# Harper in Afghanistan on unannounced visit



## GAP (22 May 2007)

Harper in Afghanistan on unannounced visit
Updated Tue. May. 22 2007 6:31 AM ET Canadian Press
Article Link

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has responded to criticism of his government's handling of the mission in Afghanistan by making an unannounced visit to the war-ravaged country. 
The surprise two-day trip comes after weeks of opposition attacks on his government's allegedly incompetent handling of the Afghan detainee controversy. 

Harper arrived on a military flight Tuesday in the Afghan capital, where he visited a school for underprivileged children and met with President Hamid Karzai. 

This is Harper's second visit to the war-torn country. 

Barely one month after taking office last year, Harper made Afghanistan his destination for his first foreign trip as prime minister. 

Unlike that last trip, this one is designed to emphasize Canada's non-military contribution to rebuilding of the country. 

The prime minister handed out pencil cases to students at a local school for underprivileged children. He dropped in on painting, acting, woodworking, and music classes at the Aschiana School in a tightly guarded compound in the capital's downtown core. 

The school received $39,500 in annual funding from the Canadian government and provides education to more than 10,000 Afghan children. 

He also visited diplomats at the Canadian Embassy for a briefing on progress made in that country since the ouster of the Taliban in 2001. 

In 2006, Harper spent almost the entirety of his three days in Afghanistan visiting military installations and camping out with soldiers. His current trip comes with public opinion polls suggesting support for his government has fallen amid opposition attacks of the last few weeks. 
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 May 2007)

Hmmm, I wonder if the beer fuelled rumours upon which I reported last week have some foundation?

Are we going to make a highly visible shift away from combat actions (as much as the Taliban will allow, anyway) and focus, even more visibly, on reconstruction?

The argument can be, I suppose, that our previous combat operations (Op Medusa, etc) have _set the table_ for development and reconstruction work.

If there s any truth in the rumours, the desired end effects are 100% domestic:

1.	Shifting the _narrative_ away from unpopular combat operations; and

2.	Avoiding casualties to Québec soldiers. 

See, also, the CTV poll thread.


----------



## GAP (22 May 2007)

As much as most here have seen it, I sure hope we don't shoot ourselves in the foot/feet, as we trip along trying to convince stupid people it is a good, viable mission with potential excellent results....


----------



## Hunteroffortune (23 May 2007)

As I'm NOT in the military, I guess I can reply to this article, I'm not bound by the same rules as the military, I'm sure more responses will be forthcoming once the PM is safely back home. 

I'm going to try a link for the first time, so be nice if it doesn't work. 

Afghanistan wants Canada's help, Harper sayshttp://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070522/harper_afghanistan_070522/20070522?hub=TopStories

Don't think it worked right, but hopefully you can copy and paste.  

The interesting thing in the article, is that after all the visiting in schools, and with aid workers,  Fife remarks on this very important point:

_"The prime minister is going to chow down at breakfast with the troops. He's going to have greasy bacon and greasy eggs and stale bread," Robert Fife, CTV's Ottawa bureau chief, told MDL from Afghanistan._

So, do the troops really get forced to eat greasy bacon and greasy eggs and stale bread?   

I hope the chefs serve those greasy reporters that greasy food, and let the troops eat the healthy food I'm sure they usually eat. Well, I hate to admit it, but I like bacon and eggs.  ;D


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (23 May 2007)

First of, I think Harper did this to shut up Dion and Taliban Jack, My question is now that this has been put to bed and almost every other conceivable argument on the Afghanistan mission has been dealt with, what other antics will these two Einsteins come up with.

Well there's always the question of the quality of the food that we're feeding our troops.... Or maybe Tims isn't serving the coffee hot enough. Don't laugh, these two will probably try anything at this point.



> "The prime minister is going to chow down at breakfast with the troops. He's going to have greasy bacon and greasy eggs and stale bread," Robert Fife, CTV's Ottawa bureau chief, told MDL from Afghanistan.


----------



## observor 69 (23 May 2007)

Some seriuos food for thought:

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/216696

Visit's not just for our benefit
 TheStar.com - News - Visit's not just for our benefit

May 23, 2007 
Thomas Walkom

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's surprise trip to Kabul is not just a photo op for domestic Canadian consumption. It's part of a concerted effort by the U.S. and its NATO allies to stiffen the spine of President Hamid Karzai and forestall growing sentiment in Afghanistan for a political settlement with the Taliban.

That is the real significance of Harper's focus on development during yesterday's meeting with Karzai. "As Canadians we know that Afghanistan's future will not be secured through military means alone," the Prime Minister said, after handing out pencil cases to children at a local school.

