Earlier:

Afstan is about more than assembling “a coherent narrative”

Now I congratulate the efforts of the Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee (disclosure: I am a founding member but not involved in their actual work); I believe they really had an effect. I congratulate those politicians, Bob Rae in particular, who put purpose over partisanship. And I congratulate the government for finally doing the best that could be done given Canadian politics (though I do regret their lying for many months when they said that Canada’s military–not combat–mission must end in 2011 because the 2008 Commons’ motion said so; it did not). Canadian politics are desperately debased all around.

Terry Glavin expresses both passion and reason on how things have developed:

‘If Ye Break Faith With Us Who Die, We Shall Not Sleep.’

The two-year paralysis that so utterly enfeebled Canada in the matter of this country’s post-2011 re-dedication to Afghanistan is now officially over. Ottawa has come out of its coma, and now rejoins the company of the grown-ups in the 43-member International Security Assistance Force. With today’s announcement, we take our place once again as a leader in the international cause of a sovereign and democratic Afghan republic…

We should recall that for two full years the House of Commons Special Committee on Afghanistan refused to discharge its duties, in contempt of the Parliament by which its duties were assigned. Instead, it turned itself into a lurid chamber for the most foul (and groundless) “torture” allegations against members of the Canadian Forces. It had become like some kind of celebrity television show where the contestants were challenged to find ways to put the name of a cabinet minister in the same sentence with the words “war criminal.”

It’s finally over.

The Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee spent much of the past year running a national campaign to try and help break the Parliamentary paralysis with a new vision for Canada’s role in Afghanistan. Our work took us back and forth from Kabul, Ottawa, Toronto, Kabul, Mazar-e-Sharif, Ottawa, Toronto, Halifax, Montreal, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary, Ottawa, Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Ottawa again. Hundreds of Afghans and Canadians (especially Afghan-Canadians) were directly involved in the effort. Among them were Canadian soldiers and the parents of dead soldiers, Canadian and Afghan journalists, Afghan MPs, women’s rights activists, academics, diplomats, Afghan Opposition leaders and not a few cookie-baking United Church women.

I would like to think we made some small contribution to keeping the debate alive at least, but no matter. All credit goes to Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic Bob Rae, Defence Minister Peter MacKay, House Special Committee on Afghanistan leader Laurie Hawn, Pamela Wallin and Romeo Dellaire of the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, and not a few other Parliamentarians from all parties who would probably prefer that their names be left unmentioned for the moment…

It is right and proper that Canada’s first “key area” of post-2011 engagement refers to investments in education and health. But it is worrisome in the extreme that Canada’s new 950-trainer contribution has been merely tacked on to what was first articulated as a priority for “advancing the rule of law and human rights.” This is the thing that should be galvanizing our attention now. One purpose cannot be put at the expense of the other. It is not clear whether the “training role” will be funded at least partly by robbing Peter to pay Paul.

It is more than just a good thing that Canada’s military will continue to put its broad shoulders to the wheel of building up the capacity, competence and professionalism of the Afghan National Security Forces. But we must not allow this to come at the cost of the covenant that has been written in the blood of so many Canadian soldiers already. This is the solemn covenant that binds Canada to the Afghan people. It is the heart of the whole bloody, grisly matter…

If you need further proof of why Canadian public debate on Afstan is so debased, see what pathetic pundit Greg Weston has been up to economizing with words and thus the truth (and he’s just got a paid gig at the CBC; go figure, it ain’t that hard). From the invaluable BruceR. at Flit (to whom one should pay close attention on things Afghan; he’s been there with the Army, done that, and knows more about the country and counterinsurgency than all our punditocracy stuffed together inside a television studio):

…
On the flip side, you have the CBC’s Greg Weston doing a real drive-by on the subject, gutting a key phrase out of a Gen. (retd.) Rick Hillier piece, apparently only to score cheap points.

In a recent interview with Maclean’s magazine, retired general Rick Hillier said: “You can come up with all kinds of schemes to hide away in camp and train people for the Afghan army, but they lack credibility. If you try to help train and develop the Afghan army … you are going to be in combat.”

Nice ellipses, Greg. The full quote, with the piece that makes all the difference:

If you try to help train and develop the Afghan army or police in southern Afghanistan you are going to be in combat.

