June 27, 2007

Harper's J-turn on Afghanistan

What did it mean, that little offhand comment of the Prime Minister’s the other day, to the effect that he would want “to see some degree of consensus” before renewing the Canadian Forces’ current mission in Afghanistan? ...

Did it mean, as the defeatist chorus in certain sections of the media triumphantly proclaimed (triumphalist defeatists?), that Stephen Harper had buckled to his critics? Was The Toronto Star’s Tom Walkom right to claim, on the strength of this one statement, that “Canada's Kandahar adventure is effectively finished,” that “Canadian soldiers will continue to die in Afghanistan's south until the mission reaches its official end, 19 months from now,” but after that it’s back to the barracks? Should we trust the Globe and Mail’s Lawrence Martin’s judgement that “these were code words for the end of our war mission,” that “in a year and a half, other [NATO] partners can take their turn at the combat role.”

I don’t believe it. That’s not what the Prime Minister said, and it doesn’t fit with anything else we know about him. I know he’s reversed himself before, sometimes spectacularly. But this is something that goes to his very core. I do not believe that the same man who not a month ago, on his second visit to Afghanistan, declared that “our work is not complete,” that “we cannot just put down our arms and hope for peace”, that “we can't set arbitrary deadlines and simply wish for the best,” would suddenly have decided to do just that.

What in fact did the Prime Minister say? He said “I would hope that the view of Canadians is not to simply abandon Afghanistan. I think there is some expectation that there would be a new role after February 2009, but obviously those decisions have yet to be taken.” He said “this mission will end in February 2009. Should Canada be involved militarily after that date, we've been clear that would have to be approved by the Canadian Parliament.” And he said this: “I would want to see some degree of consensus around that. I don't want to send people into a mission if the opposition is going to, at home, undercut the dangerous work that they are doing in the field.”

Perhaps my decoder ring is not working as well as Lawrence’s, but I don’t see any U-turns in this. What I see, rather, is a J-turn. It’s straight out of Jean Chretien’s playbook. You run into too much resistance with a given policy thrust, you take a couple of steps back. Lacking a flashpoint, the issue subsides, your opponents relax their guard -- only to see it come crashing back months or even years later, when the time is right.

It’s a much subtler strategy than simply attempting to run straight over the opposition, not least in a minority government. By declaring that he will seek consensus on any future deployment, the Prime Minister shifts the focus from his own intransigence to the opposition’s. He implicates them in the decision, and in so doing puts the onus on them to explain their position.

And explain it they must. The NDP’s at least has a kind of coherence. They are against fighting the Taliban, preferring to negotiate -- though what incentive the Taliban would have to negotiate after we had declared we would not fight them would be interesting to hear. The Liberals, on the other hand, would seem to believe that the Taliban should be fought, just not by us; that our troops should be there, but not use their weapons.

All right, I’ll bite: who should fight them? Whom do the Liberals nominate to replace us, among the countries that have refused to fight thus far? The French? The Italians? How are they to be compelled to step forward, even as we retreat? The reality is that, should Canada pull out of the fighting, the gap will have to be filled by the countries that are doing it now -- the British, the Americans and the Dutch. Their mission won’t end in February 2009. Only ours will.

And for what purpose? To whose benefit? The Afghans? No, it is quite clear they want us there. The troops? No, they are equally adamant, in every interview I have ever seen: they want to be there. Our NATO partners? Obviously not. The only agenda served by the opposition’s demands is … the opposition’s.

There’s another sense in which it is a good thing to seek “consensus” from the opposition. Read the last part of the Prime Minister’s remarks: “I don't want to send people into a mission if the opposition is going to, at home, undercut the dangerous work that they are doing in the field.” Translated: that’s exactly what’s happening now.

The Taliban read the western press. They are looking for the weak link in the NATO chain, and having found it, they will exploit it -- by killing as many soldiers from that country as they can. If critics of the war should not be accused of supporting the Taliban, neither should critics of the critics be accused of suppressing debate if they point out that there are consequences to their fecklessness. The Prime Minister has invited them to grow up. They should accept.

Links to this post:

11 Comments

SteelCityGrit:

*From deep under the ground, in a Taliban bunker

"Aha! Alexa McDonough muses to the Chronicle Herald whether human rights NGOs are given uninhibited access to the Afghan warzone! Our next surgical missle strike will be aimed at Canadians alone!"

An okay column and partially right, until Coyne casually concludes that the Opposition is responsible for Canadian casualties. The ragged band of bicycle terrorists who seem incapable of minimizing collateral damage to their own people are somewhat less methodical and imminently well-informed than he imagines.

Just make your argument. Don't be daft.

28/6/07 5:26 PM  
Candace:

steelcitygrit: " The ragged band of bicycle terrorists who seem incapable of minimizing collateral damage to their own people are somewhat less methodical and imminently well-informed than he imagines.

