Sunday, March 12, 2006

Harper Offers Bad Reasoning On Afghanistan

I was reading a online piece, which outlines Harper's defense of the Afghanistan mission. Now, I realize Harper was probably tired from his long and extensive trip to Afghanistan, but surely our mission in Afghanistan is more than this:
Harper said the Canadian force in Afghanistan serves the national interest because:

1)International terrorism is rooted in the country. "It was in Afghanistan that Sept. 11 started."

2)The country is a major source of narcotics, which have a terrible impact on Canada.

3)It shows Canada providing international leadership and humanitarian aid.

Harper points to stopping terrorism, which is valid and completely justifiable. However, fighting the drug trade?? Can we expect to invade Colombia soon? How about a joint mission with the Americans into British Columbia to stop the evil weed that is corrupting our youth. Harper trivializes the mission by pointing to the heroine trade as some validation. I seriously doubt that Canadians would support a "war on drugs" argument to justify the bodybags. In Bush lingo, that is tantamount to "stop the drugs over there before we have addicts over here".

Harper also mischaracterizes the present mission, by falling back on the standard "humanitarian" angle. Interesting that Harper makes these comments, while at a base where hundreds of soldiers are absent because they have launched a major military offensive in the Afghan countryside. We are at war, this is not the UN dropping food rations. Our primary role is not about building schools and safe water, it is about ridding the insurgents from the landscape. The Americans are also involved in "humanitarian" efforts in Iraq, but no one would suggest they are not at war. Don't sugar coat it, don't introduce nonsensical arguments, just the facts please- Canadians can take it.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

finally somebody that speaks my lingo

excellent post far and wide

if you can tell me, what exactly is our mission? because if it's INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM, since when have we become the worlds police? after afghanistan where next? how will the canadian government define what "terrorism" is.

kevvyd said...

Excellent post and commentary. The rhetoric coming from Harper is exactly the same kind of crap that the Whitehouse has been using to blinker the US public. Is it possible that Harper has hired David Frum?

Scotian said...

You raise a very serious and valid point in your post. The use of the rhetoric surrounding the opium trade appeared inappropriate in the context it was used and putting in the humanitarian context instead of the blunt reality that this is as much an offensive war as it is nation building is simply wrong. This is the most serious offensive conflict we have engaged in since arguably the Korean war given how GWI ended up going. This is not something Canadians need sugarcoated, indeed trying to do so will if anything create and feed a reaction of withdrawal because they do not trust what they are being told by their government, and given the issues regarding how the American military are acting these days thanks to the orders from the top that threshold will not take that much to reach I believe.

This was a good post, thanks for writing it.

Steve V said...

Thanks for the comments. Harper's "cut and run" argument today, which is verbatum Bush speak, should serve as a warning that Harper will use nationalism as a crutch to censor valid criticism.

Anonymous said...

Steve V said...verbatum Bush speak, should serve as a warning that Harper will use nationalism as a crutch to censor valid criticism.

exactly Steve V and in doing so, this harpocrite will end up dividing our country not uniting it like a true leader would!

dissent is actually very healthy for a democracy

deliberate manipulation of blurring the issue of if you don't support the the war then you don't support the troops in nonsense!