Jack Layton/NDP off the deep end on Afghanistan
As of last Sunday the NDP officially did a nose dive off the cliff of political sanity. It was reported in a National Post story last Wednesday that an NDP resolution calling Canadian troops terrorists was set to be voted on in last week’s convention. “Canada's troops in Afghanistan have been ‘acting like terrorists, destroying communities, killing and maiming innocent people’, according to a resolution” proposed by the Nanaimo-Cowichan riding association in British Columbia.
Initially Mr. Layton had called for the troops to be pulled out of Afghanistan by February 2007. Last week he moved up his timetable to “immediate withdrawal.” Mr. Layton offered no rationale for his brazen demands, other than insisting that this was “not the right mission for Canada.” Mr. Layton is attempting to politicize a deadly serious issue in order to galvanize the support of his radical leftist base.
NDP MP Peter Stoffer disagreed sharply with his BC comrades about our troops stating, “I absolutely fundamentally disagree with the statement. The people who did it are not only very naive but very antagonistic in their point of view.” Former NDP premier and Liberal leadership contender Bob Rae told CBC News, “I don't believe Jack Layton is right. I don't think you can just snap your fingers and quit. I heard his comments. I thought they were absolutely unrealistic in terms of where we are as a country, where we need to be as a country” Other Liberal leadership hopefuls, Michael Ignatieff and Scott Brison also disagreed with Mr. Layton.
Somehow PM Harper has come to bear the brunt of uninformed public backlash against the mission since we have begun to suffer casualties. I would like to extend kudos to former Transport Minister, David Collenette who affirmed to CTV news this week that it was the Chrétien government that initially sent troops into Afghanistan, and it was followed up by Paul Martin’s Liberal regime. He made it clear in the interview that PM Harper was simply maintaining the commitments made to the international community and the Afghan government.
Another myth is that “A combat role in Afghanistan is a no-win situation both for Canada and for the Afghani people. Its only dubious value is to curry favour with the militarist government of George W. Bush.” (BC NDP resolution, NP) With regard to this migrating role of Canada’s troops, Jim Fergusson, director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba says “When we agreed to send combat troops in, we didn't get ourselves trapped into it slowly by doing more and more. There was, by the former government, a conscious decision that we were now going into a combat role. They dressed it up at the time as providing security for provincial reconstruction teams, but to anyone listening, especially to Hillier who was blunt, it was clear."
“What our forces are doing is exactly what Hillier said they should be doing. What's going on [now] is partisan politics, pure and simple,” said David Bercuson director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary. Lee Windsor, deputy director of the Gregg Centre for the Study of War and Security at the University of New Brunswick, observed that “Canadians are getting an eye-opener after years of ignoring military operations abroad. Many Canadians remain attached to the blue beret ideal of peacekeeping, not realizing that traditional peacekeeping is long gone. ‘What we're seeing in Kandahar looks like a radical shift to the average Canadian, but if you're a Canadian soldier this is only a subtle shift, because we've been killing people on peacekeeping missions to protect our mandate for years,’” (Note: quotes from CP, by John Ward, 6 Sept. 2006). Traditional ‘peacekeeping’ was between warring states with some sort of cease fire or peace agreement. What we are dealing with now in the world is failed states where some radical faction obtains arms and funding and begins to kill innocent men, women and children in a wholesale bid to collapse legitimate governments.
Canadians must remember, we are in Afghanistan, not only at the invitation of the UN, but at the invitation of Afghanistan’s democratically elected government. Afghans turned out at about 82% to vote in the government of Hamid Karzai; that is about 25% better than our turnout in Canada (where we have no threat of violence)! Why are some people turning against our mission in Afghanistan? Because they are uninformed by a press that is willingly ignorant of the facts. A brief visit to Department of Foreign Affairs’ website provides a wealth of information about the scope and success of our mission. One of Mr. Layton’s greatest criticisms is that we have no clear mandate, no timetable and no exit strategy. He is obviously as uniformed as the national press because our goals are clearly spelled out in the Afghanistan Compact which states its primary goals as “Security, Rule of Law, Human Rights and Economic and Social Development” (See Dept. Foreign Affairs video1,video2)
Our troop contingent comprises less than 10% of the total foreign deployment in Afghanistan, yet we have a very high profile role because of our superior combat, command and construction personnel. Over half of our deployed troops are involved in some element of command and communications, with about one thousand of our 2300 troops actually deployed in security operations* . 