As a former Afghan army trainer in southern Afghanistan, I would tend to agree. But this simply isn’t what was being floated by the government, which was quite clearly all about exploring an expanded role outside the south. Given that it’s a web piece where length doesn’t matter, there’s no real reason Weston and the CBC couldn’t have been honest with their readers…

And if you think Kabul is some kind of death-ridden combat zone, please, please take a look at these very recent posts and photos by Brian Platt at the Ubyssey–a fellow completely outside any wire. One can only wonder why almost all journalists from our major media have ignored and misrepresented reality for so long. And still do.

Afghanistan is about more than Canadian domestic politics.  Really.  We do need to grow up.

Update thought: What was most sadly reflective about this country’s chatterers is that on the politics shows on television early this evening there was nothing, rien de tout, nichts, ništa said about the Afghans or developments in the country except in relation to Canada, or about how the Afghan and ISAF military efforts are going. All Canada, all the time. We must have the world’s most capacious bellybutton at which we endlessly gaze; and far too many brains have been stuffed with its lint.

So long as the Canadians fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people…

Mark
Ottawa

A fair fight? Ezra Levant vs. Dizzie Lizzie May, moderated by Terry Glavin.  Dukes up!  Some highlights of the festival below, lots more at the website:

Elizabeth May to debate Ezra Levant!
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Library and Archives Canada
4:00 PM
Yes, The Showdown in O-Town!  Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada, will be debating Ezra Levant, author of “Ethical Oil:  The Case for Canada’s Oil Sands,” on Saturday, November 13th at 4:00 PM.  Seating precedence will be given to Festival Pass Holders.
OUR THREE MAIN GALA EVENTS

Opening Night Gala
“Kalifornistan”
Friday, November 12, 2010
Library and Archives Canada
Main Auditorium
7:00 PM

The opening night gala is also a fundraiser for the
Military Family Resource Centre which helps
military families in the capital region.

In the shadowy Port of Los Angeles, an insane terrorist stalks a beautiful dancer … while plotting the nuclear apocalypse he hopes will make him a celebrity. KALIFORNISTAN is a darkly comic satire on terrorism made by Canadian actress and filmmaker Govindini Murty and American filmmaker Jason Apuzzo. KALIFORNISTAN follows the deranged leader of a terror cell called ‘Glorious Jihad of Kalifornistan’ as he plots to destroy Los Angeles with a nuclear bomb – while being distracted by a sultry exotic dancer. KALIFORNISTAN fuses film, video, documentary and surveillance footage into a cutting-edge narrative on the violence, narcissism and delusional fantasies that fuel contemporary Islamic terrorism. KALIFORNISTAN takes viewers on a twisted journey of the post-9/11 world from Gitmo to Iran, from the dark corners of LA harbour into the mind of a terrorist too deranged even for Al Qaeda.

Human Events says of KALIFORNISTAN: “The film clicks as strong, effective satire … Kalifornistan … dares to see the average terrorist for what he truly is — a laughably warped soul with a world view shaped by Islamic radicalism — and too many extremist blogs … and once you meet the terrorist at the heart of the film you’ll wonder why more filmmakers haven’t taken this approach before.” LA’s Daily Breeze says that “Kalifornistan may be the South Bay’s 21st century cinematic equivalent of Gone in 60 Seconds, the 1974 cult classic.” Online journal Rational Review says that KALIFORNISTAN “is beautifully shot” and “it’s Fellini meets Kubrick.”

Govindini Murty is an Ottawa native who co-founded the Liberty Film Festival in Los Angeles with her husband Jason Apuzzo in order to provide a greater diversity of viewpoints in Hollywood. Murty and Apuzzo have been frequently featured in the media, are independent filmmakers, and are also the Co-Editors of Libertas Film Magazine.

Speakers after the film:  Govindini Murty and Jason Apuzzo

A Night with Philippe Karsenty
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Library and Archives Canada
Main Auditorium
7:00 PM

Philippe Karsenty, internationally known media analyst and founder of Media-Ratings, a media watchdog which monitors the media in France and who exposed the false allegations that Israeli soldiers killed a 12-year old Palestinian, Mohammed al-Dura during a gun battle in Gaza in 2000.

Following Mr. Karsenty’s reporting that France 2, a French television network, had broadcast staged footage of the alleged killing, Mr. Karsenty was sued for libel by the network. He succeeded in having a lower court judgment overturned by the Paris Court of Appeal in May 2008.

