Beyond The Commons

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

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

‘I think it is the best decision when one looks at the options’

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, November 11, 2010 12:05pm - 40 Comments

The Prime Minister confirms a change in his position on the mission in Afghanistan.

“Look, I’m not going to kid you,” he said. “Down deep, my preference would be, would have been, to see a complete end to the military mission. But as we approach that date, the facts on the ground convince me that the Afghan military needs further training. I don’t want to risk the gains that Canadian soldiers have fought for and that they have sacrificed in such significant numbers for by pulling out too early if we can avoid that. I think if we can continue a smaller mission that involves just training, I think frankly that presents minimal risks to Canada but it helps us ensure that the gains we’ve made our continued … to truly ensure that the Afghan forces are able over the next couple of years to take over true responsibility for their security. So I do this with some reluctance but I think it is the best decision when one looks at the options.”

Tags: Afghanistan, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

Mike T.

This seems a reasonable position, and I expect it to last at least 20 minutes.

I will now treat Harper like information from the Fraser Institute – the default is "untrue" unless confirmed by a more credible source.

LaxAtlDfwYow

I think that's the position more and more people are taking with respect to this PM.

I'm sympathetic, indeed supportive, of changing plans in the face of changing circumstances. But this PM's never wrong, never apologize, never explain approach has me, frankly, disbelieving virtually everything that comes out of his mouth.

Emily

'“Look, I’m not going to kid you,” he said'….as he admits he's been kidding us all along.

We went there on a NATO section 5 call-out….to help the Americans find bin Laden. When that mission died, instead of coming home we've found excuse after excuse to stay there. Reconstruction, educating women, establishing democracy and so on. When each of those died out, instead of coming home, we've decided on another one….training.

Never mind that the Afghans, having thrown out everyone from Alexander the Great to the Soviets, don't need any 'training' from us….in fact we'd be better off if we learned insurgent/guerilla warfare from them!

That might actually come in handy some day….but the idea we're training THEM is ludicrous. It's just another excuse to stay and pretend we're important at the NATO table.

kcm

I think you may be missing a more important point: why did the feel the need to tell us those excuses? [ each of those reasons for staying have some validity] This is an old sad story as far as politics goes. They couldn't trust us with the truth. It has proved much more difficult to dislodge the taliban than they anticipated. [ i wouldn't be surprised if no real thought went into this point at all] The real reason is fear of the taliban returning, but if they gave this as the main justification it would lead to the logical follow up question – for how long? The answer – 20years or a generation or so, was just too much truth to trust the people with. God knows…they might even demand an imediate departure. There are times when i think politics is nothing more than the art of avoiding telling the children [us] the truth at all costs,because they think either we can't handle it or we just might take a very different view.

Mike T.

The big "wink'wink" moment is when he states his actual preference is complete withdrawal – from a guy who pledged 5 years ago he would rather lose an election than desert the mission.

John W.

Cut and run.

Emily

Karzai is in peace talks with the Taliban, and NATO is facilitating this….so they aren't going to be 'dislodged'.

In fact they were never in any danger of being 'dislodged'. The rest is just window-dressing.

Reverend_Blair

I keep thinking about George Carlin's explanation for the continuation of the Vietnam War. "Pull out, doesn't sound manly to me."

SamDavies

Furthermore, talk about exploiting sentiment from Remembrance Day…

Mike T.

And now for a moment of sil – WE WILL REMAIN IN AFGHANISTAN INDEFINITELY

John W.

Better to stay than ever become a veteran.

LdKitchenersOwn

This does indeed seem reasonable, and should have been the FIRST thing we heard about a change to our mission in Afghanistan, not the 123rd thing. It's pretty clear to me that the PM should have said this AT LEAST a week ago. Also, frankly, if it takes one until November of 2010 to determine that the Afghan military needs more training, just how closely have you been following the war?

This "yes" is all well and good, but this exact same paragraph could have been spoken by the PM at pretty much any time in the last two years, during which time all that he or anyone in cabinet have had to say about such a notion as this is "no, no, no, how much clearer can we be than 'no'?"

I note too that Parliament was never mentioned by the PM in the story. Given the number of times the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers have INSISTED that they're following the will of Parliament, and bound by a Parliamentary motion, is it not at least a little bit surprising that the government's rhetoric can do a 180 apparently without the PM mentioning Parliament in his first words on the subject?
brooster2

If trainers are going to be effective, they'll have to do much of their work "outside the wire". And they'll be with trainees of "indifferent" commitment and ability, not their competent Canadian comrades. So, they'll be as much at risk as the current Canadian contingent of combatants.

