Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Liberals: Good And Bad

First, the good news. The Liberals policy on Afghanistan, outlined yesterday, stakes out fertile ground within the Canadian mainstream. A balanced view, that leaves room for the military, but doesn’t endorse the current configuration:
the combat mission should end as scheduled in February, 2009, but suggesting troops could remain in the country to perform other tasks.
"We are open to other possible military roles in Afghanistan to continue training the Afghan National Army and police, protect Afghan civilians or for reconstruction efforts," Mr. Dion said in a prepared statement."But we will not accept the simple rebranding of the current combat mission as a training mission. Any new military role must be crafted in such a way as to ensure that other significant Canadian Forces deployments in other parts of the world are possible.

No one can accuse the Liberals of “abandoning” Afghanistan, nor are they endorsing the Harper stubbornness. The argument basically demonstrates some pragmatism, re-directing our effort in such a way to achieve the best results. Many independent military papers have concluded that Afghanistan can’t be won militarily, the Liberal position embraces this concept, while providing alternative assistance that moves towards stability. I think this position will resonate well with Canadians, because it articulates the conflicted view of wanting to help, appreciation that we have a role to play, but not engaging in some endless, tragic game of “whack a mole”.

On the negative side, the way in which the Liberal Party has handled the nomination in Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River translates to a complete public relations nightmare. For the record, I’m no fan of David Orchard, and I can understand why prominent Liberals resist his candidacy. However, usurping a democratic process, particularly when you have full knowledge of a potential vocal blowback, seems like a strategic blunder of the highest order.

If key Saskatchewan Liberals like Goodale don’t want Orchard, then they should do everything in there power to amass grassroot forces to back their preferred candidate. Interjecting someone, which alienates a wide swath of voters, in a riding which is decidedly close, is just bad politics. I’ve never agreed with the Dion quota system, what is happening in this riding is representative of forcing a round block into a square hole. The top-down approach, which basically tells the locals to sit down and do as they are told, is the last thing the Liberals want to present, in a climate where they are trying to re-invent themselves.

20 comments:

Sean Cummings said...

>>The argument basically demonstrates some pragmatism, re-directing our effort in such a way to achieve the best results.<<

And who will secure the effort militarily?

bigcitylib said...

"And who will secure the effort militarily?"

After 2009, that should be NATOs problem.

Steve V said...

"And who will secure the effort militarily?"

Maybe one of our deadbeat NATO partners can pickup some slack. Another question, is there anyone who can secure the effort militarily, that remains an open question in my mind?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for this post.

We're hosting a debate about the Liberal position over at 'Canadians for Afghanistan', a new non-partisan campaign to support a Canadian commitment to Afghanistan beyond 2009.

Our board of directors is made up of Canadians of all political stripes and we seek to add an essential non-partisan voice to the debate.

While we differ on specific policy questions, we are united in our resolve that Canada needs to make a lasting commitment to Afghanistan that conforms with the desire of the Afghan people through their duly elected government.

Please check us out and leave your thoughts at www.supportourmission.ca

Sincerely,
Josh McJannett
Canadians for Afghanistan
www.supportourmission.ca

Anonymous said...

Will be meeting with some of Orchard's organizers today. Saying that they are not happy is the least I can tell from their correspondence with me.

The sad thing is that since the Outremont defeat, Dion has lost some political capital inside his own party. It is similar to the Garneau appointment in St. Henri-Westmount. He was resistant to it, but was encouraged to do so by the establishment. A lot of Dion loyalists here in T.O. are concerned about this and think that it is a backward move towards renewal. What is a better way to encourage renewal than to have open nominations and sign up new members?

Steve V said...

"What is a better way to encourage renewal than to have open nominations and sign up new members?"

Exactly. You can only renew a party by engaging the grassroots, not dictating from head office.

Mike said...

We should get out completely. If we remain, we will simply be dragged back in to combat, under the guise of "self-defense".

2500 troops is good for short-term peacekeeping (when the peace is won) or for the specific goal of finding OBL or Mullah Omar. It is not nearly enough to occupy and pacify a country that historically has been unconquerable by powers far greater than Canada.

