Liberal pos'n on Afghanistan

[Armymedic]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080109.wliberals09/BNStory/National/home

Out of Kandahar by 2009, Liberals say
ALAN FREEMAN

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

January 9, 2008 at 4:34 AM EST

OTTAWA — The opposition Liberals insisted yesterday that Canada must end its counterinsurgency combat mission in Kandahar by February of next year, although the party opened the door to "other possible military roles in Afghanistan," including training, protection of civilians and reconstruction.

In a written presentation to the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan, the Liberals said they would reject any government attempt to reconstitute the current mission in Kandahar by dropping its combat emphasis.

"We are open to other possible military roles in Afghanistan to continue training the Afghan National Army and police, protect Afghan civilians or for reconstructions," said Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion. "But we will not accept the simple rebranding of the current combat mission as a training mission."

In its presentation, the Liberals said the combat mission was never intended to be "life-long effort or even a 10-year commitment." Canada had already done its part and rotation out of Kandahar should not be seen as abandoning Afghanistan or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, they said.

more on link

 

[vonGarvin]

Why doesn't the liberal party explain "why" we should alter the mission?  Also, when they inherited the Balkans from the Progressive Conservatives in 1993, "how long" did they expect that to go on?  If I recall, it went for at least another ten years.  I'm not saying that the mission shouldn't change from its current form, but if they could sell me the "why" (without resorting to blatant anti-americanisms)

 

[McG]

Why doesn't the liberal party explain "why" we should alter the mission? 

or provide a vision/recommendation.  Usefull opposition should come with an alternate recomendation.  Simply announcing what you will not support without an alternative recomendation ... well, that's just playing games & is not helpful for debate.

In short: Why doesn't the liberal party explain "HOW" we should alter the mission?

 

[Kirkhill]

"We are open to other possible military roles in Afghanistan to continue training the Afghan National Army and police, protect Afghan civilians or for reconstructions," said Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion. "But we will not accept the simple rebranding of the current combat mission as a training mission."

Continuing to train ANA/ANP - continuation of task currently undertaken
Protecting Afghan civilians - continuation of task currently undertaken
Reconstructions (sic) - continuation of task currently undertaken

Short form - in the vernacular of our American cousins - "Charlie Mike" - Continue Mission

However "we will not accept the simple rebranding of the current combat mission as a training mission".  Presumably it will be rebranded in the most circuitous and complex fashion possible as a "Reconstructions" mission.

Meanwhile combat operations will continue but with the same level of official attention given to the Medak operation and the early activities of the JTF2 in Afghanistan under Paul Martin and Jean Chretien, or for that matter Canadians on secondment in Iraq.

 

[geo]

I must say that the Liberal party have been sending out so many mixed signals that it is becoming really hard to figure what they stand for AND against.

WTF?

Many things can be said about the days of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin BUT at least you knew what their position was.

Shoulda seen the reaction of the Lib fundraiser who called me the other day.... when I started to compare Mr Dion & his successors as being "weather vanes" spinning in the wind - in all directions, HE terminated the call...... Sigh - he didn't want to talk to me

 

[vonGarvin]

Many things can be said about the days of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin BUT at least you knew what their position was.

Hindsight must be a little less than 20/20.  Jean Chretien was the master at not making decisions (his "decision" to say "no" to the Iraq war was not really a "no", but an unforeseen "yes" to Kabul in 2003, unforeseen because we weren't even asked.)
Paul Martin was a ditherer who refused to make timely decisions.  The current crop of leaders (eg: Mr. Dion) is no different than his two immediate predecessors (Mr. Graham notwithstanding)

 

[geo]

Hmmm....
Possibly my memories of Paul Martin are more of him as the Finance Minister than as the Prime Minister but, don't consider him to have dithered.... at least not that much
WRT Jean Crhétien ... if it was anti Dubya, you could probably count on him to go for it.  If you painted him into a corner, you could certainly expect a reaction.  Note, JC was no friend of the Military & only used it to "showcase" how goodie two shoes he viewed mimself to be on the world's stage...

 

[Kirkhill]

.....

