I use the term "cut and run" because Stephen Harper likes to adopt Bush administration slogans to argue our resolve in Afghanistan. However, the death of these four soldiers tells us a great deal of how much Canadians will tolerate. Last night, I watched a CTV reporter describe the scene at the Canadian base in the aftermath of this incident. Particularly striking was the fact that CTV had footage, taken only a day prior, of Lieut. William Turner engaging Afghans in a southern village. The CTV reporter had met Lieut. Turner and you could see more emotion than you would expect from a supposedly stoic press. There is a intimate character to our mission because the number of troops lends itself to many personal interactions with reporters. This interplay doesn't allow for the relative detachment that we see in the American war coverage.
I marvel at the fact that most American news networks only offer a mention on their tickers if one or two soldiers are killed. Only when the violence reaches a certain threshold is the coverage substantial, the same can't be said for Canada. Each death is viewed as a national event, with the requisite re-examination of our mission. This morning I heard CBC's Sasa Petricic, stationed at the Canadian base, question the military's claim that the local population supports the Canadian presence. Again, the coverage had a personal angle that comes with such close proximity to the troops. Given the relative importance Canadians place on each death, I would argue that our tolerance for a protracted engagement is questionable. Harper can mimic the American rhetoric, but this argument won't resonate in the long term even if there are "minimal" casualties. The pressure to articulate an exit strategy looms on the horizon, despite Harper and the military's open-ended commitment.
It's a good thing that every death is given the coverage it deserves because it doesn't allow for the de-humanization of the sacrifice. I predict the Harper government may recognize the danger of our personalized coverage and attempt to restrict media access to our troops. The flag decision reveals political calculation, and we should expect future attempts to minimize the "bad" press. Harper has a window, wherein Canadians are prepared to accept some casualties, but as each violent episode is discussed, that timeframe shortens dramatically.
5 comments:
Good analysis and I hope you are right for the sake of men and women who are being killed in Afghanistan for someone else's war. Pull out will be the right move.
furgaia
It is so ridiculous, that anyone who dares argue for some sort of timetable is accused of the cut and run. Feingold and Murtha were both vilified for merely stating the obvious, that being Amercia needs a framework to end the occupation.
It is concerning how quick the Harper government attachs itself to the Bush administration rhetoric. Harper is trying to position the debate, so that anyone not comfortable with a decade plus involvement is aiding terrorism and threatening our national security.
Steve V:
Of course he is, when you look at the Harper designed communications strategy for running a government he is lifting it lock stock and barrel from the GOP and Bushco. So there is zero surprise we are seeing this rhetoric on our military issues, it is seeping throughout the entire political environment wherever the CPC/Harper speaks. I think though on the military front his incorporating this rhetoric style will end up hurting more than helping because Canadians have watched this in America the last several years and how it is crumbling to show such horrors hidden from public view done in the public's name. Given the difference on social justice issues as a priority between the two populations and the intensity of distrust for the Bush agenda (and the rhetoric used to advance it) this may well backlash hard on Harper and the CPC outside their hardcore base.
If this was a couple of years ago and Harper went this route then I would be more worried about it working in this country, but given the absolute fiasco of Iraq, the increasing public awareness of that fiasco, and just how deceptive the Bush/GOP rhetoric has been while being claimed to be properly reflecting reality I think it will do more harm than good for Harper. That said though I do not suggest just sitting by and ignoring it's usage and the issues surrounding it. I just think that at this late date to try and paint things about Afghanistan the same way Bushco painted Iraq will be seen for what it is fairly quickly by many in the public that are not political junkies like ourselves. I also think he is helping provide opposition parties (those actually willing to oppose the CPC, something the BQ and NDP seem curiously reluctant to do much of to this point) with further ammunition on the idea/belief that Harper is emulating the GWB Presidency in this country despite the clear distaste for it in the clear majority of Canadians, and given Harper’s vulnerability for looking too American given his history this is no small matter for him and his party IMHO.
scotian
As you say, given the precarious position of the Bush administration, it is quite surprising that Harper would voluntarily adopt the failed language. It is even more surprising, that his strategists, who have shown themselves to be quite effective, are allowing Harper to cozy up to Bush while the rest of the world runs away.
furgaia
Slightly off topic, but I was just reading a piece on the plight of the polar bear. Australian scientist Tim Flannery made this comment on Canada's current attitude on Kyoto:
"It looks as if it's going to abandon its commitments without ever having really tried to meet them," he said. "As an Australian, I'm used to seeing better things from Canada. I think it would be an enormous tragedy if Canada cut and run from its international obligations."
Maybe the term does have a practical application.
Post a Comment