Just make your argument. Don't be daft. "

Those would be the same guys that release videos via websites & U-Tube?

28/6/07 11:17 PM  
FreedomBlog:

We might as well just get out now !

http://jimcotton.blogspot.com

29/6/07 12:38 AM  
Anonymous:

Talk about "over-analysis" and looking for a deeper meaning that isn't there or what.

Harper is just biding his time, getting the pressure off his back for now while the Van Doos are going over there. It's a tactic pure and simple.

He's trying to pretend to ease the minds of people until he gets his majority.

Not rocket science and really not a tactic warranting such analysis.

29/6/07 10:13 AM  
Calgary Junkie:

Well Andrew, it looks like you've got many of the posters over at Red Tory ready to burn you in effigy.

My frustration with Dion is that he doesn't seem to grasp this one important point, made a few times by Harper in Question Period:

NATO is not asking us to make a decision NOW

I.E. There is absolutely no reason for us to make a decision now as to the nature of our mission beyond Feb 2009. That decision can wait for at least six months, and possibly even twelve months.

So instead of staking out Canada's position long before we have to, and before we have more information as to the best course of action, lets just play our cards close to our chest, as Harper has done. Keep all the options on the table. And don't let the Taliban know what we will do.

In the meantime, of course, keep negotiating with our NATO Allies behind closed doors.

Dion just doesn't seem to grasp the importance of all that.

29/6/07 1:59 PM  
Anonymous:

"An okay column and partially right, until Coyne casually concludes that the Opposition is responsible for Canadian casualties."

He didn't say that. He said that by being increasingly vocal against the mission whenever there are casualties provides an incentive for the Taliban to increase casualties. Just because you are providing an incentive does not make you personally responsible.

29/6/07 2:23 PM  
Stephen:

Sadly in this country we have trouble agreeing on foreign policy. Much to our detriment we have many many fissures on what the goals, not just the methods should be.

This will continue as long as there are these issues. Afghanistan is hardly Iraq in either source, cause, objective or moral standing. Any reasonable observer sees Afghanistan as something justifiable.

Ignatieff is going to have to pull a double backflip, triple spin to get himself off of support for the mission at a high level. And if things are to be believed he runs the show for foreign at the Liberal Party.

Harper's statement, a consensus, is a truism and therefore meaningless.

29/6/07 2:36 PM  
Fred :):

what's amazing is how truly wrong the story was reported by everyone else.

Anyone doing the CTV/CBC/MSM thing would come away with the impression Harper said all parties in the House must agree.

That's not what he said and Kudos to AC for accurate reporting

30/6/07 1:39 PM  
Anonymous:

I am a 20 something conservative from Toronto (for those who like to read into bias). Here's what I see:

1. Canadians want to help out in Afghanistan.

2. Canadians like to regard their troops as Peacekeepers.

3. Canadians are not fully used to their "Peacekeepers" being shot at or encountering ruthless opposition on the battlefield. When Peacekeepers are shot at or attempt to protect Afghans from Taliban fighters, Canadians are confused. They understand the troops need to protect themselves, but are reluctant to admit "protect" can mean "fight".

4. Troop fatalities rightly sadden Canadians. Such deaths have slowly eroded support for the combat efforts.

5. Canadian troops, who have experienced the deaths of their colleauges, support the mission. The biggest supporters of the mission are also those who are doing the brave and hard work. This represents a large DISCONNECT.

6. Coyne rightfully points out that the Taliban understand one simple fact: kill more troops and erode support for their presence back in their home country. It's worked so far, it's not terribly scientific, but it works.

7. Canadians have good intentions and want to focus on "reconstruction". Supporters of the mission say: "you can't build without security". I personally believe the "reconstructors" are doing one of two things:

A) Intentionally ignoring the fact that the Taliban fighters
would harm "reconstructors" and continue to use violence and intimidation over locals; or

B) Understand that security is required but simply don't want our troops to do it. This way, Canadians can pat themselves on the back and claim that we don't need to fight to help out, and at the same time continue to express the arrogant smug about "those ignorant and violent Americans" who in turn would have to provide the security required for reconstruction and suffer casualties.

8. In my opinion, the worst of the bunch are those who claim our troops are the reason for the violence. Like, the Taliban were some sort of angels prior to the invasion.

9. Sorry, before #8 above, there is one class of individuals who I particularly dislike: those who simply want our troops out because of fear of a terrorist attack in Canada. Let's face it, if terrorists want to strike (as a group of 18 or so allegedly wanted to), they're going to do so whether Canada stays or leaves. Such cowardly and selfish way of thinking simply means that we should only help out vulnerable and defenseless people if there's a minimal chance of revenge in our land. This is the international equivalent of pretending not to witness a violent crime on a city street out of fear of gang members coming after you if you speak up.

10. Ironically, there are fierce critics of our combat presence in Afghanistan who want us to "do something" in Sudan. Well, fighters in Sudan may shoot at our troops, what then? Do we pack it up and leave at that point or simply hope the US or UK take care of the dirty work.

