Afghanistan: Bilge from Byers

Prof. Michael Byers is Steve Staples' equally evil twin. That anyone with such complete disregard for facts can be a university professor drives me nuts. He writes in the Toronto Star, February 20:

Since becoming Canada's top soldier two years ago, Hillier has pushed the politicians hard. At his own swearing-in ceremony, he criticized Paul Martin for underfunding the military; one month later, he browbeat the Liberal cabinet into volunteering troops for a combat mission to Kandahar.

We all know Liberals are wusses, but that wussy?

Then-prime minister Martin and his ministers assumed Canadian casualties would be limited. So far, 44 soldiers have lost their lives. Hillier, the professional upon whose expertise the politicians relied, should have explained the real risks to them.

This is what Gen. Hillier said in July, 2005 (the Kandahar mission was announced by then Minister of National Defence Graham in May, 2005):

...Hillier says Canadians should realize the mission the Canadian military is undertaking in Afghanistan is a dangerous one that could lead to casualties.

Did the General change his tune in just two months? More from the professor:

Under Hillier's leadership, Canada's role in Kandahar has morphed from a "provincial reconstruction team" made up of soldiers, diplomats and development personnel, into a "battle group" supported by Leopard tanks.

Where's the morphing? Prof. Byers just called it a "combat mission" above. No secret in July, 2005, either [full text not online]:

...the next three missions [rotations, I think - MC], involving 2,000 troops, will be heavily centred in the southern mountains, where soldiers will be called upon to hunt down and fight the insurgents.

Prof. Byers goes on:

Characterizing the enemy as "detestable murderers and scumbags" [in July, 2005] can only exacerbate the situation...

Well, Jack Layton was against the scumbags before he was against the mission:

"Controlled anger, given what's happened, is an appropriate response," NDP Leader Jack Layton said. "We have a very committed, level-headed head of our armed forces, who isn't afraid to express the passion that underlies the mission that front-line personnel are going to be taking on.

"A bit of strong language in the circumstances, I don't find that to be wrong."

Now the professor plays the Bush card:

On the whole, Hillier has been content to adopt the approach of the Bush administration, emphasizing aggressive search-and-kill tactics and downplaying diplomacy, development, and international law.

It just happens however that since last summer Canadian troops have following the approach of NATO ISAF, not the Bush administration. The professor also never mentions in his piece that the ISAF mission has the unanimous authorization of the UN Security Council. Development has not been played down either (whether it's effective is another matter)--see the January, 2006, "Afghanistan Compact", also unanimously endorsed by the UNSC and of which Canada is a part.

More "B" words:

Hillier shares the dubious company of U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair in stubbornly refusing to admit his mistake.

If there has been a mistake, primary responsibility rests with the Martin government, not the General. Mr Graham said this in a speech in the fall of 2005 (one of several explaining the new Kandahar mission that our media essentially ignored--and remember there was not one question on Afghanistan during the federal election leaders' debates):

...we will be deploying a Task Force of about 1,000 troops into Kandahar for one year. As an essential complement to the reconstruction efforts of our PRT, this force will provide much needed security in the region...

...Canadians should be under no illusion; Kandahar is a very complex, challenging and dangerous environment and mission. The part of Afghanistan we are going to is among the most unstable and dangerous in the country. Indeed, that is why we have been asked to go there and that is why we are going there...

No decent respect for the truth, chez Prof. Byers. Then there's this gem from the NDP's National Defence critic:

"How can the military plan rotations that Parliament has not approved?" Ms. Black asked.

I imagine a prime minister speaking to the House of Commons:

The government wants to send troops to help deal with the current crisis in Ruritania. Once the House approves the mission, the government will permit the Canadian Forces to make plans. When those plans are ready, and accepted by the government, we will then inform the House of the composition of the mission, what its members will do, and how long the mission may take. Thank you very much and please vote in favour of the Ruritanian mission.

Good grief. More from Damian Brooks.

Mark C.

Posted by markc at February 21, 2007 06:12 PM