Maclean's has a piece, detailing an Ignatieff speech on "peacekeeping". I thought I would put up the actual audio, because it gives a better context from which to judge:
I don't really see the purpose in trying to ignore what Ignatieff said, rather it's better to have an intelligent debate about his viewpoint (any flaming comments aren't welcome, so don't waste your time- CLICK). I actually see his view as valid, because there is much "folklore" surrounding our international standing, but it really doesn't translate to reality. Ignatieff's statements are merely a recognition that you can't do peacekeeping if you don't have the means, if you don't invest in the forces required. Is that really controversial?
One irrefutable fact when we entered Afghanistan, our armed forces were woefully equipped, to the point of embarrassing. It was so bad we had to borrow uniforms, and we're still playing catchup. Now, this mission isn't peacekeeping, but that's splitting hairs, because it still served as an illustration of just feeble our military had become, and last time I checked it's the military that does the peacekeeping.
Canada did make choices, and I'm not sure I disagree in the final analysis. However, to have made those expenditure choices, but still boast about our capacity in the world, was never a honest presentation. Ignatieff does defend the Americans, but he also worries about a international community dependent on them as the only one's capable of adding the necessary might to moral imperatives. Taken further, a Canada that is well equipped to actively engage, is a healthy development, because then we act within our own sense of right and wrong, rather than relying on a singular country. You could look at the argument, as an empowering plea.
Ignatieff puts forth a debatable perspective, which is worthy of discussion. It's not a romantic view, particularly the "men with guns" idea, but it's a realistic one that includes the obvious, wants aside. I don't find the above offensive, I find it frank.