  Personally, I think that's a pretty good sentiment for our boys and girls in uniform.

In response to the article- I've been on the fence in the past regarding the mission to Afghanistan, lately though I've been much stronger of the opinion that we should stay and finish this shit, simply because nobody else seems willing to step up to the plate.  It's a dirty job, but clearly the rest of NATO hasn't the stones to do it.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Simon: If you're right you're brilliant

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Edward Campbell]

American leadership guru Warren G. Bennis coined the phrase: “Leaders are people who do the right thing; managers are people who do things right.” We, in the military, have long understood that successful military commanders must be both effective leaders and capable managers.

The same applies to countries: successful countries must lead and manage, well. Brute force may, for a time, allow a country to build and, for a short time, maintain an empire but, sooner or later, it will stumble and fall – it may, also, rise again. The length of a country’s stay on top will be, I think, a partial function of how much it does the right thing and how often it does things right, too.

Consider the Roman and British Empires: one can and should say a whole lot about the evils of empire building and of keeping the peace in those eras but Pax Romana and, 1800 years later, Pax Britannica more than made up for the errors and excesses. Those two periods were, essentially, golden ages, during which regional and (in the case of Pax Britannica) global advancement was made possible because the peace was kept by a superpower. The peace was, to be sure, the peace which most favoured the great imperial powers but it served everyone else, too – a proper peace always does.

If Canada is to be a leader it must be able to do the right tings and to do things right. It will be helpful, but not essential to a leadership position is we are allied with a great power. It will be essential to be closely allied with other powers that, generally, do the right things and do them right, too. The converse is that we must avoid close entanglements with powers which, consistently, do the wrong things.

With regard to Afghanistan: we are there, as Ruxted said some 18 months ago, because, back in 2001/02 M. Chrétien, did the right thing and did it right. That he later did the right thing for the wrong reason does not alter the fact that our aims in Afghanistan (aims which are for Afghanistan and for Canada, too) are right and just – as Ruxted also said six months ago.

We are doing the right thing; we are doing things right. This has not been our consistent position – for about 30 years we were known for shirking our duty and hiding behind America’s skirts. Former Deputy Prime Minister John Manley compared us to the fellow who left his group and rushed off the bathroom every time the restaurant bill was presented. He was right. For thirty years three Canadian prime ministers (Trudeau, Mulroney (to a lesser degree) and Chrétien) lowered our country’s value in the world. It will be hard to regain the world’s respect – not impossible, just hard.

But I’m not sure enough Canadians care enough. It is quite likely that we will find leadership too hard, too expensive, too unpopular for our weak, lazy, greedy, celebrity obsessed culture.

 

[geo]

+1 Ed

 

[Greymatters]

The start of a Pax Canadiana...?