Response to the Ruxted rebuttal of Jack Layton in the Toronto Star

[ruxted]

Please post your replies to the Rebuttal to Jack Layton’s article in the Toronto Star here.

To further the debate here is the origional Jack Layton article, reproduced under the Fair Dealings Provisions of the Copyright Act.

Why Canada must review mission
Sep. 26, 2006. 01:00 AM
JACK LAYTON

Debate over Canada's combat role in southern Afghanistan is growing. In the last few days, Canadians have had the opportunity to hear from Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

But who's listening to the millions of everyday Canadians who are reaching the conclusion that this is the wrong mission for Canada?

In his speech to the United Nations, Harper stepped up his efforts to justify the government's decision to extend this mission for, we now hear, as long as it takes.

The more we learn, the more it becomes clear that this mission is ill-defined, unbalanced and that Canada has no exit strategy. In short, this current mission is a strategic blunder by Harper, the Conservative government and the Liberals who helped them keep us there.

The Conservative government's insistence on a military solution to Afghanistan's insecurity is highly contestable.

Harper says Canadian troops must engage in warfare in Afghanistan to "eliminate the remnants of the Taliban regime once and for all."

This is not a view shared by Karzai who just this past Thursday told the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, "Bombings in Afghanistan are no solution to the Taliban. You do not destroy terrorism by bombing villages."

Harper's stubborn and narrow approach to Afghanistan is a lift from President George Bush's tired playbook and one Canadians are having little difficulty seeing through.

Weeks ago, I called for the withdrawal of Canadian Forces from the combat mission in southern Afghanistan.

I called on the government to focus Canada's role on reconstruction, aid and development.

This mission is not balanced. It is overwhelmingly skewed toward military combat and away from development assistance and diplomatic efforts. In fact, for every dollar the Canadian government is spending in Afghanistan only 10 cents goes to reconstruction and aid, while 90 cents goes to the military.

It's not just everyday Canadians who are concerned about this mission. And certainly not just New Democrats.

Just last weekend Australia announced it was withdrawing its entire 200-strong special forces. Across Europe, member nations of NATO — including Germany, France, Italy and Turkey — are refusing to commit troops to the military offensive in Kandahar province where Canadian troops are stationed. With good reason: They share the NDP's unease about the viability of such an undefined and unbalanced mission.

Even those within the military are now expressing their concerns as well. Capt. Leo Docherty, a former aide-de—camp to a British commander, in an interview with the London Daily Telegraph called the NATO mission "grotesquely clumsy" and warned we have been "sucked into a problem unsolvable by military means." The mission, he added, has been "a textbook case of how to screw up a counter-insurgency."

Even Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor in March admitted that "there is no military solution there. The solution is economic."

Harper is arrogantly dismissing those who differ with his view of the world.

Perhaps Harper should listen to Najibullah Lafraie, the former foreign affairs minister in the pre-Taliban government who said: "If the international community wants to deny the Taliban and their allies an important recruiting tool, it must withdraw Western troops from Afghanistan as soon as possible."

What of the growing body of independent evidence that shows that bombing a country to pieces does not necessarily lead it to peace?

One Afghan commander in Kandahar told British researchers at the Senlis Council: "The foreigners came here and said they would help the poor people and improve the economic situation, but they only spend money on their military operations. The poor people are poorer now than when the Taliban were the government. We don't trust them anymore. We would be fools to continue to believe their lies."

This sentiment is echoed by Malalai Joya, a female Afghan MP.

"When the entire nation is living under the shadow of the gun and warlordism, how can its women enjoy very basic freedoms?

Contrary to the propaganda in certain Western media, Afghan women and men are not `liberated' at all."

It's time for a new approach. One that puts reconstruction, development and aid ahead of counter- insurgency.

It only makes sense in a conflict that both the minister of defence and the president of Afghanistan admit can't be won militarily. Now if only Harper would listen.

 

[McG]

Mr Layton tells Canadians that we should return to our "traditional role of peacekeeping", yet his use of the term suggests that he is likely ignorant of what this means.

Too bad he has fooled a lot of Canadian's into believing him. 

Mr Layton continually insists that the mission is “unbalanced” but he does not suggest what a balanced mission would look like.

