Isn't it interesting that the CTV label Manley as a Hawk? just because he's pro-mission?
Harper picks Liberal hawk to head Afghan panel
Liberal cabinet minister John Manley speaking in Ottawa on Friday, Oct. 12, 2007.
The Canadian Press
Updated: Sat. Oct. 13 2007 2:35 PM ET
OTTAWA — Just a few raw weeks after the September 11 attacks, John Manley was already facing questions about what the public might think about Canadian soldiers arriving home in body bags from a new Afghan mission.
Manley, the foreign affairs minister at the time, was indignant.
"Canada does not have a history as a pacifist or neutralist country," he fired back. "Canada has soldiers who are buried all over Europe because we fought in defence of liberty, and we're not about to back away from a challenge now because we think somebody might get hurt."
Manley was often the hawk among the flock of Liberal doves, and Canadian Alliance MPs - who would later convert to Tories - liked to point out the divisions: "We on this side must compliment the Minister of Foreign Affairs for being more in touch with the views of Canadians on the security issues than many of his colleagues appear to be," MP Brian Pallister said during question period.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper was also undoubtedly cognizant of the sharp differences between Manley and others in the Liberal caucus when he appointed Jean Chretien's deputy prime minister to a panel studying the mission.
"I'm very confident that we will get a report that the government will be very comfortable with having a public debate on," Harper told reporters Friday.
If Manley agrees that pulling out of combat in 2009 is premature, his analysis could provoke new divisions within Liberal ranks and hand Harper a valuable weapon should the mission develop into a major election issue.
It wouldn't be the first time Manley turned up on the wrong side of Liberal Leader Stephane Dion. Earlier this year, they publicly disagreed over allowing certain anti-terror provisions to expire from the lawbooks.
Manley told reporters Friday that he had not made up his mind on the mission. Still, he's quoted in last month's issue of Policy Options with well formed views on the good that Canadian soldiers, diplomats and aid workers are doing in Afghanistan. Manley recently visited the country again as a director of CARE Canada.
"Whenever we asked Afghans what they should (the International Security Assistance Force) or Canada should do, they did not hesitate to say we must stay. Without the presence of the international forces, chaos would surely ensue."
He added, "We often seek to define Canada's role in the world. Well, for whatever reason, we have one in Afghanistan. Let's not abandon it too easily. But let's use our hard-earned influence to make sure the job is done."
Manley was asked about those statements Friday and insisted he was not prejudging what Canada should do.
But he made it clear that finding stability for the Afghan people is an issue he's passionate about. In January 2002, he was the first Canadian minister to visit the decaying country in more than 40 years. He arrived just as NATO troops had toppled the Taliban and Hamid Karzai had begun his tenure as president.
In the Liberal caucus, he and deputy prime minister Anne McLellan became the get-tough-on-terrorism standard bearers employed by former prime minister Jean Chretien to push through legislation and policies demanded by the broader public after the Sept.11 attacks.
He is often quoted from that period saying Canada couldn't merely sit among G-8 countries, "and then, when the bill comes, go to the washroom."
"Civilized societies have learned many times before that there is only one way to deal with evil," Manley told the Commons in October 2001, as Canadian soldiers arrived in Afghanistan. "We cannot reason with it, we cannot negotiate with it and we cannot buy time to find a better solution. The only way to deal with evil is to strike at its root, to destroy it and to move on."
When exactly Canadian combat troops should move on, is the question Manley must now grapple with.
. A pity the government's options don't really make the same points. At the very least, the government looks weasely in not mentioning either "combat" or "security" in its first option, and in that the option suggests we'll be getting out fairly fast after Feb. 09 (again with no mention of those two key words). It seems simply assumed that training the Afghans will be almost competely success with no need for any significant Canadian security/combat role. Hence "weasely".