Regrettably, the casualties will continue.
tobyornotoby

I never believed it when they made the commitment; that was just a delaying tactic to defuse demands for withdrawal during the 2008 election.

The honest truth is that we have never had a Canadian government willing to tell us the real reasons it wants us to go war, including the abomination that was World War 1.

Instead of remembering the armistice of the war to end all wars, today we are cynically engaged in "celebrating" the latest war, pretending that our troops are sacrificing their lives for our freedom when they are actually pawns in a gambit for Canada to have geo-political influence.

It disgusts me that the Liberals and Conservatives aren't able to agree on anything but lying to us about why we should have troops in Afghanistan.

SamDavies

"The honest truth is that we have never had a Canadian government willing to tell us the real reasons it wants us to go war, including the abomination that was World War 1. "

You don't seem to have a good grasp on the control that the Canadian government had over foreign policy during that part of our history. When Britain declared war on Germany, as members of the Empire, we were in automatically in.

Mike T.

Furthermore, "Aye, Ready, Aye" Borden was quite willing to tell Canadians why he wanted to go to war.

SamDavies

I'm not sure I understand. Borden's attitude was not some bizarre anomaly – this type of sentiment was extremely popular amongst the majority of Canadians, especially when war was first declared. It's important that when you look at these things, you don't judge them by modern standards that did not exist as the event occurred.

On a personal note, I have a soft spot for Borden. It was not easy to be a PM at that time, and have marginalized power and influence over what was happening to Canadian soldiers. The one thing that always impressed me is how he skipped out on many of the decadent events held for allied leaders, opting to travel and visit wounded Canadian soldiers in hospitals.

Mike T.

I was mentioning that the first poster said the government mainly lies to Canadians about its reasons for war. I have no doubt Borden was being genuine, right or wrong.
SamDavies

Fair enough. I erroneously thought you were poking fun with the "Aye, Ready, Aye". I blame my soft spot!

tobyornotoby

And that's what they said, right? We're in this war because we have to?

And conscription wasn't a choice, either. And all that propaganda about the Kaiser and his huns, that was just explaining the relative position of subordinate territories?

SamDavies

You're jumping all over the place – attitudes towards the war at its start (where the boys would be back before Xmas) differed as it waged on (leading to conscription). You can't simply lump it all up – that's not how it played out.

As I mentioned in my above comment, you can't judge the time-period via modern eyes.
Attitudes to war were very very different prior to Vietnam. It was considered not only a very natural thing, but also what made a country great. People were not duped into this at all – it was the world view of the time.

Look – I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but I'm getting the feeling that your knowledge on this great event is based on the reading of a wikipedia article…

tobyornotoby

You're doing a good job of sounding like a jerk without trying then.

I'm saying our leadership has never been honest about why Canada is participating in any given war, and you're quibbling. Our leadership manipulated opinion to get the implied consent to do what they wanted to do for their own reasons then, and they are doing it now.
SamDavies

So what you're saying is that you don't like to be called to task on generalizations?

Without a doubt, propaganda has always been used as a tool to maintain consent.
I'm just not sure that I understand what you think the "honest" reasons were for Canadians being involved in the Great War.

And who is kidding who – when it comes to war – what country has ever been really "honest" about why they are doing it? No one sees themselves as "the bad guys".
sourstud

Wait, I thought WW1 was Busharper's fault!

BGLong

Never mind. All the editorial armchair warrior corps are out in solid support. I'm sure
they're looking forward to the opening of their assigned boot camp so they can put
their flabby asses where their martial mouths are. Punks.
brooster2

Which is why I noted the qualifying condition "if [they] are going to be effective". They can do simulations, exercises, mock-ups, role-playing ad nauseum but, to assess the impact of their training and to utilize the most "teachable" moments, it makes sense that they'll need to see their trainees in the heat of real combat situations.

Mike T.

Our own troops aren't considered "ineffective" when trained during years in which we aren't at war.

brooster2

Agreed. I guess time will tell as to how much risk the Canadians will encounter in this new role. I just can't see them staying behind the wire while they're performing this role.

LdKitchenersOwn

The PM does seem pretty insistent that all our troops will do is "behind the wire" stuff (though, yeah, I know, wait 48 hours…). I don't think it's implausible that an arrangement could be made whereby our troops do the behind the wire training, and some other troops do the in field shadowing. It may not be as effective as having one group do both (or, Hell, what do I know, maybe it's MORE effective!) but I do think that, right now (November 11th at 4:22 pm) this is what the PM is saying we're going to do.

SamDavies

Lol – looks like you beat me to it by a couple of minutes!
PeterboroDave

Two things leap out at me.

1- He didn't mention the coalition (!)
2- He sounds completely reasonable (!!)

