Here is my guess about why Harper has not explained the mission better.
If he says we are there because "the 9/11 terrorists trained there", this raises a lot of questions. For one thing, the 9/11 terrorists -- that is Al Qaeda -- probably are not there any longer. It's true that the Taliban who supported Al Qaeda are there, but the only reason to fight them is because they are horrible people. And the 9/11 terrorists did not attack Canada. Of course, one can argue that Islamism and terrorism anywhere is a threat to Canada, but then why isn't Canada fighting terrorists in Pakistan and southern Thailand and Iraq and Palestine and ...? The only response to this is for Harper to say we will fight terrorism where the U.N. tells us to, and nowhere else. But this position has problems as well.
Better to not discuss the subject too much.
Yeah: I read Blatchford's piece too. And, yes, she is probably more 'gung-ho' than others. But she is one of many. What she writes is 'buried' in the inside, op-ed pages whereas the headlines of the day scream something different, even opposite, And that is what buyers read first. I still think that she was too kind to her sort. Not even Blatchford has sound reasons to provide to her readership (who are generally 'pro!)as to why we are in Afghanistan. Shame on her! She says the soldiers know why: so why doesn't she? Any serious follower of UN activities, US activities, Liberal government activities (who put us in there in the first place) and, more recently, NATO activities, should have many reasons to offer as to why we are in there. And I fully expect that Karzai will add to the list in the next few days. That will provide an opportunity for the New Canadian Government to speak, again, when the matter is in sharper focus than it currently is with reporters (or is it journalists!)of many stripes. That the New Canadian Government is not on the 'box' every evening telling the story about why we are there is reasonable to me. It is, however, still just one issue that the New Canadian Government has to deal with and it does not figure so large among the named election priorities upon which the government was, in fact, elected. Issues which are much closer to most of the electorate than even Afghanistan. Sad to say, even if there was a 'debate' in the House of Commons I would not expect the level of debate to approximate the example you provided from a foreign source: it is just not the Canadian way!
Posted at 2006-09-16 19:43:45 [PermaLink]