- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Tolstoyevsky said:
Exactly...what Layton has done is almost treasonous in my estimation...giving comfort to the enemy.
NDP calls for immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan
- Thread starter probum non poenitet
- Start date
Exactly...what Layton has done is almost treasonous in my estimation...giving comfort to the enemy.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
Tonight: CBC News, at 20 minutes past the hour, Jack Layton vs Peter MacKay, moderated by Peter Mansbridge. Peter MacKay makes a good stand.
Followed by a Documentary on "911 - 5 years later" with Brian Stewart.
Followed by a Documentary on "911 - 5 years later" with Brian Stewart.
Even Mansbridge had trouble unstanding Layton when he asked who you negotiate with. Mackay simply spouted the party line...it's true, but guys get creative here...this is not going to work if all they are going to do is insist that it is the right mission. They need to do a PR campaign on everything else that is going on, not just the firefights. :
mdh
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
It may be time for Harper to speak directly to the Canadian people on national TV to explain the Afghanistan mission; if Martin could preempt primetime to deliver an "apology" to the country for adscam, then Harper should be able to do it for something as serious as war...
- Reaction score
- 2,082
- Points
- 1,160
mdh said:
All he knows is that it would be wrong to leave, but I strongly suspect he really doesn't know why ... I actually think Harper doesn't really know what to say and neither do his advisors.
- Reaction score
- 4,266
- Points
- 1,260
More voices in the "development & diplomacy, but no defence" chorus (highlights mine - note the comment from everyone's favourite "think tank" the Polaris Institute), shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409
Danger: rhetoric ahead
Susan Riley, Ottawa Citizen, 6 Sept 06
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=127404d0-75a6-4d1b-9936-5423291d4311
It didn't take long for critics to accuse Jack Layton of playing footsie with the Taliban after he called last week for a speedy withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan in favour of urgent peace negotiations.
The debate about this war, and its terrible complications, has sharpened again with the deaths in Afghanistan on the weekend. It will only intensify in coming weeks as Parliament resumes. It will get nasty, too: There are too many political ambitions involved to hope for a respectful exchange.
What Canada should be doing in Afghanistan (if anything), what we owe the world, what we owe our troops, whether the war is winnable -- these are questions for ethicists and on-the-ground reporters. Unfortunately, they will fall to politicians to resolve and pundits to ponder.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper can be counted on not to waver, to insist, Bush-like, on the transcendent evil of the enemy and the righteousness of Canada's mission -- to cast the campaign in a moral-religious light. Liberals will squirm uncomfortably: They launched the Afghan mission, but are nervously watching it unravel, uncertain where to turn.
This confusion is reflected in the leadership race, as the candidates embrace varying positions -- tracking casualties, polls and Harper's numbers. And the early ambivalence of the Bloc Quebecois is turning to outright opposition now that Gilles Duceppe sees a chance to undermine Tory strength in Quebec.
As for the New Democrats, Layton's claim -- that the military campaign is unwinnable, so international efforts should be directed to diplomacy -- isn't new, although he is the first major leader with the courage to advance it.
Nor is his proposal that the Taliban be included in any talks all that provocative. The hawkish U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made the same point two years ago: "(Afghan) President Hamid Karzai is reaching out to the Taliban. He's not reaching out to the people with blood on their hands, but he's reaching out to other Taliban and trying to encourage them to come back into the society, be a participant and support the government."
Within recent weeks, too, there have been reports of NATO officials negotiating a possible ceasefire with some Taliban factions.
The point is that the Taliban is a political, religious and cultural fact of Afghan society that contains, within its ranks, moderate elements -- moderate, comparatively speaking. It ran a viciously oppressive government; no one wants that regime to return. But the real world is not a cartoon, where the bad guys are instantly identifiable by the colour of their hats.
The Karzai cabinet, for instance, includes former war lords, drug kingpins and Taliban sympathizers, along with western-educated professionals and a couple of brave women. All the country's factions will have to be reflected in that government if it is to survive after the West leaves.
On one another point, however, Layton is vulnerable -- not just to partisan abuse, but to widespread doubt. If we pull out of Afghanistan next February, two years ahead of schedule, will we look like cowards -- running out on allies and betraying our promises?
This prospect troubles even Canadians who are ambivalent about, or opposed to, the military campaign. "No one is saying abandon Afghanistan," says Steven Staples of the Polaris Institute, a leading skeptic. The challenge, he says, is to move from a futile military campaign to development and diplomacy. "Canadians want to help ... but they've been told the only way to help is combat. They've only reluctantly accepted that."
