The other guy who should have been in Kandahar

Prime Minister Harper (still get a shudder typing that) has been rallying the troops in Kandahar. Canada has 2,200 personnel (including a barber) in Kandahar province, which is kinda like South Armagh but more mountainy (real ones, not what we call mountains in Ireland).

Harper's rhetoric is still Republican-esque so he uses lame Bush catchphrases which is pretty dumb as it just gives people an excuse to ignore the message and, well, shoot the messenger. The usual stuff "God bless Canada", "we won't cut and run", etc. etc. It is pretty impressive though that (a) he flew in on a Herc - which I suppose is less risky than a Sea King but not by much and (b) he overnighted with the troops. Bet the travelling handlers just loved the accomodations.

The point of the title is following on from a comment I left on talk talk talk, which was that the guy who should have been with him is Paul Martin, Prime Minister when the troops were committed to the operation. He should be reminding the troops and the country that he was the one who sent them there and explained to them why that was necessary. Martin could also remind the Liberals who are apparently worried about "escalation" of the strategic decision making his government made in sending the troops out - interim leader Bill Graham (then defence minister) could weigh in too... they did think about it before right?? Harper could then tell them why it's right for them to stay.

Then they could ask Jack Layton what problem he had with that, especially when he was supporting the Liberal Government at the time... but that was when he was more interested in how much pork spending he could extract from Ralph Goodale.

Parliamentary debate is all very well (or in the case of Question Time, pretty appalling) - I agree with Rick Mercer when he said Harper's speech was worth 1,000 speeches on Canadian soil.

To be honest, when I read the Star's special section on Sunday, I thought to myself that surely some of the objections to the mission would subside with this excellent piece of journalism. Two Toronto Star journalists doing a piece which took up the entire Ideas supplement, closely following Capt. Schamuhn and Lt. Greene in their meetings with village elders. I learned that Lt. Greene had previously suffered a concussion due to an attack on the armoured vehicle he was travelling in. Then came the attack which left him gravely injured. (MP3 of the radio calls after the attack).

Greene, now a Captain (he had been awaiting promotion at the time of the attack) has been returned from Landstuhl to Vancouver, apparently he is improving but largely in a drug-induced coma.

markpeters.ca linked Rex Murphy's Viewpoint from the CBC website. Here's Murphy's conclusion:
Two governments and two prime ministers now, one Liberal and one Conservative, have signed off on this U.N.-authorized, NATO-led mission. We may discuss, refine, and articulate the cause we're serving, but it's past the moment to debate the cause itself. If we wish to have a debate, we must end the mission. A debate on the validity of the mission cannot be subsequent to the decision to undertake it. That's a question that goes to honour when, as there are in Afghanistan, lives are at stake.

Comments

It is egregious that Parliament didn't debate going into Afghanistan originally, and the Liberals made a unilateral decision. And I doubt we'd be hearing calls for a debate if they were still in power. But I agree the time for debate is past...for this mission. However, when the end of this mission approaches, that would be a good time to have a debate as to why we went, why we stayed, and why we should or should not continue to send fresh troops and just how many we can send. Passionate politicians speaking eloquently (is that possible?) on why we're there may help to sway the populace away from their complacent attitude because of living in a peaceful democracy towards one of standing up for a people living in a war zone who desire freedom to live peaceful lives like us.
Mark Dowling said…
In Ireland, committing troops requires a vote in Parliament (the "triple lock" of Government, Parliament and UN authorisation). Commitment beyond the current mission should be debated and voted on. However, it is not fair to say there was no debate in Parliament - here's the Hansard record. Layton didn't bother to show up.
Thanks for the link! It looks like it was debated in Committee rather than in the House though. It's also in 2005 -- I think the original mission was in 2001 when Chretien went ahead sans debate (as I recall, and I may be wrong) in Parliament, partly because after 9/11, the feeling in Canada seemed to be that of course we'd go. I find it a bit laughable that the Liberals have suddenly changed their mind on this mission. We should have a similar law to Ireland's.
Mark Dowling said…
It was in the House, but sitting as a committee with different standing orders, presumably to permit more discussion than a formal debate.

Popular posts from this blog

"Your request could not be completed. Please try again in a few minutes."

Chirac gets it right on Lebanon troops?

Remote Desktop Connection Manager - a boon for admins