Or, how the government in the Great White North looks at serious matters of national security policy. Some positive movement on the part of that government though put in pathetically puerile “the world needs more Canada” terms (links added–note the good sense from Liberal Sen. Tommy Banks). What about Canada’s national interest?
Tories open to Liberal Afghan plan: MacKay
The Conservative government is open to a Liberal pitch to keep troops in Afghanistan post-2011, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Monday.
Last week, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said Canada should end its combat role as scheduled, but deploy soldiers in a safer region like Kabul training Afghanistan’s police and military [more here from LewMac]. MacKay said there is “great interest” in that proposal – but hinted the ball is in the opposition’s court as the government is bound by an existing motion to pull out next year [not so, see below].
“I’m very interested. I know the Prime Minister has expressed interest in what Mr. Ignatieff said. But the parliamentary motion is very clear so that is where we are today,” he said.
MacKay said parliamentary committees are having “informed discussion” about Canada’s post-2011 role that could shape the future of the mission.
“There’s no denying the importance of the discussion, there’s no denying the shifting ground if I can put it that way,” he said. “Throughout this mission there have been changes – we’ve seen extensions in the past. But that motion is rock solid in the mind of the government.”
During earlier testimony before the Senate security and defence committee, MacKay said Canada has received direct appeals to stay from the government of Afghanistan, NATO allies and other countries.
“The Canadian flag, and the Canadian brand and most of all, the Canadian people, are in high demand in Afghanistan today,” he said.
Liberal Sen. Tommy Banks balked at the government leaving the pull-out date to parliament.
“I can’t think of a more irrational way to arrive at a decision of when to leave a fight then [sic] a parliamentary debate arriving at a parliamentary decision,” he said. “That decision should be yours and the government’s and not parliament’s.”..
The government, sadly, still continues to be so economical about the truth of the 2008 Commons’ (not Parliamentary) motion as to be mendacious. The motion does not require that the CF leave Afstan; it only refers to ending the Kandahar mission:
…this extension of Canada’s military presence in Afghanistan is approved by this House expressly on the condition that:
…(c) the government of Canada notify NATO that Canada will end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011, and, as of that date, the redeployment of Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar and their replacement by Afghan forces start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by December 2011…
So, Peter et al., no barrier to taking on a training mission in the Kabul area.
Update: Meanwhile St. Steve Staples wants Canada to disrupt NATO activities in Kandahar City:
Help stop “a summer of bloodshed”
…
According to reports, a major military offensive is being planned…The attack may be launched in July. A CBC reporter said it will unleash “a summer of bloodshed” (CBC, 10 May 2010)…
JOIN THE CEASEFIRE.CA EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Our goal is to raise $10,000 to run the ad below in the influential Hill Times newspaper in Ottawa, to inform journalists, to urge the Canadian government to not join the attack, and to urge the U.S. and NATO to stop the operation.
Make your donation. Go to: https://www.ceasefire.ca/donate/donate.php
If we are successful, we will reduce or completely prevent Canadian military involvement in the offensive…
Ceasefire.ca is a project of The Rideau Institute..
Looks like Mr Staples hasn’t been reading the new reports lately:
…
“When you go to protect people, the people have to want you to protect them,” Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, said Thursday in explaining why the Kandahar operation has been pushed back until at least September [emphasis added]…
Ceasefire.ca (the name says it all) is the main “activist” effort of St. Steves’s militantly anti-military Rideau Institute (see end of “EMERGENCY RESPONSE” link above). Mr Staples is constantly quoted by our major media, in their effort supposedly to be fair and balanced, when reporting on defence matters. Yet one would hardly understand his true stance, or the real nature of his “Institute”, when he is simply described thus as he often is (end of link):
…Steve Staples of the Rideau Institute in Ottawa…who has been critical of the Canadian Forces mission to Afghanistan…
Hardly the whole, er, story. Our lovely major media informing the public. Not.
Mark
Ottawa
Meh – this isn’t “the Tories” liking the idea, this is “A Tory” liking the idea. I await either a resolution voted on in the House of Commons saying we’re staying, or a clear statement saying “no more pussy-footing, we’re out of there.”
The CF will do what it’s told if the politicians change their minds, but this is pretty craven politics, looking like someone’s waiting for the polls to say it’s ok.
Time for courage, not controversy-aversion, in communications, elected folks.
With an issue as sensitive as this, a Minority Government would need to think about the electorate. You know the msm would be all over the government, spinning like crazy for scandal story.
Hmmm…didn’t I say a few weeks ago that if the Tories had mused about the troops staying, the opps and the msm would have been all over them….but say you are against it and suddenly, the opps and the msm are all for it.
More than one way to skin a cat…or how to play chess with amateurs.
Dear lord AG, the lengths to which you will stretch to absolve the CPC of anything and everything.
Senator Banks is correct. This does not and should not have to go to a vote in Parliament. Every PM before Harper has simply made the decision and stood by it. No past PM has been afraid to be accountable for his decision regarding millitary action.
