Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Abbott & Costello go to war

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, November 8, 2010 11:45am - 64 Comments

Three years ago, despite having said a year earlier that “we can’t set arbitrary deadlines and wish for the best,” the Prime Minister said, of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, “you have to put an end date on these things.”

In January, the Prime Minister’s insisted that the mission for Canada after 2011 would be “strictly civilian.” In June, the Prime Minister noted “with some interest” the comments of Liberal critic Bob Rae after Mr. Rae mused of troops remaining in Afghanistan, but maintained that the mission would transition to a “civilian and development mission at the end of 2011″ as set out in a parliamentary motion, even though that motion referred to Kandahar and the Liberal proposal referred to Kabul. Three weeks later, the Defence Minister expressed “great interest” in the Liberal proposal, but again pointed to the motion of parliament as binding. Either way, a day later, the Foreign Affairs Minister dismissed any suggestion that troops might remain past 2011, observing that “Peter might be open to the idea, but this doesn’t mean that the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada is open to the idea.”

And so it is now that a “senior government official” tells the Star that the idea of troops remaining in a training role is being considered, a revelation seemingly confirmed publicly by the Defence Minister.

Bookmark and Share
  • Mike T.

    This government couldn't care less for the will of parliament – this has been made abundantly clear.

    However, I see no problem with soldiers staying in Afghanistan past 2011 in a training role only. I do, however, expect Harper to make up some lie about it.

  • Style

    What is the Liberal infatuation with this war? Canada's made an exceptional contribution already by taking on Kandahar, there are other NATO allies that could do more but the Liberals keep pushing for greater Canadian involvement. Why doesn't Portugal take this on, for example?

    • Mike T.

      I am imagining what this comment would be had Stephen Harper never budged one iota from his support for seeing the war through to the end, and chuckling a bit to myself.

  • Jenn_

    I want us out, too, but I do have to wonder what kind of a friend we are viewed as. Certainly and as I've said before, we've done (more than) our fair share of the tough combat. But leaving entirely now is really akin to saying "okay, now that we've completely f*cked up your country, our job is done." That kinda wasn't what I thought we were going in there for.

    Most of all, though, I wish this were a 'politics-free' subject zone, where we could debate and discuss various alternatives without a view to the "left" or the "right" or the "up" or the "down".

    • Style

      Do you really think Afghanistan is in worse shape now than ten years ago? This wasn't Iraq, where a relatively stable government was keeping the peace, overseeing a fairly secular and a poor but increasingly prosperous society while allowing some regions, that were also relatively stable and prosperous, considerable autonomy.

      • Jenn_

        Yes, I do, even if it's only the "you don't know what your missing if you never had it" variety. I think of girls who didn't know to want to learn to read or go to school, and I think of the women who pushed back, even a bit, and have been told they are dead when the foreigners leave.

        • Style

          That was true ten year's ago as well – women were losing rights and freedoms that they had enjoyed pre-Taliban. Anyway, I think it's a silly argument that we shouldn't let oppressed people find out about a better life, because it might lower their enjoyment of their oppression…

          • Emily

            'Pre-Taliban' was the war lords, and women were treated badly then as well….and it was arbitrary. What was acceptable one day, or with one war lord, wasn't the next.

            The Taliban was actually a step forward….nowhere near what we'd choose, but slightly better than warlord anarchy.

            The Americans put the war lords back in power.

          • Jenn_

            I take your point, but you seem to have missed mine.

            The woman who pushed back did so because we said we were there to protect them. I'm thinking mostly of those women who came out to the squares to protest their treatment a few years ago–just run of the mill, average women. I don't suppose it matters much to them that we think they should have been principled enough to stand up for themselves without us there. I mean, when you're dead and all. . .

            The kids wouldn't have known what they were missing. The women most certainly did know.

          • Style

            Yes, it's a terrible world and many people will die and suffer horribly in many places for truly heartbreaking reasons today. Why does that mean Canada needs to contribute more than other NATO countries in Afghanistan?

          • Jenn_

            I've actually said much the same thing as your first sentence. Clearly, we cannot just kill ourselves forever over there. I totally agree with that point.

            The answer is because WE TOLD THEM WE'D PROTECT THEM. Canadians did that. Personally. To real human beings. It's like that whole ethics thing in general. If you base your ethics on what the other guy is doing, you don't have any.

