Q: Has Pakistan deployed troops too late?
A: It’s never too late to try to end a conflict. But there still isn’t a Pakistan army operation in places that, to my understanding, provide the Taliban the most support for their campaign inside Afghanistan. North Waziristan, for instance, which is where [New York Times reporter] David Rohde was held hostage for seven months. Read his accounts. He’s sitting in the back of a car with a blanket over his head and the brother of one of the most wanted architects of suicide bombing in both Pakistan and Afghanistan is standing by the side of the road, waving to the Pakistan army as they roll by. Pakistan has serious internal economic challenges, and the government is facing its own insurgency in some areas.
Q: Sixty per cent of Canadians oppose the war in Afghanistan. Is there something Canadians are missing, some compelling reason for combat troops to stay?
A: I assume 100 per cent of Canadians are opposed to war. We all want peace. And the question to be asked is: are we in prospect of achieving peace in Afghanistan? I think we are closer now than eight years ago, and even three years ago. The one point that can never be brought home enough is that the consequences of failure would be incalculable. If the Taliban comes back to power, the impact would be devastating. A country that has made great strides, in terms of development indicators, would take a huge step backwards. Afghanistan’s national economy would be devastated. Beyond that, the Taliban have demonstrated their enthusiasm for the international terrorist agenda of al-Qaeda. Also, institutions that have backed the mission in Afghanistan—the UN, NATO—would take a serious hit. Their credibility would be diminished. My conviction is that this is one of the great tests of our time.
Q: Why would we pull our combat troops?
A: The position of the government of Canada is that the combat mission in Kandahar will end in 2011. It’s a parliamentary resolution passed by a government and an opposition, but I know there will be debate in this country about what to do after 2011, and that debate will be informed by the result of the second round of elections, how credible the result is, which will in turn influence Obama’s position [on whether to deploy more troops]. We’re right to reserve judgment until we have that information.
Q: The judgment has already been made: our troops are out of there in 2011.
A: Last time I checked, that’s two years away. We have yet to debate the shape of engagement. What I believe, after speaking with Canadians, is that they’re very interested in further analysis. Why haven’t we succeeded yet? What is the relationship between what’s happening in Pakistan and the success of the mission in Afghanistan? What is the Obama administration going to do? There is a great appetite for more information and for completing what we set out to do, to protect the achievements that have been made up to now and support Afghanistan on the shortest and least painful path to peace and stability. But what finishing the job might entail—that debate still has to happen.
Q: It’s been reported that you decided not to run as a Liberal because you disagree with the party’s stance on Afghanistan. What specifically do you disagree with?
A: The Liberal party has not laid out its policy particularly clearly. Ignatieff says different things, Bob Rae says various things. Many in the party think our military should only be used for peacekeeping, not combat. But the reality of Canadian history is that we’ve been willing to do the important things the world demanded of us: fighting in World War II, in Korea, in the Balkans, where we were involved in offensive military operations, and in Afghanistan, where we have made disproportionate contributions.
Q: But both parties have agreed that our military engagement in Afghanistan ends in July 2011. So what’s the difference between their policies?
A: I think it’s the difference between having a clear policy of engagement, and having a lot of uncertainty about and unwillingness to make any military commitment at all on the Liberal side.
Q: Why are you a Conservative?
A: Despite 18 years as a non-partisan public servant, my deeper “tribal” affinity has always been Tory. The Afghanistan file has given me an additional reason to cleave to that side of the spectrum. Canadian Conservatives have generally been more comfortable and confident with hard security issues. Frankly, that is what is needed again now, as Obama is showing by outdoing U.S. conservatives at their own game on Af-Pak.
Q: Aren’t you playing the biggest game of all, running for Parliament?
A: You could call it that, but politics is also a profession, and a form of service, and it should draw people who are passionate and have deep experience of the complex, changing nature of the world. I agree with Mark Carney that we are involved in a historic restructuring of the world economy. Virtually every country that matters has been striving to pursue the same economic model, and has bought into a set of market-based principles that has brought new players on the stage and new markets. We have to take full advantage. It will not be good enough simply to depend on one or two markets, we will need to embrace innovation, decide what we do well, and target those sectors in which, with investment and planning, we could make the whole world our client for keeps. My own experience in Russia [where he served at the Canadian Embassy in Moscow] and Afghanistan is in precisely this sort of social change: how to transition from one model—in their cases, a planned economy and a protracted conflict—to new competitive forms of economic growth.
Q: But those are all big ideas. The reality of running for office is that you’re kissing babies and attending endless community events.
A: Yes, there’s a retail side to politics. But the reality we face in the world isn’t abstract in a place like Ajax-Pickering. There are many new Canadians in this riding, and they’re keyed in to the challenges, the opportunities in the world. My challenge is to become the candidate who can represent people of this riding across the board. It excites me as much to talk to them about the position of the GO station, which is rather inconveniently located, as Afghanistan. Honestly, it does! All politics are local, whether in Kabul or here.
Pages: 1 2
