Why the sudden need for a Parliamentary vote on our Afstan mission?
After all the Liberals committed Canadian troops three times without any vote.
1) Our initial troop commitment was a combat group to Kandahar for six months at the start of 2002--and this was done without a vote in Parliament.
2) Then in early 2003 the Liberal government committed Canadian troops to Kabul--again without a vote in Parliament--in order to ensure that we had no forces available for Iraq just in case the UN Security Council actually approved military action against Iraq.
3) Bill Graham announced in May 2005 that our troops were going to Kandahar. No vote.
Gen. Hillier warned of casualties in July 2005 (the "scumbags" moment).
Minister of National Defence Graham then gave three speeches on the new commitment last fall--speeches that were barely reported.
This post Nov. 24: Are the Canadian people ready for the body bags?
Anyone who paid any attention knew what was coming, yet the new mission was never seriously raised as an issue by any party (briefly by Layton) in the election campaign.
Since there is no way the troops in the current six-month rotation could be brought back before that commitment is finished, holding a vote would be dishonest in that the vote would be meaningless. Moreover a negative vote would virtually destroy Canada's credibility within NATO and with the US.
And if a vote did not support the mission, think of the negative effects on the serving soldiers.
Canada has also been committed by the previous Liberal government to sending a second battle group for a subsequent six-month tour. That could be the subject of a debate with meaning, but again the morale effect of a negative vote would be devastating on troops already in Afstan. And our allies would despair of us.
Cross-posted to Daimnation!
1) Our initial troop commitment was a combat group to Kandahar for six months at the start of 2002--and this was done without a vote in Parliament.
2) Then in early 2003 the Liberal government committed Canadian troops to Kabul--again without a vote in Parliament--in order to ensure that we had no forces available for Iraq just in case the UN Security Council actually approved military action against Iraq.
3) Bill Graham announced in May 2005 that our troops were going to Kandahar. No vote.
Gen. Hillier warned of casualties in July 2005 (the "scumbags" moment).
Minister of National Defence Graham then gave three speeches on the new commitment last fall--speeches that were barely reported.
This post Nov. 24: Are the Canadian people ready for the body bags?
Anyone who paid any attention knew what was coming, yet the new mission was never seriously raised as an issue by any party (briefly by Layton) in the election campaign.
Since there is no way the troops in the current six-month rotation could be brought back before that commitment is finished, holding a vote would be dishonest in that the vote would be meaningless. Moreover a negative vote would virtually destroy Canada's credibility within NATO and with the US.
And if a vote did not support the mission, think of the negative effects on the serving soldiers.
Canada has also been committed by the previous Liberal government to sending a second battle group for a subsequent six-month tour. That could be the subject of a debate with meaning, but again the morale effect of a negative vote would be devastating on troops already in Afstan. And our allies would despair of us.
Cross-posted to Daimnation!
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 12:13 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home