I guess he does not subscribe to the "don't bring problems, bring solutions" kind of thinking.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

I honestly think at this point it must be clear to even Mr. Layton why we need to provide security before reconstruction in Afghanistan, but he's gone so far down that rhetorical path he can't turn around now. It's a shame so many Canadians are falling for his strategy in the mean time.

 

[Slim]

I honestly think at this point it must be clear to even Mr. Layton why we need to provide security before reconstruction in Afghanistan, but he's gone so far down that rhetorical path he can't turn around now. It's a shame so many Canadians are falling for his strategy in the mean time.

Are we sure that the majority of Canadians are falling for his crap and not just the vocal few...?

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

Are we sure that the majority of Canadians are falling for his crap and not just the vocal few...?

It isn't about getting most of the people to believe something.  It is about getting a "key demographic".  For example left leaning people who aren't traditional ndp supporters but despise the war in Iraq. (annoying yes, but a frighteningly large number of Canadians can't tell the issues apart) This could cut into Liberal support and yank out a few seats from the grits.  This particular form is called division politics. "We're the moral ones, who really care about our fellow Canadians where as you get government kickbacks from your military contracts as you assign our troops to missions that are needlessly dangerous - taking on more than our share to suck up to Bush and support his illegal war of aggression".  I've heard four or five different tendentious arguments to support the NDP's viewpoint.  It didn't convince me,  but their message isn't targeted at me,  it is targeted at people who will give them the anti-war vote.  This kind of politics is sadly effective.

 

[pronto]

I am almost sure the majority of Canadians are NOT falling for his rhetoric. My team at work is universally in favour of what we're doing in Afghanistan. As are the other teams. As are almost 100% of the others I have spoken with over the past few months. I think my sample size (at least 500 people, mixed gender, mixed background, mixed ethnicity, mixed income, etc. etc. - a pretty good population pool) is sufficient to allow me to say that the VAST majority of Canadians do not support Mr. Layton.

In fact, the "fervent" NDP party-follower has been dropping in influence steadily since the Broadbent days. They are less and less relevant. I know a few NDP-ers who are actually ashamed of ol' Jackie  right about now. As usual we hear about the vocal few because they make good press, and the media can actually get a story without working overhard.

If there is not a story, the media will look for one, and frankly, I think in some cases, they will even make one. Remember William Randolph Hearst and the Spanish war? totally manufactured to sell papers... I am not saying they've gone that far since, but hey, precedent was set.

The media will also subtly threaten. Ever hear the expression "Don't argue with people who buy their ink by the gallon"? That comes out whenever someone points out the bias or the poor job the media does. In other words, shut up or we will bury you. Nowadays that is a very frightening threat.

So - upshot... The Canadian population supports the forces overwhelmingly. The NDP are becoming less relevant than even THEY feared. The media manufactures an "opinion" on behalf of the population to make headlines and look like they are "reporting" real stories.

...just my opinion and observations...


...Edited because I cannot spell "relevant"...

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

(*Personal venting Responses to The Afghanistan Debate – this is tendentious*)

After 15 years of doing my fair share for the political left in this country I have to stop and walk away. I can’t support the NDP anymore, not because my values have changed, but because they’ve changed. The breaking point for me was the way they’ve dealt with the Afghanistan issue.

I’ve been … I had been a steadfast NDP supporter since I was 12- I am now 27.  I’d wear orange with pride as I protested with my fellow NDPers in my small-hometown-Alberta.  I’ve volunteered with them; I’ve debated many people quite successfully key points of the NDP platform.  One of my prouder moments is when I got a graduate from the University of Calgary to admit that demand side economics has traditionally developed economies faster and with a higher standard of living for the majority of people. And I regret it all.

Honestly this is not the party I knew growing up; this is not a party I could ever support. I was attracted to the NDP because they said what they meant, meant what they said and were happy to hash over the issues intelligently. There have been so many internal changes, both subtle and overt.  Maybe I’ve just began to notice them now.  The NDP has begun to compromise on its values in order to attain power.  Bev Desjardins voted against a platform issue in the House of Commons and she wasn’t kicked out of the party.  It was left to her Churchill riding association, whom she has shamed, to pull her.  Why did she not get the boot later that day as promised in the election campaign?  Jack needed her vote to push through that budget. 

