- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
A question of honour
Mar. 13 2006
It's not just the prime minister's first major trip since winning office; it's his first major action.
Stephen Harper, who's not a careless man, intends his reasons for the flight to and the stay over in Afghanistan to be laser-clear. He is underlining by this action not just his regard for Canadian troops engaged in a dangerous mission.
That would be a given for any prime minister. But by launching his prime ministership more by deed than by word, and that deed a full day's interaction with Canadian troops on active mission half a world away, he is giving the boldest possible highlight to the subject of Canada's military and humanitarian commitment to Afghanistan. That there is to be no equivocation, no fudging of the commitment, none.
He is saying we're there, we mean to be there, we understand why we're there, and there will be, in his own words, no cut and run. It must be for those in the Canadian military and for those who have regard for the military, even in the context of the evident dangers and human cost of the Afghan mission, a long-awaited moment. After decades of neglect, under-funding, and over-assignment, being served a porridge of bland praise and studied neglect, one leader of a Canadian government has made the translation from feeble and pious rhetoric about the military to a demonstration of his appreciation of it.
He is saying also that if Canadians wish to continue to enjoy both the tranquillity and prosperity which are so great a blessing of our way of life, that wish must be accompanied by an engagement in securing a portion of that tranquillity and eventual wellbeing in another country far distant from our own, possibly at very great cost.
The Afghanistan mission has already had great cost, eleven lives lost so far. There may be and likely will be more. So this is an engagement of the highest possible consequence, and any discussion of it should run far deeper than the routine clamours of Question Period and the duelling panels of partisans. Discussion, not debate.
I cannot see how we can ask troops to risk their lives in combat and in the perils of helping to rebuild a ravaged country while, in essence we tip them to the idea that meanwhile, we're about to launch an argument if there is a reason for them to be there in the first place. It would be a little like saying "Off you go. Now, let's debate if we should send you."
That would be reckless, illogical, unjust, and defeatist.
Two governments and two prime ministers now, one Liberal and one Conservative, have signed off on this U.N.-authorized, NATO-led mission. We may discuss, refine, and articulate the cause we're serving, but it's past the moment to debate the cause itself. If we wish to have a debate, we must end the mission. A debate on the validity of the mission cannot be subsequent to the decision to undertake it. That's a question that goes to honour when, as there are in Afghanistan, lives are at stake. For The National, I'm Rex Murphy.
http://www.cbc.ca/national/rex/rex_060313.html
-------------------------------
CBC isn't all bad.
Mar. 13 2006
It's not just the prime minister's first major trip since winning office; it's his first major action.
Stephen Harper, who's not a careless man, intends his reasons for the flight to and the stay over in Afghanistan to be laser-clear. He is underlining by this action not just his regard for Canadian troops engaged in a dangerous mission.
That would be a given for any prime minister. But by launching his prime ministership more by deed than by word, and that deed a full day's interaction with Canadian troops on active mission half a world away, he is giving the boldest possible highlight to the subject of Canada's military and humanitarian commitment to Afghanistan. That there is to be no equivocation, no fudging of the commitment, none.
He is saying we're there, we mean to be there, we understand why we're there, and there will be, in his own words, no cut and run. It must be for those in the Canadian military and for those who have regard for the military, even in the context of the evident dangers and human cost of the Afghan mission, a long-awaited moment. After decades of neglect, under-funding, and over-assignment, being served a porridge of bland praise and studied neglect, one leader of a Canadian government has made the translation from feeble and pious rhetoric about the military to a demonstration of his appreciation of it.
He is saying also that if Canadians wish to continue to enjoy both the tranquillity and prosperity which are so great a blessing of our way of life, that wish must be accompanied by an engagement in securing a portion of that tranquillity and eventual wellbeing in another country far distant from our own, possibly at very great cost.
The Afghanistan mission has already had great cost, eleven lives lost so far. There may be and likely will be more. So this is an engagement of the highest possible consequence, and any discussion of it should run far deeper than the routine clamours of Question Period and the duelling panels of partisans. Discussion, not debate.
I cannot see how we can ask troops to risk their lives in combat and in the perils of helping to rebuild a ravaged country while, in essence we tip them to the idea that meanwhile, we're about to launch an argument if there is a reason for them to be there in the first place. It would be a little like saying "Off you go. Now, let's debate if we should send you."
That would be reckless, illogical, unjust, and defeatist.
Two governments and two prime ministers now, one Liberal and one Conservative, have signed off on this U.N.-authorized, NATO-led mission. We may discuss, refine, and articulate the cause we're serving, but it's past the moment to debate the cause itself. If we wish to have a debate, we must end the mission. A debate on the validity of the mission cannot be subsequent to the decision to undertake it. That's a question that goes to honour when, as there are in Afghanistan, lives are at stake. For The National, I'm Rex Murphy.
http://www.cbc.ca/national/rex/rex_060313.html
-------------------------------
CBC isn't all bad.
