Monday, January 21, 2008

Liberals Prepare to Sell Out On Afghanistan?

Asked if there is enough room in the Liberal policy to accept a continued presence in Kandahar for training or some other non-combat role, [Michael] Ignatieff replied "Yes, there is."

[...]

In a speech opening the caucus meeting, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion appeared to emphasize that the Liberals don't want Canada to withdraw entirely from Afghanistan, though they want a refocused role there.

"We are not Jack Layton," Dion said, referring to the NDP leader's longstanding call for withdrawal. "We will not abandon Afghanistan."

Nice to know the Libs know who they aren't. At least on this issue Jack Layton knows who he is.

Of course, as a compromise staying in an Taliban infested part of the country and not engaging in combat is hopeless. Nor will it be possible. A clear position would involve an ultimatum to NATO: rotate Canadian troops to some other part of Afghanistan or lose them. Instead, and in contrast to the clear majority opinion of Canadians, the Liberals are prepared to traffic in mush and, apparently, allow for a mere re branding of the status quo.

Very disappointing.

8 comments:

Kingston said...

Here is the problem with the LPC position from someone who has been their, He will be in a tough spot to find a replacement battle group for ours. We require that battle group to maintain control over the province well the PRT does its work. Its kind of a catch twenty two, we need the PRT to work well along with CIDA to win the hearts and minds, we need the battle group to provide the stability to allow the PRT and CIDA to work. When the civilian population suffers casualties from the battle group or close air support they end up under mining the progress the PRT is making on the hearts and minds. The reason for the use of close air support and indirect fire is to lower the Cas level on our side and to prevent the mission from failing on the home front. I do know for a fact that the troops take many many risks to their own well being to avoid civilian casualties but it is the nature of the beast and the way the other guy is fighting that is causing the vast majority of them.

Afghanistan solidarity - Pease !! said...

Steffi has already changed his mind/party position so many times that Iggy doing it again shouldn't come as a surprise.

I think Steffi found out that soldiers aren't so scary after all and without them carrying weapons, the hospital/School/road building is impossible.

The Soldiers explained it to him and he got it. They also explained we aren't doing "combat" and haven't been for 18 months. SO when Steffi says we need to transition to force protection duties, he is just describing what we have been doing for the last couple of roto's.

Ti-Guy said...

Steffi has already changed his mind/party position so many times that Iggy doing it again shouldn't come as a surprise.

*sigh*...lie. If this insolent little twat is a soldier, then I'm incensed to think my taxes are supporting a little moron who should be flipping burgers somewhere.

Anyway...this issue is such a pain for the Liberals because the Conservatives and the establishment are marketing the entire mission as good, noble, righteous, etc. etc. without having to provide any metrics at all as to what any of that means or whether it's true or not.

And that suits the average ignoramus (who mostly votes Conservative) fine. Feel good about yourself without thinking and then go back to watching Survivor.

I want the mission to end because I'm tired of having to sift through the bullshit to try and figure out whether this is a good foreign commitment for Canada, especially considering how significant it's mean in both "blood and treasure". And if the Cons (and the media) continue to sell it like it's a fucking morality play for little children, then I'll continue to oppose it.

Wpg Guy said...

ti-guy,
I'm not attacking, just curious. What exactly do YOU think Afghanistan is about? Why are we there. What would make it a good international commitment and what would make it a bad one?

Personally I don't see this as selling out or flip flopping. Iggy & Dion were just there and could legitimately have a non-political point of view shift. There would be nothing wrong with them saying - "we went there, talked. We were wrong and this is what we need to do". That type of honesty would likely win more votes than being against it because the CPC is for it.

Anonymous said...

ti-guy said:

="And if the Cons (and the media) continue to sell it like it's a fucking morality play for little children, then I'll continue to oppose it."=

Glad your opposition to the mission in Afghanistan isn't based on any principles ti-guy.

- Paul S

Anonymous said...

After surfing around your site and reading various postings by you and the attached commentary, I've come to the conclusion that I've just wasted my time here.

Ti-Guy said...

Glad your opposition to the mission in Afghanistan isn't based on any principles ti-guy.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, Paul S.

What exactly do YOU think Afghanistan is about? Why are we there. What would make it a good international commitment and what would make it a bad one?

Why don't you try to convince me by answering those questions yourself with better information than simply "it's righteous." The Conservatives and other rightwing military advisers have been very critical of the Canadian history of peace-keeping, deriding it as ineffectual do-goodism. Why would anyone think do-goodism with combat operations would be any less ineffectual? Because it costs more?

In any event, it is my right as a Canadian citizen to oppose any action the government takes for whatever reasons I want.

Anonymous said...

I like how Dion filed his report about Afghanistan two days BEFORE he went there. I'd hate to see it clouded with facts and experience, when ideology and rhetoric are available.