Peter Mackay's bumper sticker
Amid cries for a debate on the role the Canadian forces are playing in Afghanistan, Peter Mackay has hidden behind the old "we must support our troops" chestnut that has served George Bush so well 'lo these many years. By ducking behind "the troops" and not allowing a debate in Parliament over the engagement, he is perpetuating a mistake made by the Chretien government five years ago.
In the days and weeks after 911, Jean Chretien sent Canadian troops into Afghanistan without taking the issue to discussion in Parliament; a Parliament which without doubt would have supported the decision had it been asked. However, with Parliamentary discussion and approval would also have come discussion of the terms of the war, its goals, and some of the possible risks, and for his own reasons Jean Chretien opted to not allow this debate.
It is this belated discussion that is being requested by the New Democrats and sheepish Liberals now. If it does not take place in Parliament, with all of the attendant risks that entails, then the debate is nothing more than an airing of grievances and will mean nothing.
Rick Hillier says that we have to be prepared for a long-term mission to prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming a failed state and possible sponsor of international terrorism. This is a good starting argument in an actual discussion on role of the Canadian government and the limits of its committment to Afghanistan, however it is just a start. And it's not a discussion for the head of the Canadian Armed Forces - it's one for our politicians and elected officials.
There is no greater committment that a leader can make than to send his country to war, and I don't ever want that decision to come down to one person. I want, demand, full consultation through our elected officials ahead of time, before making the committment. If the Harper government could point to a section of Hansard and say "here is where we voted for going to war and here is why", then we could all be told to "support the troops", because here is where we, through our elected representatives, sent them to war. But that has not happened, and Peter Mackay can shove his "support the troops" bumper sticker up his ass until we're consulted. If he wants our troops to risk life and limb in Afghanistan, he can at least have the balls to risk his political cred by putting it to vote in Parliament.
Why should the Canadian public be asked to morally support a war that they don't understand? Why should our troops be sent into a foreign country into a mission apparently lacking a clearly-defined goal? This is a real war, to try to stabilize a country that in all likelihood will not be stabilized. Ask the Russians. Hell, ask Alexander! Do Canadians know that? Don't you think they should?
How in hell is it even possible that the prime minister has the power to send our country to war without consulting Parliament? It is ironic that Jean Chretien's self-professed legacy is based on not using this very power. He brags that he "kept us out of Iraq", which is of course bullshit; he simply didn't send our troops there.
For the record, I have always been against the Canadian involvement in Afghanistan, but do not support withdrawing now. We are there at the behest of our NATO allies, we have made committments to them that must be met, and we should only withdraw when NATO decides it is time. However, if Parliament votes against continuing on, then we simply must leave; that's kind of what a democracy is about, no?
I don't at all like the fact that we are only beginning to talk about this because our troops started getting hurt. I don't want to have our country make troop committments and then renege on them when the work starts to get hard; our international relationships are too crucial and trust in our country too important.
But this is a direct result of Chretien's decision to not consult the Canadian people before committing troops. Do you think Harper understands that, or is he going to just continue repeating the same mistakes and abusing the same powers that his predecessers did?
If Emerson and Fortier are any indication, I think I already have my answer.
In the days and weeks after 911, Jean Chretien sent Canadian troops into Afghanistan without taking the issue to discussion in Parliament; a Parliament which without doubt would have supported the decision had it been asked. However, with Parliamentary discussion and approval would also have come discussion of the terms of the war, its goals, and some of the possible risks, and for his own reasons Jean Chretien opted to not allow this debate.
It is this belated discussion that is being requested by the New Democrats and sheepish Liberals now. If it does not take place in Parliament, with all of the attendant risks that entails, then the debate is nothing more than an airing of grievances and will mean nothing.
Rick Hillier says that we have to be prepared for a long-term mission to prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming a failed state and possible sponsor of international terrorism. This is a good starting argument in an actual discussion on role of the Canadian government and the limits of its committment to Afghanistan, however it is just a start. And it's not a discussion for the head of the Canadian Armed Forces - it's one for our politicians and elected officials.
There is no greater committment that a leader can make than to send his country to war, and I don't ever want that decision to come down to one person. I want, demand, full consultation through our elected officials ahead of time, before making the committment. If the Harper government could point to a section of Hansard and say "here is where we voted for going to war and here is why", then we could all be told to "support the troops", because here is where we, through our elected representatives, sent them to war. But that has not happened, and Peter Mackay can shove his "support the troops" bumper sticker up his ass until we're consulted. If he wants our troops to risk life and limb in Afghanistan, he can at least have the balls to risk his political cred by putting it to vote in Parliament.
