By Paul Albers
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Afghanistan.
What image comes to your mind when you read that word? Flag draped coffins being solemnly loaded or unloaded from military cargo aircraft? Armoured vehicles transformed into twisted piles of scrap by another improvised explosive device? Frightened civilians caught in the crossfire?
Or do you see two million girls who now go to schools in a country where their mothers would have been killed for doing that? Do you picture reconstruction projects raising the standard of living, or envision a democratically elected government drafting laws in a once lawless land?
A true picture of Afghanistan would include both the good and the bad, but chances are that the mental image you conjured up was negative since you don't have many positive images in your memory to choose from.
Do you know what schools in Afghanistan look like? Have you seen pictures of the classrooms or the students? How many projects have been profiled on the evening newscast, and have you seen a photo of the chamber where the Parliament meets? These are images one has to actively search for to see.
It is small wonder that polls show support for the mission in Afghanistan slipping below the 50% mark with such unbalanced visuals in the news. Now Canada's political left hopes to capitalize on the growing discontent.
Now that Quebec soldiers taking fire and spilling their blood, the Bloc has decided that it is time for the government to commit to ending Canada's mission in Afghanistan. They are threatening to bring the government down unless the throne speech clearly indicates Canadian troops will withdraw in February 2009.
Liberal Leader Stphane Dion admits he wants the government to make the same commitment, but won't commit to supporting the Bloc against the government in a confidence motion before he hears the throne speech.
The Liberals have a lot of reasons to feel conflicted over this issue. It was Jean Chrtien who sent our military into Afghanistan in the first place. They arrived dressed in forest green fatigues since they had no uniforms in desert camouflage. Much of their equipment was outdated or substandard, but Kabul was relatively safe compared to other parts of the country, and politically far safer than any corner of Iraq, so the Liberals downplayed the challenges and passed themselves off as bona-fide members of the coalition of the willing, happy and proud to contribute to an important mission.
It was Paul Martin that moved them from the relative peace of Kabul over to Kandahar where Taliban activity was far more intense. Martin hand picked the blunt-spoken Gen. Rick Hillier as the new chief of defence staff and praised him after Hillier called the Taliban "detestable murderers and scumbags" and said a soldiers job was "to be able to kill people" The government made it clear that there would be more casualties, and that the mission was necessary to secure Canada against terrorist attacks. Martin himself told us that " Canadians must not be complacent …We, as a government, and Canadians, as a population, must take the measures to ensure the security of our population."
It was after Stephen Harper was sworn in as Prime Minister that the media began trying to turn Afghanistan into another Iraq. With the prediction of increased casualties coming true, the media demanded to be allowed to film the repatriation of fallen soldiers, an event more likely to produce images provoking grief and hopelessness than the patriotic ramp ceremonies they filmed when the coffin was sent home. They criticized the government for not lowering the flag on Parliament Hill even though that was not part of flag protocol or historical practice; they attempted to turn the handing of prisoners over to Afghan authorities into Abu Ghraib.
Likewise, demanding a commitment to not extend the mission is a mirror of American Democrats pushing for a firm withdrawal date from Iraq.
The demand itself makes little sense in practical terms. As things stand now, the mission is set to expire in less than 18 months and can not be extended without a vote in Parliament. Our allies are informed of this.
If the Liberals, Bloc and NDP are so sure that things in February 2009 will not be any better than they are now, then what reason is there to fear that such a vote would pass? The logistics of extending the mission would require a vote on this issue months before the deadline. The results of the vote (or the decision to not hold a vote) would give our allies the advance notice they need.
In political terms, the Bloc and the NDP want to use anti-war sentiments to increase their seat count, and Liberals want to avoid having a debate on extending the mission. The Grits would rather it all ended quietly without reminding the public of the role they played, but forcing an election over it could be just as bad.
Whether the Liberals support the Bloc or the government in a confidence motion would depend largely on how confident they are that they can use the Afghanistan issue as a springboard back into power. The mission has had a remarkable effect on increasing national pride, a strong case can be made that the mission is winnable and vital for our security, and there are many accomplishments in Afghanistan that Canadians can rightly be proud of. That doesn't mean they can't get swept up in poll results and their own rhetoric, so nothing is certain.
The best move for the Tories would be to stick to their guns. An election campaign would give Harper a vehicle to make his case directly to the public, something he is far better at than Dion. Also, if they want us to see the mission as a matter of national security, they need to treat it that way and make Afghanistan a hill the government is willing to die on.
Paul Albers is a freelance columnist living in Ottawa. He can be reached at: p.e.albers@gmail.com
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement