Thursday, January 25, 2007

If you throw them hard enough...

Darts and laurels on the SCOND brouhaha:
  • Dart: Gordon O'Connor for screwing up what should have been a fairly straightforward visit by one of two parliamentary committees whose mandates intersect with his own. He and his office created a conflict out of thin air, and have now been forced into an ignominious reversal of position.

    "The minister is supportive of every effort to maximize opportunities for members of Parliament to garner a better understanding of what Canadian soldiers, development workers, police representatives, and diplomats are doing for Canada in Afghanistan," spokeswoman Isabelle Bouchard said in an e-mail.

    "Therefore, the minister has asked military authorities to see whether the Canadian Forces can safely support MP requests to see CF operations outside of Kandahar Airfield."


    What a pointless way to lose face.

  • Laurel: BGen Grant for making it crystal clear to the media that this charlie foxtrot didn't come from the CF, it came from the Minister's office. As the top Canadian soldier in Southwest Asia right now, he'll take his fair share of lumps from the press for screw-ups over which he has some control; he shouldn't have to take them for decisions made above his pay grade.

  • Dart: Ujjal Dosanjh for continuing to inflict his ignorance on the general public with statements like this: "I thought that was the kind of decision that one makes on an operational basis. The general makes that decision. What does the minister know about safety, sitting in Ottawa?" Quite frankly, Ujjal, the Minister has forgotten more about the military's ability to ensure VIP security than you're likely to ever know. Shut the hell up.

  • Dart: Speaking of shutting the hell up, Colin Kenny needs to button his yap. This is pure garbage, and he knows it: "We came to the conclusion that we didn't get out because there was no development to see...Clearly somebody either (Gen. Rick) Hillier's office or in O'Connor's had decided there was nothing they wanted us to see outside the wire." Horse patties. Observing that his committee was given the run-around by the Minister's office on a previous trip, Kenny decided to use a cattle-prod on O'Connor in public by spouting off to the media. The problem is that he damned well knows there's development going on. I don't normally expect selfish petulance from Kenny, but that's all this is: a bruised ego lashing out and not caring if the CF takes a PR hit in the process. Boooooo, Senator. Boo, hiss.

  • Dart: Dawn Black's common sense seems to have abandoned her on this trip.

    New Democrat defence critic Dawn Black says Canada's role in the war-torn country is supposed to be what's called a three-D approach - defence, development and diplomacy.

    She says they haven't heard anything about diplomacy in their visit to Kandahar, particularly when it comes to dealing with Pakistan, which provides safe haven to Taliban militants.


    You want to talk diplomacy, Ms. Black? Try sitting down with a CIMIC team leader. In fact, try having a chat with anyone from the KPRT. Even better, get yourself up to Kabul, and talk to the folks toiling away in relative obscurity in SAT-A, who work with the Afghan government every single day. While you're up there, buttonhole our DFAIT staff and find out what they're up to. But reel your expectations in: you're visiting a military base in a war zone. Would you visit Fort Pearson on Sussex and complain that you didn't hear a thing about defence? There's been quite enough childish posturing around this trip without you adding to it, thank you very much.

  • Laurel: The Canadian press corps for resisting the urge to splatter some of the excrement that hit the proverbial fan on to the Canadian Forces. The soldiers do what they're told. If they tell you they can't get helicopters, they're telling you the truth (anyone for a CH-47 procurement now?). That this story has rightly focused on the political manoeuvring that is at its core is proof that our journalists can report stuff straight when they want to.

1 Comments:

Blogger deaner said...

Is there a history of sending Parliamentarians into an active war zone? Did it happen during WW II or Korea? Bosnia? I don't see that there is any benefit to it, and the risks are pretty extraordinary; if we are not following some precedent, why are we doing it?

11:58 a.m., January 26, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home