I'm not sure where Stephane Dion stands on the question of Canadian participation in the ISAF mission in Afghanistan. It strikes me that he's more intent on finding a place to stand that's not already occupied than in taking a clear, genuinely principled position.
He's allowed himself to get snookered again. Harper's occupying the "stay" corner, Layton has staked out the "leave" corner. It seems that Dion's focus is to define a posture that is somehow betwixt and between - as though that were possible.
So we'll stay in Kandahar but someone else will do the fighting. And NATO is going to adopt rotational deployment so that all those other nations that are lining up to jump in can get their fair share of the combat mission.
The trouble with Dion's position is reality. If you're in Kandahar you're going to fight. Option B doesn't exist. And NATO doesn't have any suitably sized reinforcements available to rotate in. That's the problem Stephane, that's why we're in this 2009 predicament.
Germany's defence minister announced today that his country's forces, like those of Italy, France and Turkey, will be staying in the relatively peaceful north. They're not budging and so any prospect of rotation is unrealistic.
Unfortunately for the Liberal leader, Harper's also got the "stay, but..." option, the Manley option, staked out.
Between them, Harper and Layton have pretty much got the reality options filled. So, Stephane, who are you going to side with?
I beg to differ. Getting out completely now or in 2009 isn't a real option, and staying as long as it takes to win doesn't seem like a real option to me either. So it's not just Dion or the other leaders who are proposing bad solutions, it's that there are no good solutions for Canada, period.
ReplyDeleteI'm starting to see exactly what Jean Chretien meant about us being stuck in the killing fields.
Dion will probably stick to his position as long as possible, and we'll see how Harper does getting that other 1,000 troops and helicopters, then Dion may perhaps accept an extension period for changing the mission from combat to assistance. Or we'll have an election. Dion's position on Afghanistan isn't strong but compare that to elections fought on crime, corruption, tax cuts, or senate reform? The Conservatives numbers never go up when Afghanistan is the main topic, and the Liberals numbers never go up when those other subjects are up for debate.
We might have an election on the budget before this anyway.
Dion wants to leave leave Kandahar in 2009 for trainng etc .and let some other Nato county take our place in combat.
ReplyDeleteDan, I think you and I actually agree - there are no good options. It appears that the extra troops will be found somewhere and maybe the US will even lend us a few Chinooks thus meeting the Manley ultimatum but that will hardly get us out of this mess. Dion is hedging his bets and, unfortunately for him, that comes across as dithering, an appearance he can ill afford.
ReplyDeleteThe notion that we shift in 2009 to a training role has no credibility whatsoever. Train whom, where, with what? That's just a toss out line with nothing to back it up and it comes across as feeble, even inept.
Well it's not up to pundits to judge whether or not Dion is dithering, it's up to Canadians. And I think for now they'll probably prefer the Liberal position to the troubles the Conservatives are having. Will that last? I don't know.
ReplyDeleteTraining Afghan soldiers requires-combat(support role).
ReplyDeleteReconstruction requires-combat (defense).
Our brave soldiers walk children to school,
should they take a bullet or engage in combat when attacked?
Surely even the most anti-war Liberals think Cdn soldiers should shoot back when attacked.
In other words, combat.
No combat means no mission period.
Perhaps our brave soldiers could be re-assigned to manning the Tim Horton's outlet.
Wilson, Wilson, Wilson. You never let facts get in the way, do you? No one is suggesting our soldiers should not defend themselves, ever. That ridiculous assertion is your creation and yours alone. That means you're arguing with yourself, chasing your oratorical tail. If you want to respond to something that's actually been said, feel free. If you want to set up straw men so you can boldly knock them down, just move along.
ReplyDeleteThe gist of your message MOS is deadly accurate.
ReplyDeleteThis issue is beyond politics. Our kids are getting killed and maimed so it really is a matter of staying or going. At present it looks as if Harper and Dion are trying to outwishywashy one another with Harper trumping by hiding behind a pillar while someone else handles the dirty work...again.
The solution needs to be simplified; Afghanisnam wasn't good enough for George so he took off to steal some oil/money leaving(NATO) Canada hanging. Our reason for being there was cancelled the day George left. Get over the guilt thing, Canada.
On top of all this, is the bottom line (????), Afghanisnam is death trap and any chance of a reversal died with George the Wanderer. Recommended reading....
http://www.ericmargolis.com/
again, your post appreciated MOS.
Well Foot, you and I have generally seen eye to eye on this one. I've been watching the presidential debates hoping to see some candidate put Afghanistan near the top of their priority list but they can't seem to get past the economy, Iraq and health care. If we have to look to one of those people for our cues, I think we're looking into a dark abyss.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't be so opposed to this Afghan mission if it hadn't been so miserably botched. It strikes me that we screwed this up when we replaced one bunch of mujahadin with another bunch of mujahadin.
Maybe that's all we've done - just rearranged the seating order around the table.
A rotten government, a rotten economy, a rotten and still to be resolved civil war.
We have to delude ourselves that, if we just hold off the insurgency, the answers to everything else will just fall into place - and that's not happening, is it?
Foot, thanks for the link. A good read.
ReplyDeleteOk Mound, explain to me how the combat can be taken out of the mission.
ReplyDeleteThat would mean that 'shooting back' in defence is NOT combat.
If that is the case, then our soldiers have NOT been in combat since Sept 2007, as they have only been in supportive and defensive roles since Medusa.
It's Dion chasing his tail, trying to redefine the word 'combat' to be mean making nice.
errr
ReplyDeleteto mean 'making nice'.
I'm certainly not claiming that combat can be excluded from any mission in Kandahar. Defending oneself, however, isn't always the same as combat. Peacekeepers in places like Bosnia and Cyprus were armed for defence but they weren't in a combat role.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm also not endorsing Mr. Dion's position although I say that not really understanding just what Mr. Dion's position really is.
I'm urging - as I alwas have - a simple "go big or go home" position recognizing that counterinsurgency warfare can't be fought on the cheap. No Canadian leader - Harper included - no NATO partner and not even the United States is willing to "go big" in Afghanistan. That would mean cobbling together a force of something approaching at least two hundred thousand soldiers. That isn't going to happen, is it? No, of course not.
Few of us realize it, but during the monarchy in the pre-Marxist years, Afghanistan was remarkably progressive for that part of the world, modernistic and western even.
We handed the government over to a mujahadin, Karzai, who installed his fellow mujahadin into power positions in his government. Democracy never had a chance.
Go big or go home, I actually agree.
ReplyDeleteIs going home an option?
Walk away from a war we chose to participate in, and when the going is tougher than imagined, we quit?
correction, Medussa was in Sept 2006, Cdn soldiers have not been on the offensive since then.