I hesitate to write about this, because everyone else will, but the Tories have arranged a debate on Wednesday with the goal of authorizing a two year extension to our Afghanistan mission. On one level this sickens me, because the result will be that Canadian Troops will be dying in an unwinnable war (unwinnable for reasons given here and elsewhere) for at least another two to three years. On another level, its clever politics, an example of The Tories playing the opposition parties against one another, because while I can imagine the NDP coming down against an extension, and maybe the Bloc, Harper only needs one of the three parties on side to secure the vote, and in this case the Libs will provide.
A quick look at the political winners and losers, in descending order:
1) The big winner is obviously Harper and the Tories. Their political base wants a war, especially a war in service of their U.S. masters, and now we are committed for another two years.
2) Next on the list of winners is the Tory political base. In Alberta, for example, Canada's refusal to join in the Iraq invasion was widely blamed for the banning of Beef exports to the U.S. after BSE was discovered. Now that we'll be trading kids for cows, our cattle farmers will (they believe) be able to sell any number of skanky steaks to our Southern neighbors. Also, though the Tory base gets its war lets face it, no terrorist can even locate Mushaboo or Calgary on a map, and if they could there's nothing really to blow up but the SaddleDome and a lot of wheatfields. So they get their war, their chance to wave flags and call those opposed to the war cowards, and Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver get to eat any Al Qaeda bombs that go off in response. A perfect situation, really, cheerleading from a farmhouse thousands of miles away from the front line.
3) The Libs, who I am betting will vote to support the extension, get to put the issue behind them, which works because they snuck our forces into Afghanistan in the first place and feel that to reverse their position now would be politically unmanly. On the other hand, how this will improve their position in Quebec, where opposition to the mission is strongest, is beyond me. It will also upset a large portion of their political base (like me), who see the genesis of the mission as being an attempt at appeasing the States, and who see the whole mission (correctly) as being determined by events on the U.S. political calendar and, therefore, doomed to failure. On the other hand, consultants have told the Libs that the votes leading back into power lie in rural Canada, and so this helps them suck up to the hicks out in the farmbelt.
4) I imagine the Bloc and NDP will come down against the extension of the mission, but will it do them any good? For myself, I admire the NDP's standing on principle (as usual), but they still have a snowball's chance in hell of ever forming the government, and even after an open display of Liberal gutlessness (which is what I am sure we will see Wednesday), I would still be in a position where I wouldn't want to throw away a vote on the Dippers. As for the Bloc, apparently they don't have an official position on the Afghanistan mission, but I can't see them alienating their own supporters by voting in favor.
All interesting politics. Terrible for the country, however.
Excellent points, BCL. However, as you know I support the decision on the debate because it defines a precedent for future military involvement. The next time a Canadian PM decides it's time to "support the troops" by, well, putting them in harms' way, he'll have to either go to Parliament for the OK or explain why he didn't when questioned on it.
ReplyDeleteThe vote does come with some odious politics and questionable timing, but the Liberals could do the right thing and vote against the mission and be done with it. Aknowledging mistakes is rare among politicians though; I expect we've as much chance of the NDP forming government. ;)
Except that I don't think Harper would have a vote like this if he thought there was any chance he would lose it.
ReplyDeleteThat Harper would be guaranteed to win a vote is the only way that he would have a vote. If that is the cost of setting this precedent, sobeit, in the long run the cost will have been worth it.
ReplyDeleteHarper sets a Bushian trap for Bloc, NDP and LPC on Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteRemember Iraq? The lead up to the declaration of war by Bush? The pressure-cooker atmosphere created by Bush, to stampede the Democrats into voting for the war?
And remember how he succeeded, by putting the heat on and not giving them much time to reflect or debate the issue?
Harper is doing the same thing right now. By rushing the vote on Afghanistan, he is hoping to stampede those 3 parties into voting for the extension of the term, without much sober reflection on the aims, exit strategy, total commitment required etc.
Then, when Canadian deaths increase, he can say the other parties voted for the extension. It will undercut their moral right to question the role of Canada in Afghanistan.
Clever man, Harper. Copies Bush on most things, including how to out-snooker your opponents...
And in Canada. The peacekeepers of the world.
How sad.
The 3 parties should band together to pass legislation to allow more time for a fuller discussion of the objectives of our presence there, and of the adequacy of our role. Should we be funding more of the reconstruction than we are? What can we do to help democracy – for all segments – flourish there? These issues have not been debated enough by our lawmakers, yet now Harper is jumping the gun with his pressure tactics.
Canada is not served by this unseemly rush.
Except, Curiosity,that I think the Libs might be complicit in this. After all, vote now before the voice of the people can make itself heard (I've already sent on an angry email to my Liberal MP), and then later their new leader doesn't have to face U.S. pressure about pulling out. The deal has been done. I think its intensely gutless, but politically it might work for them.
ReplyDeleteWednesday will be an interesting day.