Afstan and the meaning of words (and lack of leadership)

A definition of "imply":

...
to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement...

Now, do you see anything not direct here?

...
For their part, the Conservatives are now implying there will be no soldiers at all in Afghanistan after 2011.

“The government’s position could not be clearer. Whether we get asked about it this week or last week or next week, we passed a motion in this Parliament in 2008 and Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper told the Commons recently.

His spokesperson says it will be a “civilian-based mission” after 2011...

Sad state of affairs when even an ace Toronto Star reporter does not know the meaning of words. The headline writer is no better; has the prime minister been silent?

Ottawa mum on Canada’s future in Afghanistan

Not that the government does not continue to be all over the map on the mission's future. Earlier post from Milnews.ca:

Canada's Post-2011 AFG Mission: Why Communicate When We Can Pick Pepper from Fly Poop?

And some relevant points from the Star story:

...
Academic Roland Paris [more here and here] says that Harper’s comments go far beyond the intent of the 2008 motion with his declaration that the military mission in Afghanistan — not just Kandahar — ends next year.

“The Prime Minister seems to have decided that the mission should end, perhaps because he sees it as a political loser for himself and he wants to dispense with the issue entirely and as quickly as possible [more here],” said Paris, a research chair in International Security and Governance at the University of Ottawa...

Politicians might have convinced Canadians on the need to stay in Kandahar — if they had spoken more about the mission, its progress in the last two years and its impact on security here at home, [Jack] Granatstein said [see second para here and here.

“To my mind it is a failure of leadership,” he said, noting that public attitudes to the mission now likely makes the status quo impossible...

Granatstein says the military should play a number of useful roles, even after the combat mission ends. For example, he says Canadian helicopters could remain in Kandahar to shuttle allied troops and equipment. He says Canada should keep both its Operational Mentor and Liaison Teams, which train Afghan troops [the problem is they do it in the field and that involves dreaded "combat"--and likely casualties], and the provincial reconstruction team, which helps promote development projects [the problem is someone has to provide security; if the CF do not, will the Americans be in a position to do it? See also this 2009 post and links therein on post-2011 possibilities].

None of those commitments would unduly overstretch the military, he said...

Plus from Robert Fulford:

...Canada should be considering whether Afghanistan, whatever we think of its president [more here--Update: Fareed Zakaria on the need for "Our Man in Afghanistan"], constitutes a serious menace to humanity and whether Canada can help to limit this peril.

A positive answer would have to begin with a serious national debate, led by Stephen Harper's government. Unfortunately, Harper and his colleagues have so far failed to find their voice on this issue. They have not developed the language to explain why we are in Afghanistan and why the deaths of Canadians there are not in vain. Mostly, they remain silent on these matters; their arguments, when they make them, are half-hearted. As a result, public support has been at best lukewarm.

The reason we need to stay appears in a recent collection of reports, Decoding the New Taliban: Insights from the Afghan Field (Columbia University Press), which quotes a spokesman for Pakistan's version of the Taliban: "There is no difference between al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Those fighting in foreign countries are called al-Qaeda while those fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan are called Taliban. In fact, both are the name of one ideology. The aim and objectives of both organizations is the same."

The Taliban flourishes on the border with Pakistan, where over the years it has found many friends in government. If the Taliban and al-Qaeda were to control Afghanistan, they would for certain become a serious threat to a chaotic, unstable, nuclear-armed Pakistan. At the same time, Afghanistan could make itself, with support from the usual suspects abroad, the core of jihadi activity around the world.

Afghanistan, even more than Iraq, symbolizes the frustration that burdens the West in fighting the war that Osama bin Laden declared in 2001. Permanently defeating terrorism is impossible. Dealing with it, limiting its effects in Afghanistan as anywhere else, will require patience.

That's a quality always difficult to muster in democracies -- especially democracies with minority governments. But the times demand it. The experience of the last eight years demonstrates that in this war the West can't win. Neither can we afford to lose

robert.fulford@utoronto.ca [more here]