It's true that development does play better in Canada than war – a fact not lost on the leader of the Conservative minority government.

But his reason for making that point in Afghanistan was to drive home the point there. He was signalling to his hosts that NATO understands it must do more than kill Taliban insurgents.

Harper's appearance in Kabul came as German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, visiting northern Afghanistan just three days after a suicide bomber killed three German soldiers, pledged that the attacks would not deter his country's commitment to help rebuild the nation.

And it came the day after U.S. President George W. Bush and NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer met in Texas to underscore the need for a united front against the Taliban that includes reconstruction as well as military action.

The context for these hurried high-level diplomatic meetings is a confluence of trends that threatens to derail the 5 1/2-year-old Western military mission in Afghanistan.

On the one hand, public opinion in Europe and Canada is increasingly skeptical about the value of a war that produces casualties but no definable benefits.

Germany is to review its commitment later this year. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has hinted that he might withdraw his country's troops. And in Ottawa, opposition parties have demanded that Canadian forces be withdrawn from the danger zones in Afghanistan's south by no later than February 2009.

On the other hand, Afghans themselves are increasingly restive about the presence of foreign troops in their country – especially when those troops kill civilians. Air strikes are particularly controversial, leading even Karzai to criticize the U.S. practice of large-scale aerial bombardments.

After recent air attacks, including one in Herat earlier this month that killed an estimated 50 civilians and left 2,000 homeless, protesters demanded that Karzai resign.

The flip side of this Afghan dissatisfaction with NATO is a growing movement for some form of political accommodation with the Taliban. Two weeks ago, the Afghan parliament's upper house voted to end offensive military operations and enter into direct talks with the hard-line Islamists.

The lower house has not yet decided whether to support this move. But in March, it passed another controversial bill promoting national reconciliation that would grant all warring factions, including the Taliban, immunity from prosecution.

As the Star's Rosie DiManno wrote this weekend from Kabul, even one of the Taliban's arch-enemies, former Herat governor and now Karzai minister Ismail Khan, is hinting at the need to make accommodation with the rebels.

None of this is entirely novel. Deal-making among warring factions is an Afghan tradition. In 2001, as U.S.-backed forces were sweeping the Taliban from power, an Afghan official close to Karzai negotiated an accommodation with Taliban chief Mullah Omar that would have allowed him to live freely in Kandahar in return for abandoning armed struggle.

The U.S. scotched that attempt. But Karzai has continued his back-channel relations with Taliban insurgents, a fact he acknowledged publicly last month.

Indeed, if NATO's days are limited in Afghanistan, then a political deal with the Taliban makes sense for the current Kabul regime. The alternative is continuation of war that those now in power might lose.

But a power-sharing deal with the Taliban is not something Washington would countenance. Such an arrangement, no matter how attractive to Afghan political factions, would undermine the entire rationale for invading that country.

It could also create what Bush's war on terror was designed to destroy – a sovereign state that is openly friendly to Al Qaeda.

So the capitals of the West are in a tizzy. Leaders like Harper have to convince their own electorates that Afghanistan is worth the candle. At the same time, they have to convince Afghans that their troops are more than ham-fisted foreign meddlers.

The alternative is a deal with the Taliban that ends the war and allows the country to rebuild. The U.S. and its friends want the war to end – but not that way.


----------



## observor 69 (23 May 2007)

And more on the same theme as the Star article:
http://tinyurl.com/2k4uvb

Musharraf backs talks with Taliban
Exclusive: Pakistan's President shrugs off increased militancy in border region

SONYA FATAH 
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail


ISLAMABAD — Peace in Afghanistan will not come out of the barrel of a gun, Pakistan's besieged President, General Pervez Musharraf, said in a wide-ranging interview in which he suggested that talks with the Taliban and other opposition may be necessary to bring stability to the war-torn country.

“We have to have a multipronged strategy. In Afghanistan it is only the military strategy which is working now,” Gen. Musharraf said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.

“[The] political element is the negotiations between warring factions. Who are the warring factions? Warring factions are the Afghan government and the coalition forces on one side and the militant Taliban and even non-Taliban … so some form of negotiations between these two.”

“Maybe, there are groups who want to give up militancy and negotiate … so I can't lay down whether you negotiate with the Taliban, but [if] they want to go on fighting, you don't negotiate with them, take a military angle. You negotiate, you develop contacts with people who are not for fighting.”

