The whole fiasco can be filed under 'who gives a shit?'
Posted at 2008-01-27 19:00:35 [PermaLink]I'm not that far away from Paul's view. Seems our NATO allies are also on the same page:
[External Link]
"At NATO, which is co-ordinating the Afghan mission, officials only learned about the Canadian about-face through news reports.
"This has all come up today," spokesperson James Appurathai said from Brussels, adding he had no information on how Canada was now handling detainees.
"Our policy within NATO is that within 96 hours, except on very special dispensation from the commander, detainees should be either released or handed over to the Afghan authorities," he said. "We will be in discussion with the Canadian authorities about all of this."
From my reading, none of our numerous NATO partners have suspended turning over the prisoners they capture. This "scandal" then, boils down to the Harper Government being singled out for criticism for doing what Leftist activists (many of whom oppose our troops being there to take prisoners in the first place) have been demanding all along when it comes to detainees, (and being the only country to do so) but not telling anyone it had acquiesced.
Dumb, but a scandal? Only by the media's definition.
"Damian Brooks has an excellent post of his own at The Torch on the government's failure to communicate."
This "failure to communicate the merits of the mission " meme is infuriating. It originated with those who have been opponents of our presence in Afghanistan from the beginning, along with those who claimed to support our presence initially, but were simply waiting for the opportunity to claim a good faith conversion against it. The reason such a tactic was employed isn't difficult to decipher; when the rationale and justification for intervention is so far beyond attack, and you've got nothing susbstantive, muddy the waters with tangential criticisms intended to divert attention away from the rationale and justification. It's sad to see well informed, articulate supporters of the mission adopt this (unconsciously, I suspect) patently false talking point.
I'm hard pressed to come up with a more morally justified, necessary intervention than the current NATO one in Afghanistan. I'm convinced this has been sufficiently articulated to Canadians. If a majority of Canadians haven't been listening, or are retention-impaired, then perhaps it's best we simply leave, rather than continue this embarrassing charade that the mission isn't being "sold" properly.
*
"mark c. says... Prime Minister Harper and his close, personal staff are anti-military and, at the very best, weak sisters when it comes to the Afghanistan mission..."
yeah... unlike field marshall dion and the fiberals, huh?
just what have you been smoking?
*
neo: "mark c. says... Prime Minister Harper and his close, personal staff are anti-military and, at the very best, weak sisters when it comes to the Afghanistan mission..."
I did not say that. It was said at Milnet.ca
[External Link]
by E.R. Campbell:
[External Link]
"Name: E.R. Campbell
Custom Title: Retired, years ago
Posts: 3,341 (2.766 per day)
Position: Milnet.ca Subscriber
Date Registered: October 06, 2004, 17:59:08
Last Active: Today at 07:33:33
Rank: Several - enlisted and commissioned
Unit: Various, nearly 20 in all; ended my career in NDHQ
MOC: A bunch of those, too - several before there were MOCs
Mil Exp: 35+ years
Notes: Fully retired - no consulting jobs, etc. Card carrying member of the Conservative Party of Canada....'"
Ask him what he's been smoking.
Mike H.: I think you well know that both Damian Brooks and I are very strong supporters of our Afghan mission and that the last thing we are looking for is an excuse to get out. If we have different views from you on the effectiveness of the government's communications--admittedly in the face of very skeptical, if not hostile, media--then so be it.
Mark
Ottawa
Mike H.: Now, if you want to see some communicating, CDS Gen. Hillier is still at it:
[External Link]
Mark
Ottawa
"I think you well know that both Damian Brooks and I are very strong supporters of our Afghan mission and that the last thing we are looking for is an excuse to get out."
Where did I say you weren't supporters of the mission? Here's what I said, since you seem to have missed it the first time:
"It's sad to see well informed, articulate supporters of the mission adopt this (unconsciously, I suspect) patently false talking point."
"If we have different views from you on the effectiveness of the government's communications--admittedly in the face of very skeptical, if not hostile, media--then so be it."
No need for the snark, Mark. You're blaming the messenger, when the blame lies with the recipients of the message. As I mentioned above, what else needs to be articulated about the righteousness and necessity of our presence in Afghanistan, that hasn't already been articulated by both the government and elements of the media which support the mission? In spite of that, many gullible or ideologically rigid Canadians continue to lap up what the Globe, Michael Byers, and Linda McQuaig, et al are saying. How is that the government's fault? How many times does someone have to be told to look both ways when crossing the street, before it becomes their fault if he/she gets hit by a car?