The initial mission was to secure the area immediately around Kabul (the capital) and provide sufficient security to hold free and democratic elections. This was accomplished in 2004 and since then children are now attending newly rebuilt schools and women have been emancipated from the brutality of Taliban rule. Now that much of the country is building democracy, it is necessary to extend the rule of the central government to the southern provinces around Kandahar, a traditional Taliban stronghold. Pakistani President, Pervez Musharraf, claims to have stationed 75,000 troops along his border to prevent the Taliban from escaping into Pakistan. The reason the Taliban are now resisting so heavily is that they increasingly have nowhere to run.
The political and military leadership of Canada have been very clear about the danger involved in completing the job we began in Afghanistan; as John Ward wrote, “No one was listening. *” Should PM Harper fail to have the courage to stand up to the withering attacks of the leftist press and the NDP, we will not only disgrace our country in the eyes of the international community, but we will have betrayed the brave people of Afghanistan whose families have paved the way to liberty with their own blood. It is shameful that Mr. Layton has chosen to abandon brave Afghan men and women who risk their lives in a bid for freedom. If he sincerely believes what he is saying, he needs a ‘check up from the neck up.’
-TruBlue
posted by TheBlueBlogger @ 1:52 PM
9 comments
9 Comments:
Isn't 'politicizing' events what politics is supposed to be about? The reality is that there are plenty of canadians, perhaps even more than half, that believe canadian soldiers should not be there. Are you saying that anybody who believes that is 'leftist' (even though many tories and liberals believe it) and shouldn't have their views public? The last polls I saw showed 50% of canadians were opposed to being in Afghanistan and that was before canadians started dying.
Are you actually saying that a representative view that is larger than that enjoyed by any political party shouldn't have a public voice? Are you saying that in a democratic country a very common viewpoint shouldn't be on the political radar?
While I don't agree with calling canadian soldiers terrorists (terrorists are not under court martial threat if they disobey orders), I don't think canadian soldiers should be there either for reasons too numerous to be mentioned.
The simple thing to do, of course, is simply have a referendum on it.
Thanks for your comments but I do not believe politics is about 'politicizing' events. Politics is supposed to be about articulating ideas in a fair and reasoned way to rally people around a set of ideas. Also you should not confuse leadership with politics. Politics is merely our way of garnering the support for a mandate to lead. Referendum rule is particularly unworkable, especially given the impediments to getting a message out and a fair representation of facts.
Polls simply reflect the constant bombardment of the 5th estate (media) as they present their reporting in a way that best reflects how they want the public to respond to events. Fair and in depth reporting is almost a thing of the past and so the Canadian public has to depend on 30 second sound bytes from politicians who will say anything to give them political advantage. "Truth" and its many complexities has been lost in the fog of a public desperate for someone to tell them what to think, and another group who are just as desperate to circumvent independent thought and tell them what to think.
Perhaps the best ones to ask if our mission to Afghanistan is worth it are our military men and women and their families. Those actually engaged in the process are overwhelmingly for it. No one is suggesting that opposing views should not be articulated, what I strongly suggest however is that opposing views should be responsible and verifiable by fact. (That is why I took the trouble to source my submission). Anybody can spout radical allegations that incite visceral reactions of fear in an audience (Hitler was great at that) but in our society the media is supposed to catch the misrepresentations and hold the speaker accountable. What passes for "reporting" today is merely a string of quotations from pundits and politicians with a closing commentary by the reporter on which one they think is right.
While I respect your interest in the voice of the people, I do not think it is responsible to govern by polls when the public does not have a way to fairly evaluate the facts. We all want to believe our leaders, unfortunately politics often gets in the way of the truth. -TruBlue
The caption says "Jack Layton" but then goes on to talk about the voice of some NDPers (and obviously even the majority of NDPers from one riding) whose comments are not even accepted by the NDP party. Further, Laytons position is, as I said, exactly the same as shown by many polls-that canadians should withdraw immediately.