Shoulda seen the reaction of the Lib fundraiser who called me the other day.... when I started to compare Mr Dion & his successors as being "weather vanes" spinning in the wind - in all directions, HE terminated the call...... Sigh - he didn't want to talk to me

A buddy of mine had a coffee mug that said "Salesmanship starts when the customer says NO".  It seems that the fundraiser hasn't quite grokked that.   That may be true of the entire Liberal Party. 

 

[Reccesoldier]

or provide a vision/recommendation. 

Their position on this (and in my opinion on everything else) has nothing to do with any vision except the one that sees the Liberal party in power once again. 

I guarantee you that if there were a series of polls that showed the majority of Canadians wanted the CF to remain in a combat role in Afghanistan until 2012 then the next thing you would hear from the Libs would be that withdrawing from K'har would be an abandonment of;
1. Our Canadian principals
2. The UN mission
3. The Afghan people
4. Our Allies

The really, really sad thing about this is that 30% of brain dead Canadian voters wouldn't even notice the shift.

 

[GAP]

I'm still trying to figure out if the title "Liberal pos'n on Afghanistan " is a weekly or a monthly concept/poll.....

 

[GAP]

Just to add more fuel to the merry blaze.....

The Dion Doctrine: Get Out Now, Worry About the Consequences Later
Posted: January 09, 2008, 3:06 PM by Kelly McParland
Article Link

It seems unlikely Stephen Harper will find much to perturb him in the Liberal Party paper outlining its position on Afghanistan.

In truth, it might delight him. It puts the Liberal position on paper, where it is easier to attack. And there are plenty of holes in the document to attack.

The Liberals unveiled the paper in a formal submission to John Manley’s panel on Afghanistan, appointed by the government to advise it on the future direction of the Canadian military mission.  The main Liberal demand reflected what Stéphane Dion has been saying for months now: that Ottawa should formally notify NATO immediately that Canada intends to end its combat role in Afghanistan in February 2009, when it is due to expire.

Dion says the party is open to Canadian participation in other operations in less dangerous parts of the country -- training Afghani police or army troops, helping with reconstruction, doing what it can to boost political stability. But shooting Talibanis is out.

The reason this position must be set in concrete now, Dion says, is clarity. Unless Canada makes clear now that nothing will keep our troops in Kandahar after February 2009, NATO won’t do anything to replace them. “As long as other NATO countries believe that our commitment to continue the counter-insurgency combat role in Kandahar is open-ended, they will never prepare for our departure.”

That suggests a pretty dim view of the mental capacities of the NATO generals. Especially as there’s been no suggestion from Harper or anyone else that the combat mission is open-ended. The Prime Minister has said any number of times that  an extension beyond February 2009 would require approval from Parliament. On their own web site, the Liberals have helpfully posted this quote from the PM: “Should Canada be involved militarily after [2009]? We’ve been clear that would have to be approved by the Canadian Parliament. For my personal perspective, I will want to see some degree of consensus among Canadians on how we move forward on that. I don’t want to send people on a mission if the opposition is going to, at home, undercut the dangerous work they’re doing in the field. … So I hope that sometime in the next few months, we will be able to get a meeting of the minds on what the appropriate next steps are.”
More on link

 

[geo]

Gee thanks GAP

Piffle! 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Pandering to the left for votes. With no intention of doing anything IF they get the chance. They'll pull out the blame card, he'll give that stupid, deer in the headlights shrug, and say they're locked into the deal, but thanks for the vote all the same. Dion and Layton, have no idea what they would do if THEY actually had to make the decision. It's all about making the other guy look bad, and not having to back up your own lies.

 

[armyvern]

Liberal position on Afghanistan??

What did the polls say today?? That'll be the correct answer ... today anyway.

 

[Flip]

What he said.........

Pandering to the left for votes. With no intention of doing anything IF they get the chance. They'll pull out the blame card, he'll give that stupid, deer in the headlights shrug, and say they're locked into the deal, but thanks for the vote all the same. Dion and Layton, have no idea what they would do if THEY actually had to make the decision. It's all about making the other guy look bad, and not having to back up your own lies.

I would frame it and hang it on the wall.
Didn't Dion once say that it's the duty of the opposition to oppose everything?
That reminds me, I'd better get my membership money in, I want my little BLUE
card...... ;D