Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Nobody Buying

The good news, people can see through the veneer, the Manley "demands" nothing more than a false choice. Jeffery Simpson jumps in with an opinion that is starting to gain traction:
But 1,000 troops are what is being sought, and 1,000 will be found. The Manley panelists are all experienced, wise people. They knew from their private sources, and from reading the public sources, that the Americans would never allow Kandahar to go without troops. Nor would any of the panelists have accepted the invitation to serve, given everything we know about then, wanting to design an exit strategy for Canada.

They all believed this to be an important mission, the question being how to make it more operationally successful and politically defensible at home. They would not have thrown out that 1,000 figure, without, in almost certain likelihood, knowing the U.S. (and possibly other countries) would be prepared to help.

It's time for some honest questions, directed towards this panel and it speaks to credibility. Why does the Manley panel try to frame the debate on points which seem self-evident? Why present the argument as yes/no, our involvement is on the line, when you have some knowledge that the "must" is already in the works? The panel refuses to acknowledge the likelihood, which seems a deliberate attempt to skew the current realities and project a tough stand, when really you already have knowledge of a successful outcome. The fact the Manley panel fails to present an honest assessment, should make everyone suspicious of motivations. As the Manley panel conclusions are digested, it becomes increasingly obvious that the exercise is more public relations, than an actual fair assessment of the situation moving forward.


JimBobby said...

Whooee! I don't like the way Manley parrots Harper on the idea that Canada is buying international influence with the blood of our brave troops. That's just not a good enough reason. Most of that added influence, if it really exists, is with the US. Essentially, the "Canada's back" argument is an admission that Canada's doing Bush's bidding and we expect to be rewarded with a scratch behind the ear or a pat on the head.

Even if we're no longer turning over prisoners to a torturing country, we're still fighting for that same buncha torturers. How do we justify that?


Steve V said...


I hate the inference, death for prestige.