There is a lot of criticism, much of it deserved, regarding the Conservatives' messaging on Afghanistan. Why are we there? Are we doing anything good? Are our soldiers dying for nothing? After the Manley report I hope that those questions can be answered in a thoughtful and straight forward manner. I doubt they will be, though. You see, this has become a political football between the Liberals and the Conservatives. A football that was kicked off by the Libs, but now they want to take their ball and go home. Well maybe not, but they certainly want to play without any linemen.
What Stephane Dion
has proposed is the absolutely perfect example of Liberal "nuance" and "compromise". No one would be really happy with it; the Cons want to stay and fight, the NDP and the Bloc want our soldiers home now. Under Dion our soldiers can stay, just not fight. Sure, they can defend themselves but there will be no "search and destroy" missions. That's like saying the quarterback can throw the ball down field but the receivers can't cross the line of scrimmage. The quarterback is gonna get sacked, bad.
The problem with a political compromise is that war is not politics. The enemy is rarely willing to compromise even if you are. Worse than that, when politics becomes the driver behind combat operations we get Bosnia all over again. The
Rules of Engagement were so bad in Bosnia that, literally, a soldier could not fire his weapon at someone about to throw a grenade because the threat, though imminent wasn't actual, and he couldn't shoot the attacker afterwards because the threat, the grenade, was gone. He could try to shoot the grenade but shooting the thrower was considered revenge and not self defense.
"Even if a fighter pulled a pin from a grenade, argued one, the ROE proscribed any use of force until it was actually thrown. "And even then the threat is the grenade,” he said. “We can't even shoot the person. We have to shoot the grenade" From page 94
The Liberals propose we do somethings similar, we cannot engage the enemy unless he engages us, giving him the advantage of picking when an where to fight. We cannot search him out giving him freedom of movement and safety when not attacking. They propose we concentrate on training and redevelopment, both of which they must know depend on security first. They want us to believe that we can be humanitarian peace keepers in a war zone. The sad thing is, they know it's not possible. Ignatieff and Rae both know that, their own MPs have stood up and said it is wrong. But it is popular and that's all that matters when politics is the driver.
Lewis MacKenzie has seen this before and he says that Liberal plan
would endanger our soldiers. This is the core of the problem. The Liberals, having sent our troops into combat, now wish to switch sides for political gain. They want to use our soldiers to win votes. This isn't new for them. Jean Chretien canned a much needed helicopter deal for just those purposes. The Liberals neglected our military so badly they sent them into a desert war wearing green camouflage. Liberals have no love of the military except as a way of scoring points.
Now, having sent our soldiers into combat, the Liberals want to betray them and their sacrifice. A soldier will fight when and where he is told to but he expects that his political masters will at least let him try to win. Liberal "nuance" won't let him.
Update
Dion has thrown "nuance" to the wind. With the glaringly bad "end to combat" nowhere to be found the Liberals have adopted a resolution that basically parrots the Conservatives. Thank you Mr. Ignatieff.
Upperdate
Lewis MacKenzie thinks that the Liberal motion is just a sop to get Dion through to an election where, should he win, he can implement his real policy. Jason Cherniak says it's all lies, but his own post contradicts that when he writes:
Just because Stéphane Dion is not choosing Afghanistan as the election issue, it does not mean that Afghanistan will not motivate his decision on whether to force an election over the budget. Indeed, it is at that point that we will learn whether he really wants to end the combat mission. The exact words of a wishy-washy Parliamentary motion are all but meaningless. An attempt to change the Government of Canada, however, would be telling.
Upperdater
Stephane Dion has "clarified" his
position once again. It seems that he didn't say what he said, that we are all too stupid to understand what he says, and if he says it differently we'll finally get what he said. Unless you're
Jason Cherniak, and then you're totally plugged in to Dion's brain. The problem is
Denis Coderre and
Keith Martin aren't as plugged in as Cherniak
And
another General, this one serving in Afghanistan, says Dion's "position" is untenable. Perhaps we should just say that it's poorly thought out, politically driven crap. Or maybe we can paraphrase
Vladimir Putin and say that Dion's position is just "
. . . detritus excavated from someone's nostril and smeared across bits of paper."
(Reading Putin shows why pacifism is a really bad idea these days . . .)
I know I'm not the first person to photograph a swastika in a toilet but I think mine has some artistic merit, and even a point. Whereas Kinsella's swastika was apparently unopposed in its statement, mine was defaced by someone not so much supportive of Nazi symbology. Then I read the little diatribe next to the defaced swatika:
Sure, it's not the most eloquent argument against racism but hey, it's a toilet. And considering its company:
It's almost Shakespeare.