That is what politicians do, or are supposed to do. The idea expressed above that not only should polls not be listened to, canadians not be allowed to decide where their tax dollars and soldiers are stationed, is simply another way of saying "I am right so opposing viewpoints should not be represented". The question is, how exactly should that view be brought out politically? What is your chosen venue?
That's hardly democratic, the one saving grace is the idea that soldiers themselves be allowed to vote on where they are stationed, and that's an idea I share, and coming from a military town, a military family, with many relatives overseas and soon to be overseas, I do not share that vague idea that our soldiers are behind it. They are soldiers and they do what is commanded of them.
Layton's view seems to me to be a 'fair and reasoned way of articulating ideas', it seems very straight forward. Just because you don't agree with a view does not mean there is something inherently wrong with the view. Given your view that canadians are simply duped by media and unable to make any sorts of decisions themselves its not surprising that you feel this way, but its hardly fair. You too get information from somewhere, perhaps it is YOU who are duped.
I don't see ANY impediments to getting information out, in fact there are more resources for getting information out now than at any time in our history. I suspect you simply don't like the idea that people disagree with what you think is 'right'.
I do not think you are 'right' either, and think that Harper is wrong when he makes statements to the contrary of Layton's view. I certainly don't go around calling them 'insane' or saying that he is doing a disservice to politics. He is doing what Layton does, which is represent a constituency. In fact, I don't know you personally but I SHOULD be far more strident because your view supports the governments actions, and therefore needs to be concretely defensible-I don't think it is and members of my family may come home in a bodybag for your adherence to your views. If you wanted to sign up and take their place that would be a different story.
There are very clear ways to evaluate the facts, and thats research. Anybody can do it, sometimes its harder than others, but I agree with your statements about the media (although you 'sourced' the article from somewhere, if that article is worthy, then we can assume others are as well).
The media is supposed to act as a filter to understand events, something it doesn't do. However, facts are easier to come by, generally they are found in commissioned reports, third party observers, etc. Everybody has an 'angle', so reading something from two or three angles is usually pretty sufficient I've found. Media may 'report on a report', but nowadays you can simply access the original. It is true that its harder to get that out to people who haven't the time for a research project every night, but it's the height of elitism to say that people can't make decisions because they are simply puppets of some media. People's gut reactions can be right on the money, especially when lives are at stake. A referendum would bring out all sides of the issue so that people AREN"T reacting from media.
In fact I'd go one further, since its a basic maxim that my freedom cannot exist at the expense of your or somebody else's freedom, that referendum should only ask whether those who believe canadians should be in Afghanistan will sign up to do so to represent their country. You may have a view, but my cousins should not potentially have to die for fulfillment of your ideals, you are capable of doing that yourself.
Wow! I really feel "dupid." First of all, it is not helpful to an amicable discussion to morph one's comments to the extreme. I did not say, nor did I imply, that anyone's views should be silenced. Further, my contention is not that people are incapable making rational decisions, but rather that the current polls results are colored by the lack of information.
For example: I support our mission in Afghanistan based on the stated goals of an international agreement called the Afghanistan Compact (most people have never heard of it). So when Jack Layton says that we have no clear goals he is simply incorrect. I also support the mission because we signed on to help Afghanistan build a democracy where human rights are respected and there is rule of law, not a religious oligarchy. I understand that you cannot encourage little Afghani girls to go to school for the first time when some zealous Taliban thinks that blowing the school up is a legitimate form of protest against the democratically elected government. We have been invited to help Afghans realize feedom by both the UN and the elected leaders of the country (in which 82% of those eligible voted).
What purpose does it serve to have our troops construct schools and hospitals with no security to keep Taliban from blowing up the buildings and our troops? Should we wait for them to drive their explosive-laden vehicles into civilians, or should we drive them back to create a buffer zone from which they cannot stage these attacks? I would suggest the latter is more prudent (and what we are doing). Furthermore, doesn't the legitmate government have a right to extend its authority into every region within its borders? Or perhaps we should just create a "free murder zone" where these extremists can retrain, regroup and retreat to every time the pressure gets a little too heavy. Perhaps a nice little spot in the mountains where they can also resupply from across the border...