The challenge, for opponents of the war, is to convince Canadians that we can play a useful diplomatic role -- in concert with other NATO nations -- that more hospitals and schools can be built despite the ongoing war, that changing focus doesn't mean cutting and running.
It is easier to prove that the current approach isn't working. The Taliban is stronger than ever. The inevitable civilian deaths are undermining support for the allied effort and for Karzai's government. That government is riddled with corruption. The opium trade has rebounded. And now we're told that the only way to pacify the southern part of the country (scene of the recent casualties) is to leave Canadian troops behind. But for how long and at what cost?
The prime minister seems determined to keep troops in Afghanistan until 2009 -- but how many lives will be lost and what happens when we leave? In the U.S., George Bush is orchestrating the return of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, dressing defeat in the rhetoric of victory. Are we in the first act of the same play?
Susan Riley's column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
E-mail: sriley@thecitizen.canwest.com
Danger: rhetoric ahead
Susan Riley, Ottawa Citizen, 6 Sept 06
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=127404d0-75a6-4d1b-9936-5423291d4311
It didn't take long for critics to accuse Jack Layton of playing footsie with the Taliban after he called last week for a speedy withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan in favour of urgent peace negotiations.
The debate about this war, and its terrible complications, has sharpened again with the deaths in Afghanistan on the weekend. It will only intensify in coming weeks as Parliament resumes. It will get nasty, too: There are too many political ambitions involved to hope for a respectful exchange.
What Canada should be doing in Afghanistan (if anything), what we owe the world, what we owe our troops, whether the war is winnable -- these are questions for ethicists and on-the-ground reporters. Unfortunately, they will fall to politicians to resolve and pundits to ponder.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper can be counted on not to waver, to insist, Bush-like, on the transcendent evil of the enemy and the righteousness of Canada's mission -- to cast the campaign in a moral-religious light. Liberals will squirm uncomfortably: They launched the Afghan mission, but are nervously watching it unravel, uncertain where to turn.
This confusion is reflected in the leadership race, as the candidates embrace varying positions -- tracking casualties, polls and Harper's numbers. And the early ambivalence of the Bloc Quebecois is turning to outright opposition now that Gilles Duceppe sees a chance to undermine Tory strength in Quebec.
As for the New Democrats, Layton's claim -- that the military campaign is unwinnable, so international efforts should be directed to diplomacy -- isn't new, although he is the first major leader with the courage to advance it.
Nor is his proposal that the Taliban be included in any talks all that provocative. The hawkish U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made the same point two years ago: "(Afghan) President Hamid Karzai is reaching out to the Taliban. He's not reaching out to the people with blood on their hands, but he's reaching out to other Taliban and trying to encourage them to come back into the society, be a participant and support the government."
Within recent weeks, too, there have been reports of NATO officials negotiating a possible ceasefire with some Taliban factions.
The point is that the Taliban is a political, religious and cultural fact of Afghan society that contains, within its ranks, moderate elements -- moderate, comparatively speaking. It ran a viciously oppressive government; no one wants that regime to return. But the real world is not a cartoon, where the bad guys are instantly identifiable by the colour of their hats.
The Karzai cabinet, for instance, includes former war lords, drug kingpins and Taliban sympathizers, along with western-educated professionals and a couple of brave women. All the country's factions will have to be reflected in that government if it is to survive after the West leaves.
On one another point, however, Layton is vulnerable -- not just to partisan abuse, but to widespread doubt. If we pull out of Afghanistan next February, two years ahead of schedule, will we look like cowards -- running out on allies and betraying our promises?
This prospect troubles even Canadians who are ambivalent about, or opposed to, the military campaign. "No one is saying abandon Afghanistan," says Steven Staples of the Polaris Institute, a leading skeptic. The challenge, he says, is to move from a futile military campaign to development and diplomacy. "Canadians want to help ... but they've been told the only way to help is combat. They've only reluctantly accepted that."
The challenge, for opponents of the war, is to convince Canadians that we can play a useful diplomatic role -- in concert with other NATO nations -- that more hospitals and schools can be built despite the ongoing war, that changing focus doesn't mean cutting and running.
It is easier to prove that the current approach isn't working. The Taliban is stronger than ever. The inevitable civilian deaths are undermining support for the allied effort and for Karzai's government. That government is riddled with corruption. The opium trade has rebounded. And now we're told that the only way to pacify the southern part of the country (scene of the recent casualties) is to leave Canadian troops behind. But for how long and at what cost?