Karsenty was born in France. When he was 26, he set up a share-trading company on the Paris Bourse and continued to work as a broker until 1997.  In 1996, he set up a business consultancy, and in 2002, ran for Parliament on a center-right ticket, losing to Nicolas Sarkozy. In 2008, he was elected Deputy Mayor of Neuilly.

Please join us for this M. Karsenty’s incredible presentation. Q&A session will follow his presentation, and then please join us for a reception outside the main auditorium.

Closing Night Gala
“The Stoning of Soraya M”
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Library and Archives Canada
Main Auditorium
7:00 PM

Academy Award® nominee Shorheh Aghdashloo stars as Zahra, a woman with a burning secret. When a journalist (Jim Caviezel) is stranded in her remote village, Zahra takes a bold chance to reveal what the villagers will stop at nothing to hide. Thus begins the story of Soraya (Mozhan Marnò), a kind woman whose cruel, divorce-seeking husband trumps up false charges of infidelity against her, which carry an unimaginable penalty.

Soraya and Zahra attempt to navigate the villagers’ scheming, lies and deceit to prove her innocence. But when all else fails, Zahra must risk everything to use the only weapon she has left – her voice – to share Soraya’s shocking story with the world.

Speaker:  Writer:Director Cyrus Nowrasteh

From the Wall Street Journal:

“The Stoning of Soraya M.” is as blunt as the rocks hurled in the execution of its title. The independent film, set in an Iranian village in the late 1980s, tells the story of a woman falsely accused of adultery, then put to death according to religious laws enacted after the country’s Islamic revolution. A grisly climax helped doom the film’s chances for traditional distribution in the U.S., but the filmmakers say it was essential to call attention to the horror of stoning, which still occurs in Iran and some other Muslim countries, according to human-rights groups.

“A movie like this needs to be absolutely uncompromising in its approach. The subject demands it,” says director Cyrus Nowrasteh, who was born in Colorado to Iranian parents. He has tackled sensitive topics in his previous work, such as the ABC miniseries “The Path to 9/11,” which he wrote and produced.

TICKETS

FULL FESTIVAL PASSES $68 (incl. HST) (includes access to all Galas and all films) GALA TICKETS $22.60 (incl. HST) (Galas include private reception) FILM TICKETS $17 (incl. HST) All tickets are available from TicketWeb Toll-Free: 888-222-6608 Tickets also available at : Compact Music (785 1/2 Bank Street and 190 Bank St.) Ottawa Folklore Center (1111 Bank Street)

SCREENING VENUE

All events and films take place at Library and Archives Canada located at Library and Archives Canada 395 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0N4 Canada: VIEW LOCATION MAP

Mark
Ottawa

…but is Sharia law in itself an existential threat?  Excerpts from a piece by Reuel Marc Gerecht (via Terry Glavin, read this relevant post):

…I’ve spent a lot of time sitting with Shiite and Sunni clerics who were teaching Sharia and opining about daily life, and such schooling didn’t strike me then, and still doesn’t, as a good laboratory for terrorists, which is why, I suspect, so few terrorists have had any proper clerical training. A rigorous Islamic education may make you a killjoy, but it doesn’t make you a terrorist. If the empirical record tells us anything, it’s that a skimpy Islamic education combined with a mediocre—even a decent—Western education seems much more likely to produce an explosive mix.

…we shouldn’t see enemies where they are not. The Holy Law is, as it’s always been, what Muslims make of it. In the titanic struggle within Islam between those who fear modernity and those who embrace it, we would do well not to make the clergy our foes. They will go, as they always have done, where the majority of Muslims take them. Like Ayatollah Khomeini before him, bin Laden once thought that most Muslims would rise up to defend his cause. Both gentlemen were wrong. Westerners and most Muslims may not (yet) share with the same intensity and priority that many values, but we share enough to provide considerable hope that the “clash of civilizations” will end, as Grand Ayatollah Sistani no doubt wants it to, in a suspicious, at times tense, but peaceful and prosperous co-existence.

Reuel Marc Gerecht is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a contributing editor at The Weekly Standard.

