Here is an
Issues (opinion) piece by Jonathan Kay from today’s
National Post; it is reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=8566c8bc-4fb9-4d1d-98f1-3cad832a5108&p=2
Preparing for a Black Hawk Down moment
Jonathan Kay
National Post
Monday, March 20, 2006
In one three-day trip to Afghanistan, Stephen Harper exhibited more leadership and moral clarity than the Liberals did in 13 years.
The Prime Minister went to Afghanistan because he understands what's at stake: If the country falls back into Taliban hands, Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar will have proven to the world -- including everyone in Iraq -- that jihadis can rout a modern Western army and transform a nascent democracy into a medieval theocracy.
The PM's main problem is that the Taliban are the enemies of not just ordinary Afghans, but of America as well. And so Canada's Left, reflexively sympathetic to anyone warring against George W. Bush, is already singing the chorus of cut-and-run.
But even the Left is divided on Afghanistan -- because our mission there has a strong humanitarian component. Across a range of human-development indicators, Afghanistan resembles a sub-Saharan nation. Linda McQuaig and Rick Salutin may believe we should let ordinary Afghans suffer because helping them would indirectly help Bush. But few Canadians are inclined to agree.
And yet, support for our Afghanistan mission could still be one major firefight away from collapsing. The problem with both the strategic and humanitarian rationales for our mission is that they suffer from what economists call the "free rider" problem. Yes, Canada's strategic interest in Afghanistan -- fighting militant Islam -- is compelling. But it is a shared interest diffused over the entire civilized world. Why should it be Canada leading the Kandahar charge as opposed to, say, New Zealand, or France? Better yet, why not just follow the usual Canadian practice and let the Americans do it?
Humanitarian arguments, too, will fall to the wayside if the body count spikes. While democracies have a high tolerance for casualties in wars of self-interest, the same is not true of humanitarian interventions -- which explains why Kosovo was bombed from 15,000 feet, and why no Western nation is willing to sacrifice a single solider to save Darfur. If the Taliban are able to stage a particularly spectacular attack, Harper will feel the same heavy pressure to evacuate as Bill Clinton did when Somali gunmen killed 18 U.S. soldiers in Mogadishu 13 years ago.
An Afghan Mogadishu would threaten not only our presence in Afghanistan, but also this precious moment in Canadian history.
Paul Martin and Jean Chretien spoke often about Canadian values, and congratulated themselves at great length about our country's Beatles-era peacekeeping tradition. But they did little to fight terrorism and rogue power in the modern world. Even when the Liberals eventually did the right thing in Afghanistan, they kept mum on the subject -- as if it were something to be embarrassed about.
Harper is of another breed. Good on him for visiting Afghanistan and saying the right things. But in the end, our deployment is an act of conscience aimed at fulfilling our moral obligation to the rest of the free world. This motivation may be laudable, but it is also highly abstract. And it is questionable whether it will survive if Canada is faced with the concrete violence produced by a Black Hawk Down moment.
Harper should be laying the necessary groundwork before such a moment arrives. As others have noted on these pages, Canadian NGOs and government agencies are modest to a fault about the good work we're doing in Afghanistan. That must change. Canadians will be more willing to endure casualties if our deployment is seen not as an isolated expeditionary force but as what it is -- the security arm of a broader relief effort.
Second, Harper should reverse course by agreeing to a full Parliamentary debate and free vote on Afghanistan. Even if the biggest push for this is coming from the NDP, which may use the occasion for pacifistic posturing, it's still a good idea.
For years, foreign policy in this country has been based on the leader's personal whim: Our non-roles in missile defence and Iraq were both decided by the PMO on the basis of superficial political optics. Afghanistan should be different. It should be clear that our presence there is nothing less than a fundamental expression of our national will, as articulated by democratically elected lawmakers.
I expect that an overwhelming majority of MPS would support our mission. And I hope they would continue doing so even when we face the casualties that are a tragic but unavoidable part of any serious military deployment.
© National Post 2006
I agree with Kay that:
• The political
left (near and far/loony) in Canada is so wrapped up in its all consuming hatred (no better word) of George W Bush that it cannot see the humanitarian utility, much less the strategic necessity, of the Afghanistan mission;
• One tragic loss of life could be a tipping point for Canadians who have been brainwashed by a biased, muddle headed, inept, lazy media (which serves, by and large, as stenographers for the Liberal Party of Canada’s Trudeau wing and the NDP) into believing that baby blue berets are the key to our national security and the future of the West; and
• Harper must “lay the groundwork” to begin the long, hard process of educating Canadians.
While I agree that parliament should debate the Afghan deployment – if only to flush out the loony left, I am constantly dismayed (or, perhaps, reassured about the essential ignorance of my fellow citizens) by the lack of comprehension of our Constitution amongst those who want a vote on it.
Parliament has neither a
right nor a need to
approve the deployment of troops.
In 1939 King demanded such a debate for totally political and (Constitutionally) quite, unnecessary reasons. Parliament’s
right is to vote or deny the money to make war or keep the peace – which it does, year-after-year, when the
estimates (the
blue book) are tabled. This is the
right which we affirmed some 350+ years ago at Whitehall when we (the people) lopped off King Charles’ head. The
sovereignty of Parliament was established, for ever, but it did not alter the basic nature of the state. We remain a monarchy and it is the Queen’s right and
duty to deploy her armies and navies to defend her realm and to promote her interests. Parliament’s
choice is to vote funds, or not. It is a hugely powerful choice.
Now, lazy parliamentarians and crafty bureaucrats have conspired to deal with the appropriations as one ‘whole’ – there is no valid Constitutional requirement to do that. In fact, estimates should be debated (as they are, in Committee) and then voted on department-by-department, if not (always) line-by-line. It should be possible, in other words, for parliamentarians to vote money for e.g. DND’s personnel (Vote 1) and equipment (Vote 5) budgets but to deny the money in the operations and maintenance ‘vote’ (also in Vote 5) thereby, effectively and Constitutionally, denying the crown the
right to conduct certain military operations. That is the
proper role of parliament in our (Westminster) form of a constitutional monarchy.
But that’s beside the point.
<---- 'cause I know academics can be sensitive
. Go Canada.