          • Emily

            Actually we said we'd kill 'scumbags'.

            There was never any promise to the women of Afghanistan.

          • Style

            ", we cannot just kill ourselves forever over there." If we are going to stop one day, why not stop now (or in 2011, as Parliament promised us)? I don't think we have made things worse in Afghanistan, but let's assume you're right about that. That seems to set up this situation. I promised to help you, but then made your life worse at great cost to myself. Wouldn't we both be okay with me now saying I'd met my ethical obligation and was going to move on?

            My other point is that every Canadian aid worker and soldier over there is not helping somewhere else in the world, and, if they're killed while in Afghanistan, they never will help anywhere else. But there are lots of places in the world where those people could be making a difference, probably a more durable and significant difference, than they are able to make in Afghanistan now. The world is horrible, that's not confined to Afghanistan.

            My worry is that Mr. Ignatieff is still the liberal hawk he was in the run-up to the Iraq war, under the misapprehension that the Western military can bomb countries into freedom and democracy.

          • Jenn_

            I can assure you that Mr. Ignatieff is not thinking like a hawk, but is genuinely concerned about the real live women (he has met in person) who stated their reliance on us both at the time, and once they understood we were seriously leaving. But he did rule out (to me personally) advocating continuing our combat role.

            There's nothing in your post above I can disagree with. Except that these women are NOT okay with us saying we'd met our ethical obligation and were going to move on. Again, I don't think that should mean we continue to put ourselves in harm's way indefinitely, or to the extent we have been. For myself, I don't understand why we don't just airlift these women out of there–but they probably don't want to leave, and some terrorists are women, and yes, we didn't go in there to save the women–it shouldn't be our only focus on leaving.

            It is a nasty, horrible situation. I empathize with all the arguments on all sides (I think). My position is probably because it's the only compromise I can envision.

          • Style

            Okay, that's almost exactly how he sold, and then justified his selling of, the war in Iraq (except that time it was his Kurdish friends he was talking about). It makes for entertaining punditry, but it's a terrible basis for policy decisions. I agree, Canada could probably help the people of Afghanistan better through our immigarion and refugee system. If we brought some people out of Afghanistan, and continued to support its development, we could minimize the human suffering and build a Canadian-Afghanistan social network that could speed the country's transition. But then, our military wouldn't be nearly as pleased with that idea…

  • tobyornotoby

    I have discovered a new theorem: The amount of money the Prime Minister's Office spends on communications is inversely proportional to the clarity achieved.

  • burlivespipe

    I saw Abbott and Costello, I listened to Abbott and Costello — Mr Wherry, this government is not Abbott and Costello (more like Sandler and Young after a bad bender)…

    • brooster2

      You have to admit, though, that Jim Flaherty and Lou Costello look like they were separated at birth.
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/newmediamike/4467851…

      • BCer in Mtl

        Only coming to this late, but my first reaction on seeing the title was "What the hell does Jim Flaherty have to do with Afghanistan?"

  • Reader

    OK, so which one is Harper?

    [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aehzwwD2II ]

  • Stewart_Smith

    The training role is almost a no-brainer. What is interesting is the tremendous amount of pushback Mackay seems to be getting behind the scenes on this file from his own side. I know Harper was not much interested in foreign affairs before becoming PM; was he actually an isolationist?

    • Emily

      Harper has always been an isolationist. Fortress North America.

      He's been dragged kicking and screaming into anything else, and then only if the Americans do it first.

      • Thwim

        Don't you mean Alberta Firewall?

  • Orson Bean

    Am I missing something here? I thought that the govt's current position on the Afghan mission was the product of an agreement with the Liberals on a common (or at least mutually satisfactory) position, and that that position and agreement were then ratified via a vote in Parliament. Doesn't that at least suggest that any modification in that position would also be subject to the same process? If that's the case, then presumably nothing's going to change unless Iggy agrees to it.

    • Emily

      Iggy supports a 'training role'….but even if he didn't, Harper would decide anyway, no matter what Parliament did. That's what he said the last time.

    • Mike T.

      There is no indication that Harper would keep a promise if he felt it would benefit him to not do so.