Taking little responsibility for the growing sense of political instability in Pakistan and increased militancy along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, a defiant Gen. Musharraf insisted that Pakistan was the only country that had a military, political, developmental and administrative strategy to defeating extremism.

“I would tell everyone: Come and learn from us. We are sitting here knowing exactly what is happening on ground,” he said. “You sitting in the West don't know anything. So, don't teach me, come and learn from us. Come and understand the environment. And then decide on what has to be done and what doesn't have to be done. We are doing more than any other country in the world.”

The general also didn't back down from controversial comments made last year comparing the casualties suffered by Canadians and Pakistani military.

“Unfortunately the people in the West think that their lives are more important than our lives … they think the gun fodder should be from these countries like Pakistan and developing countries. If their soldiers, one soldier, dies, there is a problem, but 500 of ours have died. And then, yet they are blaming us. Isn't 500 important? … And yet Pakistan is blamed for not doing enough.”

Gen. Musharraf's confident assertiveness during the interview is at odds with the mood in Pakistan, where growing protests after his suspension of the nation's top judge and riots in the country's largest city present him with the greatest challenge of his nearly eight-year run as president and army chief.

Critics have assailed Pakistan over a controversial 2006 peace deal with pro-Taliban militants aimed at ending five years of violent unrest in the semi-autonomous North Waziristan region bordering Afghanistan. The accords brokered between the government and the pro-Taliban political party, the Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam, after which the government released militants, were seen by many as a setback for the government and a victory for extremist forces.

But Gen. Musharraf defended the approach of reaching out to local power brokers as a way of breaking the cycle of violence. “These are the tribal maliks [leaders] and elders. Locate them. Identify them, deal with them, wean them away. That's the strategy that should have been adopted a long time back, but we left the field open for the Taliban, so every one is now suppressed and they are scared. Either they have joined them or they are lying low.”

Although Pakistan's intelligence agency has been accused of helping establish the Taliban movement, Gen. Musharraf insists his country played no role, although he acknowledges it gave the extremists legitimacy by being among the only countries to establish diplomatic relations when Taliban mullahs took over the government of Afghanistan.

“I know for sure – 200 per cent – that they were not a creation of Pakistan. They were a creation of circumstances in Afghanistan,” he said. “They [Afghan warlords] were ravaging and killing and butchering each other. That gave rise to this.”

While admitting he was concerned about the growing domestic opposition to his government, Gen. Musharraf emphasized the achievements made by his administration during the interview.

The Pakistani economy has been growing at a rate of 7 per cent in recent years and foreign investment has risen substantially under his rule as the government's deregulation, liberalization and privatization strategy has seen an inflow of investment and capital funds into the economy.

Nonetheless, politically the General is still struggling to contain the fallout from his March 9 firing of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, recent violence in Karachi and an on-going stand-off between the government and hard-line Islamists holed up in an Islamabad mosque.

A rolling series of protests and strikes have been led primarily by legal bodies and supported by opposition parties. The Islamist coalition that allowed the General to stay in uniform, has become very vocal in its opposition to him.

Despite that, the President won't concede mishandling the issue and sees himself as a victim of a larger conspiracy. “The issue is that the judicial crisis has been politicized. … It has been publicized by the opposition. And all these people who have converted this judicial case into a political issue. Now when you politicize this. It is an election year also. All political parties want to show their turf.”

Special to The Globe and Mail


----------



## niner domestic (23 May 2007)

The article by the CBC has me a tad annoyed with their implied references to the troops leaving the PM's address and the need of the CBC to "have to report it".  

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/05/23/harper-troops-070523.html


----------



## GAP (23 May 2007)

That's typical of most forces....once the pontificating is over, make an early exit....to do, something else....


----------



## niner domestic (23 May 2007)

Too bad the CBC doesn't know that.


----------



## armyvern (23 May 2007)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> Too bad the CBC doesn't know that.



Yep. Perhaps they forget that the war doesn't stop just because the PM happens to be in town.

I can see it now....some poor troop who really _did_ have something better to do, like pack up the ammo to get it out to the boys who matter in the FOBs, makes a comment like "what a waste of a morning"...(added in his head...when I have things that _have_ to get done to work on....).


----------



## Dissident (23 May 2007)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2007/05/23/4200714-cp.html

"But there were visible signs his audience, which crowded around the podium and sat atop armoured vehicles parked behind Harper for the benefit of the cameras, was decidedly non-partisan. 

Scores of soldiers began filing out the moment the prime minister finished speaking. An officer stopped them and said: "The prime minister is still here - so that means we're still here. Get back inside." "

Although I find this article pretty unbiased, I am appaled that the reporter didn't ask the troops why they were leaving so quickly and then drawing his own conclusions.

