Blue Like You

Archive for the ‘Afghanistan’ Category

The CTV report here would have you think that Pamela Wallin is very critical of how the government has handled the detainee situation, but in reality she is just saying that people need to be made aware of all the good that is being accomplished in Afghanistan.

She emphasizes the difficulties of working with a country whose democratic institutions have to be built from scratch. She also mentioned that many Canadians seem to have forgotten about Afghanistan and were not sure why we are there. She credited the Manley report with raising consciousness and pointed to poll results this past week as evidence. When Pamela talks about ‘information deficit’, I think she is referring to the heavy emphasis on casualties and deaths, with little about the accomplishments. Now whose fault is that? I know - if it bleeds it leads…

Watch the interview here (click on QP - Pamela Wallin on the Manley Report) and compare.

Strange that the clip on the QP website gets cut off just as Wallin explains how she was touched by the interactions of the children and the soldiers and how she was so deeply moved by the Afghan people expressing their gratitude…

Anyway, good on Pamela Wallin for her non-partisan, classy handling of this issue. Craig Oliver must be frustrated that she didn’t play the game.

All this latest brouhaha regarding the cessation of prisoner transfers and who knew what when, is confusing at best to the average Canadian. The opposition parties are painting this as a terrible ’stain on our democracy’.

However, I would suggest that what we are fighting for in Afghanistan - the establishment of safely and democracy for the Afghan people - is the very thing which puts our soldiers in harm’s way with our obsession to need to know everything that is going on, no matter how much that information might compromise the lives of our brave men and women who are fighting there.

I think ultimately what Canadians want is to be reassured that the mission is under control. How far the government should be apprised of every military decision, and by extension how much Parliament and the public should know, is something I couldn’t even begin to ascertain. But I do think we need to temper our thirst for details with concern for the safety of our troops.

It’s a fine line, but until the Taliban starts broadcasting all its secrets, I’ll defer to those with more military experience than myself.

Yoni Goldstein has kindly posted an edited transcript of a Q & A meeting with John Manley.

This item caught my attention:

…JM I don’t think that this issue would be a good one for either Liberals or Conservatives to stake themselves on in an election campaign. I don’t think Canadians want partisan politics to be the focal point of this mission. I think Liberal [Foreign Affairs critic] Bob Rae has left the door open with his comments on Tuesday, and I hope the government will extend an olive branch and that a bipartisan approach to this can be forged…

Tonight on MDL, Tonda MacCharles and Robert Fife were discussing with Duff how Dion blew it after the report was released; that Rae was much more statesmanlike in his comments. I think the point they were trying to make was that the Liberals and Conservatives need to work together on this and both could come out ahead politically as a bonus.

Dion is clearly out of his league. Bob Rae should just quietly take over on this file, and let Dion go back to his green dreams.

Deirdre McMurdy articulates what many of us have been observing for some time now - that the more Stephen Harper moves into the rational centre of the political spectrum, the more Dion crowds the left (Party faithful set to pick economy as next hot-button election issue):

…All this blurring of traditional lines would certainly have caused real brand confusion issues for voters at the polls if the Liberals hadn’t been quite as obliging as they’ve been lately.

As the Conservatives have nudged to the centre, the Liberals have gone all retro and moved further to the left, back into the territory marked out in the Trudeau era. Party leader Stéphane Dion is already calling for a return of targeted spending programs to help individuals and businesses make it through a rough patch…

But this doesn’t just apply to the economy. The Afghanistan mission has also become a tug-of-war between the government and the opposition parties, with Stephane Dion vacillating like a reincarnated Mr. Dithers, and a Liberal caucus that is not united on this issue.

In spite of the Manley report however, Dion now seems to be throwing his weight to the left, which may be regrettable decision in terms of the future of Afghanistan’ women and children.

I suppose it could end up depending on whether or not Dion allows his caucus a free vote.

The National Post appears to be posting their editorials the night before on their blog, which is great for political junkies.

The one that caught my eye tonight is John Ivison’s “Manley report invokes the spirit of Lester Pearson“, which is a surprisingly strong attack against Stephane Dion:

…What’s more, the report is clear that to withdraw from a combat role, in favour of training Afghan forces as Mr. Dion advocates, “falsely implies a clear line between training roles and combat activity; in reality, training and mentoring sometimes mean conducting combat operations with them.”

Mr. Dion doesn’t appear to have much wiggle room but if he was half the politician Mr. Manley is, he would clasp that statement close and say that’s what he meant all along — combat if necessary but not necessarily combat...

(Note: Wednesday’s print edition has retitled the same editorial - Liberals best think again.)

John Manley’s contribution to this report, and his frank, nonpartisan reflections that were voiced in today’s press conference all serve to underscore how far the Liberal party has fallen by comparison.

If John Manley were the leader of the Liberal party today, Stephen Harper would have a worthy opponent - and perhaps Canadians would have a Parliament that actually works in the best interests of the country and the world.

I see that one brave Liblogger is not impressed with Stephane Dion’s public musings about sending NATO forces to Pakistan - You and whose army, Stephane?

Meanwhile, Denis Coderre tries to clarify his leader’s message - Dion Blasted:

“There’s no way that we will send troops or stuff like that.”

Whew, that’s a relief!

It was the stuff that I was really worried about.

These two editorials are about as disparate as you can get - Star’s Chantel Hebert vs. the Post’s John Turley-Ewart.

Same event. Two totally different conclusions.

So it seems that President Karzai was trying to be polite to his two guests, but he is still adamant about Canada’s need to maintain the combat role - Diplomatic niceties aside, Karzai utterly rejects Liberal Afghan policy:

…a statement from Karzai’s office in Kabul said that while the president welcomed the visit and praised Canada’s contributions, he “also emphasized the need to maintain the momentum that has been created in the south, in particular in Kandahar, to solidify the gains and provide consistency and continuity for the population as well as the government.”

Karzai added: “The events of Sept. 11 serves us well in reminding ourselves that not fighting terrorism head-on can have disastrous consequences for Afghanistan, the region and the world at large.”

One of my absolute favourite reporters, Christie Blatchford gives us a little taste of what she won’t miss about Afghanistan.

There’s a lot to be said for blogging in your pajamas - in Canada.

Welcome home, Christie!

I hope Jack Layton is paying attention as these ground rules are being drawn up. Perhaps Mr. Layton could offer to assist in the negotiations.

Why aren’t you volunteering to help out here, Jack?

Free Dominion is also asking the question, “Where’s Jack?”

Well, let’s give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he’s on his way by bicycle.