NDP calls for immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan

[probum non poenitet]

Interesting development, to put it mildly:

Reproduced here from the NDP Website under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
http://www.ndp.ca/page/4117

Wrong mission for Canada: Layton calls for troop withdrawal
Thu 31 Aug 2006 | Printer friendly


OTTAWA – NDP Leader Jack Layton today called for withdrawal of Canadian troops from the counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan. Troop withdrawal should begin as soon as possible and be complete by February 2007.

“This is not the right mission for Canada. It is not clearly defined, there is no exit strategy and it is unbalanced in that it focuses on counter-insurgency and not peace keeping,” said Layton.

“New Democrats support our Canadian Forces,” said Layton. “We grieve with each family that loses a loved one in this and all conflicts, or sees a loved one injured in the line of duty. It is precisely because of this deep respect for our soldiers that we have consistently asked tough questions of the Harper government—a government which is keeping Canadians in harms’ way without clearly-articulated objectives, timelines, or criteria for success.”

“New Democrats understand the need to send troops into combat and the risks involved. We support and have supported appropriate missions. Our duty is to ensure that Canada participates in missions where the objectives and mandate are clear and where there are clear criteria for success. This is not such a mission,” said Layton.

Layton said, “New Democrats have a clear, comprehensive vision that moves Canada in the right direction - where our role in Afghanistan is through humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and a comprehensive peace process - not a George Bush style counter-insurgency war.”

“We must continue to work multilaterally to get tough on terrorism,” said Layton. “But, we also understand that making the world a safer place requires us to go much further. Issues like combating global poverty, international development assistance, reforming international institutions, peace building and securing human rights are all part of the solution.”

Statement by NDP Leader Jack Layton

 

[HDE]

"New Democrats support our Canadian Forces"   That pretty much flies in the face of all evidence; no doubt the MSM will ask him for some background to support his claim.

 

[on guard for thee]

Ahhhhh.

All is becoming clear to me now....

We are engaged in "The "humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and  comprehensive peace process" against terror".

Why didn't I get this sooner????

 

[Zarathustra]

securing human rights are all part of the solution.

Securing human rights by letting the Taliban win ?

I don't understand his position. Sure you can be worried about the outcome of this conflict, but the Talibans are so opposed to everything the NDP wants.

 

[George Wallace]

I am sure that the Taliban fundraisers in his riding have given him a whole different perspective.  ;D

 

[probum non poenitet]

We have consistently asked tough questions of the Harper government—a government which is keeping Canadians in harms’ way without clearly-articulated objectives, timelines, or criteria for success.
Our duty is to ensure that Canada participates in missions where the objectives and mandate are clear and where there are clear criteria for success.

I think this opens a pretty important chapter in what will happen politically in Canada ... it's "Game on" for all parties now.

I see two general directions this could take us - one terrible, and one not completely terrible.

In the not completely terrible option, the NDPs calls for a clear position from the government forces debate in the Commons, and gives the Conservatives (and pro-mission Liberals) a chance to outline and enunciate clearly what it is we want to achieve and how we are moving towards that goal.
If the government puts forth a coherent, defendable position, it may acutally strengthen the mission and public support for it. So democracy functions like it's supposed to ... the opposition forces the sitting government to be better, stronger faster ...
Of course, if the government does not make its case clearly, or Canadians don't agree with its case, the mission might end after the next election. 

But what I fear is that the conflict may now be politicized. If politicans take the low road, and put the interests of their party before the interests of the nation, we may have a new cross to bear.
Anti-war politicans will benefit politically from military failure ... you can connect the dots on that one.
Pro-war politicans may be tempted to conduct the mission with more eyes on domestic politics than on the needs of the mission.
I dearly, dearly hope that politicans do not use the sacrifices of our soldiers to gain political advantage.

If a pro-war anti-war Parliament is our new political reality (has it ever been so in Canadian history?) - I hope our politicans mature in one heck of a hurry, and return to civilized, meaningful debate. Because demagoguery at this time would be in the poorest taste.
Watch and shoot.

 

[Magravan]

I think this opens a pretty important chapter in what will happen politically in Canada ... it's "Game on" for all parties now.

I see two general directions this could take us - one terrible, and one not completely terrible.