I can not speak for everyone, but I am a pretty big fan of Harper the man and his policies. The reason I left so quickly was: I allready had been standing there for 45 minutes when the whole thing started, due to the vagarities of military planning, by 0830 it was time to go. It was getting hot, and lo and behold, we had work to do.

From my perspective, more than half of the reported 300 people stayed and schmoozed with the PM and the minister of defence. Considering everything, I call that a good day. 

If James McCarten and Alexander Panetta would have asked me, I would have told them why I was leaving quickly. Now, they are just two more reporters I won't bother talking to.

Edit: I'm glad to see you guys figured out why the early exit. Too bad the reporters couldn't bother.


----------



## armyvern (23 May 2007)

And that's exactly the point Dissident.

Every soldier _always_ has better (and more important) things to do in an operational theatre/war zone...and the CBC has neglected that fact.

I sure didn't see them running a story on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda cease-fire that was implemented for the Canadian PMs visit, so the facts are...if the enemy is working...so are we; and as long as the enemy is working and we aren't ...we're bitching. It's what soldiers do. We've got brethren to support and look after outside that wire, and that's _always_ more important. I say, let the bitching continue...that's a good sign.


----------



## gaspasser (23 May 2007)

+1 Vern, well said in defence of soldiers.
I'd like to add some comments about other things that were added from the papers.  
"Greasy eggs and greasy bacon"?  I hope the K.O. of Kandahar didn't read that!  Because I'm sure that Robert Fife WILL get some greasy eggs and bacon.  I can't believe that Robert said such drivel.  Unless he was trying to make it look good for the folks back home..."and after I finish my report, I have to go put on a heavy helmet and sleep in a trench with three other people who haven't washed in about a week"  Cry for me, mother.  I've never had either while on tour.  Rats, now I'm hungry for bacon and eggs.  There's goes my cholestoral for the day.
Why is that CBC has to run a story about what one little MCPL said on his way out the door?  Most of us have said something like it as we've come off parade or had to stand and listen to the Comd speil off about how good we are and what a wonderful job we're doing.. {??} I find that the liberal backed CBC lacks better things to do and / or it must have been a slow news day and they wanted to scoop the competition by pooping all over a Troop.  Well, phewy on CBC, I never watched you anyway. 
I think it looks good on the PM and MND [again!] to go visit the troops and support them in person.  Wish we could all do that.  Plus the PM was pushing the fact that we are doing good over there for the people.  Not our fault that the Taliban like to blow up what our guys just built.  Hamid Karsai wants his country to be a strong democracy.  Good luck and here's some Canadian help.  
Kudos to the PM.
 to CBC.


----------



## WogCpl (23 May 2007)

There is no doubt in my mind that some people in KAF did have "better things to do", but don't you think by now that we should have learned to contuct ourselves with a little more tact and grace than uttering a comment like "what a waste of a morning", especially in front of the media?
And as far as people leaving early goes, who defined what early is? Maybe this is a point that the leadership should have brought up prior to the event taking place, after all the PM has supported us and our families more that any PM in recent memory, the least we can do is show some support for him, ultimately, that is who our paycheques are coming from!


----------



## vonGarvin (23 May 2007)

FatwogCpl said:
			
		

> And as far as people leaving early goes, who defined what early is?


That's a very good point.  After all, in one sentence, they are described as "leaving early" and in the very next "after the PM had finished".  Much ado about nothing, I'm afraid.


----------



## armyvern (23 May 2007)

FatwogCpl said:
			
		

> There is no doubt in my mind that some people in KAF did have "better things to do", but don't you think by now that we should have learned to contuct ourselves with a little more tact and grace than uttering a comment like "what a waste of a morning", especially in front of the media?
> And as far as people leaving early goes, who defined what early is? Maybe this is a point that the leadership should have brought up prior to the event taking place, after all the PM has supported us and our families more that any PM in recent memory, the least we can do is show some support for him, ultimately, that is who our paycheques are coming from!



If the media thought the soldiers comment was anything more than an aside...they'd have been all over him looking for details to add to his soundbite. Who's to say his comment wasn't  followed by a "when I have real work that needs to happen," after all the only context the CBC has choosen to give us here is their very own "the troops left early spin" which obviously did not occur. No, the troops began to leave when the PMs speach was over. They contradict even themselves. Once again, it's the media spin...and based upon their own contradictory "setting" and "context" of troops leaving early/after the speach... I'm willing to give the soldier the benefit of the doubt...because I am one and understand where he's coming from.

