Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Notice Paper

Denis Coderre continues to foist his all-too-familiar brand of idiocy upon the Canadian parliament and people, this time with an Opposition Motion on the Afghan mission:

April 17, 2007 — Mr. Coderre (Bourassa) — That,
  1. whereas all Members of this House, whatever their disagreements may be about the mission in Afghanistan, support the courageous men and women of the Canadian Forces;

  2. whereas in May 2006, the government extended Canada's military commitment in Southern Afghanistan to February 2009;

  3. whereas it is incumbent upon Canada to provide adequate notice to the other members;

  4. whereas by February 2009, Canada's military mission in Southern Afghanistan will represent one of the largest and longest military commitments in Canadian history; and

  5. whereas Canada's commitment to the reconstruction and security of Afghanistan is not limited to our combat operations in Southern Afghanistan;


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; and call upon the government to notify NATO of this decision immediately.


Coderre and his fellow Liberals are plainly trying to trap the government. If Harper's MP's accept the motion, they're doing just what the Liberals want. If they reject it, they're obviously intending to continue the "combat operations" past 2009, and should come clean about it to the Canadian public.

*yawn*

If you're going to set an ambush, ladies and gents, you're well advised to make sure your quarry hasn't an escape route that you can't cover.

In this case, all the government has to do is say: "We're not going to confirm we're ceasing combat operations in 2009, since that hasn't been determined yet. When the decision is ultimately made by cabinet and confirmed by parliament, we'll inform our NATO allies at that juncture. This motion is premature, partisan posturing at its worst."

Oh, wait a minute, Gordon O'Connor has been saying that all along:

O'Connor denied that extending the military mission is in the government's plan, and said that such an extension would have to first be discussed in cabinet, which he said won't happen until "sometime next year," and then passed in parliament.


In fact, he and Harper are saying precisely the same things:

Both O'Connor and Prime Minister Stephen Harper repeated the government's stock answer that the troops were committed until 2009.

"If the government wants to extend it further, it will seek the approval of Parliament to do that," said Harper.


Coderre and his supporters in parliament are closing a trap on thin air, here.

10 Comments:

Blogger Mark, Ottawa said...

"whereas by February 2009, Canada's military mission in Southern Afghanistan will represent one of the largest and longest military commitments in Canadian history".

Definitely one of the largest, but three years one of the "longest"? Denis the Thug is truly ignorant:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Operations/past_ops_e.asp

Operation DANACA
UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) Golan Heights
May 31 1974 - March 23, 2006

Operation REPTILE
UN Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL)
November 1999 - July 2005

Operation PALLADIUM
NATO Stabilization Force (SFOR)
December 1995 - December 2004

Operation ADDITION
Canadian Forces (CF) contribution to the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE)
August 2000 - June 2003

Operation QUADRANT
Canadian Forces (CF) contribution to international missions in Kosovo .
June 1999 - September 2002

Operation RECORD
Canadian Forces (CF) contribution to the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observer Mission (UNIKOM) .
May 1991 - August 15, 2001

Then there were:
http://members.shaw.ca/kcic1/peacekeepers2.html

1956 - Sinai. United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF I). 1,007 troops helped stop hostilities after Israel, France and Great Britain attacked Egypt over the Suez Canal. The mission lasted from November 1956 to June 1967.

1960 - Congo. Organisation des nation unies au Congo (ONUC). 421 troops helped maintain law and order in this African country from July 1960 until June 1964.

(and the mother of them all)
1964 - Cyprus. United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP). 1150 troops. Canada maintained a strong presence in Cyprus until 1993 when troops were withdrawn for other uses. There is currently one staff officer still with the mission. Over 25,000 personnel served in Cyprus during our twenty-nine year mission.

1973 - Middle East. United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF II). 1,145 troops served from October 1973 to July 1979, again to supervise a ceasefire between Israel and Egypt and control the buffer zone between the countries.

1992 - Balkans. United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) followed by United Nations Peace Forces Headquarters (UNPF). Close to 2000 personnel served in a variety of missions in the former Yugoslavia from the February 1992 until December 1995.

Now will any media outlet point out Denis' nonsensical statement?

Mark
Ottawa

1:39 p.m., April 18, 2007  
Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

What an excellent question, Mark.

2:49 p.m., April 18, 2007  
Blogger WE Speak said...

The Conservatives should give this Supply Day motion the attention it deserves and not show up for the vote. Let the Liberals have their hollow victory, it will be remembered at the appropriate time.

6:56 p.m., April 18, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

to say nothing of the Cold War.

7:37 p.m., April 18, 2007  
Blogger Fotis said...

In politics it does not always make a different what the facts are. I agree with you that the governments’ position on the subject is very clear. The opposition parties will, at every opportune moment, call of the government to be explicit on the timetable, which is well within their rights, and focus on the legitimate uncertainty around the scheduled withdrawal. It would also be naive to think that the current government is not looking at this issue as a way to also increase/maintain its political position.

This is a simple case of the opposition being able to say that once again the government fails to commit to withdrawal by the previously announced date. Its way to dig at the marginal voters. The counter spin that will be offered will be something to the effect "Once again the government fails to clearly indicate its intention of leaving Afghanistan by February 2009". Again, this is not an inaccurate statement given the government said it will review the option over the course of the year. This will continue to raise uncertainty and suspicion on an issue that has split the Canadian popular opinion roughly 50/50.

The goal of the opposition parties is to start driving in the thin edge of the wedge into public opinion. It may not have an affect this time but, overtime, if repeated enough it will affect voters. This will likely be timed with significant events in Afghanistan. The current government has used this approach repeatedly over the past year to take half baked shots at the opposition on other issues so giving what you get should be expected. Welcome to the “politics by sound bytes” world (of which all parties are guilty).

Just to be perfectly clear here, the governing party, does have a vested interest in staying in Afghanistan as this has been explicitly turned into main party platform. They need to be seen as in control. They also have a vested interest in keep this issue partisan and will never weaken their position on this issue, regardless of what occurs. For the opposition parties it’s a no loose gambit. In the end they will come back with either “See how honest we kept them” or “told you they were lying an you can’t trust them”.

Another reason the current government is not committing to anything is that they don’t have to at this time. Given the fact that there is a good chance that there maybe an election between now and when the decision needs to be made. They will reserve the right to craft their position at that time given what they feel the electorate will bear.

7:45 p.m., April 18, 2007  
Blogger Paul MacPhail said...

If I read the motion correctly, couldn't the CPC comply with it and simply direct the military to move their operations to Eastern Afghanistan after Feb 2009?

9:26 a.m., April 19, 2007  
Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

Good eye, Paul. Yet another reason why this is a ridiculous motion.

9:43 a.m., April 19, 2007  
Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

Y'know, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if that's an intentional loophole. I wonder if the Liberals are looking to say: "We want our guys out of Kandahar, but we don't want to abandon Afghanistan altogether." So they leave themselves some wiggle room to set up shop in RC North after Feb 09.

Slimy.

11:18 a.m., April 19, 2007  
Blogger Cameron Campbell said...

This is why I've never voted for these idiots. They hurt my face they are so dumb.

1:43 p.m., April 19, 2007  
Blogger Mark, Ottawa said...

In the debate in the House the Liberals made it clear they want an end to combat by Canadians in 2009, though they did leave the door open to a non-combat mission in Afstan for the CF.

Mark
Ottawa

3:31 p.m., April 19, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home