Ask a stupid question...get a couple of clear answers
Denis Coderre has done that which only he could do: he's made me actually miss Ujjal Dosanjh as Liberal defence critic. Not that there's a hair's breadth of difference between their respective levels of competency in the post.
Witness Dosanjh's braying in defeat last evening:
I was always told not to ask a question to which you don't really want to hear the answer. Obviously, Dosanjh missed that life lesson on his way to parliament.
Col (Ret) Mike Capstick offers one compelling reason to avoid a fixed end date - the effect it would have on both friends and enemies in Afghanistan:
Prime Minister Harper also provided a shorter answer to the question that touches upon our relations with NATO allies:
So there's your answer in full, Ujjal. Neither the Afghan government, nor our NATO allies are looking for a firm withdrawal date from our military commitment in Kandahar. Only the Taliban and our own opposition parties seem to be seeking one.
Oh, and the majority of the Canadian populace, according to the most recent polls. Thank heaven for representative - as opposed to direct - democracy.
The clock is ticking on your opportunity to educate Canadians about this critical mission, Mr. Harper, and to convince them of its value. For the sake of both Afghanistan and Canada, your government needs to step up its efforts, and do so right away.
Lead, sir.
Witness Dosanjh's braying in defeat last evening:
Liberal Ujjal Dosanjh said the motion simply confirms the Canadian military's commitment to February 2009, but no further.
"Why is the government refusing to provide clarity to Canadians about an end date?" Dosanjh asked in the House of Commons.
I was always told not to ask a question to which you don't really want to hear the answer. Obviously, Dosanjh missed that life lesson on his way to parliament.
Col (Ret) Mike Capstick offers one compelling reason to avoid a fixed end date - the effect it would have on both friends and enemies in Afghanistan:
There is an oft-stated Taliban contention that ". . . you Westerners have all of the watches, but we have all of the time."
***
The majority of Canadian parliamentarians either support a firm February 2009 withdrawal date or an immediate cessation of the mission. The effect of this political posturing on both the Taliban and the democratically elected Afghan government cannot be underestimated.
The Taliban now has a clear idea of Canada's tolerance level in Kandahar. The result -- they can now simply wait us out.
They can maintain a low level terror campaign against Afghan civilians involved in the reconstruction effort, Afghan security forces and our troops.
They know, with certainty, that within two years they will have succeeded in driving one of NATO's major troop contributors and its best equipped and strongest fighting force out of the region.
The recent Liberal motion also sends the Afghan government the clearest signal yet that the strength of Canada's commitment does not match its rhetoric.
Prime Minister Harper also provided a shorter answer to the question that touches upon our relations with NATO allies:
Harper has declined to say whether he plans to ask for an extension of the mission. On Monday, he said NATO is not demanding an answer from Canada on the issue right now.
So there's your answer in full, Ujjal. Neither the Afghan government, nor our NATO allies are looking for a firm withdrawal date from our military commitment in Kandahar. Only the Taliban and our own opposition parties seem to be seeking one.
Oh, and the majority of the Canadian populace, according to the most recent polls. Thank heaven for representative - as opposed to direct - democracy.
The clock is ticking on your opportunity to educate Canadians about this critical mission, Mr. Harper, and to convince them of its value. For the sake of both Afghanistan and Canada, your government needs to step up its efforts, and do so right away.
Lead, sir.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 2:19 a.m.
3 Comments:
A Canadian PM that leads? Even if you disagree with him or her? The last ones that did that are either dead or have been retired for nearly a decade and a half.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Excellent commentary. The Liberals are getting raked over a lot of coals in a lot of places this morning for their position, and deservedly so.
They say they want "clarity," but on my first reading of the Coderre resolution I could see a couple of spots that would have done more to obscure Canada's mission in Afghanistan than provide any real clarity. It's mostly subtle wording, but take a look at the operative resolution:
"this House call upon the government to confirm that Canada’s existing military deployment in Afghanistan will continue until February 2009, at which time Canadian combat operations in Southern Afghanistan will conclude."
This is not the way forward to "clarity." It doesn't call for an end to all Canadian combat operations in the country, and the use of the wording "Canadian combat missions" doesn't refer to non-combat operations nor does it necessarily mean an end to all combat operations in Kandahar. It's left vague.
Post a Comment
<< Home