Afstan: The Globe's editorial writers take on "Softy" Lloyd

Unlike their reporters, editors and certain columnists, the Globe's editorial writers have not succumbed to "quagmiritis" (full text not online).

Lloyd Axworthy wants Canada to help protect Afghanistan, but he doesn't want Canadian soldiers to hunt down the Taliban. Bewildering...

the United Nations did authorize an international security force, now comprising 37 countries, including Canada, to work with the Afghan government (which accepts the help; no trampling necessary) to make the country safe for elections, children's education and ultimately a peaceful society based on the rule of law.

"After all," Mr. Axworthy wrote, "while NATO troops are off chasing the Taliban in the hills, hundreds of schools and mosques are being attacked and their teachers and moderate imams being kidnapped or killed." He seems to be suggesting that Canada put a guard on every mosque and school. This is impossible, and poor tactics besides. It's purely a defensive strategy, which is no more logical than having a municipal police force engage in anti-gang patrols rather than seek out the criminal gangs where they live...

...Now that the Conservative government has extended the mission, Liberals such as Mr. Axworthy say it is nothing more than a U.S.-style counterinsurgency. It is not "made-in-Canada." It is "war-fighting." What did he think the responsibility to protect involved? Charm-school graduates streaming over borders handing out bonbons?

A subtext to his piece was its attacks on Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff, who supports the Canadian mission. But wait -- wasn't Mr. Ignatieff on the international commission that developed the responsibility-to-protect protocol? The principle does not belong to Mr. Axworthy, and it is disappointing to see him trying to undermine its exercise in such difficult circumstances...

This is worth remembering about Mr Axworthy (h/t to Mike H.):

...the Axworthy who crafted the Liberals' Gulf War policy in opposition in 1991, commiting Canadians to the anti-Saddam Hussein coalition - unless they were actually shot at.

The Chretien Liberals opposed Canadian participation in a military action fully sanctioned by the UNSC and conducted by a broad international coalition that included Syria and Egypt.

Mickey I. gets it right:

An unrepentant Michael Ignatieff aimed a pre-emptive strike at opponents who have criticized his support for extending Canada's mission in Afghanistan on the eve of today's second Liberal leadership debate, insisting peacekeeping missions cannot be abandoned "when the going gets tough."

The campaign's apparent front-runner toughened his arguments for keeping Canadian troops in Afghanistan until 2009. Other contenders sought to exploit that position as his chief vulnerability in last week's first leadership debate, portraying his view as too conservative and perhaps un-Canadian...

Two comments.

1) What is the basis for reporter Campbell Clark's using the word "unrepentant"? It is a word loaded with negative connotations suggesting Mr Ignatieff has committed a sin. Is this Mr Clark's view about Mr Ignatieff's supporting our Afstan mission?

2) So supporting the mission is "un-Canadian". Yet so many Canadians mock and disparage the US when the phrase "un-American" is used there. Maudits hypocrites. And how can it be un-Canadian to support a mission that has the unanimous authorization of the UN Security Council, as the Globe editorial poined out? But then facts (if they even know them) mean nothing to our rabid anti-Americans.

Mark C.

Posted by markc at June 17, 2006 11:05 AM