As well, this understaffed, ill conceived mission is supporting a government of former warlords and hangers on who policy wise, are not much better than the Taliban they replaced.

The only other reasonable alternative is to forgo tax cuts and using surplus money to pay down the debt and use that money to strengthen the military and place say 25 000 troops on the ground, properly equipped, keeping our own prisoners and using our own rules of engagement, following the Geneva Convention.

Of course, that still leaves the moral question of supporting a corrupt unpopular local government that is nearly as Islamist as the Taliban.

No, get them out.

Sean Cummings said...

>>After 2009, that should be NATOs problem.<<

What if NATO can't agree on anything?

Oh yeah, speaking as an ex-infantry soldier, there's also the need to secure the stuff you're rebuilding and that is a combat role - like it or not. Would Canada be securing it's own rebuilding efforts with it's own troops?

Sean Cummings said...

I should have added this to my initial post but what I am trying to get at here is the Liberal position doesn't take into consideration the tactical situation on the ground. The operational environment for rebuilding is entirely missing from the Liberal policy.

Anyone? Anyone?

Sean Cummings said...

>>keeping our own prisoners and using our own rules of engagement, following the Geneva Convention.<<

We can't "keep our own prisoners" but I would love to see a federal party run on that plank during an election campaign. You do realize that Afghanistan is still a sovereign country separate of Canada right down to the warlords and opium producers. We can't keep prisoners of a sovereign nation.

Actually the entire issue of prisoners is curiously missing from the Liberal policy.

Anonymous said...

Yes this nomination process has been very poorly managed.
This looks terrible on the Saskatchewan election readiness cochairs Sheila Hart and Niki Hipskin.
For the sake of the party one would hope that Orchard and his supporters openly endorse the appointed candidate for the greater interest of risk losing this seat to the Conservatives or the NDP.

Steve V said...

"the Liberal position doesn't take into consideration the tactical situation on the ground."

I strongly disagree. By most estimates the Taliban are not on the run, in fact they are stronger now than at any time since the invasion. That simple fact is a testament to the failure of the military first approach of NATO and the Americans. The strategy runs in circles, the same towns, taken again and again, only to see another hotspot develop, then back to the origin. The Afghans will decide their fate, tactically it is imperative that we do everything in our power to ensure they have the means and capacity to defend themselves. Training, offering assistance, is the best vehicle for stability IMHO.

Steve V said...

"For the sake of the party one would hope that Orchard and his supporters openly endorse the appointed candidate for the greater interest of risk losing this seat to the Conservatives or the NDP."

There might be some tepid support, but it looks a certainty that there will lingering resentment, and in a race this close that environment spells defeat.

Sean Cummings said...

>>I strongly disagree. By most estimates the Taliban are not on the run, in fact they are stronger now than at any time since the invasion. That simple fact is a testament to the failure of the military first approach of NATO and the Americans.<<

I wasn't speaking of the tactical situation regarding the Taliban, I am speaking about the tactical challenges associated with rebuilding efforts. It's all fine and good to suggest that Canada focus on rebuilding efforts. My point is that rebuilding efforts are fruitless if you cannot secure the areas that are being rebuilt. It is for this reason alone that Canadian troops would have to assume some measure of combat operations in concert with any rebuilding efforts.

Steve V said...

grumpy

It's not just rebuilding, although that is an element. It's training the Afghans, both military and police, which presents a more balanced picture.

wilson said...

'..For the sake of the party one would hope that Orchard and his supporters openly endorse..'

And you think Orchard supporters should be loyal to a party that just screwed over their hero??
It's Peter MacKay betrayal all over again.

Anonymous said...

Wilson,

At least the Grits will try to find a place for Orchard. Unlike you guys who threw David a bucket full of cash and told him to piss off.

No progressive socreds welcome in Harper's new CPC. Shame, since he may be the closest to Mike Huckabee in the Canadian right. Unless you believe in Stockwell Day's future political revival.

Steve V said...

What about the Conservative supporters in Guelph??

Anonymous said...

Steve,

You are referring to Barr's supporters in Guelph, I presume.

Steve V said...

Yes, and the difference here, the Conservative vote were already counted and Barr won.