Two very quick things about Afghanistan
One, I'll bet this new poll is as ambivalent as it is because people aren't sure precisely what we're doing. I, for one, think a debate is likely to move people to favouring a mission with clearly laid out goals.
Second, I find it nervewracking that Stephen Harper is referring to pulling out as "cutting and running" without specifically limiting the term to leaving before the end of our commitment. If you define exiting as defeat, you make it much harder to get out when you need to.
posted by Ian Gray | 12:21 a.m.
1 Comments:
I never quite understand this sentiment of "I don't know what we're doing in Afghanistan." It's less than five years after September 11 and people can't understand why a stable, friendly Afghanistan is in Canada's interest? Is it that the mission hasn't been explained, or is that people don't care unless their leaders frighten them? I certainly hope the debate results in greater support for the mission, because if it doesn't, it will only confirm the impression of the Taliban that the whole exercise was a demonstration of our uncertainty and weakness. Whether that's fair or not is another story.
I'm not sure that you're right about what Harper means. He said in his speech to the troops: "We don’t make a commitment and then run away at the first sign of trouble." That seems to be saying pretty clearly that we have to see through our commitment in spite of casualties (which the NDP seems to take as some sign that something is wrong with the mission - if we're fighting and dying, it must be wrong. Can't we just "peacekeep"?). What Harper does not seem to be saying is that our commitment must be indefinite, or that we can never leave. But leaving simply because of casualties, regardless of how important the mission is or what the casualties say about our success in that mission, is indeed cutting and running.
Post a Comment
<< Home