Please check the three links immediately above before commenting.  And there is still…

A very good question relating to some Muslims

Mark
Ottawa

Juxtaposing:

1) Pakistan Urges On Taliban

2) US apologises to Pakistan for helicopter attack on soldiers

Yesterday:

AfPak complications

Update: And across the border once again to a bit of optimism, hopefully not premature, from US Army troops in the Arghandab district of Kandahar:

Despite rising doubts at home, troops in one corner of Afghanistan see signs of progress
…

…

And more optimism–and a lot of caution in a rather robust Washington Post editorial:

Could a deal with the Taliban end the war in Afghanistan?

THE FACT THAT senior Taliban leaders have “sought to reach out” to the Afghan government, as U.S. Gen. David H. Petraeus recently reported, is encouraging news. It suggests that U.S. military operations against the insurgents are having more of an impact than the generally gloomy Western reporting on the war indicates. A year ago the Pakistan-based Taliban faction known as the Quetta shura rejected negotiations with Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai unless all U.S. NATO forces first withdrew; it appeared confident that the war was going its way. The surge of U.S. forces into its heartland around the city of Kandahar, coupled with a robust special operations campaign that has captured or killed hundreds of Taliban field commanders, may have softened its position.

There are, however, reasons for concern about reports, including one in The Post this week, that the government of Mr. Karzai and the Obama administration have begun to look to the negotiations as a way out of the conflict…

Both Mr. Karzai and the Obama administration are right to offer reconciliation to members of the Taliban and to listen to any overtures that come from their leaders. But the two governments should agree on a firmer set of criteria for what would constitute an acceptable bargain. Above all, they should rule out allowing the Quetta shura to reestablish itself as the ruler, de facto or otherwise, of any part of Afghanistan.

Upperdate: Thought-provoking post by Tom Ricks at his The Best Defense:

U.S. policy on Pakistan: heading for a major but unannounced change?

My gut feeling is that U.S. officials are beginning to give up on getting serious anti-Taliban help from the government of Pakistan. My guess is that there won’t be any official change stated, but more actions that Pakistani officials haven’t been consulted about. Also, if the ISI really is interfering with peace talks with the Taliban, I’d expect to see a rollup of ISI agents in Afghanistan. This would be done quietly, if possible, so the public signs would be reactions such as the kidnapping of Indian officials in Afghanistan, or bombing the Indian embassy again.

My speculation isn’t based on any leaks or anything, just a reading of a series of recent newspaper articles.

Shorting Pakistan is kind of a no-brainer: In the long one, which is the better ally to have, India or Pakistan?

But what the heck happens to Pakistan then? Terrible risks involved.

Uppestdate: Terry Glavin on reporting, that old profession:

…This Guardian story should get a Pulitzer in the self-parody category. It’s like something out of Evelyn Waugh’s Black Mischief.

The story purports to report that unnamed Afghan government officials are engaged in “extremely tentative” direct talks with unnamed Haqqani Taliban officials and also that unnamed American officials are engaged in similary  “extremely tentative” but rather indirect talks with unnamed Haqqani Taliban officials facilitated by an unnamed intermediary from an unnamed western country, according unnamed Pakistani and Arab “sources”, the Guardian has learned.

We are further enlightened to read that a senior Pakistani official, “speaking on condition of anonymity,” refused to comment about something, and that the U.S State Department could not be reached for comment, plus: “Different diplomatic sources gave different accounts of the Haqqanis’ readiness to take part in a preliminary dialogue,” but one unnamed diplomat from an unnamed country said :”The Haqqanis
know they have to make the transition from the IRA to Sinn Féin.”

From that last sentence I am willing to wager it can all be explained by an inordinate amount of drink taken last night at the Hare and Hounds pub underneath the Gandamack Lodge. Besides, I see by the bylines that Declan Walsh was involved [see Mr Glavin's clarification in "Comments"].

Mark
Ottawa

The US and how it gets along–or rather does not–with the Paks:

1) Reading Woodward in Karachi (lengthy, well worth the read)

Is this the nail in the coffin of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship?
BY MOSHARRAF ZAIDI

…As much as supporters of the effort — both in Washington and Islamabad — may go to great pains to explain that this war is for Pakistan’s own good and that the United States is not waging a war on Pakistan, such appeals are likely to fall on deaf ears, and not just among the conspiratorial hypernationalist types.