In the not completely terrible option, the NDPs calls for a clear position from the government forces debate in the Commons, and gives the Conservatives (and pro-mission Liberals) a chance to outline and enunciate clearly what it is we want to achieve and how we are moving towards that goal.
If the government puts forth a coherent, defendable position, it may acutally strengthen the mission and public support for it. So democracy functions like it's supposed to ... the opposition forces the sitting government to be better, stronger faster ...
Of course, if the government does not make its case clearly, or Canadians don't agree with its case, the mission might end after the next election. 

But what I fear is that the conflict may now be politicized. If politicans take the low road, and put the interests of their party before the interests of the nation, we may have a new cross to bear.
Anti-war politicans will benefit politically from military failure ... you can connect the dots on that one.
Pro-war politicans may be tempted to conduct the mission with more eyes on domestic politics than on the needs of the mission.
I dearly, dearly hope that politicans do not use the sacrifices of our soldiers to gain political advantage.

If a pro-war anti-war Parliament is our new political reality (has it ever been so in Canadian history?) - I hope our politicans mature in one heck of a hurry, and return to civilized, meaningful debate. Because demagoguery at this time would be in the poorest taste.
Watch and shoot.

+1 ... I think that choosing a battle with no understanding of how to effectively leave the country, we are setting ourselves up for failure. The NDP aren't going to remove the troops from Afghanistan on their own. IF the Harper government cannot give Canadians a valid reason for our troops to be in Afghanistan, how can it be said that he really understands anything about what is going on? It isn't hard to sell a good product, even if the price is high. If Harper doesn't believe in this mission enough to give a good, solid speech to the populace, then I am forced to question if he is wrong to have our troops there.

Personally, in my opinion, this is exactly the kind of thing that the Harper government should want.. A chance to continue to reassure Canadians why were are asking our troops to battle these people. The public already has doubts, regardless of what the Opposition government states... Better to utilize a chance to speak to Canadians about why the minority government believes we should be there. If they can't handle a few questions and suggestions to specify what we are doing there, are Canadians really going to trust them with a majority?

 

[McG]

“... there is no exit strategy ...” said Layton.

This is either misguiding fear mongering or Jack Layton needs to do his homework.  The leader of a federal political party should understand how the mission is working toward an already defined exit strategy.  Part of reconstruction includes building the capacity of the Afghani security forces.  As they grow and develop competency they take over an increasingly larger proportion of the nation's security requirements (replacing international forces that are currently doing this on behalf of the Afghani government).  Eventually, they can run the show & we can go home.

“... it is unbalanced in that it focuses on counter-insurgency and not peacekeeping,” said Layton.

What does he believe "peacekeeping" is?  We have dozens of threads on this site that discuss the topic, and they all seem to agree that "peacekeeping" does need to include combat operations against those who break the peace.

Layton said, “New Democrats have a clear, comprehensive vision that moves Canada in the right direction - where our role in Afghanistan is through humanitarian aid, reconstruction, and a comprehensive peace process - not a George Bush style counter-insurgency war.”

So, our role will be to do all the things that the TB will use force to prevent us from doing.  Good thing there is that UN approved multinational force in the country.  Maybe we should also send the Army as an enabler . . . oh, wait . . . that is what we’re being told to bring home.

In the not completely terrible option, the NDPs calls for a clear position from the government forces debate in the Commons, and gives the Conservatives (and pro-mission Liberals) a chance to outline and enunciate clearly what it is we want to achieve and how we are moving towards that goal.

Was this not done during any of the previous Commons debates?

+1 ... I think that choosing a battle with no understanding of how to effectively leave the country, we are setting ourselves up for failure.

Good thing there has always been a plan (at least, a plan far better than any peacekeeping mission has ever had).  Don’t be fooled on this.

 

[probum non poenitet]

Was this not done during any of the previous Commons debates?

Yes ... I think the Conservatives have been clear and consistent in what they want to achieve. Hats off.
Their positions are available to the public, and I think the military who are enacting those policies by and large have a good understanding of them.

Buuutttt ..... just over half of Parliament bought in on the May 17 debate, and though polls are fickle things, they have consitently shown a significant number of Canadians are unsure of what our mission is.

I think the 'truth will out.' Militarily, the Conservatives are realists (in my opinion), the Liberals are adrift, and the NDP are Utopians.
So the more this issue is debated, the more that divide will become apparent to the public... in theory. (cue organ music and thunder)

 

[McG]

If the public opinion/understanding is the problem, then the PM should just make use of that air time he has the power to get on all television channels.  With nothing else to watch, people can listen to the facts (and so stop getting sold on fallacies that the NDP & certain Liberals are selling).