Compromising values for power is a slippery slope.  Now with Layton using division politics to capture and secure key demographics, I see that the NDP aren’t just flirting with the edge, they are tumbling down so fast it could only be described as a free fall with an occasional bump. When he does to the NDP what Mulroney did to the Progressive-conservatives, I wonder how the political left will survive. Although, right now, I’m doing what I can to stop the NDP’s “support the troops” campaign.  (I’m up to 5 card carrying NDPers now begrudgingly admitting that their party is wrong on this issue)

I only wish I had the time to mount a proper grassroots revolt.

 

[patrick666]

The more we learn, the more it becomes clear that this mission is ill-defined, unbalanced and that Canada has no exit strategy.

Ill-defined? Provide security, reconstruction and humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan.

Unbalanced? You bet - we have the trained troops, the big guns and state-of-the-art technology.

Exit Strategy? Has their been a war, or "state of armed conflict", that has ever had an exit strategy, from the beginning years?

I don't understand his logic - he wants the troops gone but the reconsctruction workers to stay, so who is going to protect them? The Taliban, once it sees our troops withdraw, will simply roll over everything we've done so far and destroy it and not too mention most likely kill anybody who was helping the coalition in any way.

I like how Jack twists Karzai's words almost against him to promote his own looney-tune policy. He needs to get it in his head that is NOT the Prime Minister and that, Stephen Harper, as the Prime Minister is in charge.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Zell,

Do you mind if ask you a follow-up question?

Many of my friends who are very well-intentioned people came out of the last election thinking Harper was the son-of-Satan and the Conservative Party was going to ruin everything good about the country.  However, in the last 3 or 4 months in particular, there's a new respect for the guy because at the very least he does what he promises.

I'm not sure they're going to vote CPC at this point because a lot of them just can't in any way conceptualize "the opportunity cost of inaction" as it relates to military affairs and as such still point to deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan as being 100% of the fault of the Western Powers (especially the girls for whatever reason - with the guys as soon as I explain the 1938 Munich Agreement, they usually catch on very quickly)....but on everything else there is a growing trust.

Coming from where you were, I'm curious as to your perspective....


Matthew. 

 

[cplcaldwell]

Zell

I'm about as Tory as they get. Mind you that's a long way from Republican though.

The NDP has made a bad choice with Layton, you know it, I know it, a lot of people know it.

Don't walk away, somewhere, in behind all the baggage that Jack brings along with his silly Tronna City Council 'carry on', is the party of Douglas, Knowles, Woodsworth, Coldwell, Lewis and Broadbent.(and  a dozen others...)

I may never vote for it; but it's a useful and (IMHO) necessary part of the political landscape.

Don't forget, us Torys spent nigh on fifteen years in the wilderness. Before that eight or nine years of Mulroney (maybe I'll be able to attach a value to that before I die, not, sure). And before that, hmm... Clark, Stanfield, Diefenbaker...It's a long story.

The politics of division is Layton. The politics of the NDP, no matter how left, is or at least, in its best days, was not.

Carry on....

 

[Brad Sallows]

Shorter Jack Layton: Fvck this hard sh!t.  We want the easy missions so we can preen and parade our moral sanctity on the international stage without getting our hands dirty.

 

[MarkOttawa]

There is a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) at Kandahar, established in the summer of 2005 and of a size that Martin's government approved.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/operations/archer/index_e.asp#athena

Since August 2005, a Canadian PRT has operated in Kandahar, where it is expected to remain until February 2009. The PRT brings together elements from the Canadian Forces (CF), Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), and civilian police led by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in an integrated Canadian effort known as the “All of Government” approach. Approximately 220 personnel are based at the PRT site at Camp Nathan Smith in Kandahar City.

Perhaps the PRT is not as effective as it might be. A main reason may be that the Taliban insurgency is stronger than expected in 2005 when Mr Martin's government approved the overall new mission in the south. Strange to say such unanticipated things happen in war. That is why there is now quite a lot of combat--without the success of which development, as demanded by Mr Martin and all those others, will not be possible. Easy to understand, is it not?

Mark
Ottawa

 

[wildman0101]

what is this guy f****** smoking
did he not support support the troops in peacekeeping and fully supported the mission in a-stan
during the last federal election in jan 2006
why is he doing a turn around now
oh ya "hes cutting an running"
just my thoughts,,
i stand corrected my info is incorrect and im outta line but sheesh
                                                                best regards,,
                                                                        sccoty

                                       

 

[Love793]

Bottom line.  The Jack Layton Fan Club can spout all they want.  For them to win a federal election, they have to win the majority of seats in Ont.  That's not going to happen, as Ont is still very angered over paying off a debt from Bob Rae (Then Premier of Ont).  This the same reason why the liberals will not vote Rae in as their new leader.

