Which Is It To Be, Mr. Dion?
You've been harrumphing about bringing our Canadian troops home at the earliest opportunity, Stephane Dion, and from what you've intimated you're not above orchestrating an early opportunity. No one is in favour of war, that's true; any war, any time, anywhere. But under the auspices of the United Nations, and as a member of NATO the former Liberal government committed Canada to this fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Remember that?
We know the reasons why, all the nasty details whereby fanatical Islamists preyed on the people of Afghanistan, forbid education for girls, established Madrassas for the boys, outlawed music and dancing and singing, forced men to wear long beards, women to cover themselves and never to venture into the public eye without the presence of a male relative - let alone have the opportunity to work. We pitied the starvation facing widows with no income, girls with no education, men with no hope for the future.
All of that and more brought us to Afghanistan to oust the Taliban, in lock-step with the U.S. need to roust al-Quada, along with their Taliban protectors. Yes, we may have felt conflicted at some level at being engaged in a far-off war. But we entered that theatre to give aid and support to the people of Afghanistan and, we thought, to help make our world safer from the deathly predation of Islamist jihadists. So we're there on a moral mission as well as doing our part as a NATO member in good standing.
You're musing publicly again about the feasability of negotiating a withdrawal of Canadian troops. That mean you stand ready and willing to bring the Bloc Quebecois on board? Consider it done. You're prepared to twist the arm of the NDP? Consider it done. You plan to lobby your Liberal MPs? Well, hold on a minute. It was your former leader, Paul Martin, who agreed to keep our troops in Afghanistan, and when the current prime minister put 2009 to a vote in the Commons, Liberals supported that commitment.
As did Paul Martin. As did, let's see, how about the acting leader of the Liberal party, and former Minister of Defence Bill Graham? Those two key Liberal stalwarts, along with most of the Liberal caucus, would you characterize them too as "completely irresponsible" as you did of Stephen Harper the current prime minister, for prolonging Canada's commitment to 2009?
That wasn't even Stephen Harper's baby to begin with. Is your memory that impaired that you have conveniently forgotten that it was a Liberal government that initiated the groundwork for Canadian troops' presence in Kandahar with NATO until at least 2009, conceivably beyond that time frame. That it was the Liberal government that gave the go-ahead to finalizing extensive and costly plans to build offices, barracks designed to last for years to come?
Our armed forces believe in this mission. Why don't you? Most Canadians are proud of the performance of Canadian troops in Afghanistan, and more particularly in the Kandahar region, facing an elusive and determined enemy in a climate and geography inimical to their well being at the best of times, deadly to their individual survival at the worst of times. They know all this, yet they forge on, determined to demonstrate to the world, to their country what they can achieve.
Rout the enemy first, and disarm him, take away his ability to recharge and resurge, accomplish an agreement for peace, then set about seriously on the reconstruction process. This takes time, patience, courage and determination. The Canadian armed services have amply demonstrated all these qualities. It is only some of the political elite in this country who have demonstrated otherwise, while claiming they support the troops.
I understand you've seen the political utility of appointing Michael Ignatieff as your second in command. Interesting. Seems like a good choice. You'll be able to engage in some excellent cerebral exchanges, some sparring also, it might seem. Have you forgotten too that Mr. Ignatieff supports the Afghanistan mission? Did it slip your mind that Mr. Ignatieff is also on the books as having supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq? Conflicted?
Mr. Dion, what chapter of that Liberal handbook are you on at the moment?
We know the reasons why, all the nasty details whereby fanatical Islamists preyed on the people of Afghanistan, forbid education for girls, established Madrassas for the boys, outlawed music and dancing and singing, forced men to wear long beards, women to cover themselves and never to venture into the public eye without the presence of a male relative - let alone have the opportunity to work. We pitied the starvation facing widows with no income, girls with no education, men with no hope for the future.
All of that and more brought us to Afghanistan to oust the Taliban, in lock-step with the U.S. need to roust al-Quada, along with their Taliban protectors. Yes, we may have felt conflicted at some level at being engaged in a far-off war. But we entered that theatre to give aid and support to the people of Afghanistan and, we thought, to help make our world safer from the deathly predation of Islamist jihadists. So we're there on a moral mission as well as doing our part as a NATO member in good standing.
You're musing publicly again about the feasability of negotiating a withdrawal of Canadian troops. That mean you stand ready and willing to bring the Bloc Quebecois on board? Consider it done. You're prepared to twist the arm of the NDP? Consider it done. You plan to lobby your Liberal MPs? Well, hold on a minute. It was your former leader, Paul Martin, who agreed to keep our troops in Afghanistan, and when the current prime minister put 2009 to a vote in the Commons, Liberals supported that commitment.
As did Paul Martin. As did, let's see, how about the acting leader of the Liberal party, and former Minister of Defence Bill Graham? Those two key Liberal stalwarts, along with most of the Liberal caucus, would you characterize them too as "completely irresponsible" as you did of Stephen Harper the current prime minister, for prolonging Canada's commitment to 2009?
That wasn't even Stephen Harper's baby to begin with. Is your memory that impaired that you have conveniently forgotten that it was a Liberal government that initiated the groundwork for Canadian troops' presence in Kandahar with NATO until at least 2009, conceivably beyond that time frame. That it was the Liberal government that gave the go-ahead to finalizing extensive and costly plans to build offices, barracks designed to last for years to come?
Our armed forces believe in this mission. Why don't you? Most Canadians are proud of the performance of Canadian troops in Afghanistan, and more particularly in the Kandahar region, facing an elusive and determined enemy in a climate and geography inimical to their well being at the best of times, deadly to their individual survival at the worst of times. They know all this, yet they forge on, determined to demonstrate to the world, to their country what they can achieve.
Rout the enemy first, and disarm him, take away his ability to recharge and resurge, accomplish an agreement for peace, then set about seriously on the reconstruction process. This takes time, patience, courage and determination. The Canadian armed services have amply demonstrated all these qualities. It is only some of the political elite in this country who have demonstrated otherwise, while claiming they support the troops.
I understand you've seen the political utility of appointing Michael Ignatieff as your second in command. Interesting. Seems like a good choice. You'll be able to engage in some excellent cerebral exchanges, some sparring also, it might seem. Have you forgotten too that Mr. Ignatieff supports the Afghanistan mission? Did it slip your mind that Mr. Ignatieff is also on the books as having supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq? Conflicted?
Mr. Dion, what chapter of that Liberal handbook are you on at the moment?
posted by Pieface | 5:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home