Liberal policy on Afstan: No logic

The Liberals insist that Canada cease combat activity at Kandahar as of February, 2009. They also maintain that Canada should keep a military presence in Afghanistan (whether still at Kandahar or elsewhere is never made clear). That further presence however could only engage in development, security (whatever that means) and training--anything basically except "pro-active" combat. Not engaging in such combat appears to mean not to take any action before one is actually attacked--even if a Taliban force is forming up to assault Canadians providing security at a village. Nuts.

In addition, under the Liberal policy, Canadians would not be able to go outside the wire to mentor Afghan National Army units in action. Chief of the Defence Staff General Hillier has pointed out that such a restriction would mean the effective end of our increasingly successful training program at Kandahar.

The Liberals further ignore the fact that the great majority of the Canadian Forces' casualties are caused by IEDs when our troops are simply moving in vehicles outside the wire, not in "pro-active" (or any other type of) combat. So, if the Liberals are in fact willing to stay at Kandahar, how would we under their proposal be able to provide development, security or training without risking those IED attacks? We essentially would have to stay immobile at Kandahar Air Field, unable in any real sense to do the things the Liberals say they favour. Their policy simply makes no possible sense unless we withdraw from Kandahar--which they are not clearly demanding--and move to the relatively safe west or north of the country. Where there is no need for us.

The Liberal policy is a farrago of simplistic and inconsistent posturing and platitudes. Or as Laurie Hawn, parliamentary secretary to the minister of national defence, said on Mike Duffy Live February 7, their position is "hogwash" (at end of clip, watch Denis Coderre flail).

It seems to me that there might be only two logical reasons for the Liberal demand that we cease combat in a year:

1) More than three years of combat, of whatever nature and intensity, is somehow simply "un-Canadian";

2) Around thirty fatalities a year for three years is more than Canadians can and should stand.

After all, Canada had substantial forces, first under the UN and then NATO, operating continuously in the former Yugoslavia for about a decade during which the above conditions did not exist (more here and here). There was no Liberal demand then for the application of a "rotation" principle; they actually were the government almost the whole time.

In reality, as we all know, the current Liberal demand is based almost solely on the calculation that it is politically popular .

As for the NDP, check the photo of Jack Layton with a prominent member of this crowd:

...
It's not as though MAWO's blackshirt conduct and deranged ideology was unknown to NDP activists, either. And yes, I mean deranged: "Wherever Islam is fighting against imperialism, ‘The Left’ must join with Muslims in this fight. . . the Muslims of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine who are fighting on the front lines against imperialism."..

Update: On CBC Newsworld the morning of Feb. 8 senior Liberal Ralph Goodale said the party wanted a Canadian mission more in keeping with Canadian "traditions" and "expertise". No prize for guessing what they are. But in that case why did the Martin government commit the CF to a mission that they now claim goes beyond those "traditions" and expertise"? Yet another logical inconsistency--unless one holds to the three years are enough thesis (either version) as some sort of holy writ. Previously unknown.

Upperdate: Marcus Gee of the Globe and Mail takes a similar line to this post:

The 'stay but don't fight' Stéphane Dion just doesn't get Afghanistan

While this piece by Rondi Adamson in the Toronto Star is worth the read:

Canadian pettiness is showing