2006 Parliamentary Debate on AFG Mission

[a_majoor]

The "Debate" debate is being driven by factors outside our control:

1. Prime Minister Harper wants/needs to set the agenda, shaping the debate on all government policies and actions on his terms. Forcing the Liberals, Bloc and NDP to react to his agenda has worked very well so far; and he intends to capitalize on this technique to push forward the five major policy planks.

2. Most of the people who are now demanding a debate are simply partisan hacks (Yes, Bill and Jack, that means you). Their eloquent silence on the issue from 2002 until the election of the Conservatives should be proof enough. We should loudly and pointedly ask why a debate was not required then?

3. The overriding objectives in demanding a debate is to try and put Prime Minister Harper on the defensive (i.e. not promoting his message), whipping up the Anti-American wings of the party and,

4. Like the "Copperheads" in the American Civil war or the MSM now on the subject of Iraq, create a climate of war weariness to encourage voters to withdraw support from the Government and elect a "peace" party.

We can indeed set the terms of the debate ourselves, the Ruxsted editorials have been one means, informed and thoughtful soldiers on deployment can write and blog about their experience from the ground, we can sustain the push through letters to the editor, speaking to friends and colleagues outside the military, perhaps public speaking (arranged through the chain of command) and so on.

The points I think should be emphasised are:

1. The conditions on the ground wherever the Taliban and AQ have achieved control (i.e. what we are fighting against)
2. What actions we are undertaking in theater (i.e. humanitarian assistence, training local police and ANA etc.)
3. This is a huge project which will take many years or even decades to complete
4. We have been comitted to do this since 2002, pulling out now would leave far to much work undone.

 

[pbi]

Roger that, a_majoor.

Cheers.

 

[The_Falcon]

The "Debate" debate is being driven by factors outside our control:

1. Prime Minister Harper wants/needs to set the agenda, shaping the debate on all government policies and actions on his terms. Forcing the Liberals, Bloc and NDP to react to his agenda has worked very well so far; and he intends to capitalize on this technique to push forward the five major policy planks.

2. Most of the people who are now demanding a debate are simply partisan hacks (Yes, Bill and Jack, that means you). Their eloquent silence on the issue from 2002 until the election of the Conservatives should be proof enough. We should loudly and pointedly ask why a debate was not required then?

3. The overriding objectives in demanding a debate is to try and put Prime Minister Harper on the defensive (i.e. not promoting his message), whipping up the Anti-American wings of the party and,

4. Like the "Copperheads" in the American Civil war or the MSM now on the subject of Iraq, create a climate of war weariness to encourage voters to withdraw support from the Government and elect a "peace" party.

We can indeed set the terms of the debate ourselves, the Ruxsted editorials have been one means, informed and thoughtful soldiers on deployment can write and blog about their experience from the ground, we can sustain the push through letters to the editor, speaking to friends and colleagues outside the military, perhaps public speaking (arranged through the chain of command) and so on.

The points I think should be emphasised are:

1. The conditions on the ground wherever the Taliban and AQ have achieved control (i.e. what we are fighting against)
2. What actions we are undertaking in theater (i.e. humanitarian assistence, training local police and ANA etc.)
3. This is a huge project which will take many years or even decades to complete
4. We have been comitted to do this since 2002, pulling out now would leave far to much work undone.

These points were covered in the debate, that happen 5 months ago, the one I posted about on the first page.  It was an all party Parliamentary debate.  Stephen Harper, needs to cut these yellow-bellied cowards off at the knees, and remind that they infact already held a debate on this subject, and it was the liberal themselves who outlined our mission and the fact that this was going to be more dangerous the previous ISAF mission.  The fact that the media never really picked up that this debate occured, just reinforces the notion that they are lazy and unwilling to do their own newsgathering/research, they have to have someone hand them a story before they do anything. 

When the time comes in another year or so to decide how long we are going to stay in Astan, then by all means a debate in parliament should be held.  But now is not the time.  We HAD A DEBATE 5 months ago!!!!  The situation has not changed drastically in that time frame, as the problems now facing us, were discussed at that time.  So in case anyone misses what I said

WE HAD A DEBATE ALREADY!!!!!!!!!

 

[mdh]

We can indeed set the terms of the debate ourselves,

And that's the critical point - the CF needs to help define the argument and help shape the debate so that the public understands the priorities of the Afghanistan mission.

We need to accept that political debate on the mission is inevitable; we should have a strategy in place to meet the rigours of that debate and ensure that the Canadian public understands the CF's point of view.

Opposition parties will undoubtedly challenge the assumptions behind the policy and as PBI noted that's the democratic way of doing business.

 

[scoutfinch]

I suspect efforts are being made with respect to the CF shaping the message conveyed to the public; hence, the embedded presence of the good Ms. Blatchford.

 

[mdh]

I suspect efforts are being made with respect to the CF shaping the message conveyed to the public; hence, the embedded presence of the good Ms. Blatchford.