By the way, leaving the PMs speach _after_ it's over, in no way insinuates that one doesn't support him. I think your last sentence reflects the fact you bought the media spin the CBC has thrown into the mix on this one.


----------



## WogCpl (23 May 2007)

I understand, i get it but, is that a comment you would make? I put nothing past the obviously liberal influenced media. With cameras present, i usually subscribe to the theory "it is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it". As far as the leaving early thing goes, maybe i did not make myself clear. Apperently the media decided what early was after hearing the whole " where do you think you are going" thing. Like i said i don't put anything past them. They make as many assumptions if not more than we do, the only difference is the rest of the world gets to hear about them, without context.


----------



## Flip (23 May 2007)

I'm a civvy so my read on it is a bit different.

The muttering can be taken as proof that the reporter
was "in contact" with the army.
In short he was creating atmosphere.

Yes, the whole thing could have been more flattering for Harper.

But when the press is going to be used( as is the PMs prerogative )
the press is not going to be uniformly supportive.

So ,what? By tomorrow It's gone.
Along with the message that there's some good going on.

In the TV segment last night I recall hearing "these pins ( on a map )represent that 
Canada is everywhere"  meaning reconsruction.

Better than nothing............
What if the PM gave a party and no one came?


----------



## civmick (23 May 2007)

If it was purely the journos speculating on the troops departure I'd be happy to assume they had other duties - but an officer told them to get back in which seems like they were bunking off to me I'm afraid.


----------



## TCBF (24 May 2007)

Hunteroffortune said:
			
		

> So, do the troops really get forced to eat greasy bacon and greasy eggs and stale bread?
> 
> I hope the chefs serve those greasy reporters that greasy food, and let the troops eat the healthy food I'm sure they usually eat. Well, I hate to admit it, but I like bacon and eggs.  ;D



- Bin Reg'lar Army thirty years now, and I believe our Army to be the best fed Army in the world.  Maybe not the best equiped/trained/led/paid, but certainly the best fed.

- Perhaps said reporter should be thankfull that we don't put naptha in our coffee anymore.


----------



## GAP (24 May 2007)

I'd hold on the pay part....the CF has always been the envy of other forces, especially in combat zones. Check out the bonus you receive and compare it to the US combat pay...you would be amazed.


----------



## TCBF (24 May 2007)

When you look at a pay and benefits passage, you have to consider the whole picture: GI Bill.  GI college fund.  Subsisdized food and housing.  Prefered hiring.   Re-up bonuses, etc.


----------



## RangerRay (24 May 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Bin Reg'lar Army thirty years now, and I believe our Army to be the best fed Army in the world.  Maybe not the best equiped/trained/led/paid, but certainly the best fed.



+1

Gawd, I miss army grub sometimes! (Mess hall, field kitchen, hay boxes, _sometimes_ even _some_ IMPs)

Damn, now I'm hungry!

End of hijack!  Good on the PM!


----------



## Hunteroffortune (24 May 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Bin Reg'lar Army thirty years now, and I believe our Army to be the best fed Army in the world.  Maybe not the best equiped/trained/led/paid, but certainly the best fed.
> 
> - Perhaps said reporter should be thankfull that we don't put naptha in our coffee anymore.



Okay, being a non-army person, what's naptha? If it's like a truth serum, maybe we should put it in reporters coffee, would be interesting to actually get the real news for once!


----------



## WogCpl (24 May 2007)

Naptha is a product of crude oil, much like gasoline only a lot finer and lighter. Sometimes called white gas, it is highly flamable and used in camping stoves and lanterns, which is how we employ it. There was an incident in Bosnia in the 1990's when a senior NCO who was disliked by his troops had Naptha slipped into his coffee, he eventually went blind from it. Although it is not truth serum, I still wouldn't mind it being slipped into a few journalists Tim Hortons cups!
TCBF, I could not agree with you more, having had the oppurtunity to eat at a few different nations dining facilities, i can say without a doubt that when Canadian Military cooks are in the kitchen weather it is in the feild or not, we are very well off. KBR, not so much. 
For those not familar with KBR, here is a little history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg,_Brown_and_Root


----------



## Dissident (24 May 2007)

I'd make a joke about Naptha being exacly what those reporters need. Well, I guess I just did.

Anyways, Naptha, or white fuel, is a petroleum product that we typically use to fuel coleman stoves and lanterns. It evaporates relatively quickly.