 

[McG]

NDP Leader Jack Layton said the troops should be pulled out of Afghanistan by February because the mission "lacks a comprehensive rebuilding plan and commensurate development assistance."

Maybe the solution is more development assistance & not fewer soldiers.

 

[George Wallace]

Maybe the solution is more development assistance & not fewer soldiers.

And I think that it should fall on the NDP minded, and similar ilk, to volunteer for such jobs.  Like the Medicines San Frontiers, they can go forth and build 'Habitates for Humanity' to their hearts content, and in the meantime find out what the situation is really like over there..........OK..........Sorry.  We have already trashed those Christian Groups who have done this already and become hostages of the various terrorist organizations.  Silly idea.  I take it back.

 

[The Bread Guy]

And it only gets better.....

Layton suggests talks with Taliban
Bill Curry, Globe & Mail, 1 Sept 06
permalink - http://milnewstbay.pbwiki.com/20071

''OTTAWA — Canada should withdraw its troops from the current mission in southern Afghanistan and invite Taliban fighters to peace talks, NDP Leader Jack Layton said yesterday.

"We believe that a comprehensive peace process has to bring all combatants to the table. You don't accomplish peace if those who are fighting are not involved in the peace-based discussion," he said.

After listening to Canadians across the country this summer, Mr. Layton said, he has come to the conclusion that the current mission is too focused on fighting insurgents at the expense of development and diplomacy.

"Prime Minister (Stephen) Harper need only look at the experience in Iraq to conclude that ill-conceived and unbalanced missions do not create the conditions for long-term peace," the New Democratic Party Leader said . . . . ''

The Globe's editorial sums it up well....
permalink - http://milnewstbay.pbwiki.com/61334

''And what does he imagine that the Taliban -- oppressors of girls and women, scourge of those it considers heretics, agents of suicide bombs in crowded marketplaces, destroyers of historic Buddhist carvings -- might seek at such a table? A cabinet post? A payment in return for respecting a multi-party government, not burning schools because girls attend them, not killing people it disagrees with and not providing a haven for al-Qaeda?''

 

[vonGarvin]

"We believe that a comprehensive peace process has to bring all combatants to the table. You don't accomplish peace if those who are fighting are not involved in the peace-based discussion," he said.

Just as we said to Herr Hitler: NOTHING.  Words don't work with fanatics.  Deeds do. 

Having said that, the sort of reconciliation mentioned by the tribal leaders may go a ways, but that should NOT be confused with "sitting at a table and discussing".  Deeds not words, JL, deed not words.

 

[Etienne]

Although I have absolutely nothing against the NDP or their views, I sometimes wonder why we give all that attention to someone like Mr Layton. Clearly he is misinformed and disconnect from the world. Lester Pearsons idea was good...but died 20 years ago. Opening discusion with the Taliban ? come on ...get real..they tried that with a certain Adolph Hitler some 60 years ago.

 

[Brad Sallows]

“This is not the right mission for Canada. It is not clearly defined, there is no exit strategy and it is unbalanced in that it focuses on counter-insurgency and not peace keeping,” said Layton.

Save that somewhere for the next time Layton extrudes an idea of his own as to where we should be sending troops.  Ask him whether his proposed mission is clearly defined, has an exit strategy, and is balanced.

 

[vonGarvin]

“This is not the right mission for Canada. It is not clearly defined, there is no exit strategy and it is unbalanced in that it focuses on counter-insurgency and not peace keeping,” said Layton.

Why does focusing on counter insurgency during an insurgency unbalance a mission?  How would focusing on "peace keeping" [sic] during an insurgency balance a mission?  THERE IS NO FRICKIN' PEACE TO KEEP!  EARTH TO JACK!  COME IN JACK!!!!!!


I don't think he's listening


OK, no matter.  Shall we sing "Kumbaya?"

 

[paracowboy]

paracowboy calls for immediate NDP withdrawal from Parliament.

 

[vonGarvin]

paracowboy calls for immediate NDP withdrawal from Parliament.

von Garvin seconds that motion

 

[Reccesoldier]

Buuutttt ..... just over half of Parliament bought in on the May 17 debate, and though polls are fickle things, they have consitently shown a significant number of Canadians are unsure of what our mission is.

If only just over half of Parliament was present for the debate then the question to be asked is how many of those absent parliamentarians are now asking stupid questions or slinging this crap for public consumption through the media. 

Once we determine that, then we will know who is actualy interested and who is playing politics. 

Laton is even more controled by the media and immediate public opinion than even Mr. Dithers was.  USELESS.