The great debate seems to be whether Liberal leader Stephane Dion "compromised" or "capitulated" in reaching an accord with Stephen Harper on extending the mission in Afghanistan.
Jason Cherniak opines that it was neither, instead a "marriage of communications convenience between the Liberals and the Conservatives, neither of whom want an election with Afghanistan as the prominent issue."
I think it's much more than communications convenience, whatever you take that to mean. Here are excerpts from Dion's principled Afghanistan policy speech in February, 2007:
"...by May, a mere three months after Canada’s combat force went into Kandahar, the government knew that we were facing a significant and violent insurgency, well beyond anything NATO had experienced in the past or had planned for. And before too long we saw that the Canadian effort in Kandahar had shifted from the original over-riding objective of reconstruction to fighting a violent insurgency.
Faced with that new reality, what should the Canadian government have done? It should have taken the time to determine whether and how our mission could still achieve the goals we had set out, in such a rapidly deteriorating security environment.
Instead, what did Prime Minister Harper do? He extended the mission by 2 years. And he did so without having obtained commitments from our allies to help us cope with the changed situation. He made no prior effort to obtain assurances from the government of Pakistan to secure their border with Afghanistan, across which the insurgents move with impunity. And he got no assurances from our NATO allies to replace Canada at the end of our mission. In other words, he made a rash decision on a critical issue.
In addition, the Prime Minister misled Members of Parliament to get them to support this extension. He promised MPs that this mission would not hinder Canada’s ability to undertake peace-support missions elsewhere, such as in Darfur or Haiti. But within a few weeks of the vote in Parliament, his defence minister made it clear that Canada no longer had any such troop capacity. General Hillier, the Chief of Defence Staff, has more recently confirmed this. With this mission extension, the Prime Minister has thrown away Canada’s flexibility to respond to other international peace and security priorities.
In the face of changed circumstances on the ground, this government and this Prime Minister steamrolled Parliament without facts, information or realistic debate. They told Canadians this mission represented continuity of an existing mission, yet the security context deteriorated so much that shortly after this decision the government went as far as to send tanks to Kandahar.
I will say unequivocally that a Liberal government led by me will not extend Canada’s combat mission in Kandahar beyond February 2009. That means Canada must inform NATO today how firm this deadline is and that it must find a replacement nation for us. The Harper government has not done this. To the contrary, military documents have come to light that show that the Harper government is planning for the Canadian Forces to stay in Kandahar until 2011. Our allies have surely taken note of this. As long as other NATO countries believe our commitment is open-ended, they will never prepare for our departure."
So, it's "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Harper, with the requisite endorsement of the opposition parties, extended the mission by two years to 2009, without having obtained assistance from NATO partners or assurances from Pakistan or assurances from NATO allies to replace us when the term ends in 2009.
Okay, now Dion has agreed to an extension to 2011 without having obtained assistance from NATO partners or assurances from Pakistan or assurances that we'll be replaced when the term ends in 2011. "As long as other NATO countries believe our commitment is open-ended, they will never prepare for our departure." Well said Stephane so why does this no longer trouble you?
"I will say unequivocally that a Liberal government led by me will not extend Canada's combat mission in Kandahar beyond February, 2009." Of course the decision hasn't fallen to a Liberal government led by Dion but to a Liberal opposition led by Dion. I guess that must let him off the hook.
7 comments:
On May 17, 2006 Liberals supported extending the mission - they could have voted against it. That the party was in disarray and a leadership race had just begun is beside the point: they voted in favor and where I sit, that's at least "grudging" acceptance. Both the Liberals and the Tories come to the table with dirty hands on this.
You'll get no argument from me on this one Grump. When this notional "debate" was announced I e-mailed a list of pertinent questions to Ujal Dosanjh - questions that went to the very problems we face today. They didn't even get acknowledged much less raised in the debate. The Libs didn't have to allow themselves to be "steamrollered" by Harper when they could have been raising these points in amendments to the motion back in 2006.
It strikes me as offensive to see our soldiers' welfare and that of their families reduced to a sideshow in a game of political football and military careerism.
That was the non-binding, debate that took place on a Tuesday after it was scheduled on a surprise announcement the previous Friday afternoon. The one that passed by only 4 votes after a mere 6 hours of debate.
It has been a total Tory mission since then, with all the detainee warts and senseless deaths that come with it.
Did you expect anything different MoS? Really? The Libs could have probably won an election on this issue, but chickened out.
The lack of debate on Afghanistan is a key reason why I hoped (and still hope) that we have an election on the issue. I am convinced that Canadians are ill informed of our role and they've been spoon fed a diet of untruth from the media to politicians. We truly need a vigorous national debate on this. I'm a former infantry soldier, our troops deserve that much if we're going to ask them to possibly get killed.
Yes, Mike, I confess my naivete but I really did expect more from the Libs on this. I had hoped an election on the Afghan issue would have sparked a national debate on the mission, NATO and Afghanistan, especially given the utter lack of informed debate in parliament. However with the Cons and Libs apparently agreeing to kick this one down the street that won't be happening.
Dion was very clear and forthright in his speech on Afghanistan last February and many of the legitimate criticisms he stated still stand yet he's folded.
I'm with Grump on this one. Dion seems incapable of taking the fight to Harper and I think the Libs will pay dearly for that when we do get an election.
Grump, I agree with that. I think there needs not only to be a debate on Afghanistan, but on the very role our Armed Forces should play, period.
As for our role in Afghanistan, I think Canadians understand our role, they just don't understand the mission anymore, and question the value of continuing our role in that mission when it means supporting a government and a system that is anethma to their values.
No question Mike about the lack of public understanding of "the mission" today. Our media seem to have become bored with the realities "on the ground" in Afghanistan. When that butcher, Dostum, staged an armed standoff with the Afghan police at his compound in Kabul (of all places) last week - in utter defiance of Karzai - and the cops were quietly called off, not a word of the event or what its significance in the Canadian media. It's a country of feudal warlordism, democracy is just the window dressing for the goofy Christians the northerners have around fighting the Taliban while they run their opium business in peace. You won't get a word about that from Harper or MacKay or Hillier - or even Dion. That's because Afghanistan is far more important to them for its potential political value.
Post a Comment