As for the majority of Canadians believing the communist, I mean NDP propaganda.  I just completed a Recruiting Event in the most Union of all cities (Windsor Ont) and can attest that the majority are in support of us.  For every 1 "We should pull out..." statement, we received 20 "Keep up the good work..." statements.

 

[GMan87]

Hi, this is my first post here. I'm a university student with some interest in possibly becoming an engineering officer (this would still be a few years down the road), just looking at my options after graduation. Anyways I've looked around these forums a fair bit just to find out more about a career in the military, and I have learned a lot.

As a "lefty" who voted for Layton last election, I felt this was a good time to finally register.

Well I'll be blunt: I am downright embaressed that with the NDP's direction. It's not so much even that they're against the war (which I'm not), as it is admitadely a questionable war. However, what I really don't like is their demand that Canada immediately pull its troops. The fact is Canada signed on to this mission, and for us to break that commitment, there would have to be a very, very good reason to do so. Some soldiers dying, as tragic as it is, isn't a reason to abort the mission. If Canada left now, then their deaths truly would have been for no reason; finsih the mission and let the deaths of these brave young soldiers mean something.

This mission seems to frighten people because it is Canada's biggest military operation since Korea, but honestly I think this is a very good thing for Canada's military. The mission has exposed some of the problems with our military and allowed them to be fixed (or at least noticed by government), I think its also good for soldiers to get some experience in an actual combat zone. The mission will also hopefully mean that Afghanistan can be a better country for everyone to live in. As well, in the long run, having an anti terrorist government is good for Canada. The Taliban will never really be defeated by NATO, but if they can cripple the Taliban enough and improve the Afghan army enough to defend themselves and their government, it will be better for us in the long run The fact that most military members seem to support the mission is truly what makes me support it. If you guys didn't want to be there, I would feel very out of place supporting you being there.

Anyways, this is a reply about the article, so I should probably mention it. Very good article. I think the sad thing with the NDP situation is that they probably have some good points in criticizing the mission; I'm sure there's some ways things could be done better. But instead of offering suggestions on how this mission could be improved, they just say we should abandon it.  And I think that fits in with the article saying how humanitarian aid needs military support.

One more thing, can the politicians stop using the term "support our troops". Layton says bringing them home is supporting them, which would be fine if you guys wanted to come home, which it doesn't seem like you do. Harper says that to support the troops you have to support the mission, which is completely ridiculous since it is up to the people of a country to question their government's decisions. Military personnel can't pick and choose their wars, that is up to the government, who is a representation of the people. You can support our troops without supporting the government chosen war.  I guess what I'm trying to say, is Layton doesn't care about you, Harper doesn't care about you, the Liberals don't care about you, its all politics to them. At least when people oppose the war who have nothing to gain from oposing it, even if you feel they are misinformed, they are doing what they feel is right.

And one last thing: Great Job! Keep It Up!. Seeing Canada actually have an important role in this mission has made me feel proud as a Canadian and will hopefully make Afghanistan a better place.  Oh and this is the last straw with me and the federal NDP, I'm voting Liberal or Green next election. In Ontario, I am still NDP though.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

Zell,

Do you mind if ask you a follow-up question?

Many of my friends who are very well-intentioned people came out of the last election thinking Harper was the son-of-Satan and the Conservative Party was going to ruin everything good about the country.  However, in the last 3 or 4 months in particular, there's a new respect for the guy because at the very least he does what he promises.

I'm not sure they're going to vote CPC at this point because a lot of them just can't in any way conceptualize "the opportunity cost of inaction" as it relates to military affairs and as such still point to deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan as being 100% of the fault of the Western Powers (especially the girls for whatever reason - with the guys as soon as I explain the 1938 Munich Agreement, they usually catch on very quickly)....but on everything else there is a growing trust.

Coming from where you were, I'm curious as to your perspective....


Matthew.   

