Stephane Dion needs to come to grips with the tough issues if he's going to show himself the leader Canada so badly needs.
In Afghanistan with Michael Ignatieff, Dion, according to the Associated Press, opined how Canada needs to find new non-combat roles in Afghanistan.
What I'm not hearing from Dion is the same thing I don't ever expect to hear from Harper - how we pry the Canadian contingent out of the jaws of Kandahar province. It's just plain silly to toss about fantasies of new, non-combat contributions when neither the US nor NATO has shown the slightest interest in producing forces to take the place of the Canadian combat group. Until then, we're not going anywhere, certainly at least not until 2010 when we see if the Dutch will actually leave when they've announced they're going.
Dion needs to address the validity of NATO and Canada's role in it before indulging in fanciful debate over what comes next because, until we deal with the NATO issue, there is no "next."
I know, I know - Dion supporters will be quick to point out that it would be political suicide to get embroiled in that before an election. I suppose the same thing goes for coming up with solutions to the Athabasca Tar Sands.
5 comments:
Considering that Bush is rattling the war chain on Iran, and looks like the US might try to start another phoney war for 'oil', GETTING out of NATO alliance should be a priority. One for all, and all for one, mentality has got to go, particularly with friends like Bush and the military industrial complex. This alliance, back then, sounded good, but that was the good old days, and we need to get out of this.
Jan,
Don't think you are speaking on behalf of Jack on this.
No where has Jack said Canada out of NATO. He is not Ed Broadbent.
Shroom, I don't think anyone is "speaking on behalf of Jack" and I doubt that Jack is ever short of loud words. Jan makes a good point. We really need a revitalization of NATO, a recommittment of its member nations. It's not supposed to be a multinational drop-in centre. What about the newbies, the Eastern Europeans? They haven't even begun to pay their dues to NATO but they're nowhere to be seen in Afghanistan. No one gets a free ride, not the Czechs, not the Hungarians, not the Poles. They don't want in, they can damn well get out.
MOS,
Did you support NATO enlargement? I did not. Knew all along we can't protect Eastern and Central Europe from a Russian threat. I hope you were one of the few critical of it when Chretien was PM.
Why don't you tell Dion to make pacifism a goal in Liberal foreign policy? We will no longer fulfill future military obligations in NATO. No carriers docking in Halifax, no planes landing in Gander etc. Pull all our troops out of Germany. Do what the New Zealanders did in the 1980s when it disengaged with SEATO.
Actually Shroom, as I've written in earlier posts, I was opposed to NATO's exapansion. It wasn't a Chreiten initiative but a Washington move, with London backing, to roll NATO eastward to Russia's borders. It's not a question of defending Eastern Europe from Russia. Moscow has learned it has an ample supply of non-military ways to bring coercive pressure on its immediate neighbours, the Chechens excepted.
I don't support pacifism either. I think there are situations that may require the coherent application of multinational force. NATO, however, missed the boat in failing to undertake a post-Soviet Union self-exam to define its future. Instead it stumbled, first into Kosovo and then into Afghanistan. NATO's greatest failure in Afghanistan has been the divisiveness of its membership. How can we have an effective military alliance beset by such a lack of unity and vague and confusing leadership?
I don't mind military obligations. I would have preferred Canada, in conjunction with its partners, raise a meaningful force to intercede in Rwanda and the Congo which, between them, have now amassed almost five million dead, not to mention Darfur.
Post a Comment