The prime minister seems determined to keep troops in Afghanistan until 2009 -- but how many lives will be lost and what happens when we leave? In the U.S., George Bush is orchestrating the return of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, dressing defeat in the rhetoric of victory. Are we in the first act of the same play?
Susan Riley's column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
E-mail: sriley@thecitizen.canwest.com
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
So it goes: from tragedy to comedy and now to farce. Here is the latest, reproduced (with my emphasis added) under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, from today’s National Post:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2d1586cd-646f-4358-93e5-567e77d87b59&k=31590
This sort of thing is a problem for all parties: the delegates, the ultra-faithful, are more everything than the parliamentary caucus and the party’s policy staff. The NDP (and Liberal) grassroots are more loony-left, the Conservative grassroots are much more socially conservative and even the Bloc grassroots are more militantly separatist than the party, proper.
While it might make Layton uncomfortable, for a wee while, if Brickler/Ipsos Reid is correct he will happily trade the temporary discomfort for a couple of Liberal seats in Toronto, Vancouver and, above all, Montreal.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2d1586cd-646f-4358-93e5-567e77d87b59&k=31590
This sort of thing is a problem for all parties: the delegates, the ultra-faithful, are more everything than the parliamentary caucus and the party’s policy staff. The NDP (and Liberal) grassroots are more loony-left, the Conservative grassroots are much more socially conservative and even the Bloc grassroots are more militantly separatist than the party, proper.
While it might make Layton uncomfortable, for a wee while, if Brickler/Ipsos Reid is correct he will happily trade the temporary discomfort for a couple of Liberal seats in Toronto, Vancouver and, above all, Montreal.
- Reaction score
- 4,266
- Points
- 1,260
Good point - the role of party leader as wrangler....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Although, I can't find it , I'm sure Jacko joined a legion branch in a political move awhile back. Maybe that membership should ask for the withdrawal of Layton et al as members of the Legion. Especially, if his party's vote on Troop Terrorism is adopted and that should be grounds for him to be ejected.? (would his branch have the stones to try it?)
This NDP platform is utterly hypocritical of the beliefs of that insitution and they should not be allowed to associate further given their recent comments.
This NDP platform is utterly hypocritical of the beliefs of that insitution and they should not be allowed to associate further given their recent comments.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,739
- Points
- 1,040
>Scary part is I found my past 6 weeks in disturbing civilianland ,most people will agree with the NDP stance.I find they love the troops but don't quite support harper/mission, and a total lack of education on their part.
Those who claim to support the troops but not support the mission are deluding themselves. You can't support the troops without supporting the mission. The national popular and political will to fight and determination to see the mission through to success is part of the package. If you erode that resolve, you are not supporting the troops. You are supporting the enemy. You are supporting his aims, to remove our influence from his selected area of operations. You are the enemy of his enemy, if not his ally. The only proper way to object to the mission is to do so before it begins. Once the decision is taken to build the dam, you should have the good sense to simply stand aside if you aren't willing to throw your effort into the construction instead of sawing at the beams.
When we send our armed forces instead of simply funding NGOs to do work abroad, presumably it's because we think some of the locals might object forcefully to our aims. It does no good whatsoever to demonstrate that all the locals have to do is kill a platoon's worth of Canadians to rid themselves of our interference, each time and every time. If we won't follow through, then what business have we risking people in harm's way, ever? We might as well never go in the first place, avoiding the expenditure of any blood or treasure to what must inevitably be of no account because there are people opposed to us who will not flinch at the cost.
There may be reasons to drop the mission in Afghanistan - for example, what happens if Pakistan becomes irretrievably hostile - but casualties at the rate currently being sustained are not one of them. Since I've never been in harm's way and am likely never to be so, call me a chickenhawk if you wish; you'll still have to address the substance because my personal failings and underachievements are irrelevant.
Those who claim to support the troops but not support the mission are deluding themselves. You can't support the troops without supporting the mission. The national popular and political will to fight and determination to see the mission through to success is part of the package. If you erode that resolve, you are not supporting the troops. You are supporting the enemy. You are supporting his aims, to remove our influence from his selected area of operations. You are the enemy of his enemy, if not his ally. The only proper way to object to the mission is to do so before it begins. Once the decision is taken to build the dam, you should have the good sense to simply stand aside if you aren't willing to throw your effort into the construction instead of sawing at the beams.