----------



## 2 Cdo (24 May 2007)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> If the media thought the soldiers comment was anything more than an aside...they'd have been all over him looking for details to add to his soundbite. Who's to say his comment wasn't  followed by a "when I have real work that needs to happen," after all the only context the CBC has choosen to give us here is their very own "the troops left early spin" which obviously did not occur. No, the troops began to leave when the PMs speach was over. They contradict even themselves. Once again, it's the media spin...and based upon their own contradictory "setting" and "context" of troops leaving early/after the speach... I'm willing to give the soldier the benefit of the doubt...because I am one and understand where he's coming from.
> 
> By the way, leaving the PMs speach _after_ it's over, in no way insinuates that one doesn't support him. I think your last sentence reflects the fact you bought the media spin the CBC has thrown into the mix on this one.



Sorry have to completely agree with the good Cpl. Knowing there was press present the comment should not have been said, even if it was followed with a plausible explanation. Especially since it was the CBC with their "agenda" of portraying the PM in the worst possible light.

Of course all have felt this way about most of the parades we attend.  Just be careful about what you say, when you say it, where you are and who might be listening.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 May 2007)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Of course all have felt this way about most of the parades we attend.  Just be careful about what you say, when you say it, where you are and who might be listening.



Now there is probably some of the best advice one can learn...........you never have to explain, and no one can turn them around, as long as they only stay thoughts.
Once they exit the trap,.........


----------



## observor 69 (24 May 2007)

This appears to be the right thread to add this from Mr.Travers:

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/217066

PM trying to rewrite the Afghan narrative
 TheStar.com - opinion - PM trying to rewrite the Afghan narrative

May 24, 2007 
James Travers

Who can argue when Stephen Harper says Canada is doing a lot for Afghanistan? A mission now costing a fortune in blood and money is making that country marginally safer, more stable and modern.

That's not only as it should be, it's the least to expect. When foreigners topple a local government they assume the burden of cleaning up the mess.

Measured today, the price of that effort is 55 Canadian lives and more than $6 billion. So the Prime Minister has a sizable stake in the progress telegraphed home this week.

Those messages are important to Harper. 

Afghanistan hasn't been good to Conservatives lately and the Prime Minister needs the sweet smell of a success to wash away the bad taste left by careless controls over the treatment of prisoners.

To that end, history will footnote Harper's second Afghanistan trip as markedly different from the first. 

Gone is jarring U.S. jingoism, replaced by a typically more modest and soothing Ottawa narrative about "helping the country to build a democratic, economically viable future of lasting peace and prosperity."

Up to a point, the Prime Minister has a point. 

Given the inherent advantages enjoyed by insurgents everywhere, the military is doing well in countering the Taliban while even the much-maligned Canadian International Development Agency is playing a useful role in, among other things, providing the micro-financing that makes poverty a little less grinding.

But the overarching question for this government, and ultimately this country, is where do these bits and pieces fit in the complex puzzle of a fissured and, in many ways, still feudal state? As clearly as it is in Harper's political interest to boast that the export of Canadian values is booming, Afghanistan remains trapped by opium economics, regional politics and a culture steeped in violence.

The distance between our values and their reality is enormous. To bridge it will require resources and compromises that will test Canadian patience as well as generosity.

It's those demands – along with the pressing need to re-energize a flagging party – that took Harper to Afghanistan this week. Wisely or not, this Prime Minister chose to make a Liberal mission his own and now is stuck with convincing an ambivalent nation to stay what promises to be a long and torturous course.

What makes that so difficult is what made it so easy to "sell" the first operation to a country reeling from 9/11. Bringing down the Taliban made obvious sense to Canadians who then knew even less about Afghanistan than they do today.

True, a minority still cling to the lingering war-to-end-all-wars fantasy of a clear-cut military victory. But many more now grasp that factors beyond Canadian, NATO and even U.S. control will decide Afghanistan's future.

Two stand in particular relief. One is Pakistan, the other, poppies.

There can be no lasting or even temporary peace without the blessing of Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf or his successors. And there will be no meaningful development as long as warlords, a corrupt central government and peasant farmers profit most from an economy high on narcotics.

Demonizing the Taliban and torching cash crops are feel-good Western reflexes that only exacerbate the problem. 

So, too, are opposition proposals to fix a withdrawal date and to skew the three Ds of defence, diplomacy and development to the latter rather than the former.

Much more innovative political and economic remedies are needed if Afghanistan is to accelerate away from its dark past. Canada's part in that process is to improve the security that is both a chip in the inevitable power-sharing negotiations and a precursor to the long-term development that civilian agencies deliver so much more capably than armies.

