The incoherent and ignorant M. Dion

The Liberal leader wants Canada to get out of our combat mission in Afghanistan. The only real reason he can give is basically that we've done our bit, sorry guys, no more fighting for us. His subtext is that some thirty fatalities a year are just too much for Canadians (regardless of the need for those troops) and, hey, there are votes in being against fighting. So we'll just pull out of combat and hope someone else will do the dirty (but necessary) work. What partisan moral cowardice.

On CTV's "Question Period" Jan. 13 (video here) M. Dion said Canada might still engage in training, security and development--but not a "pro-active" combat mission looking for the enemy. How, I ask, would that change reduce the risk to vehicles from IEDs, far and away the main source of casualties? Or are we going to move to relatively safe areas far from Kandahar? That appears to be the Liberal Party's position--why did not M. Dion make that clear?

A Canadian military presence to train the Afghan National Army and police, or a commitment to assign troops to protecting Afghan civilians and reconstruction projects in other parts of the country are both possible...

But is Kandahar ruled out? Incoherence. Deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, who accompanied M. Dion, should be ashamed.

M. Dion also said that "After three years of a combat mission it's normal that Canada said we want to do something else..." So was it "abnormal" to have a significant military presence in the former Yugoslavia for a decade (1992-2002)? Or is the only criterion for the normal length of the Afghan mission the combat role?

On the other hand, this hyper-partisan response by the government hardly encourages reasoned policy discourse either:

"It has taken more than a year after becoming Liberal leader for Stéphane Dion to finally find Afghanistan on the map," Helena Guergis, secretary of state for foreign affairs, said in a statement Saturday.

"The irony of Dion and Iggy being in a war zone and being protected by the same troops who protect Afghan women and children is palpable," Ms. Guergis said.

"I think he should apologize to our troops while he is touring the PRT (Provincial Reconstruction Team) in safety because the same reason he needs bodyguards is why our troops need to stay to protect democracy, women and children," she added.

Phooey!

Now ignorance. Earlier M. Dion threw out this thoughtless, but politically correct, remark whilst in Kabul:

"We are convinced . . . that we will have plenty of things to do (in Afghanistan) that will involve, yes, to take risks. But anywhere we will go - whether Darfur or Haiti - there are always risks."..

Perhaps he and his staff should read the Washington Post (or other international media) which reports an inconvenient truth about those risks, one the Canadian media generally ignore (OK, the Post story is Jan. 13 and the CP one Jan. 12; but the Darfur facts are well known):

...in Darfur, an ill-prepared peacekeeping force has entered a live battle zone involving combatants from the Sudanese army, neighboring Chad and a major Darfurian rebel group. [United Nations' chief peacekeeping official] Guehenno said: "There is a combination of factors that may lead to the greatest risk to the United Nations since the 1990s. We have a war ongoing, maybe low intensity, but a war ongoing, especially in West Darfur."..

Why are high risks more acceptable in Darfur than in Afghanistan?

He should also note this in the Post story:

Sudan, meanwhile, has imposed technical hurdles for the mission, including the recent rejection of a unit of Nordic engineers, according to U.N. officials. The Sudanese authorities continue to haggle over the force's right to wear the U.N. blue helmets, recruit non-African troops and travel in Darfur without government approval...

The Sudanese government simply won't allow Canadian (or other Western) forces in; does M. Dion wish us to shoot our way in all on our own?

Mark C.

Update: Incoherence from Mr Ignatieff too:

...Ignatieff said what stood out most for him during his visit was the progress made by the ANA as a result of the support soldiers have received from the Canadian Operational Mentoring Liaison Team.

"The Afghan army is presently working side by side with the Canadians in ways I did not realize," he said.

"They're taking a much more active role in the development of their own country and what we're saying is as a party, we want to work with the Afghans on the development field, on the diplomacy field... but also in the security field to assist the Afghan army to take over the job which is to defend their own country."

Ignatieff, who during his 2006 bid for leadership of the Liberal party supported the Conservatives when they sought to extend the Afghan mission the first time, insisted that while his party wants to "change" or "alter" the mission, it still plans to "see it through."

"We will evolve the mission. We will change the mission as circumstances require, but one thing is clear, Canada made a serious commitment to this country and we're not going to give up under a Liberal government," he said.

"It'll change but it'll sustain. I'm absolutely convinced the Taliban are not going to win here."..

Especially unlikely if the Canadian Forces are no longer "pro-active", from the combat point of view. What a Liberal weasel. I cannot wait to see his further evolution as the Liberals "see it through." Double phooey.

Upperdate: But why would the Taliban want to harm Messrs Dion and Ignatieff?

Conservative MP Helena Guergis put "lives at additional, unnecessary risk in the name of playing petty politics," Liberal spokesman Jean-François del Torchio charged yesterday.

He accused the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of endangering their lives by speaking about the Liberal itinerary in Afghanistan 12 hours ahead of schedule, at a time when a complete news blackout surrounded their visit to Kandahar.

"She effectively told the Taliban that they would be leaving base to visit the Provincial Reconstruction Team," Mr. del Torchio said...

Posted by markc at January 13, 2008 06:20 PM