Taking a stand
Well, many people have commented in the past that Kennedy hasn't really been active on the policy front. But now, the big story in the news in terms of leadership is Kennedy's position on Afghanistan. Some don't like this position. Personally I see some good and some bad points in this.
I like the fact that we should have our own independant voice on this. Like it or not, we're in there. But if we are there, we should have a say how it's going. I do think we really need to look at what's going on there and think about what we're doing. If we really aren't helping to re-build the Afghan society, then why are we there?
However, I'm not a big fan of the threat itself. It does have a sense of, "we're not getting what we want, so let's get out of there." In any case, whether we are trying to be peacekeepers or occupiers, I do believe we should be there (in one case to help them out, in the second to prevent them from reverting to their old ways). Pulling out early could be worse than staying in too long.
But all in all, whether you agree with Kennedy on this or not, he's willing to take a stand on this tough issue. And just like I respect Ignatieff for his strong viewpoints (as much as I disagree with them), you've gotta respect Gerard for his.
6 comments:
UWH:
I fully respect your opinions, but I'm not sure his view is very well thought out at all and undermines his credibility as a federal politician.
NATO isn't going to change the mission just because little old Canada wants them to so that means, under Kennedy, Canada is out of Afghanistan.
Frankly, the policy position shows him to have an incredibly naive perspective on our current role in Afghanistan (which not only hasn't changed, which has been approved by the UN, but in which Canada is a tiny fraction of the military force there) and our position and influence within NATO. We did express our independent voice in the world... by choosing to commit ourselves to the war. We could have chosen not to. Many countries did. We could have chosen not to send our troops in, even more countries chose this route. We could have passed on taking a leadership role as Martin did.
But we don't exercise our independent voice by signing on for a mulitlateral intervention and then say 'we want you all to fight the war our way'... especially when we are such a bit part in the war, less than 6% of the troops over there.
I really like Kennedy and his future in the federal party, but this furthers the impression that he isn't ready yet for federal politics.
Ted
Cerberus
They probably wouldn't change it for us, that's why I'm not a big fan of the ultimatum part of the proposal.
However, our troops are over there supposedly in a peacekeeping/rebuilding role. If they are "under fire from insurgents", then maybe that's not really the role we're out there for.
I'm not an expert on foreign policy, but I'm pretty sure we'd be less efficient if we sent the troops over there and told them, "you're here to fight off insurgents" than if we told them "you're here to build a hospital, but feel free to pick off a few insurgents while you're at it." That's what I gather from this message: tell us what we're actually doing over there, then let's talk about what we can commit.
Naive isn't the correct term to use to describe Kennedy on foreign affairs. Hell, wouldn't we call Ignatieff naive for thinking Neo-con loons could run a War in Iraq properly? You take stands, some turn out right some turn out wrong. But at this level of the game and with the kind of advisors the top candidates have, naive doesn't really apply.
Throw in the politics of it all and it's that much more complicated
Good post. Gerard has proven himself and these so-called "Liberals" get scared. Emperor Iggy has no clothes after all.
The mission objectives are pretty clear to the troops over there, UWHabs, if not to Canadians back here. There is a military campaign that has been hugely successful so far in 2/3 to 3/4 of the country and the infrastructure building in that party of the country has been going well.
In the south, the campaign has really just begun so there is no sense in trying to build a school for girls if the Taliban can sneek in at night and kill them all and blow up the building.
This is not a chicken or the egg situation. First things first.
Ted
Cerberus,
You are 100% wrong. There has not been a single power plant built ANYWHERE in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban. There has not been a SINGLE highway built ANYWHERE in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban. Most Afghani people have no working water, sewage or electricity. They also have little food and no jobs. As in Iraq, they were promised a bag of goods by their liberators that haven't been delivered. The opium crop in 2006 was the biggest in Afghani hisotry. The Afghani people are turning on the Nato troops in the country which is why the insurgency is getting worst month by month. The current mission is an abject failure (and I know what your retort will be "but there are young girls who can now go to school" True. That was accomplished in the first 6 months of the mission in 2002. That's not what Gerard is taking issue with if you are being intellectually honest).
Another fact - of non-US deaths in Afghanistan 2006, exactly 40% of them are Canadian. More Canadians have died than British soldiers or any other nation. That's not the reason Gerard is proposing what he is proposing - he'd have no problem with Candians dieing if it was improving the situation in Afghanistan. It isn't and that's why he has a big problem with the current mission.
Gerard has put forward the only sensible position a Canadian leader can hold - the current mission is not working. Either we should try to change the mission so that it actually improves the situation in Afghanistan for the Afhgani people or we should get the hell out of there.
Post a Comment