11. Has our society become so decadent to forget the millions of allied soldiers who died during WW2 in order to provide the peace and freedom experienced by the West and Japan during the last 50 years? We are living in a "gain with no pain" mentality, and the reality is that terrorists and committed "insurgents" are more than willing to play dirty. What do we do? Give in and hope it turns out better? Fight and hope it turns out better? That's for each person to decide. But for those who don't want to fight, please be realistic that someone else has to, and any humanitarian work that you want is only going to happen if some soldier (Canadian or other) takes the responsibility to fight the Taliban who wishes to prevent such humanitarian work.

8/7/07 5:10 PM  
wsam:

Why are Conservatives so dumb?. Democratic debate continued during both WW1 and WW2. Politics didn't stop. In WW2, for example, politicians in Britain publicly questioned the efficacy and morality of strategic bombing, calling for Bomber Harris’s resignation.

For our Parliamentary opposition to shirk from questioning the government's handling of the war would represent a dereliction of duty. Democracy depends on robust opposition. Otherwise stupid decisions get made. Look at the Bush White House. That’s what happens when you cut yourself off from criticism.

You’re not simply going to bomb the Taliban out of existence. Successful counter-insurgency depends on successful nation-building, or reconstruction, or whatever you want to call it. (COIN). Especially with Pakistan providing a haven. There is a lot we are doing right but there’s also a lot we are doing wrong. Clearly we cannot do it all ourselves. Our reliance on air power is worrisome. It’s self-defeating to conduct counter-insurgency from 20,000 ft.

You want to blame someone that Canadians aren’t convinced about Afghanistan, why don’t you blame Stephen Harper?

Harper has been in charge for 18 months now. He’s the one in charge and he’s the one screwing up this debate. He and his ‘new Canadian government’ have single-handedly failed to convince Canadians of the Afghanistan mission’s importance. Get mad at the Conservatives. If Afghanistan is so important to Canada’s national interest explain why it is. Don’t just go on about how many Saskatchewan farm boys and Toronto mechanics died at the Somme. Get out there and heckle our Nato allies to send more troops, to change their rules of engagement. They should be stressing how important Afghanistan’s success is to Nato, and how important Nato has been and will be to the Canadian military. They should be stressing the vileness of the Taliban, and how the majority of Afghans support Karzai’s government in Kabul, for all its faults. They should be stressing how Afghanistan is not Iraq. And they should be making an honest effort to explain why after 5 years southern Pashtun Afghanistan appears to be slipping from Nato’s control, and what, if anything, we can do about it.

But instead we get empty rhetoric about supporting our troops. And we have to fight the terrorists over there before the come here. (O’Conner). And other rubbish. Make an argument meant for adults and Canadians will respond like adults. The liberals and the NDP and the Bloc will then have to employ adult-like arguments, not just calling Afghanistan George Bush’s war.

9/7/07 5:57 PM  
Anonymous:

Wsam, think you pointed out some good points of what we can do. I don't think much is Harper's fault on this issue though, like you stressed.

First, the tide in the UK and US has been strongly anti-combat, period. Journalists, many are liberal, are against combat, and so are city folk. Spend time in any city, and I bet you most are against combat unless it's a quick rescue mission by a SWAT team. Harper showed courage and leadership by forcing the vote on Afghanistan. He also made Afghanistan his first foreign visit. People in general don't like to sit down and spend hours of their day or even weeks thinking about politics. There are many Canadians that don't even know who Stephen Harper is, let alone O'Connor or Mackay! It's actually extremely easy to say "George Bush's war" because the US is there too and well, Bush is the president of the US. The NDP and Bloc completely oppose the war, and well, they have always been anti-US. This is killing 2 political birds with one stone. The Liberals are clever enough to realize that support for the war slips over time, especially since this type of engagement requires a lot of patience. I don't know enough about military tactics to know about air strikes, but I think they are usual since our troops are exposed to significant danger while on the groud. Also, aren't air strikes usually called upon by troops who require support during battles?

Secondly, we live in a real-time age. You want something, it's usually pretty easy and quick to get. I start hearing comparisons to WW2, well, millions died in that war and a nuclear bomb was used. Michael Moore made a comparison to Iraq and WW2 last night on CNN, well, he kind of skipped over that whole mass casualties and radiation part. People see it's been 5 or so years now, and things aren't kicking around perfectly, so just bail they say. Mental laziness and preference to care about what is trivial is what is leading the lack of support for this war. The most positive thing I have seen from this military engagement is how young guys from all parts of rural Canada are able to make up most of the combat forces we have and do extraordinarily brave and complex work, while city folk go on and on about how we should just sit down with the Taliban and stop being a puppet of the US(e.g. Jack Layton), as though our committed soldiers believe we're doing this because of some conspiracy theory.

11/7/07 6:57 PM