Harper, on the other hand, refuses to take responsibility. He has to ensure he can place the responsibility on the opposition. He will, however, attempt to take any credit if the decision works out for him.
Personally, I want the troops out of there, but if they stay it will be because of Ignatieff pressing the issue. Harper has gone on record too many times to say the troops will be leaving. Any change of that position on his part would be a massive flip flop.
Do you mean that a majority PM DOESN’T have to think of the electorate?
That’s right Gayle, take JC and his decision to put the CF in Afgahnistan in the first place. It isn’t as though he asked anyone, and since the electorate can have a short memory, especially if the media does not keep the story at the forefront, then a majority PM can do whatever it is that he desires.
No, he didn’t ask. That is because he was Prime Minister and thus empowered to make those decisions. Harper could learn a lesson and take a stand too.
Remind me, were there wide spread protests against his decision to send the troops to Afghanistan?
Oh for God’s sake Gayle, and if he handn’t asked you would be here screaming about him being a dictator and “not working with parliament”.
Your idiotic statement that Iggy will have been the one pressing him is utter tripe. Iggy presses one day then wrinkles the next. The man doesn’t know which way is up.
I find it rich that while you are “against” the troops being there, you are find that Iggy is demanding they stay.
Face it Gayle – you are as much a hypocrite as Iggy and as wishy washy.
At least I take a stand.
You know Gayle – all I think about when you prattle on like this about “Harper taking responsibility” is your railing away about him “wearing this recession”.
How has that worked out for you people.
Believe me, no one on the opposition side “takes responsibility” for anything – it is always Blame Harper.
You are a joke Gayle – thanks for my daily laugh.
“if he handn’t asked you would be here screaming about him being a dictator and “not working with parliament”.”
I see. If you have to make things up to make your point, you probably do not have one. No PM has ever “asked” before, so why would I complain if Harper did what every other PM in history has done and simply make a decision? I may not have liked the decision, but that has nothing to do with him “asking”. He did not have to ask, and clearly only did so because he did not want to take responsibility for it.
And did I say I was “fine” with Ignatieff’s position? See, most people would read this:
“Personally, I want the troops out of there…”
and recognize that I disagree with Ignatieff on this point.
Why don’t you try dealing with the facts and leave the speculation to weaker minds, K?
I will let you know when the recession is over.
But clearly you are having a hard time seeing Harper for what he is. No one is talking about the opposition. We are talking about Harper – and he is not taking responsibility for his own decisions.
People like you allow him because, like Harper, you think admitting you are wrong makes you weak. Sadly for you, living in denial makes you look silly.
And Gayle, what is wrong with him getting a consensus of elected members of parliment…isn’t that what “working with parliement” is? Besides you are always complaining that we are using “the Liberals did it” too much.
I think that being the first PM in history to ask for a vote shows greatness – it shows that he wants to make parliament work and that he values the role of parliament.
For you to now be complaining that just because no other PM “asked” is plain silly.
But then, that’s how your side works – call the sky green if it is blue.
There is nothing wrong with it – it just was not necessary. It was not binding, as he tries to pretend it is, and he did it so he could ensure he does not have to take responsibility if things go wrong.
And look at Harper now – emphatically stating, over and over again, that we will leave in February 2011, unless, of course, Ignatieff thinks we should stay, and then he will reconsider. That’s called flip flopping. I would prefer it if the Prime Minister was a man of principle, and was willing to be accountable for his own actions and decisions.
I guess we will have to wait for him to lose the election before we have another Prime Minister who does that.
As for making parliament work – that ship sailed a long time ago, and the concensus is that Harper is the one making it dysfunctional. He is the one, after all, who authorized that handbook on disrupting committees…
Gayle, please provide a link where he said that if Iggy thinks we should stay, he will reconsider?
The concensus that Harper is the one making it dysfunctional is only on one side of the political spectrum – believe me, the other side sees the truth.
Sure you do – just like you see that vast media conspiracy against Harper.
Surely you know that your perspective holds no weight with people who are able to think for themselves.
And how, exactly, do you explain that handbook on how to disrupt committees, proroguing in order to avoid accountability, resulting in virtually all the work that had been done prior to the prorogation being lost, refusing to provide documents that by law had to be produced, refusing to allow witnesses to testify who, by law, had to be produced? I am sure you will have some long winded convoluted answer that shows Harper in all his Great Virtue, and everyone else conspiring against him.
Anyway…
As for your link, maybe you should just re-read this blog posting. Look up, way up, and read about how Peter MacKay says the PM is interested. Is Peter MacKay a liar?
Well, actually he is, since the motion does not prevent the troops from staying at all, as has also been pointed out in this blog posting.
[...] seems acceptable in this country. A strictly non-combat training role is something else and may just be acceptable if the government gets some guts and if the Liberals play [...]
[...] As noted, that’s not exactly what the motion says [more on that at the middle of this post]… [...]
[...] discussion about Afghanistan has been so infantilized and embarrassing [more on St. Steve at the Update here]. When a Senate committee works on a report, I’d like them to interview the most [...]