Friday, January 25, 2008

Manley "Vindicated"?

Raphael is lauding a Toronto Star article as "vindication" of Manley's demand for more troops in southern Afghanistan. Manley wasn't "disingenious", as myself and others argued, and the proof is found in Gates comments:
Asked if he could see a scenario where the U.S. Marines headed to that area could stay beyond seven months to help the Canadians and others, Gates responded: "No."

"This is a one-time plus-up, this 3,200 Marines that we're sending over there," Gates said. "But I have started a dialogue with my NATO colleagues about falling in behind the Marines when the Marines come out, for others to go in and take on some of the responsibilities that they have – that they will have carried out."

Gates said he hopes that at upcoming high-level meetings, including the summit of NATO leaders in Bucharest in April, NATO allies will have "a more positive reaction and provide the kind of additional support that ... the (Manley) report has called for."

The Americans are trying to pressure other NATO countries to commit troops into the volatile south. Heading into the critical summit in April, does anyone really expect Gates to commit prior to negotiations? Taking Gates at face value here is naive. Do we expect the Americans to say- hey NATO, don't worry about those troops we asked for, we've got it? Do we believe unnamed sources or do we buy Gate's public face? In my mind, given the stakes, the posturing, the negotiations, anything less from Gates at this point is irresponsible. I think my friend Raphael needs to consider one word- leverage.

14 comments:

Scott Tribe said...

You can't take Raphael too seriously - after all, he's the one who was trying to claim that Harper's government somehow deserved credit for hiding away the fact they'd stopped transferring detainees over to the Afghani's (even as they continued to ridicule opposition demands to stop, and accused them all of being Taliban lovers).

Now we find out even that point is shot down to pieces by the government claiming they knew nothing about the halt of the detainees, and it was all the armed forces doing. So, it's obvious Raphael is trying to desperately find anything to get his Cons. off the hook here.

CC said...

Um ... ?

burlivespipe said...

I think an interesting sidebar to the whole report is Harper's relative silence. He's studying it of course but likely really feels a little unhappy about Manley's idea of postponing a vote in the house until april. That removes it as a political ploy in which to force an election, meaning he'll have to dance delicately, or allow Flaherty to go back to his 'creative bookkeeping ways' to bring in a half-election worthy and palatable budget.

JimBobby said...

Whooee! I'm gonna give Raphael some credit. I just read and commented on his latest item on the detainee issue. He's reasonable and articulate. For that, it seems, he's taking a fair bit of abuse from the right. I also give him credit for stickin' his neck out on pergressive boogers' comments. I almost always disagree with Raphael, btw.

The latest news is that Buckler's backing away from her blame-the-troops message. Buckler's head may roll to save Harper and MacKay.

"Oh, what tangled web we weave..."

JB

Steve V said...

JB

Agreed, he's pretty reasonable. Misguided, but.... ;)


burl

We will always be in surplus with Flaherty at the helm :)

Anonymous said...

Speaking of vindication, it appears that Dion is not the only person musing about "invading" Pakistan.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/01/24/us.pakistan/

Scott Tribe said...

Ok.. so now Sandra Buckler, the Communications Director, retracts her statement that the military never told the government the detainees transfer had stopped, but she refuses to say if that means she's saying the military actually did tell the government the transfers had stopped from the get-go?

Hello?

JimmE said...

Read HAROON SIDDIQUI column http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/295478
Gave me pause to reflect that this war is not just about little girls going to school.

Mushroom said...

"He's studying it of course but likely really feels a little unhappy about Manley's idea of postponing a vote in the house until april."

Note that Rae is interested in waiting for the March by-election to bear fruit with Liberal successes. An April vote would neutralize Afghanistan as an election issue for the Grits.

The longer that Harper drags Parliament, the easier for it to be toppled on an issue NOT of his choosing. There is also the issue of the economy to getting worse.

Anonymous said...

Manley wasn't "disingenuous", as myself and others argued

Just a quick grammar check here. There seems to be a new trend in using the word myself instead of the word I. It used to be "Bob and I went to the store." Now it is "Bob and myself went to the store." This of course doesn't make sense because you can't say "Myself went to the store".

Grammar 101 says the sentence still has to work. "Manley wasn't disingenuous as myself argued" doesn't work.

Sorry to interrupt. Carry on.

Steve V said...

anon

Somebody telled me awhile ago that "I" was improper, so I's maded the mental correction. Myself is confused now.

lance said...

Totally OT and delete if necessary.

Grammar is secondary, what matters is that you are understood. English evolves.

Having said that, I've been linked to the fall of the Western civilization because of how I write.

YMMV.

Cheers,
lance

Scott Tribe said...

lance coming to the defence of a progressive blogger - and a Liberal one at that? Is there a blue moon out tonight?

Raphael Alexander said...

Scott, don't get your hopes up.