When we send our armed forces instead of simply funding NGOs to do work abroad, presumably it's because we think some of the locals might object forcefully to our aims. It does no good whatsoever to demonstrate that all the locals have to do is kill a platoon's worth of Canadians to rid themselves of our interference, each time and every time. If we won't follow through, then what business have we risking people in harm's way, ever? We might as well never go in the first place, avoiding the expenditure of any blood or treasure to what must inevitably be of no account because there are people opposed to us who will not flinch at the cost.
There may be reasons to drop the mission in Afghanistan - for example, what happens if Pakistan becomes irretrievably hostile - but casualties at the rate currently being sustained are not one of them. Since I've never been in harm's way and am likely never to be so, call me a chickenhawk if you wish; you'll still have to address the substance because my personal failings and underachievements are irrelevant.
- Reaction score
- 17,068
- Points
- 1,010
Brad,
+2. Well said.
+2. Well said.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Toronto Sun today
September 6, 2006
EDITORIAL: We cannot betray our soldiers now
With 32 soldiers and a diplomat already having made the ultimate sacrifice for us in Afghanistan, it's time for an honest discussion about why we sent them there in the first place.
We'd like to say it was because Canadians understood that Afghanistan under the Taliban had become a failed state, providing a safe harbour for terrorists like Osama bin Laden to plot 9/11 and countless other atrocities.
We'd like to say it was because Canadians recognized that we needed to prevent that from happening again -- both for our own safety and for the sake of the people of Afghanistan.
But we can't say that because a year after Paul Martin and the Liberals first chose the dangerous mission in Kandahar for our soldiers, it's apparent that far too many Canadians simply weren't paying attention when that decision was made.
It's not as if we weren't warned. A year ago, then Liberal defence minister Bill Graham repeatedly told Canadians about how deadly Kandahar would be for our troops. So did Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier. But judging from the deeply divided opinion polls now, many of us weren't even listening.
We naively assumed that Kandahar was another "peacekeeping" mission of the kind our governments -- both Liberal and Conservative -- have been bragging about for 50 years.
Now, to their horror, many Canadians are finally realizing that Kandahar isn't a "peacekeeping" mission at all. That before there can be any peace, and for reconstruction and humanitarian aid to do any good, the Taliban must be defeated.
NDP Leader Jack Layton, who a year ago supported this mission, now says we should pull out. He won't be the last Canadian politician to take the same appalling stand.
We have never doubted that our soldiers are up to this task. The question now is, are the rest of us up to it? Because if the death of 32 soldiers is enough to sap our national will, we should never have sent any of them to Kandahar. We support this mission under Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, just as we did when the Liberals were in charge.
But the more important question now is whether Canadians, having sent our soldiers into harm's way, are prepared to back them until they finish the job. Because if we are not, we should never have sent them to Kandahar in the first place, and we will have betrayed them in the worst possible way.
September 6, 2006
EDITORIAL: We cannot betray our soldiers now
With 32 soldiers and a diplomat already having made the ultimate sacrifice for us in Afghanistan, it's time for an honest discussion about why we sent them there in the first place.
We'd like to say it was because Canadians understood that Afghanistan under the Taliban had become a failed state, providing a safe harbour for terrorists like Osama bin Laden to plot 9/11 and countless other atrocities.
We'd like to say it was because Canadians recognized that we needed to prevent that from happening again -- both for our own safety and for the sake of the people of Afghanistan.
But we can't say that because a year after Paul Martin and the Liberals first chose the dangerous mission in Kandahar for our soldiers, it's apparent that far too many Canadians simply weren't paying attention when that decision was made.
It's not as if we weren't warned. A year ago, then Liberal defence minister Bill Graham repeatedly told Canadians about how deadly Kandahar would be for our troops. So did Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier. But judging from the deeply divided opinion polls now, many of us weren't even listening.
We naively assumed that Kandahar was another "peacekeeping" mission of the kind our governments -- both Liberal and Conservative -- have been bragging about for 50 years.
Now, to their horror, many Canadians are finally realizing that Kandahar isn't a "peacekeeping" mission at all. That before there can be any peace, and for reconstruction and humanitarian aid to do any good, the Taliban must be defeated.
NDP Leader Jack Layton, who a year ago supported this mission, now says we should pull out. He won't be the last Canadian politician to take the same appalling stand.