Why should the Canadian public be asked to morally support a war that they don't understand? Why should our troops be sent into a foreign country into a mission apparently lacking a clearly-defined goal? This is a real war, to try to stabilize a country that in all likelihood will not be stabilized. Ask the Russians. Hell, ask Alexander! Do Canadians know that? Don't you think they should?
How in hell is it even possible that the prime minister has the power to send our country to war without consulting Parliament? It is ironic that Jean Chretien's self-professed legacy is based on not using this very power. He brags that he "kept us out of Iraq", which is of course bullshit; he simply didn't send our troops there.
For the record, I have always been against the Canadian involvement in Afghanistan, but do not support withdrawing now. We are there at the behest of our NATO allies, we have made committments to them that must be met, and we should only withdraw when NATO decides it is time. However, if Parliament votes against continuing on, then we simply must leave; that's kind of what a democracy is about, no?
I don't at all like the fact that we are only beginning to talk about this because our troops started getting hurt. I don't want to have our country make troop committments and then renege on them when the work starts to get hard; our international relationships are too crucial and trust in our country too important.
But this is a direct result of Chretien's decision to not consult the Canadian people before committing troops. Do you think Harper understands that, or is he going to just continue repeating the same mistakes and abusing the same powers that his predecessers did?
If Emerson and Fortier are any indication, I think I already have my answer.
It seems to me that the military is being much more open and honest with the Canadian public than are the politicians in government. Paradoxically, it seems to me that they are less bellicose as well. The military is talking about opening bridges to the Afghan people and bettering their lives. The politicians are talking about supporting our American allies and sticking it to those nasty terrorists.
Posted by
Anonymous |
Tue Mar 07, 12:45:00 PM
What worries me about this - besides MacKay's empty rhetoric, is the fact that the Conservatives are letting Hillier be the front man for this, which means he's the one that's gonna take the flak if it all goes FUBAR (F**ked Up Beyond All Repair). For this reason, I'm going back on my earlier statements and I think there should be a Parliamentary Debate on this - mind you, I think it'll go towards supporting the mission, since the BQ has already come out in favour.
Posted by
Dan |
Tue Mar 07, 10:09:00 PM
Dan, I'm not really sure how much flak Hillier is really exposing himself to. As anonymous says, he's portraying himself as an honest dealer, up front and noble. From both military and political standpoints, that's a damn good place to defend yourself from.
Just to clarify my position, though I don't think there should be any doubt, I think we should stay and see this through, but I don't agree with our having been there in the first place.
I know it sounds a little John Kerryish, "right war wrong time", so I'll explain. Our NATO commitments dictate that when a member state is attacked, we all must respond. I'm cool with that, but I think that it is an open argument whether or not 911 was a military or a criminal matter, and I personnally believe that the Americans should have gone a bit further in trying to solve it as a crime rather than bombing Afghanistan further into the stone age.
Be that as it may, we are there with our friends and allies, and there we should stay. I also think that a vote in parliament would pass muster and it would remove any question from this once and for all. That the CPC haven't jumped at the chance is indicative of their cowardice IMO.
Posted by
kevvyd |
Tue Mar 07, 11:37:00 PM
The northwards drift of Bushian neoconism ...
Notice how similar the reactions of Harper and his foreign minister, Peter MacKay, are to those of Bush and his neocons?
• There is no need to debate the issue of Afghanistan.
• The military on the ground will determine what has to be done.
• “I have decided...”
• Just state your beliefs and forget about debating them or the issue, after all, you are the leader, aren’t you? And leaders lead, don’t they?
The scariest part is that one sees the steadfastness of a strong-willed person in the positions being taken by Harper, but just south of Canada the Americans are reeling from the many blunders committed by that all-hat-and-no-cattle fellow that “won” the election as their leader ...
Wonder if Canada is in for a period of pontifical infallibility, just like the Americans are experiencing? Signs are that is the case.
Posted by
Anonymous |
Wed Mar 08, 03:07:00 PM
I posted a comment about this on an earlier thread. I'm particularily disturbed by Harpers statement to the effect that any debate on the topic will endanger our troops. At no time does he mention that the conservatives were more than happy to rape the military's budget all through the 80's just like the liberals before and after them, leaving them undermanned and dismally equiped. A situation that is only now, and that slowly, being fixed. As aI said in the earlier post, it looks a lot like they're scared of just what skeletons a debate will bring to light. Our government's have been using warm and fuzzy peacekeeping rhetoric for their own ends for a long time now. If they are worried about non-stated reasons for our presence in Afghanistan coming out it can't help but screw up their chance in the rapidly approaching election.
Posted by
Anonymous |
Thu Mar 09, 01:48:00 PM