Even among some of the most stalwart supporters of the United States, suspicion of Washington’s intentions runs deep and wide. In an account of a meeting between President Asif Ali Zardari and U.S. diplomat Zalmay Khalilzad, Woodward describes Zardari’s passionate elaboration of why he is convinced that the TTP — often called the Pakistani Taliban — are being financed and directed by the United States to weaken Pakistan so that Washington can grab Islamabad’s nukes. This kind of ridiculous suspicion of the United States is, of course, as Woodward also notes, a regional disease, with Afghan President Hamid Karzai routinely blaming the United States for supporting the insurgency. But dismissing the ridiculous without understanding its resonance is also dangerous. If this account of Zardari’s meeting with Khalilzad ever made the front page in Pakistan, Zardari, whose popularity has suffered for being a U.S. ally, would get an immediate boost. That’s how deep the suspicion runs…

Is it any surprise that Pakistanis see conflicting messages coming out of Washington? Within this deeply negative and gloomy context, Woodward’s book exposes some of the U.S. government’s contingency plans for Pakistan, including military strikes on as many as 150 suspected terrorist training sites. One conspiracy theory popular in Islamabad, which the book will no doubt feed, is that U.S. special-operations forces will one day come and take Pakistan’s beloved crown jewels — the more than 100 nuclear weapons thecountry bankrupted itself to develop…

One of the most telling accounts in the book is of Husain Haqqani, the Pakistani ambassador to the United States, trying to explain to members of the Obama administration how to engage with Pakistan. After trying a number of analogies, the unflappable Haqqani finally just lays it out plainly, “Give us a little bit of respect. Don’t humiliate us publicly.”

The public humiliation of being the subject of Obama’s war, without being able to publicly acknowledge its myriad dimensions, is a pressure that is crushing Pakistan’s fragile democracy and hurting wider U.S. goals. If one of the objectives of Obama’s war was to stabilize and secure Pakistan, then, by that measure, the war is not doing well at all…

Mosharraf Zaidi has served as an advisor on international aid to Pakistan for the United Nations and European Union and writes a weekly column for Pakistan’s the News. You can find more of his writing at www.mosharrafzaidi.com.

2) America’s image problem in Pakistan

By Kalsoom Lakhani
…
Cyril Almeida, an assistant editor and columnist at Dawn [website here], echoed, “Anti-Americanism is deep and pervasive. To the uninitiated, the Pakistani desire for a U.S. visa/passport/job may seem like tacit approval of what America stands for and aspires to achieve through its foreign policy.” However, he noted, this would be a wrong assumption. “The personal (economic advantage that may be gained) is very different from the political (intense opposition to U.S. foreign policy) [see 3)]. And this contradiction is not specific to the Pakistani condition,” but is reflected elsewhere in the Muslim world.

As the use of drones continue unabated in Pakistan, and tensions are further exacerbated by news of NATO helicopters crossing into Pakistani territory killing Pakistani soldiers late last week, anti-American sentiment will only continue to rise, despite billions of dollars of aid being promised to local civil society, and despite American efforts in the recent flood disaster…

Kalsoom Lakhani is the director of Social Vision, the strategic philanthropy arm of ML Resources in Washington, D.C. She is from Islamabad, Pakistan, and blogs at CHUP, or Changing Up Pakistan.

3) One/one Pakistani-American:

Times Square bomb plotter predicts defeat of U.S.

NEW YORK — Expressing no remorse and predicting the “imminent” defeat of the United States at the hands of Muslim forces, Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad was sentenced to life in prison Tuesday for his attempt to spill blood with a homemade car bomb.

“Brace yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun,” Shahzad, 31, warned U.S. District Judge Miriam Cedarbaum in one of several polite but chilling exchanges. “Consider me only a first droplet of the flood that will follow me.”

Shahzad — wearing a white cap, a black prison smock and longer beard and hair than he did at his June guilty plea — also for the first time complained about his post-arrest treatment at the hands of the FBI, and said he was comfortable with his fate because he saw it as the will of Allah.

“If I am given 1,000 lives, I will sacrifice them all for the sake of Allah,” said Shahzad.” … Decree whatever you desire to decree, for you can only decree regarding the life of this world.”..

A naturalized American citizen from Pakistan who was living in Bridgeport, Conn., Shahzad was captured two days after his May 1 bomb attempt. He quickly confessed, telling officials that his plot had been set in motion by the Pakistani Taliban. He said he was defending Muslims and retaliating against American attacks on civilians…

Earlier, from Terry Glavin:

Who’s To Blame For Pakistan’s Agonies? ‘Hindu Zionists and American Think-Tanks.’ [more on those agonies here]

While on another front:

Taliban in high-level talks with Karzai government, sources say

Mark
Ottawa

Terry Glavin develops a theme:

“Participating In Election Is Treason With Islam And Afghanistan.”

