Do it, Iggy.
As I hear the details of our new training mission explained, it seems to me that its a definite improvement on the old in that:
1) It gets Canadian troops out of Kandahar and into a relatively quiet part of the country--around Kabul, if I remember correctly. And if you recall the state of this debate even a year ago, it looked like our guys were going to be stuck in Kandahar forever or, if we did leave, it would be marching out without any assistance from our NATO allies.
2) It cuts Canadian troops from about 3,000 to 1,000.
Speaking personally, I could probably live with something along these lines. And I suspect there is a fair chunk of the population whose concerns are with the process by which the decision was made rather than the content of thatdecision. They too could probably be swayed. We just have to be sold on it.
So come out and sell it to us, Iggy.
What Steve V says.
4 comments:
One key point that is becoming more and more visible:
Should we even be in Afghanistan at all? It's not like the historical record is exactly encouraging.
yeah, my biggest objection - and it's a huge objection - is the process. If the Libs believe there are good reasons to extend the mission, then bring it into debate and convince other members...and the public. But tell the real reasons. Quit tossing us bs, be honest about the dangers, be honest about the 2014 date that may not be as firm as they are saying.
Can we have an open and honest debate about Canadian troops leaving Cyprus, Lebanon and all those other pointless UN missions also?
Leave Cyprus? Where do you think our new forward base for Afghanistan operations just moved to? All thanks to losing Camp Mirage ...because its amateur hour on the international stage with the Harper Government. Please do try to keep up with current events ridofbrain.
Post a Comment