My thoughts,  if Harper does what Ralph Klein did,  he'll be fine.  Ralph Klein stood up,  said exactly what he was going to do and then when elected did it.  Scandals, photo ops and internal party strife comes and goes,  but people remember that you kept your word.  I disagreed with a lot of what Klein did,  but he was doing exactly what he said he would do when he campained. (The downside of Democracy - sometimes most people disagree with you :-D )

    Now contrast that with Jack Layton,  who campains and promises one set of ideals and rules and then willy-nilly does something else because he sees a short term possibility.  I've met him in person on a few occasions,  I kind of liked him as a person,  but his actions have left me disappointed and (I'll be honest) a little angry.  I remember when that riding association made that insulting 'terrorist comment' ( http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060906.wndp0906/BNStory/National/ )  I wanted the party leader to come out and apologise,  denounce the comment and reprimand the people who wrote it.  If he did... I didn't see it.

    I don't give up easily,  but I know when something is on meltdown.  You can't get a drunk to stop drinking,  don't even try.  I think the NDP are on full self destruct mode, nothing I can do will help.  So I'll just relax and do my part to try and minimise the damage they'll do.

 

[R@chel]

I'm a conservative through and through.  Always have been and well, probably always will be.

That being said, I found it personally disgusting how Layton pounced on the deaths of our fallen soldier as a good time to table his new "anit-war in Afghanistan" platform.  Way to honour the sacrifice these brave troops made and respect the grieving families.  Politics... it's all about the vote.

As for Layton's "pull the troops out" stance and "returning to a peace keeping force", well I am a firm believer that there needs to be peace to be kept.  Let's be honest.  This isn't just about Afghanistan.  All be it, we owe it to the Afghanistan people to hold up our end of the bargain and sitck it out till the end.  I'm not sure what Layton is thinking.  What should we just abandon Afghanistan like so may countries before us?  I always consider Canada a get the job done kind of nation.  Apparently Layton see us differently. 

The simple fact is, that while the war in Afghanistan will help the Afghan people and afford them the rights and liberties we (sort of) share, it is also about terrorism.  Canandians need to face the fact that terrorism is everyones problem and well I am quite proud of the Canadian Service Members who are willing to take the fight to them rather than having it the other way around.

The only thing that drives me really batty of Layton and his unbelievable comments, is that there are people out there that take what he says on face value.  Harper needs to keep at it in terms of educating Canadians on the mission and the media needs to balance it's coverage (like that's gonna happen).

Oh and Layton's "we need to talk with the Taliban" bit... Yeah okay Jack, you be the first one off the plane.

That's just my two cents... for what it's worth.

 

[GMan87]

That being said, I found it personally disgusting how Layton pounced on the deaths of our fallen soldier as a good time to table his new "anit-war in Afghanistan" platform.  Way to honour the sacrifice these brave troops made and respect the grieving families.  Politics... it's all about the vote.

Ya, but the same could be said about the Conservatives, or any other party for that matter. Next election, Haper will use the war in any way he can to show he is a good prime minsiter. Whether its a photo op with the troops or how his leadership has made Canadians safer, etc.. I'm not defending Layton, but he is really no different than the rest of the politicians who will gladly use the death of Canadians to their own advantage. We saw it with the Dawson College shooting, both sides immediately using it to either defend or oppose the gun registry.

Oh and Layton's "we need to talk with the Taliban" bit... Yeah okay Jack, you be the first one off the plane.

Did he ever actually say we should talk with the Taliban? The only thing I heard close to that was that he supported talking to Hezbollah, although that recommendation sort of makes sense, since Hezbollah are a political force in Labeanon and seem to know how to show SOME restraint and morals. But Al Quaida and the Taliban would be impossible to negotiate with, as they don't really want anything except to see the West suffer.

Otherwise I agree with you

 

[RangerRay]

Did he ever actually say we should talk with the Taliban?

Yes.  I heard Taliban Jack on the radio, and he said that there has to be "peace talks" with the Taliban.

He makes me sick!   :rage:

Edited for clarity.

 

[GMan87]

Yes.  I heard Taliban Jack on the radio, and he said that there has to be "peace talks" with the Taliban.

He makes me sick!  :rage:

Edited for clarity.

Okay, I didn't hear that, I stand corrected. In that case, I completely disagree with him. Like I said, negotiating could work with Hamas/Hezbolah in the Isreal situation, if people go about it right; but negotiating with the Taliban (aka Al Quaida) is not a realistic option.