Afghanistan 2014 Independence
Whoops, we have another "firm" end-date for Canada's involvement in the ISAF-NATO mission in Afghanistan. The firm date has been moved forward to 2014. Well, did anyone really, truly believe it would make sense for Canada to withdraw its commitment by 2011? Particularly when this country was one of the very few NATO forces - Netherlands, United States, Great Britain aside - whose presence in that benighted country was one of real substance?
Although Prime Minister Harper, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon and Defence Minister Peter MacKay endlessly repeated that 2011 spelled troop-withdrawal-date for Canadian forces employed in Kandahar, it seemed unlikely that this would transpire as pledged. It made no sense. But in the context of the opposition being hammered away in Parliament by the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois, understandable.
There are certain international obligations that every country undertakes to consolidate its position in the global community. Mutual assistance is right up there, particularly during times of grave duress. What initially propelled the United States to enter Afghanistan after the Taliban, a rogue human-rights-abusing regime who refused to surrender their al-Qaeda guests to U.S. demands, post 9-11, also compelled Canada and other U.S. allies to be involved.
This was an inescapable responsibility. Canada knows it can rely on its colleague-states, other democracies which value the world as a free place for people to thrive and live with reasonable assumptions of peace and prosperity, to come to its aid should it ever be threatened militarily. That knowledge comes with obligations that cannot be suspended or transited or refused.
"Trainers are the ticket to the transition and we do need to ensure that the training mission is fully resourced", one senior NATO official emphasized. Yes, Canada would have liked to be able to leave the theatre; we've been there long enough, paid a heavy toll in human life. Yes, immense pressure was exerted by NATO and the United States upon Canada to remain in another kind of presence; from active military to active mentoring.
And although most Canadians would prefer Afghanistan to melt back into history, it will take quite a while for that country to do that, at this juncture. Canadians are aware of that; 53% of respondents in the most recent Ipsos Reid poll indicated they support the revamped, extended mission. Although a similar number would like the issue to be debated in Parliament.
However, since both Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae have themselves indicated they felt no need to conduct a Parliamentary debate on the issue, and there is in fact, no legal, constitutional requirement to do so, because it is legally the purview of the Prime Minister, there need not be such a review of the issues involved and a debate with respect to feasibility and need.
And there it should rest.
Although Prime Minister Harper, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon and Defence Minister Peter MacKay endlessly repeated that 2011 spelled troop-withdrawal-date for Canadian forces employed in Kandahar, it seemed unlikely that this would transpire as pledged. It made no sense. But in the context of the opposition being hammered away in Parliament by the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois, understandable.
There are certain international obligations that every country undertakes to consolidate its position in the global community. Mutual assistance is right up there, particularly during times of grave duress. What initially propelled the United States to enter Afghanistan after the Taliban, a rogue human-rights-abusing regime who refused to surrender their al-Qaeda guests to U.S. demands, post 9-11, also compelled Canada and other U.S. allies to be involved.
This was an inescapable responsibility. Canada knows it can rely on its colleague-states, other democracies which value the world as a free place for people to thrive and live with reasonable assumptions of peace and prosperity, to come to its aid should it ever be threatened militarily. That knowledge comes with obligations that cannot be suspended or transited or refused.
"Trainers are the ticket to the transition and we do need to ensure that the training mission is fully resourced", one senior NATO official emphasized. Yes, Canada would have liked to be able to leave the theatre; we've been there long enough, paid a heavy toll in human life. Yes, immense pressure was exerted by NATO and the United States upon Canada to remain in another kind of presence; from active military to active mentoring.
And although most Canadians would prefer Afghanistan to melt back into history, it will take quite a while for that country to do that, at this juncture. Canadians are aware of that; 53% of respondents in the most recent Ipsos Reid poll indicated they support the revamped, extended mission. Although a similar number would like the issue to be debated in Parliament.
However, since both Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae have themselves indicated they felt no need to conduct a Parliamentary debate on the issue, and there is in fact, no legal, constitutional requirement to do so, because it is legally the purview of the Prime Minister, there need not be such a review of the issues involved and a debate with respect to feasibility and need.
And there it should rest.
Labels: Afghanistan, Crisis Politics, Government of Canada
posted by Pieface | 12:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home