Sunday, January 13, 2008

The incoherent and ignorant M. Dion

The Liberal leader wants Canada to get out of our combat mission in Afghanistan. The only real reason he can give is basically that we've done our bit, sorry guys, no more fighting for us. His subtext is that some thirty fatalities a year are just too much for Canadians (regardless of the need for those troops) and, hey, there are votes in being against fighting. So we'll just pull out of combat and hope someone else will do the dirty (but necessary) work. What partisan moral cowardice.

On CTV's "Question Period" Jan. 13 (video here) M. Dion said Canada might still engage in training, security and development--but not a "pro-active" combat mission looking for the enemy. How, I ask, would that change reduce the risk to vehicles from IEDs, far and away the main source of casualties? Or are we going to move to relatively safe areas far from Kandahar? That appears to be the Liberal Party's position--why did not M. Dion make that clear?
A Canadian military presence to train the Afghan National Army and police, or a commitment to assign troops to protecting Afghan civilians and reconstruction projects in other parts of the country are both possible...
But is Kandahar ruled out? Incoherence. Deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, who accompanied M. Dion, should be ashamed.

M. Dion also said that "After three years of a combat mission it's normal that Canada said we want to do something else..." So was it "abnormal" to have a significant military presence in the former Yugoslavia for a decade (1992-2002)? Or is the only criterion for the normal length of the Afghan mission the combat role?

Now ignorance. Earlier M. Dion throws out this thoughtless, but politically correct, remark whilst in Kabul:
"We are convinced . . . that we will have plenty of things to do (in Afghanistan) that will involve, yes, to take risks. But anywhere we will go - whether Darfur or Haiti - there are always risks."..
Perhaps he and his staff should read the Washington Post (or other international media) which reports an inconvenient truth about those risks, one the Canadian media generally ignore (OK, the Post story is Jan. 13 and the CP one Jan. 12; but the Darfur facts are well known--more here):
...in Darfur, an ill-prepared peacekeeping force has entered a live battle zone involving combatants from the Sudanese army, neighboring Chad and a major Darfurian rebel group. [United Nations' chief peacekeeping official] Guehenno said: "There is a combination of factors that may lead to the greatest risk to the United Nations since the 1990s. We have a war ongoing, maybe low intensity, but a war ongoing, especially in West Darfur."..
Why are high risks more acceptable in Darfur than in Afghanistan?

He should also note this in the Post story:
Sudan, meanwhile, has imposed technical hurdles for the mission, including the recent rejection of a unit of Nordic engineers, according to U.N. officials. The Sudanese authorities continue to haggle over the force's right to wear the U.N. blue helmets, recruit non-African troops and travel in Darfur without government approval...
The Sudanese government simply won't allow Canadian (or other Western) forces in; does M. Dion wish us to shoot our way in all on our own?

Update: On the other hand this hyper-partisan response by the government hardly encourages reasoned policy discourse either:
"It has taken more than a year after becoming Liberal leader for Stéphane Dion to finally find Afghanistan on the map," Helena Guergis, secretary of state for foreign affairs, said in a statement Saturday.

"The irony of Dion and Iggy being in a war zone and being protected by the same troops who protect Afghan women and children is palpable," Ms. Guergis said.

"I think he should apologize to our troops while he is touring the PRT (Provincial Reconstruction Team) in safety because the same reason he needs bodyguards is why our troops need to stay to protect democracy, women and children," she added.
Phooey!

Upperdate:
Incoherence from Mr Ignatieff too:
...Ignatieff said what stood out most for him during his visit was the progress made by the ANA as a result of the support soldiers have received from the Canadian Operational Mentoring Liaison Team.

"The Afghan army is presently working side by side with the Canadians in ways I did not realize," he said.

"They're taking a much more active role in the development of their own country and what we're saying is as a party, we want to work with the Afghans on the development field, on the diplomacy field... but also in the security field to assist the Afghan army to take over the job which is to defend their own country."

Ignatieff, who during his 2006 bid for leadership of the Liberal party supported the Conservatives when they sought to extend the Afghan mission the first time, insisted that while his party wants to "change" or "alter" the mission, it still plans to "see it through."

