The Master Strategy

[GAP]

The Master Strategy
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Article Link

For months I've been wondering how Dion could justify pulling troops out of Afghanistan by 2009. What would the rationale be? Would it be because we have done our part? Would it be because Dion and the Liberals simply believe Canadian troops do not belong in combat situations? Would it be that the Liberals have a short attention span for a mission they created?

At last I needn't wait any longer. Dion explained to the editorial board of the  Globe and Mail that the reason Canada must remove its troops from Afghanistan in 2009 is because "We need to know if NATO works".

Genius Mr. Dion, we need to withdraw from a NATO mission to see if NATO works. Keep in mind that the only way a multilateral organization does in fact operate is through the shared duties and continued pressence of its member nations. Dion criticizes Harper all the time for 'withdrawing' from Kyoto, but maybe Mr. Harper is just "withdrawing" to see if Kyoto really works?

Dion further explains his position of why we should leave. "Because otherwise other countries will be more and more reluctant to take any responsibility, because they will be afraid to be there forever."

That's right folks, Canada will be setting a good example by quitting because that will signal to other allies, "hey guys, come on in the water is fine AND the best part is, you can quit whenever you want!".

It gets better too. Dion adds that "If elected prime minister, he would pull Canadian troops out of Kandahar after February, 2009, even if that left the region without a NATO combat force" (emphasis added by me). Then I guess Dion would be able to prove that NATO doesn't work, and he could call it a day, right?

How would Canada approach NATO with this threat? Dion has all the answers. "We're gone. We'll do something else." Seriously, it's all there in the article. I couldn't even make up this insanity.

You see folks, this is the type of intelligent international policy we can expect from Dion. But you know what is absent from Dion's rant on Afghanistan? The Afghans themselves.

Does he care about the young girls or boys in Afghanistan who are just clinging on to the hope of a brighter future? Does he care about the women in Afghanistan who desperately do not want to return to a life of obediance and subjection?

If I had the ability, I'd march up to Dion with three Afghan children in tow. I'd say, "Mr. Dion, with all due respect, can you please tell these children what you just told NATO?"
More on link

 

[Bane]

    So what you are saying is that NATO allies should not step up to the plate? And eight years in combat is quitting "...whenever you want"? The area that Canada occupies is vital and CANNOT be left empty, that is true.  But I think what he is getting at is that we have stepped up to the plate huge and for years, and Canada has earned a period in a different (read: safer) region in Afghanistan. One can disagree or not, but Dion is not stupid and this sentiment is not with out it's merit and support. It is also important in these matters to be very clear in and determined in your stance; to send a clear intention to other allies.  Dithering is worse than leaving. Being unclear as to your intentions can leave those that might otherwise take your place with all sorts of political 'outs', leaving the region unoccupied. A clear message of 'we're leaving' says to others 'oh f*ck, we better sort out our sh*t'. It will also make the Brits and the Netherlands put huge pressure for someone to step up to the plate so to speak. So unless you don't want anyone to take over the Canadian position in Afghanistan this is a particular way of getting that very thing done, it sends clear political signals and takes the initiative. Is it the best strategy? I don't know. Will it work? There is no way to know.

 

[Bograt]

Winston Churchill stated during the Battle of Briton "A true measure of a man is what he does when he is tired."

A true measure of a Country is what it does when it is challenged. Dion would like us to choose an easier road to make it more politically sellable at home- regardless of what it does to NATO and the Afghans that look to us for security.

He is not a leader of a country.

 

[vonGarvin]

Bane
As part of an alliance such as NATO, it is vital to tell your allies what you are doing.  That is correct.  But Dion's position is weak and was made only to try to "be different" from the PM and to attempt to get votes from the NDP.  You do NOT simply say "OK, we're done.  Next in!"  

Dion is confusing the issue in an attempt to gain votes.  Only because he's trusting the opinion polls (which are probably scewed) and thinks that Canada wants out in 2009.  

Then there's the NDP, who called Karzai a puppet of our military!!!

(I couldn't make this shit up)

 

[Snaketnk]

I do think it's time for another NATO country to take over our role in Afghanistan. I'm not saying we give up on them, but I don't think it's fair that we're out in the most critical part of the country for the whole duration of the mission. Our allies should have to share the reponsibility.

 

[Bane]

A vote down for that post, lol!  :

    I wasn't advocating but trying to explain the thinking behind the position. It also seems odd to me that many don't want any other country to take over for us, or thats the way it seems sometimes. I mean not to put words in the mouths of any of you that have posted, just a general impression I've noticed, but I could be wrong.  I personally think we should just stay and SAY that we are going to, but Dion's approach has merit and support.  Harpers position is more ambivalent, thus weaker wouldn't you say? 
      Quoting Churchill and doesn't remove any of the complexity of this issue, if it was a clear cut matter there would not be such debate and such a divide in public sentiment. Principles are indeed important, but so is a deep understanding of the issues. In the cold hard calculus of politics, Dion's position has some chance, whether 10% or 90% I don't know, of producing/inducing a NATO ally into Canada's position. I would also argue that Harpers stance has less of a chance of doing the same thing, and then Canadians will feel 'stuck'. I'd prefer a clear, articulate and long term effort by Harper (or anybody for that matter) explaining the important and nuance of the Afghan mission and a 100% backing of it.  We aren't going to get that, so the options for leaders narrow it would seem.

David.

 

[McG]

     So what you are saying is that NATO allies should not step up to the plate? And eight years in combat is quitting "...whenever you want"? The area that Canada occupies is vital and CANNOT be left empty, that is true.  But I think what he is getting at is that we have stepped up to the plate huge and for years, and Canada has earned a period in a different (read: safer) region in Afghanistan.

We only just stepped to the plate.  Our Recce Sqn in Kabul was tokenism.  Yes, our guys were doing an excellent job given thier size & resources.  However, we were up there in that "safe place" which we now critisis other NATO members for doing.  Yet, we could not even put a BG in country for that period of time.

Should other nations be doing more?  Hell yes.  Should we throw our collective teddy-bear in the corner & run home if they don't do more?  Hell no!

 

[Flip]

If we're going to get all historical about it............

Vimy Ridge Juno Beach and KapYong are touchstones in Canadian history
because Canadians accomplished what was asked of them.
Kandahar can be such a touchstone - or it can be something no one
will talk about in 20 years.  It's Canadas choice.

If NATO allies see fit to support Canada there - great!

No one is going to take it over for us because it's the same hot potato
for other NATO partners as it is for Canada - and for the same reason.