Politicians dislike plunging voters into those layers of perplexing nuance as much as admitting that some events are beyond their influence. They prefer, instead, to speak in bromides while advancing anecdotal shards in the hope they will be mistaken for the whole story.

In reinforcing that pattern this week, Harper skimmed lightly over the hardest truths for his government and for Afghanistan. A ruling party that now "owns" the mission has no alternative than to point to modest successes and shout loudly about creating a model state from chaos.

Canadians have done a lot for Afghanistan and the Prime Minister is right to recognize the human sacrifice and good works. 

But that's a far cry from having the political permission to stay as long as necessary to do what may not be possible. 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Travers's national affairs column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. jtraver@thestar.ca.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 May 2007)

I agree, broadly, with the _thrust_ of Travers’ story – not the _spin_.

First, he’s right that Harper is trying to create a new _narrative_.  He needs one because the media has its own – see Ruxted’s  ”A new political narrative” published about two months ago.

I think it’s important to understand why the media created their _new narrative_: the old one was boring.

The media needs controversy to sell advertising – which is *why* the media and journalists exist … period, full stop.  When the news is dull the viewers switch over to _American Idol_ or some other such mindless pabulum – the advertisers measure, carefully measure, viewers and readers, when the viewers switch the advertising revenue for e.g. _The National_ goes down, along with Peter Mansbridge’s pay packet, one suspects.  That’s what matters – advertising revenue.  Journalists are slaves to it – earning it is how they feed their families; it is their only productive function.  The old narrative – ‘agreed,’ more or less, by interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham and Prime Minister Harper was free from interesting controversy; it was boring; it wasn’t selling soap.  The media made up a new story.  That it was founded on  a tissue of lies and rubbish made no never mind – it created some controversy.  When that didn’t create enough controversy the media concocted the _detainee_ story –which worked for a while.

Now the PMO is striking back – it is creating it’s own _*new narrative*_: combat operations worked; we are doing real, visible, measurable development work (which Canadians want) because we fought, killed and died, and drove the Taliban out of our area.

The journalists, who, by and large, heartily detest Harper and hate his press agent Sandra Buckler, need to strike back – quickly and hard - because Harper’s new narrative has one huge advantage: it’s believable.

Consider the current message, it is clear but has subtle bits, too: _See,_ it says, _that’s the PM, ‘outside the wire,’ where Canadians died just months ago – now it’s safe enough that we can bring the PM there.  It’s still a combat zone (he’s _brave_, too, isn’t he?  you’ll remember that, too, voters, won’t you? ) but we ‘won’ – now we're are securing the area and doing development._  The media cannot deny what Canadians can see with their own eyes; but they can try, they will try and, as Travers demonstrates, they are trying.

So, Travers and the rest of the anti-war media faction will now try to shift the focus away from Canadian success and towards _new_, more difficult problems.  He’s right: Pakistan and poppies are problems.  One, poppies, is relatively easy to solve - replace the stupid people doing poppy eradication with smart people doing what Ruxted suggests in the last paragraph of ”Ruxted’s Response to the Senate Committee’s Report”.  The other, Pakistan, is hideously difficult and no one in their right mind suggests that Canada can solve it – but that will not stop the media from blaming it on Prime Minister Harper and advancing _Taliban Jack_ Layton’s agenda.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 May 2007)

And, as if by magic, here(reproduced from today’s _Globe and Mail_ under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act) is part of the counter-attack – predictably from _Harper hater_ Lawrence Martin:

(My _*emphasis*_ added)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070524.COMARTIN24/TPStory/specialComment/columnists 


> This little war of mine, I'm gonna let it shine
> 
> May 24, 2007
> It's a hard sell, this terrorism stuff. When more people are dying on our side of the world from bathtub mishaps than terror outbreaks, you wonder how long the paranoia can linger.
> ...



Of course the phrase “the Afghan mission was a long-term commitment, not a temporary departure - as was the Liberal plan - from our traditional peace-broker role” is rubbish – unadulterated BS, the _creation_ of Eugene Lang – a former political aid to former Liberal cabinet ministers – which has been uncritically accepted, hook, line and sinker, by the lazy _stenographers_, like Martin who repeat the musing of Liberal press agents as though they had some basis in fact.

Martin tells us that Liberal MP David McGuinty’s rhetoric is ‘excessive’ but he repeats it, for effect, because it might do some damage to Prime Minister Harper.

Then he goes on to repeat Dawn Black’s illogical nonsense.