The reason that people think we should "pull out" of Afghanistan is not because they don't care about human rights, not because they think that Afghans don't have a right to freedom; it's not because they support the proliferation of terrorist training camps - they want to "pull out" because all they have seen morning 'til night is images of flag-draped coffins as the commentator mournfully intones his regrets that we followed George Bush into this war!
The facts about why we are in Afghanistan are largely obscured. I will not venture to say why people are not being adequately informed, but I do contend that they are not informed. Opinion alone, when it is not based on a reasonable accounting of fact, is not to be depended on for making a just decision. Furthermore, anecdotes of wrongdoing should not jeopardize a mission whose scope is fundamentally positive. We are talking about rebuilding an entire nation after 30 years of virtual dictatorship; mistakes unfortunately will be made.
A salute your family members who have enlisted in the Armed Services. I too have family and friends in the service over there. I would gladly volunteer to keep new terrorists from being trained to attack Canada, but alas I am old now, fat and flat-footed and I will have to be satisfied with my service in law enforcement. The job of the media is to present the facts in a fair and impartial manner - from verifiable sources. What we have now is running commentary (not news) where opinion and viewpoint are mixed with speculation and projections. People accept "news" reports as gospel, even when they are merely commentary from the esteemed host. Until the public can make a clear distinction between hard news and viewpoint, referendum is not feasible.
Again, you assuming that 'you' know best and that others are 'misinformed'. Going so far as to state 'why' people believe what they believe is bizarre to say the least. I could go on and on about the reasons NOT to be there, none of which are mentioned above, but they certainly aren't based on media images, because I do not watch television or read newspapers or magazines.
I am also aware of the international agreements and the idealized vision of the mission, I don't agree, but neither do I think 'you' are misinformed because you have a different view.
That is besides the point. THe story was not 'here are all the reasons we are in Afghanistan', the story was "here's why the NDP is 'insane' for not agreeing with me". That's my point, we can debate the Afghan mission if desired elsewhere, the idea that not agreeing with your, and Harpers view, is 'insane' or 'politicizing the issue' (which,again, is a good thing in a democracy) is the point. It's just as valid a view as yours, to me its more, so I'm very happy that a political party is noticing what I and a good percentage of the canadians (who likewise could call your view 'misinformed')
Since I've got some time and there are no interesting blogs, I thought I'd make that reply to the 'war agenda'.
1.Just because a country signs onto a 'compact' doesn't not mean it is legitimate. Meaning, it is perfectly legitimate for opponents, such as the NDP to make the argument that we should 'pull out' of an agreement. That, in effect is the NDP's point and can't be used as a justification "we are part of a 'compact', you didn't know that so your view is not correct"
That is incidental.
2. When Jack Layton says we have no clear goals he doesn't mean that politicians haven't stood up and said "we're going to bring peace to the region". Plenty of people SAY that, but that's like saying "I'm going to win a million dollars to get rid of my debt". Before every military endevour people make all kinds of fancy claims on what they plan on doing, they even have plans and contingency plans. That too is irrelevant, people can SAY all kinds of things, that doesn't mean its going to happen.
3. I hate to burst your bubble but there is no kind of state that is more of a "rule of law" than a "religious oligarchy". In fact, that's the problem, there are far too many laws and of a kind that don't respect human rights.
4. Most importantly, as they say, the first casualty of war is truth. YOU have no idea what is going on in Afghanistan. YOu probably don't even speak any of the dozen languages in common use. You are getting your information through a filter the same as everybody else. If you think that that is 'objective' you should really do a study of wartime propaganda.
5. As far as 'being invited' that is a bit of a misnomer, after all, the previous government was blown to smithereens, as were a large section of the population as well as our own troops.
6. As far as 'elected government' goes, thats also a stretch. In most areas of the country, according to just about every remotely objective report I've seen, and even governments themselves, warlords simply ran against puppets or killed or threatened opponents. Warlords are primarily involved in drug trafficing, and now a good many of them have 'legitimacy' just because they were elected. Recently, a guest on the CBC from the Afghan government remarked on the rampant corruption, and the UN itself is aware of the rampant corruption within the ANP.