      There are indications he may delight in not keeping his word merely for the sake of doing so.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      One of the problems is that people (including the Opposition Leaders and the Prime Minister) talk about that Parliamentary motion in terms that aren't really reflective of what the motion actually SAYS. For example, many MPs act as though the motion says "Afghanistan", in places where it clearly says "Kandahar". So, there have been numerous times when various politicians, on all sides, have referenced "following the will of Parliament as expressed in the motion" without being TOTALLY clear that they actually understand what the motion itself says. For another example, I'm almost certain that I've heard the PM reference leaving Afghanistan in compliance with the motion, when in actual fact the motion never actually says anything about leaving Afghanistan. The government and the opposition definitely agreed to SOMETHING, and a motion was definitely passed, but I'd bet you could come up with a dozen different interpretations of what was agreed to, and probably another dozen interpretations of what the motion that was passed meant, without having to speak to too many MPs. After all, this is the same body which passed motions "establishing fixed election dates", and "requiring people to show their faces at polling places", where neither motion actually did the thing everyone kept pretending that it did.

      • Jan

        The proof will be in whether a new motion is required. I haven't heard any discussion of one so far.

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          The proof will be in whether a new motion is required.

          Perhaps, but before deciding whether or not a new motion is required, you're going to have to find at least two MPs who can agree on what the LAST motion said, and based upon the rhetoric of pretty much EVERYONE when discussing that motion in public, I'd be impressed if you can find two MPs who have actually read the thing, let alone two who can agree on what it says!

    • Style

      The Conservatives are adopting the Liberal position. I'm sure they'll work something out between themselves that the rest of Parliament needn't worry its pretty little head about – that's how these guys deal with Afghanistan. Did you learn nothing from the detainees debate?

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

    It must be nice to to throw eggs at our war efforts instead of advocating for the right thing. But, hey, when you're all about civility and seriousness in politics…..oh wait.

    • Mike T.

      yawn.

    • Jan

      St. Dennis of F – always on the side of morality. So what is the right thing – do enlighten us sinners?

      • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

        Well, "Jan," I think it has something to do with doing what's right in Afghanistan, versus doing what's smart allecky and knee-jerk in an Ottawa newsroom. Or maybe that's just me.

        • Jan

          Put down the egg and tell us what the right thing is.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            Coming from one of the biggest farting egg-throwers on here. What a joke. I wasn't making a statement as to what is right. Read my comment.

        • TJCook

          And what's the "right thing" in Afghanistan?

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            Wherry sure as heck didn't seem interested in that question, did he. In case you didn't get it, that was my point.

            However, since you asked, would it be the most awful thing in the world to leave some troops for training purposes in Afghanistan, especially since our allies are basically begging us to do so?

            I think Iggy should cut the crap and do what's right. Just saying.

          • TJCook

            I don't see how Wherry is "throwing eggs" at anyone. His point is clearly that the government's position on the Afghanistan withdrawl has been completely incoherent. It's not Ignatieff's fault that the Conservatives are tripping over their own policy.

            I agree with you, that Canada should assess the request to provide training and I wouldn't have a problem with some troops staying behind for that purpose. But I don't trust the Conservative government to a) put a policy in place that they believe to be the right thing, and b) stick to that policy as political pressures change.

            Our military people deserve better than to be yanked around according to Stephen Harper's polling numbers. His record on Afghanistan is a disgrace.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            Oh please. They set a hard withdrawal policy — a difficult but understandable position to take. Since then, our allies have been begging us to relent a bit. And we're now considering it. I don't understand why this is so absurd, or the source for continued knee-jerk egg throwing.

          • TJCook

            Nobody is jerking knees or throwing eggs.

            The point is that the Conservatives have a litany of contradictory and shifting positions on the war. If soldiers bear the responsibility of fighting a war, political leaders bear the responsibility to at least maintain a clear mission.

            Look here (http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/08/abbott-costello-go-to-war/) to see what we're talking about.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            Did you ready my post? I summarized in relatively short order what their position has been. It's not Chinese. They set a hard withdrawal goal. They're now backing of a bit, with good reason. But you Liberals can play politics and have fun with this all you want. It's basically my original point here.

          • TJCook

            Dude, even by your standards, this is gibberish.