It’s all part the media’s response to Harper’s _new narrative_.

Lawrence Martin’s rhetoric is not just excessive – it is partisan political propaganda which, if the Chief Electoral Officer does his duty, will be billed to the Liberal Party of Canada.


----------



## GAP (24 May 2007)

What amazes me is how blatant the MSM has become, and nobody, but NOBODY is taking them to task....


----------



## Flip (24 May 2007)

I don't have a beef with TV or radio media on this,
but I'm going to have to go back on what I said 
in terms of the PRINT media today.

They've been real knobs.

Harper can't say much without alienating them more.

The columnists are THEE ones in particular.
They can print whatever they want.


----------



## observor 69 (24 May 2007)

"The journalists, who, by and large, heartily detest Harper and hate his press agent Sandra Buckler,"

Well Harper appears to dislike the Capital Hill media and takes measures to go around them, and Buckler is just plain mean.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 May 2007)

For what it's worth, from the G&M....


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 May 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> "The journalists, who, by and large, heartily detest Harper and hate his press agent Sandra Buckler,"
> 
> Well Harper appears to dislike the Capital Hill media and takes measures to go around them, and Buckler is just plain mean.



OK, but journalists tell us (although I don't believe them) that they want to present the _news_ in a fair, balanced and unbiased manner.  If that's the case then it shouldn't matter if they like or hate the _newsmaker_, especially it shouldn't be obvious.

Canadian political journalists - the Parliamentary Press Gallery plus a few, by and large, in my opinion, fail the fairness test; they fail the balance test; they fail the unbiased test.  They fail to met the low standards they set for themselves.  Most are a waste of oxygen.


----------



## RangerRay (24 May 2007)

If many, if not most, members of the PPG were not so blatantly biased and partisan, then maybe the PMO would not have to get in a p!$$ing match with them.

Unfortunately, despite the growth in blogs, the mainstream media remains most peoples' source of news.  As such, the PM's message remains filtered by that biased source.


----------



## Emenince Grise (25 May 2007)

Perhaps there really was a security issue at hand. If the unit that the PM visited was preparing for Operation Hoover, the last thing that would be wanted would be media presence...


----------



## Hunteroffortune (26 May 2007)

Emenince Grise said:
			
		

> Perhaps there really was a security issue at hand. If the unit that the PM visited was preparing for Operation Hoover, the last thing that would be wanted would be media presence...



I agree, but the media are whining that they couldn't go along. Poor babies, if they didn't make up the news, maybe PM Harper would like them better. 

The absolute worse case of bad/biased reporting was by Grahame from the Globe and Mail, when he interviewed, 30 out of less than 40 Canadian detainees, and they had all been tortured. Statistically it is close to impossible that he could even find 30 Canadian detainees (given that he can not roam the country freely), aren't they still looking for 3 of them with no luck, so, how did this reporter, just happen to interview 75% of Canadian detainees, who by the way were not in jail, and not one of them was one of the 3, the lawyers say were supposedly tortured and maybe disappeared, or were they? 

Yet no one has held the Globe reporter to account, and he is still out in Afghanistan with our troops, I say boot the guy back home, he is doing more to hurt the cause then help it. His bias is hurting our troops, our government and our country. Freedom of speech is important, but lying to boost ratings should never be allowed. Interfering with our troops because of bad information and sleazy reporting is not freedom of speech. 

Freedom of speech is what I have just exercised, I just gave my opinion on one reporter's  lack of integrity. Thanks to all the military people, past and present, who have made it possible for me to never fear for my life, because I have expressed an opinion.


----------



## Bigmac (27 May 2007)

Here is an article from one of the slighted reporters who went on the Afghanistan visit with the PM.  Tame compared with some reports.

Usual disclaimer:


> *PAUL HUNTER - Reporter's Notebook Notes from an Afghan field trip May 26, 2007  *
> 
> *Not-so-secret top secret Camp Mirage, May 21*
> 
> ...



remainder of report: http://www.cbc.ca/news/reportsfromabroad/hunter/20070526.html


----------



## observor 69 (27 May 2007)

Great link Bigmac,   Thanks.


----------



## gaspasser (27 May 2007)

Absolutely amazing how when told to shut up, the reporter in the article STILL spills his guts about the staging base.  Was he not told about operational security, {OPSEC}. If anything happens there, we can thank that idiot for letting his loose lips flap in the breeze.  I should keep his name handy in case I see him.    ^-^ 
Ahh, I see who he works for now...wonderful CBC...Canadian Bull&*^% Commandos...
My 0.02


----------

