Some points (impressions from memory and first three might be a bit off):
1) The CBC story was almost dismissive of the first 2002 mission and gave the impression that it was not a serious combat mission.
2) The story gave the impression that the new 2003 mission was guaranteed to be a very risky, combat mission when in fact it was closer to "traditional peacekeeping".
3) The story did not sufficiently point out the large change of the nature of the mission that the Martin govenment accepted in Kandahar from that in Kabul.
4) The story did not--naturally--investigate sufficiently the angle that Chretien put the troops in Afstan so he would have nothing for Iraq if the UN in the end approved military action there. Instead Eddie Goldenberg (I think) was simply allowed to say the government had decided--he did not say when--not to send troops to Iraq so there was no connection with Afstan. That ignores the fact that the Afstan announcement was made on Feb, 12, 2003.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1045079373440_67
This was at a time when Chretien was still saying that Canada would follow the UN Security Council's lead on Iraq. For instance, six days after the Afstan announcement, on Feb. 18:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2003/0218Canada.htm
After months of hesitation, Canada finally made it clear on Tuesday that it has no intention of contributing to a U.S.-led attack on Iraq that has not been blessed by the U.N. Security Council.
President Bush has said that if the United Nations backs away from the idea of authorizing force to disarm Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, he is prepared to wage war with like-minded allies in what he calls a "coalition of the willing."
Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, wary of antagonizing the country's most important military ally and trading partner, has, until now, consistently declined to rule out contributing forces to such a coalition. But on Tuesday he told Parliament that Canada would not join an unsanctioned campaign.
"We have not been asked and we do not intend to participate in a group of the willing," he said in reply to a question asking whether Canada would join Bush's "coalition of willing countries" in an attack on Iraq.
"The policy of the government is very clear. If there has to be military activity in Iraq, we want it to be approved by the U.N. Security Council," he continued...
Now note this (same story):
Chretien and his senior ministers have consistently said that if the United Nations does sanction an assault on Iraq, Canada will take part.
Whether Canada's over-stretched armed forces could contribute much is questionable, since last week Ottawa announced it would send up to 2,000 troops for a year to take part in a U.N. peacekeeping mission based in Kabul.
So either Chretien and his minister were lying then or Mr Goldenberg is lying now. In any event the motive for the Afstan mission is crystal clear.
Chretien on Jan. 15, 2003; the CBC completely ignored this apparent military commitment to a UN-sanctioned mission against Iraq:
http://www.creativeresistance.ca/canada/2003-jan15-chretien-repeats-support-for-un-on-iraq.htm
If the international community decides that the use of force against Iraq is necessary because it is the only way to bring an end to Iraq's non-compliance, then Canada will do its part," Mr. Chretien said, adding that "the international community must speak and act through the United Nations Security Council."
From Hansard, Feb. 18, 2003:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?pub=hansard&mee=62&parl=37&ses=2&language=E
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have not been asked and we do not intend to take part in a voluntary group. The government's policy is very clear. If there must be a war in Iraq, we want it to be approved by the Security Council. There may be another Security Council resolution. When the issue has been debated, we will see what we will do. However, our policy is to follow the directives set out by the Security Council.
Mark
Ottawa
.