7. Keep in mind that Afghans did not vote on their method of government, only the individuals who could sit on the seats. This is an odd occurrence in the world as virtually every country in the world necessitates referenda in questions of constitutionality.
8. The compact itself has been called deeply flawed, in a quick example all of the areas which would most necessitate international cooperation has been dumped on the Afghan government. So we have warlords who are involved in narcotics trafficing who sit in a government whose mission it is to eliminate drug trafficing.
9. Combating terrorism is the primary function of the international force, NOT building schools. Much of that is propaganda and is being accomplished by Afghans themselves under very difficult conditions, many of which are created by the international community. One example is that funding was made available for 'water wells' and the government made a big song and dance about it, but according to afghan sources and government documents, well water is being sold to French and Dutch forces elsewhere in the region.
10. Just because something falls under the auspices of the UN doesn't make its operation above reproach. Ironically, before assuming power most tory bloggers were calling the UN the ultimate evil and not worth the money it uses.
11. Although I could come up with more, I'll end it here as it addresses most of the points above. So finally, it creates a dangerous precedent where every place the US has designs on everybody falls in to clean up. The idea about the 'evil Taliban' is a misnomer as it was the US that was primarily responsible for them assuming power in the first place. The Taliban DID have a huge amount of public support because they kept the warlords in check. The CIA, as is common with the past, is heavily linked with the drug trade in the region.
12. Just one more, is the point about "we have to do something because they aren't nice". That's misleading as there are far greater human right violations going on in countries where canada has very friendly diplomatic ties. Not a word is mentioned about Indonesia, another country with no elections, yet canada has mining interests there so that gets no attention. Suharto was a good friend of Chretien, he even had protestors arrested before his arrival. Millions died and the country is hardly democratic.
12. Elections don't make a government legitimate. If you have two crooks running, what options are there? In Columbia anybody who doesn't tow the party line is simply shot. That doesn't make a legitimate government.
That's just for starters, there is plenty more where that came from. So the idea that somehow people who differ are 'misinformed' is not true. From all those points above a person can agree and say we shouldn't be there even if they are unaware of the legitimacy of their beliefs. They may in fact have all kinds of incorrect information, but that doesnt make their view 'insane'.
Just to reply to another thought, not being in shape physically is hardly an excuse for expecting other people to die for a viewpoint. You don't need to be slim and shooting a gun or any of the many accessory positions are still open. Even better is that if its an ideal that is believed in that strongly there are numerous human rights and other organizations who aren't in combat positions but would love the added help.
This is not arcane stuff. Bombing a country is serious business, and having troops there equally so. That's why the referendum is mentioned, because quite clearly, while I don't expect agreement, those affected in the country can legitimately target Canada now. "Terrorists" are of all sorts and by now everybody knows that there is no 'one organization' of terrorists but a vaguely connected, often not connected group with similar aims.
If you are an afghani who saw american warplanes bombing, and then saw canadian troops, you may not be talibani at all, but may want to get foreigners out of your country. That's a reasonable view. Those individuals may have no interest in the taliban or ruling, they just don't want a foreign military on their soil. So if they happen to find out where they are from, they may think "I'll hit them where it hurts".
That's why all these decisions should be made by canadians themselves, because we assume risk as well. If bombs start going off in Canada it won't be at Harpers house which is heavily armed, it will be in a shopping centre or bus stop.
You may decry other canadians who are actually just like you as being misinformed, but you don't know very many canadians. Democracy is not about the right to choose between one or two people to lead you, that's never been the definition of a democracy or freedom.
Wow. Looks like I've hooked into a real live libertarian. No wonder Jack Layton's "Power to the people" mantra really resonates. Allow me to correct one thing: I do not think that people who disagree with me are "misinformed." I actually contend that they are 'un-informed.'Reasonable people often come to separate conclusions. In your model of referendum however, public opinion would be skewed by a lack of full disclosure. Yes we are paying a price, but that is the unfortunate cost of enforcing security and order in an aggressive and chaotic world.