We have never doubted that our soldiers are up to this task. The question now is, are the rest of us up to it? Because if the death of 32 soldiers is enough to sap our national will, we should never have sent any of them to Kandahar. We support this mission under Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, just as we did when the Liberals were in charge.
But the more important question now is whether Canadians, having sent our soldiers into harm's way, are prepared to back them until they finish the job. Because if we are not, we should never have sent them to Kandahar in the first place, and we will have betrayed them in the worst possible way.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
Letter to Editor - National Post 07 Sept 06:
'Each time he opens his mouth, Canadian soldiers are put in danger'
Every time Jack Layton muses that Canadian troops should prematurely withdraw from Afghanistan, the Taliban listens. They think that, with enough Canadian blood spilled, our Parliament will recall our soldiers and leave Afghanistan to its fate. Each time Mr. Layton calls for withdrawal, the Taliban gets what they believe to be a progress report on their insurgency. This perception of progress tells them that there is no reason to participate in the demobilization and disarmament programs of the Afghan government, and it encourages them to spill more Canadian blood, to build Canadian public support for Mr. Layton's call to retreat.
'Each time he opens his mouth, Canadian soldiers are put in danger'
Every time Jack Layton muses that Canadian troops should prematurely withdraw from Afghanistan, the Taliban listens. They think that, with enough Canadian blood spilled, our Parliament will recall our soldiers and leave Afghanistan to its fate. Each time Mr. Layton calls for withdrawal, the Taliban gets what they believe to be a progress report on their insurgency. This perception of progress tells them that there is no reason to participate in the demobilization and disarmament programs of the Afghan government, and it encourages them to spill more Canadian blood, to build Canadian public support for Mr. Layton's call to retreat.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,104
- Points
- 1,160
I think there is scope for someone to support the troops without supporting the mission, and I've outlined where that line gets crossed here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49827/post-439504.html#msg439504Brad Sallows said:
It is when our bodies become the political ammunition of the anti-war movements or it is when we become the target of the anti-war rhetoric.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,739
- Points
- 1,040
There's a difference between "opposing" the mission in the sense of adapting it to changing reality on the ground - no plan survives contact with the enemy, etc - and "opposing" the missing by abdicating it.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 460
If my problem solving skills are up to scratch here:
If we send in peaceful unarmed construction people to build houses and infrastructure, the bad guys will kill or kidnap them all. Therefore, we need to send in troops to eliminate the treat THEN build. Maybe the NDP can decide when to send in the unarmed personal? And then cry over coffins and scream, "where's the troops to defend that'll defend us?"
My .02
If we send in peaceful unarmed construction people to build houses and infrastructure, the bad guys will kill or kidnap them all. Therefore, we need to send in troops to eliminate the treat THEN build. Maybe the NDP can decide when to send in the unarmed personal? And then cry over coffins and scream, "where's the troops to defend that'll defend us?"
My .02
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
Brad Sallows said:
The more I think about this, the more I wonder what Jack Layton was thinking.
Most politicians know that getting what you want is by compromising and making deals. So if the NDP wanted more development, etc. etc. they might have conceivably said "If we don't revisit our plan for redevelopment, THEN we will withdraw support." "Or ... here was OUR great plan for the Afghan people ... OUR plan could have worked, but nobody would listen."
I don't follow the NDP especially closely, but wasn't his announcement a bit sudden?
The extreme position of "complete withdrawal, now!" doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room. Any negotiation will make Jack look like he's losing face.
So even if Harper presented the World's Most Cunning Plan that would have an NDP dream-list of incentives, it would be almost impossible for Layton to accept it. You can't back off from "complete withdrawal, now!" with subtlety.
So if Layton was actually leaning on the government for more CIDA or DFAIT or whatever in Kandahar, he's blown it. And since Layton is an old-hat politician he surely knows what he was doing.
In fact, by taking this stand, he has effectively removed himself and his party from any influence of what is actually happening in Afghanistan.
The more I think about this, this is actually a golden opportunity for the Liberals to takes seats from the NDP, and not the other way around.
If the Liberals come forth as 'all things to all people' as they always do, they can say, "We support the mission, not like those cowardly NDP, but we care about a balanced approach, not like those blood-crazed Conservatives."
And if Harper comes up with The World's Most Cunning Plan, the Liberals can leap on board ... and if Harper doesn't, the Liberals can opt out. Soulless and leaderless they often are, but the Liberals are awfully good at playing politics.
So, if there's any fricking justice, Jack's version of "supporting the troops" may have marginalized him further.
Watch and shoot.
Similar threads