Oh I certainly agree - and so far the embeds have been a resounding success; but embeds are just one tactic in the wider war to influence public opinion. To address a-majoor's point - we need a full-fledged campaign that takes us over the long haul (a much trickier proposition and tough to manage) and we have to prepare for the inevitable criticism (interesting to note that there was question asked by one journalist about reports of civilian casualties in the recent Sangin District firefight which was denied. See today's National Post)

cheers

 

[a_majoor]

Friends and allies:

http://soapbox22.blogspot.com/2006/03/enough-is-enough.html

Enough is enough
(en francais)

After I read this article yesterday, I spent most of the evening composing a reply in my head. I just couldn't quite settle on the words. Most times I was too angry and that bled through in my attempts. Trying to be rational in my approach didn't help much either.

    A soldier comes home
    But both the Bloc Quebecois and NDP said this latest death underscores the need for a full parliamentary debate on Canada's role in Afghanistan.

I was very happy this morning to come across Connie Woodcock's Toronto Sun piece. Connie takes us on a nostalgic tour of the Diefenbunker in Carp Ontario and then deftly brings us back to the present and reality. Her approach is somewhat calmer than what I had been contemplating, and for that reason, probably more effective.

    Down in the 'Diefenbunker'
    The Cold War, it occurred to me down in the bunker's dimly lit depths, wasn't so bad after all. No Canadian soldier died because of it. We've lost lots of soldiers over the years during peacekeeping missions -- in Cyprus, on the Golan Heights, in the former Yugoslavia -- and yet, until recently, we paid no attention. Ever heard of the Medac pocket? Probably not, but our soldiers witnessed bloody horrors there that we were never even told about at the time. Many Canadians suffer the delusion that peacekeeping is a nicer, safer, more honourable occupation than a soldier's normal job -- killing people.

    But it hasn't been much protection for our forces.

    More than 120 have been killed keeping the peace since the 1950s. We lost more than 20 in the former Yugoslavia alone --but if you remember hearing of even one, I'd be surprised. Now we're in a real war, the modern kind, that may drag on for years and soldiers are dying again. But things have changed -- for the first time in decades, our government is 100% behind its forces, and let's hope Canadians are too, for Afghanistan is a demonstration of the good we can do in a dangerous world.


All the above aside, I'm still left with the question - If Jack Layton and the NDP consider the current mission in Afghanistan to be so deserving of an emergency debate, then where were they in the period before the last government fell?

We've just spent one of the longest elections in Canadian history listening to the NDP tell us that they were the only ones to 'make Parliament work' in the last session, bringing in the "NDP budget". Their whole election strategy was based on the premise that they held the balance of power in the last parliament and Canadians needed to make sure that that was the case in this parliament.

If Jack Layton truly did wield this power, why did he not use it to force an emergency debate on Afghanistan BEFORE the troops actually deployed? From May to the fall of the government in November the NDP was virtually silent on the issue. While Jack Layton was busy extracting $4 billion in concessions from Paul Martin he couldn't spare the time to demand a debate that would cost nothing but time?

While the average Canadian can be excused for being confused about the details of the current Afghanistan mission, there's no excuse for MPs to claim the same.

Jack Layton misleads Canadians: http://soapbox22.blogspot.com/2006/03/jack-layton-misleads-canadians.html

Jack Layton and the NDP exposed: http://soapbox22.blogspot.com/2006/03/jack-layton-and-ndp-exposed.html

The time for debate on the current mission has long since past. The use of every soldiers injury or death to try and make the case for a debate you could have accomplished easily last year is nothing more than political partisanship at it's very worst.

We're there and we're committed. The mission has defined timelines.

If you wish a debate on extending those commitments, changing the goals of future missions, changing the Prime Minister's power to deploy forces or even the foreign policy that forms the basis of our deployments, those are all valid points and worthwhile debates. A knock down, gut-wrenching, no holds bar debate on the FUTURE role of Canada in Afghanistan, and elsewhere for that matter, is definitely called for. Leave nothing unsaid and let Canadians have no doubt where you stand.

You had your chance to debate this mission and the reasons for or against it, you chose not to use that chance.

Stop using our troops honourable and valiant service to score cheap political points.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Very good read.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

MY MOM SAYS WE SHOULDN'T BE IN AFGANASTAN...BUT ITS WAR..AND WE ARE NEEDED....THEN SHE SAID, "THATS NOT WHAT WE ARE FOR".....I SAYS "MOM ITS THE FUCKIN ARMY,THATS WHAT THEY DO!"

You swear to your Mother?...........

 

[Franko]

bigjeff,

PM inbound

 

[bigjeff]

only when shes being silly, shes german

 

[armybuck041]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/15/debate05152006.html

Wednesday afternoon 6 hour debate followed by a VOTE to pull out in Feb 07, or extend to Feb 09.

I guess i'll find out if i'm building up or tearing down this time around....

 

[MarkOttawa]

A post on this at "The Torch":

"Afstan: Extending Canadian commitment to 2009"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/05/afstan-extending-canadian-commitment.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

On a personal note, I believe we need to be there for the long haul, in order to help our friends over in Afghanistan build the institutions they need to achieve a peaceful, consensual society.