            Incidentally, I may be liberal but I'm not a Liberal.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            Then why are you completely incapable of responding to it other than with this lazy, unintelligent, and ignorant verbal farting? God. You know, hatred and resentment ain't no way to go through life. It also makes you look stupid. I'm sorry. You want to make these kinds of insulting posts, I'll respond in kind. Next.

          • TJCook

            Well, with all this egg-throwing, knee-jerking and farting here, it's a wonder you take the time to educate us with your wisdom.

            "Then why are you completely incapable of responding to it…"

            Because I don't speak gibberish.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            No, you're too stupid and hateful to respond. You're making that quite obvious.

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            I'm not so sure they "set a hard withdrawal policy". That's certainly what they want us all to THINK they did, but read the motion again. There may be a hard policy of withdrawing from Kandahar by 2011 in there, but I'd call the motion mostly (ironically) silent on an actual withdrawal date for AFGHANISTAN.

            Also, it's certainly not absurd to consider the thinking of our allies. It should be noted, however, that the thinking of our allies hasn't really CHANGED at all in the last several years, so it does seem a bit strange to have apparently ignored it all of this time and to just get around to considering it now, but I can't speak for how our government makes it's decisions. I mean, if you listen to the government's main spokespeople (and those of the opposition as well) you'd get the impression that Parliament passed a resolution calling on us to remove combat troops from Afghanistan by 2011, so I'm not entirely convinced that any of our Parliamentarians actually read the motions that they pass.

            The problem here I think (one of all parties) is that everybody on the Hill wants the voters to think Parliament said X, when they really said Y. And it's super confusing, because half of the House is doing that because they wish the motion HAD said Y, and the other half is doing so because they hope voters will think it DOES say Y, 'cause while they'd never have let themselves be committed to Y on paper, they want everyone to THINK they've committed to Y because they think that Y is what the people want. So roughly half of the House wants the Tories bound by "Parliament's will" and roughly half of the House wants the Tories to appear to be following "Parliament's will" and no one really wants to touch the fact that the motion that Parliament actually passed doesn't go nearly as far as everyone's rhetoric would suggest it does.

          • Mike T.

            I have to admit that I always thought Canadians – even soldiers – could be sticking around in a non-combat role and I had no problem with it.

            I don't recall Peter Mackay running around screaming "all or nothing!"

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            True, no one was running around screaming all or nothing, but I do feel like the Tories have painted themselves into a bit of a box rhetorically. Even though the motion was never about when we'd leave Afghanistan (or even when we'd stop combat operations in Afghanistan, frankly) everyone's certainly acted as thought that's what it said, and I'm reasonably certain that this is the impression that the public at large has been left with. In reality, we could still be engaging in full-on tank battles with entire divisions in Afghanistan (though not Khandahar) until 2100, and we could still technically honour the motion passed by Parliament, but the Tories have generally painted the 2001 withdrawal in such stark terms that I fear they could have some trouble even selling non-combat roles for military personel to a sceptical public.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            Well, if you're suggesting that the hard withdrawal stance was always wishy washy, and done politically to sever the Tories from the war, I'll agree. But I don't think it's as egregious as the egg throwers would have us believe. The war has been politicized for far too long, especially by the opposition — who have tried to make Afghanistan look like Iraq since the Tories took power.

  • Orson Bean

    So we are secretly ruled by the Elders of Zion?

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      Well, it's not a secret ANY MORE!!!

      Nice move Orson. Reeeaaaal smooth.

      • BCer in Mtl

        I guess this is a case of what might be called "Spilled Beans"

  • Mike T.

    Mine is still funnier.

  • Style

    That made me laugh. Thanks.

  • Mike T.

    another clear win for me, then!

  • Style

    Absolutely, feel free to brag to friends and family or to impress your colleagues.

  • Mike T.

    Thank you one and all!

    I would like to thank the conservatives, even the more articulate ones, for making it so easy!

  • Kevin

    And the little people. Don't forget the little people.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ottawa_Centrist Ottawa_Centrist

    yawn.

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

    Wow, you farters are putting in quite the effort today, aren't you.

  • Style

    Aren't they conservatives?

  • larslindstrom

    Maybe Mini-me's a conservative, but most of the little people i know are staunch pirate party members…

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ottawa_Centrist Ottawa_Centrist

    I tried to equal your efforts with more succinct language.

From Macleans