Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Afstan politics are all about caskets

Andrew Coyne tells the truth about opposition positions--though I suspect he's too optimistic about Canadians generally:
Let us now give thanks for Gilles Duceppe. Let us erect statues to his memory. Let school children across the country recite poems in his honour. For the Bloc Quebecois leader, though he certainly did not intend it, may have single-handedly saved the Afghanistan mission, and with it Canada's reputation as a reliable ally...

...Mr. Duceppe's statement last week, demanding that the Prime Minister state explicitly, in what is expected to be a new Speech from the Throne this fall, that Canadian troops will be withdrawn from combat at the expiry of the current mission, or face defeat in a confidence vote, has achieved several things...

with his customary subtlety and exquisite sense of timing, Mr. Duceppe has made hash of the opposition's careful public relations strategy: the statement came one day after two soldiers from Quebec were killed in an explosion (another had been killed a few days before), a connection Mr. Duceppe made no attempt to deny. If there is a more precise definition of cutting and running --Casualties? Get us out of here-- I do not know it.

That is indeed the closest thing we have had to an explanation of the opposition position. We know they want Canadian troops withdrawn, but until now it has never been made clear why. They can have no complaint with the mission's legality: our troops are there under a United Nations' mandate, with the support of the democratically elected government of Afghanistan. Nor, outside of the NDP, do they pretend the Afghans do not need defending. Someone has to do the fighting, they concede--just not us.

And the reason we should be excused? That much is now clear, if it was not before: Because it involves hardship, and because they hope to appeal to that section of the public that believes hardship is unnecessary -- that our enemies can be defeated without hardship, if they must be defeated at all. All that guff about having "taken our turn" was always a smokescreen...

...I suspect that the wave of revulsion Mr. Duceppe's statement has stirred in other parts of the country will wash over Quebec as well, and that this country will discover again those reserves of self-respect that are hidden to so many of its leaders.

4 Comments:

Blogger CMLL said...

I know what kind of letter my poor wife will be translating tonight...

11:07 a.m., August 29, 2007  
Blogger Chris Taylor said...

Ouch. That's going to leave a mark!

12:24 p.m., August 29, 2007  
Blogger Cameron Campbell said...

Feh, that was me logged into another account that I'm testing for some RSS feeds... (RSS to HTML is kicking my ass)..

Gilles is my MP and, through abuse and ridicule, I've voted for him 3 times now. That, I believe, has just come to an end.

9:54 a.m., August 30, 2007  
Blogger Lord Kitchener's Own said...

Well, don't jump on me too harshly, but I do like to be contrarian.

There is one reason that the opposition wants us out of Afghanistan at the end of the current mission that Andrew fails to mention even in passing. That being that the Canadian people want our military out of Afghanistan at the end of the current mission. Coyne gives every reason for Duceppe's desire for us to leave Afghanistan accept the one that's probably most true, and foremost on his agenda, that he thinks it'll win him votes.

Now, I'm not one for putting much stock in online polls, but a recent G&M poll asked "Should Canada end its fighting role in Afghanistan in February 2009 or continue past that date?" The results:

85% Yes, get out in February 2009.
6% No, stay until the Taliban are defeated.

(9% said wait until closer to the date to make that decision).

Now, it IS just an online poll, but 85-15 suggests that the consensus in the nation is pretty overwhelming on this point, and it's not TOO shocking to see political parties following the expressed will of the people in a democracy. Regardless, I think it's a bit disingenuous to assign every motive imaginable to the opposition's opposition to an extended mission and yet completely ignore that the citizenry objects to an extention of the mission too.

I'd also like an end to all of the "letting our allies down" talk. At least in the context of NATO. If you want to say we're letting down the U.S. and U.K. then yes, that's more accurate. As for all of our other NATO allies, none of them wants to be there any more than our opposition in Canada wants us to stay. Hell, a big reason the opposition wants to leave is because no one else from NATO seems to want to help out. I think it's somewhat disingenuous to say that a refusal on our part to continue fighting is somehow an abandonment of an alliance that for the most part refuses to fight. I'd say the mission ending in 2009 is much more a symtom of NATO letting Canada down, than Canada letting NATO down.

5:30 p.m., September 04, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home