Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Fun with consistency; or, maybe it's not NATO that Afghanistan is testing

by Paul Wells on Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:37pm - 13 Comments

Peter MacKay, yesterday:

“Afghanistan tests the ability of the alliance to execute its most basic mission in the 21st century and in a global context. If NATO cannot deter or defeat the real physical threat facing alliance members, and indeed contribute to the building of security for the larger international community, then we have to ask ourselves, what is NATO for?”

Peter MacKay, Feb. 8:

“In spite of the challenges, I would suggest that, if Afghanistan was a litmus test for NATO, the Alliance has already passed.”

Tags: Afghanistan, Peter MacKay

More by Paul Wells

SAB

“…If NATO cannot deter or defeat the real physical threat facing alliance members, and indeed contribute to the building of security for the larger international community…”

I assume he means by 2011?
seaandthemountains

Paul you are bing completely irresponsible. Those statement were made more than one week apart or heaven’s sake!
Critical Reasoning

I assume that Mackay’s Feb. 16 question was a rhetorical question, rather than an example of inconsistency.

seaandthemountains

but doesn’t it imply, even if rhetorical, that the jury is still out?

Critical Reasoning

Although I suspect Paul is picking nits here – in fairness, there does seem to have been a change in Mackay’s tone since Munich.

He went from extolling the success of NATO in Afghanistan (the “litmus test” quote) to yesterday’s “frank discussion”, which was pointed at the need for certain unnamed NATO members (e.g. France, Germany) to step up their contributions.

This required a rhetorical shift – Mackay couldn’t very well ring the bell about the need for all NATO members to pull their weight in Afghanistan if the success of NATO was already a foregone conclusion.

http://macleans.ca kc

CR
I applaud you for going to bat for Mackay. It could have even been put down to an oratorical slip, but i think not. When you consider that he’s also gettng some heat for unwisely casting NATO success in Afganistan as an existential crisis; and what this may say about his ability to paint himself into a rhetorical corner [ not at all a skill set you would wish in a Sec. Gen.] and then you look over his earlier statement in Munich. You could quite reasonably conclude that he may be in over his head. Consider too that the speeches were delivered to different audiences, one in Germany and one in London. Now is that incompetence, merely trying to be too clever or even telling people what they want to hear? None reflect well on him.

Critical Reasoning

Kc,

Don’t be so hard on my buddy Pete. What is this “heat” you speak of? Most of the press coverage of his recent speeches has ranged from neutral to positive – especially in the international papers. Check google news to see for yourself. Perhaps Paul was privy to some gossip in Munich that we’ll never find out about.

I don’t think that Mackay has painted himself into any rhetorical corners – this kind of circumlocution is a common and unremarkable feature of diplomatic speech. It will take more than nitpicking some trumped-up inconsistencies to convince me that Mackay is in over his head.
http://macleans.ca kc

CR
You may be right about Pete. I’ve nothing particular against him – except i just can’t shake the image of him weeping in the potato patch, while blathering on about being betrayed like some later day Lady Macbeth. Still they’re not likely to know all this in Luxemb…er Belgium, are they.
Good come back. That’s the first time i’ve heard incoherence defined as circumlocution. Common is it? I guess that would go some way towards explaning the general level of incoherence in international affairs. :)

http://macleans.ca kc

I would like to thankyou from the bottm of my heart for pointing out this.I had fully intended to outlne this in my next speech, in about a weeks time. Doesn’t that fool Wells have any patience at all. Or maybe he just wants to muck up my big chance at becoming Chancellor of Luxemburger, i bet he’s a liberal too!
Yrs Truly,
The Hounourable[ and completely competent ] member of Parliament for Shediac, N.S.
Peter Mackay. [ damn, you know who i represent. ]

Sisyphus

What the minister really meant to say was ……….

Just visiting

Maybe the problem with getting most of NATO engaged is that the Afghani Taliban do not actually represent a “real physical threat facing alliance members”.

The Afghan war, at this point, is an offensive war of choice started and sustained by the U.S., not a defensive necessity for any NATO country, let alone for the alliance as a whole.

It therefore isn’t surprising that most NATO members are unwilling to expend a lot of blood or treasure on this war. What happens in Afghanistan a not a serious test of the alliance or its founding principles.
http://macleans.ca kc

C’mon Paul! Consistency or better yet coherence in a NATO Sec. Gen. candidate – that’s asking a bit much!
Anyway it’s perfectly clear to me. First you pass yr litmus test, then then you argue a week later that unless you pass the test then the test and indeed the existence of the whole organization conducting the test is pointless. I would say that Mackay will fit in just nicely in Brussels. As long as making contradictory statements about the purpose of Nato is all that he’s allowed to do. Besides if he’s over there annoying them, then he can’t be over here… doing… nothing…oh i give up!