"We will evolve the mission. We will change the mission as circumstances require, but one thing is clear, Canada made a serious commitment to this country and we're not going to give up under a Liberal government," he said.

"It'll change but it'll sustain. I'm absolutely convinced the Taliban are not going to win here."..
Especially if the Canadian Forces are no longer "pro-active, from the combat point of view. What a Liberal weasel. I cannot wait to see his further evolution as the Liberals "see it through." Double phooey.

Uppestdate: But why would the Taliban want to harm Messrs Dion and Ignatieff?
Conservative MP Helena Guergis put "lives at additional, unnecessary risk in the name of playing petty politics," Liberal spokesman Jean-François del Torchio charged yesterday.

He accused the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of endangering their lives by speaking about the Liberal itinerary in Afghanistan 12 hours ahead of schedule, at a time when a complete news blackout surrounded their visit to Kandahar.

"She effectively told the Taliban that they would be leaving base to visit the Provincial Reconstruction Team," Mr. del Torchio said...
Irony update: I almost fell out of my chair laughing; were their weapons concealed?
Liberal Top Guns In Afghan Summit

16 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great summary:
" same reason he needs bodyguards is why our troops need to stay to protect democracy, women and children"


Steffi has a hard time when reality conflicts with his pollyanna ideals.

So intellectual of him.

I wonder, if we rolled the clock back, would he have emulated the moral coward Trudeau who sat out WW2, the great challenge of that generation and who did nothing to save humanity from the abyss of Fascism in the 40's.

Based on his opinions about Afghanistan, quite probably.

5:06 p.m., January 13, 2008  
Blogger Dave in Pa. said...

Fred, Dion and his intellectual fellow travelers don't and won't get it.

That being said, it doesn't matter that Dion's politically convenient opposition is incoherent and ignorant. This well reflects the sub-rationality of the hard left's opposition to participating in the Af-stan liberation campaign.

No matter that the military campaign is "multilateral", that it's mandated by the Sacred-Cow-On-The-East-River, the UN; that it's under NATO command and control; that the democratically installed Af-stan Govt wants us there. All these supposed hallmarks of leftist approval are only taken seriously when they aren't present. Otherwise, they are studiously ignored in the left's desire to avoid all that icky, nasty fighting! Yuck!

Ironic, eh, as we needn't hold our breath waiting to see one of these leftist types in the Anglo democracies wearing his country's uniform and fighting to defend his country or liberate other oppressed people. Trudeau's sitting out WW2 at home while far better men than he fought overseas to save civilization is classically representative of the type.

6:45 p.m., January 13, 2008  
Blogger Gilles said...

I don't know your age Mark. Is our mission in Afghanistan worth YOUR life or YOUR son's?

Unless you can honestly "yes" to both, its best you not say its worth the life of "just 30 Canadians a year"

7:34 p.m., January 13, 2008  
Blogger Mark, Ottawa said...

a taxpayer: I'm 60. I have had an artificial leg since age three so, not being Douglas Bader (do you know about him?), I could not serve in the Forces. I might well have tried otherwise but I doubt my contrary attitude would have helped had I been able to serve.

Our son is a pilot in the Canadian Air Force.

Stuff you and all your chickenshit ilk. Yes, to your question though our son is unlikely to be sent to Afstan. However he, and most of his comrades, want to go should the government choose to send them.

You scarcely qualify for the "hominem" in "ad hominem".

Mark
Ottawa

8:18 p.m., January 13, 2008  
Blogger Cameron Campbell said...

Between fred and dave (one wonders if fred condemns everyone who didn't serve in WW2, or just the left wing people - and "fellow travelers"... grow up) and the chickenhawk bullshit from taxpayer it's so nice to see the idiocy of the people who want to lead us played out by the citizens who they want to lead.

Verily we get the government we deserve.

8:55 p.m., January 13, 2008  
Blogger Dave in Pa. said...

Cameron, this is the first and last time I will respond to you, as I find it distasteful.