While I welcome your zealous engagement, I'm afraid I must graciously concede lest we weary the readers. When we get to the point that the Afghan government is bad, the Canadian government is bad, the United Nations is the ultimate evil (or was that the Bush led government of the US?), and the Taliban are simply misunderstood - I'm afraid I don't have a leg to stand on.
I certainly join you in your apparent wish for a world where war is not necessary. Unfortunately, 'the milk of human kindness does not flow through everyone's veins.' (Liberal MP, Keith Martin, speaking in Parliament to endorse our offensive against the Taliban regime). In the immortal words of Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Make your mark on the world my friend, we only go around once. All the best.
Fair enough, but again let's not forget the central issue. The story was not a debate about the mission in Afghanistan, the story was belittling an opposing viewpoint. THAT was what the comments were about. Agreeing to disagree is fair enough, that's far more equitable than many bloggers are (except DONT call me a libertarian, I'm 'populist' or if you are into history, 'progressive' (as in 'progressive' conservative-remember that phrase the party dumped)) or even more accurately libertarian-socialist-meaning that not only should people have equal access to power, but to the means of production, instead of one specialized class holding both.
Again, nobody said the Taliban were 'nice'. IF our governments words were really true that we are worried about the 'milk of human kindness' then there are easily sixty other countries we should have troops in-most of whom are far worse than the taliban ever were, and whom, coincidentally, Canada enjoys a great deal of friendship with. IF our government were so concerned with 'the milk of human kindness' then more than lip service would be paid that 'war on poverty' they quickly forgot about, and massive attention would be paid to the poverty and injustice perpetrated on native bands.
So, let's be fair. We all KNOW that the above is not true, so we know it has nothing to do with 'righting a wrong', otherwise those MP's would all be signing up to go serve.
But that hits it on the head, that the UN, the Canadian Government, and the US government are being 'bad'. That's a given and a theme that's been going around for quite some time. LIke I said, when Martin was PM conservatives were vocal in denouncing the UN. They were shrill about it-until Harper became PM and then suddenly they were the most legitimate force out there. The UN is a massive organization that is generally, and often specifically, led by the US and four other countries. The UN does NOT represent "the international community". China does not have soldiers there, neither does Russia or Switzerland or Norway.
The 'mission' itself is doomed to failure (in my and many others opinion) because there ARE no 'clear goals', meaning no 'steps' that are obtainable for the goal. If the soldiers were part of a mission simply to protect supplies coming in, get food to people, hell, even to disarm people (but its not, thats very specifically the job of Afghanistan) then there'd be something to that. But thats not the case, their stated mission according to the compact is to 'fight terrorism'. Which seems to include stealing water and selling it to other governments.
So far, from what I've seen, that seems to include "kill em all" and you can ask Germany how well that worked in France or the US how well it worked in Vietnam- and now Iraq. Unfortunately, and to my and many others views, 'killing em all' in a country where people have a justified claim in wanting you out is neither morally justifiable, nor good public policy.
Finally, since the conversation ends here, I'd suggest you rethink either the party you are blogging for or your patronizing view on referenda. The conservatives have always been more populist than liberals, and that elitist view of people being 'uninformed' very much comes out of their handbook. It is by far conservative governments that hold referenda, look at PEI and New Brunswick, and federally Mulroney.
Citizens initiatives were even part of the Alliance platform until the merger and media smearing campaign took place that had them dump the idea of 'uninformed canadians' making decisions for themselves.
In reality, IF people are 'uninformed' they certainly have no reason to be informed when there is no political mechanism for them to use that information. Those are facts I presented above, and I have no doubt it will not 'change your mind' nor do I care, but readers of blogs may be a different story. They may be readers of mainstream media who have never come across conversations like this. So by the end they may 'agree' with you, or 'agree' with me, but either way it is irrelevant because they have no way to effect public policy. I can perhaps go on a hunger strike or wear a placard around my neck-but I am fully aware that does nothing.
That's just an example, when you have no power, there is no point in being informed. However, give the media some credit, they do at least 'frame issues' for discussion. Depending on the media and the time of day you can find out most of this stuff, so canadians may not be as uninformed as you take as a given (could it be you simply WANT to think of them as being uninformed as it justifies your position that you are right and opposing viewpoints are wrong?)
Anyway, nice conversing and good luck with your blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home