I also believe the usual suspects will be cauterwauling in parliament and the MSM about how we are not "peacekeeping" and should leave right now, abandoning the Afghan people to an unstable society and allowing for the very real possibility of the return of the Taliban to power. (Its rather odd that the Left seems to have no issues with the Taliban/Radical Islamic veiws on subjects like justice, educating children, womens rights, gay marriage etc.)

Remember, Terrorism is Information Warefare disguised as military action.

We can take the fight to parliament and the public as well, via blogs, newspaper and magazine editorials, personal contact with our MPs, friends, co workers etc. Letting everyone know what we have done in Afghanistan, what we hope to achieve and what is still needed to reach those goals is the priority mission for each and every one of us. Cutting and running sends a clear message to the Taliban and AQ that we are weak and easily intimidated, tells the Afghan people (and any others we might want to "save" in the future, like the people of Dafur) that we are fickle and unreliable friends and allies, and destroys our credibility with our NATO and Anglosphere allies.

When should we leave? The answer is easy, we will leave when there is a stable society that allows the elected government of Afghanistan take the reins and formally request the end of our mission.

 

[armybuck041]

Cutting and running sends a clear message to the Taliban and AQ that we are weak and easily intimidated, tells the Afghan people (and any others we might want to "save" in the future, like the people of Dafur) that we are fickle and unreliable friends and allies, and destroys our credibility with our NATO and Anglosphere allies.

When should we leave? The answer is easy, we will leave when there is a stable society that allows the elected government of Afghanistan take the reins and formally request the end of our mission.

Totally agree'd..... We are finally gaining some real credibility externally. 

Due to a good portion of the population (who steer the public opinion polls) having a total lack of understanding of our role on the world stage, I truely believe this vote could go either way.

 

[GAP]

"Quote from: a_majoor on Today at 11:56:34"

For a classic example look at the credibility loss the US endured after leaving Somalia. In the publics' view, they cut & ran, and they still get stuck with the pin occasionally when the opposition wants to make political points. The movie didn't help, it just reinforced the memory of them being there.

 

[North Star]

I love the Tory strategy behind this debate: Put up or shut-up. This will force the Liberals to take a position before they change their "opinion" to suit the polls (which is ironic because they're the architects of this changed role many of them are now starting to complain about). The NDP will be forced to present their usual shallow "George Bush and the Oil Conspiracy" arguments on short notice. The Bloc will probably just sit around. Our allies will get a firm commitment from the government, backed by parliament.

 

[Ahkenaten]

It's a good time to email your federal M.P.

Just an email will go along way, I am in a position to know this. While you're at it, email the 'loser' in your riding to let them know your position.

If you do not know your M.P. and would like to find information on them including their email you can phone, free of charge, 1-800-O-CANADA or 1-800-622-6232.

It's best to keep the subject matter respectful and above all, to the point. If your position can be summed up in 5 words or less consider using it in the subject header.

More information on guidelines for writing your MP can be found here:

http://www.taxpayer.com/main/content.php?content_id=15

I hope that is helpful. If you care about this then follow through, because we all know that 'follow-through' a pucculi-wearers weak area.





Ahk
"Neither fire nor wind, birth nor death can erase our good deeds."
--Buddha

 

[Enzo]

I'm currently watching CBC as the duly elected debate with their usual decorum in the great house on the hill. As a side note, I'm always left in awe of the process, knowing that children are held to a higher standard of communicative etiquette. Having said that, I still prefer having our politicians face one another on a basis in this forum as opposed to other systems, but that's just one opinion.

As for the upcoming debate, I'm all for it, but it's almost as if the Liberals forgot that they were the ones who committed the CF without a debate years ago. And after the comments made by Layton and McDonough this morning, I was actually lambasting my tv (waking my cat from his peaceful slumber, poor little guy has to tolerate quite a lot these days : ) If I hear either of those two speak "for the troops out of respect," I may actually begin to lose faith in the system

I try to maintain a certain levity when it comes to politics, but wow, talk about a bunch of politically driven hypocrites fighting for their 15 minutes eh. This black & white, short term, sound bite mindset that has become de rigueur in our times is dangerously laughable with its oversimplification of the issues.

Carry on...

 

[GAP]

Sent to Alexa McDonough

Having had the opportunity to go to Afghanistan recently, I trust you were able to see the humanitarian side of the issues over there and the good that is being done regarding issues and rights we take for granted.

Please don't let politics get in the way of helping these people. The issue of Darfur will probably be resolved in favor of some form of commitment by Canada, so don't let Darfur cloud the vision of the help the Afghan people need.

We have had many UN mandated missions, some of which lasted 30+ years. Most had conflicts to be settled initially, then things settled down, and the generational process began that eliminated the further need of a UN force. Afghanistan is one of those.

We are not going to be able to help the Afghans if we dart out everytime we see a more high profile need somewhere else. The Afghan people will help themselves, we just have to give them the time and security to accomplish it. It will take a generation. The children who know peace and security will be the ones who grow up and engineer the society to their needs. Canadians do it with each succeeding generation, they will too.

We are so close to the issues, sometimes we don't see them, but step back and take a look and you will, if you haven't already, see what I mean.

Thank you for your time. I hope I have helped in a small way to request your assistance in keeping the Afghanistan mission going.

Also an edited version to Pat Martin