The chief of the NATO alliance in Afghanistan, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer: It's not a combat mission; it is a reconstruction mission, but to make [reconstruction] possible, we have to fight. It is as simple as that. NATO has to fight."
So though not a combat mission, there will be plenty of combat on the mission. And while it is a reconstruction mission, there won't be any reconstruction until after the combat's done. Which is like saying it's called "dessert", not "dinner", but the first part of dessert involves liver, and you can't have your ice-cream until you have your liver.
And Charest got into the act too when he told the troops : "You are the acting arm of Quebec pacifism."
That is, the non-pacifistic arm of Quebec pacifism.
h/t to Eugene.
11 comments:
I don't think anyone can talk positively about this mission anymore without sounding completely incoherent. The only rationale is Canada's NATO commitment. Stray from that, and you end up sounding loony.
What did we ever do to deserve such a dumb political class? Seriously...I want to know.
Learn how to spell dessert, first of all.
Anon @ 2:35 - Learn how to spell dessert, first of all.
Am I missing something here? As near as I can tell, dessert is spelled exactly as it should be.
Oh, and do you have a point to make? (or is that too much to ask of you?)
I corrected it.
Well, come on now, the question has been posed before. When the cons say that we have no vested interest in Af'stan, you sniff haughtily and say we're naive. So you are inferring that Canada does have a national interest in Af'stan. So, what is it?
BCL - I corrected it.
Ah. Well, I guess Anon has done us all a tremendous service by catching the spelling mistake. Oh! The horror!
When the cons say that we have no vested interest in Af'stan...
When did the Cons ever say this?
yes, the cons say that to stupid people to try to convince them that the mission is all about 'democracy' and 'liberty' and human rights'. some say it with such earnestness that it is clear they have suckered themselves with their own talking point. unfortunately, they make the mistake of telling intelligent people this, who, for obvious reasons, chuckle heartily at such pollyannish idealism. to state that canada has ZERO national interest in afghanistan is clearly preposterous to anyone with the most rudimentary understanding of international relations...or any common sense. canadian interests in afghanistan:
-helping our allies
-ousting the taliban
-supporting a UN resolution
-creating stability in the region (although less credulous observers were always circumspect about this)
-promoting democracy (see above)
-gaining control over strategic natural resources -gainning control of forward operating bases in the region
-need i go on
pretending we don't have national interests in the region is a way to assert we are ONLY there to help the poor afghans, which is important if you're a conservative, because 'progressives' are constantly accusing them of less than valiant reasons for supporting militarism of the more callous and venal variety. however, it makes it difficult for conservatives who are geniuine in wanting to help afghans and don't realize there are larger geopolitical stakes at play. unfortuntely, it makes them look foolish, and there reasoning incoherent.
Does Charest know what pacifism means? Let alone the PM?
If you support the immediate withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan, then this is the start of truly defining pacifism.
I guess this is the Canadian version of how We shall save the village!
But first we must destroy it.
Let's go.
Well said, canuckistanian, those are all very good reasons. Canada should stay in Af'stan as long as it takes to accomplish those goals. An early withdrawal or a set timetable to leave would be foolish. We need to get this message out and ensure that the troops have the funds and equipment to accomplish this worthwhile mission.
Post a Comment