Although the “west” has all but given up on Afghan democracy – the agreed-upon euphemism for this betrayal appears to be “working to lower expectations” – it would seem that a few million Afghans have voted in today’s elections anyway, braving Taliban threats of dismemberment and death.

“But Afghanistan is not Switzerland,” we keep hearing, over and over. Thomas Ruttig conducts an archeological investigation of this pathetic excuse for cynicism and abandonment and notes in passing a friend’s observation: “Afghanistan is also not Switzerland because it doesn’t ban minarets.” One might add that Afghans are further unlike the Swiss in the way so many of them are prepared to actually fight for democracy…

As Lauryn Oates observes: “This is the frontline of the battle for enlightenment, and these Afghan voters are the bulwarks of civilization. I hope, dearly, that the significance of their actions is not lost on those of us privileged enough to have never had to fight for the most basic political right: to vote.”

Here’s the sort of threat these Afghans have defied…

More on the elections in a story from Matthew Fisher of Postmedia News:

Voters brave Taliban attacks
Despite intimidation and fraud claims, parliamentary election draws praise

U.S. marines escort a girl carried by her father to an air ambulance near Marja, in Afghanistan’s Helmand province on Saturday. The girl suffered wounds to her face and legs after being struck by shrapnel from a rocket-propelled grenade that was fired at U.S. soldiers patrolling in her family’s village.
Photograph by: Scott Olson, Getty Images…

Another way of looking at it:

Afghan turnout low amid violence

While at another front:

U.S.-led troops push into rural Kandahar

Mark
Ottawa

I think it depends at what level and to what effect.  Meanwhile Terry Glavin has his doubts, along with a prominent Tajik Afghan:

Amrullah Saleh: If We Do Not Rise Today. . .”
…
“I am anti-Talibanization of Afghanistan. We were fighting the Taliban before NATO and if we see our history, our life, our principles, are compromised in a deal with the Taliban, we will fight again.”..

Read it all.

Mark
Ottawa

Further to 1) at this post,

Afstan: Spreading American quittism/CF’s fall plans for Panjwaii and Dand districts/Declining security interactive map Update

Terry Glavin zeros in on “…Nixonian gibberish and Stoppist non-expertise…”:

Joshua Foust has composed a splendidly refreshing 3,600-word philippic, An Exercise In Determined Ignorance, in response to the preposterous “New Way Forward” report recently released by the so-called Afghanistan Study Group under the lead authorship of the celebrity ex-Marine Matthew Hoh. I’ve compiled an overview of the affair with some necessary background in an essay for The Propagandist: A New Benchmark In ‘Afghanistan Strategy’ Idiocy. It only scratches the surface…

Mark
Ottawa

They don’t work!  And other observations.  Fidelissimo after all these years, from Terry Glavin:

…we also learn that Fidel doesn’t think the Cuban model even works for Cuba anymore…

Castro also had this very interesting message he wanted Golberg to relay to Iranian crackpot Mahmoud Ahmedinejad: Quit slagging off the Jews…

…We must prepare ourselves for the coming denunciations of Fidel as a splittist and a wrecker, an idler and a lickspittle of the Yanqui-Zionist hegemony…

Ain’t none other in this country writing like that.

Mark
Ottawa

Though admittedly a silly word, it aptly describes a silly form of argumentation. And now the New York Times vocabulary blog, which features a “miscellany of modern words and phrases”, has acknowledged the birth of “yesbuttery”:

Portmanteau term denoting agreement tempered by a contrary view.

Criticising the view that Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan has inspired homegrown terrorism, Adrian MacNair wrote for The National Post:

There is something altogether insincere about condemning terrorism on the one hand, and then rationalizing it on the other. It is a form of “yesbuttery,” a term coined by an unknown author which describes the “troops out” crowd who believe that Afghanistan would be better off on its own, despite the brutal bloodshed of Taliban retribution that would ensue.

Naturally, I acknowledge no original ownership of the term, as quoted in the Times. Indeed I heard it first from Terry Glavin, who has created his own share of Fotheringhamisms.