Has it occurred to you that if you disagree with something someone else says, you don't refute it by calling the other person an idiot or a chickenhawk bullshitter, as you basically did above.

One refutes a point by responding with a counterpoint and some sort of reasoned argument, not with a personal insult, which is essentially just an ad Hominem attack. You seem to show a pattern of ad Hominem personal attacks on Fred and me.

Ad Hominem attacks are intellectually lazy, weak responses that don't convince me-nor anyone else, I suspect-to agree with you. Neither do they impress anyone as showing any intellectual prowess in logical thinking, articulate writing or debating skill.

This website is for the purpose of sharing information and intelligent, civil discussion and debate on matters military.

10:01 p.m., January 13, 2008  
Blogger Mark, Ottawa said...

dave and cameron: I apologize (well, no I don't really) for a certain lack of "civil discussion" above.

Needs must...

Mark
Ottawa

10:31 p.m., January 13, 2008  
Blogger brian platt said...

To get back on topic...

As someone who volunteered on Iggy's campaign and has heard him speak in person on the Afghan mission numerous times, it's enormously frustrating now to hear him speak to the media about the mission.

Given his past writings, and if you listen to his very carefully worded comments on the mission, and remember the stand he took during the leadership campaign, I think it's reasonable to believe that he still supports the mission as it is now.

The dilemma for him, I would guess, is whether to publically split from Dion on the issue. And while I'm sympathetic to the notion that he should be a man of principle and say what he truly believes in regards to Afstan, I'm guessing he's made the calculation that Dion is not going to last long as Liberal leader and that maintaining broad support in the party will see him as leader eventually.

Would publically feuding with Dion over the issue really do anything to help?

Assuming that Harper can get the mission extended by two years, which I think he'll find a way to do, we may have Iggy in control of the Liberals when the next renewal comes up. The incoherence now might be the price we have to pay.

4:51 a.m., January 14, 2008  
Blogger Cameron Campbell said...

dave, the moment you start producing "intelligent, civil discussion and debate on matters military" is the minute I start reacting to you in exactly the same manner.

9:12 a.m., January 14, 2008  
Blogger Cameron Campbell said...

bp, that's a very interesting thought that we often forget about when looking at pronouncements from politicians...

11:09 a.m., January 14, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark, no need to apologize to anyone for your comments on your blog. Your long standing and ongoing support for our troops and the Canadian Forces is well documented in your archives.

There will always be the those who's misty eyed utopian peace at any price "logic" will blind them from the often brutal and ugly realities of life.

Dave - you won't get very far trying to have a civil discussion with Cameron.

Verily, he fancy's himself an intellectual.

11:27 a.m., January 14, 2008  
Blogger Cameron Campbell said...

fred, he was apologizing for his own.

And I fancy myself smarter than you.

12:18 p.m., January 14, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cameron,

You are entitled to your fancies.

Please enjoy them.

1:26 p.m., January 14, 2008  
Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

What Mark also modestly neglects to mention is that he actually served the Canadian government in Afghanistan - just not in uniform.

He also served in a great many other places, some of which are all too well known to Canadian soldiers, past and present. There is a very good reason he was invited to contribute when I started this blog.

10:18 a.m., January 15, 2008  
Blogger Frank Egan said...

What escapes me in this whole issue is why Mr Karzai, who must be a very busy man, even bothered to make time to speak with two men who have no business representing Canada abroad. They aren't diplomats and they aren't the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs. If I were Mr Karzai, I think I might have just told my secretary, "Mr Who? Is it a head of state, prime minister or ambassador? Sorry, no time and no interest." The only further comment I offer is to raise the question whether Messrs Dion and Ignatieff ought to be be praised for their cojones or derided for their arrogance in believing Mr Karzai would want to talk to them.

5:40 p.m., January 16, 2008  
Blogger Cameron Campbell said...

frank, because Karzai is a smart guy and he understands that in a parliamentary system and with a minority government in place he might very well be talking to the next PM (Ignatiaf, not Dion..)

9:11 p.m., January 16, 2008  

Post a Comment

<< Home