So, why can't he be this way all the time?

sourstud

Because for a change he knows he has the leader of the opposition on his side (mostly), as opposed to sniping from the sidelines and opposing for the sake of opposing. In this instance, Iggy should give Harper (and the military) his full support.

bergkamp

"The White House is pushing back against a report from McClatchy Newspapers claiming that the Obama administration is easing away from aspects of President Barack Obama's plan for withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

"The Obama administration has decided to begin publicly walking away from what it once touted as key deadlines in the war in Afghanistan in an effort to deemphasize President Barack Obama's pledge that he would begin withdrawing U.S. forces in July 2011," McClatchy's Nancy Youssef reported, citing undisclosed administration and military officials.

However, a White House official told POLITICO Thursday: "There's no new emphasis here; there's no de-empahsizing." Politico, Nov 10

My first attempt at this is caught up in moderation.

Leaders are having second thoughts, apparently. Obama admin issued non-denial denial about changing their minds on how quickly to withdraw US troops.
pdpd

It's telling that a common feeling is arising here:

a)wait, this is Harper at his most sympathetic and reasonable that we've ever heard him on foreign policy/Afghanistan
b)why has it taken years and years to get to this place, which is basically where the Canadian mainstream has lived for years (i.e. Afghanistan mission is a mess, but maybe better than alternatives when everything is taken together).

If Harper acted like this on a lot of tricky files (deficit, economy, health care, Israel (cringe, waiting for flamewar), climate change, UAE landing rights, immigration, etc.), he'd gain a lot of respect from the mainstream. Not that he really needs the mainstream to stay PM, but he does need them to win either a majority or the long term reputation of a statesman.

Emily

I don't see any 'fuzzy blue sweater' moment here, or any sympathy for one either. The 'mainstream' wants out.

pdpd

Sure, fine, whatever. There is a difference between wearing a lame sweater or cowboy hat, and actually wrestling with problems in an open manner.

To this point, Harper has downplayed nuance in favour of "leadership" under the guise of never admitting ambiguity or error. Israel is easy. Afghanistan is easy. Climate change is easy. Health care has been solved by the self-declared fiscal balance. The economy has been solved by GST and corporate tax cuts, and only more of the same is needed going forward.

But, that narrative could fall apart should it be pointed out that, no, none of those things are easy. If they were easy they wouldn't be problems. Harper won't fall by the Liberals making him look nasty. He'll fall when they point out he's incompetent (at least, in their view). And the easiest charicature is of a guy who says things are easy when they aren't, because then "leadership" can look just like "dummy who's never had a real job or who has real expertise, and who is out of ideas and out of his depth".

Now, I'm not entirely convinced any of the above is true. But if I was Harper's chief of staff, I'd tell him to run away from "everything is simple and I've never made a mistake", to instead articulate that "in these troubled times, you need someone who understands the complex issues, and who is determined to make the best decision possible, no matter how difficult it might be". At the very least, it will drive down liberal donations and make Lawrence Martin's job a little tougher.

Emily

This flip-flop may in fact cause a backlash against Harper. He lied.

http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.com The Jurist

“Look, I’m not going to kid you,” he said. “Down deep, my preference would be, would have been, to see a complete end to the military mission."

Lest anybody give too much credit to Harper, let's ask one important question: since when?

At every point where there's been an opportunity to join or extend a combat mission since he assumed the leadership of the Cons, he's pushed to entangle Canada in as much as possible, and derided anybody who argued against that position. And even with the 2011 end date, it was the Cons accepting that deadline as the price of a further extension at a time when the Libs were saying they wouldn't otherwise accept one.

So it looks to me like Harper is once again blatantly rewriting history to pretend he's being reasonable, rather than looking for whatever excuse he can to keep along the path of staying indefinitely that he'd probably prefer.

sourstud

It was the Liberals who signed us up for Afghanistan. It was the Liberals who put us in Kandahar, the most dangerous part of Afghanistan. It was the Liberals who first extended the mission. The Liberals have voted for every extension of the mission since then, without caveat. The Liberals support this current extension of the mission.

And somehow out of all of this you see the Conservative's as war-mongers? I suggest you look in the mirror before accusing others of rewriting history.

NorthernPoV

The British army loses a war of attrition in Afghanistan – not long after celebrating their rapid victories taking (temporary) control of the cities. (sound familiar?) It happened in 1842
Here's an image of Dr. William Brydon, a British Army surgeon as he exits Kabul – as the lone remnant of the British invasion. http://www.afghanistan-photos.com/crbst_31.html
What happened sinse 1842?
Get fresh troops from: Britain, Russia, NATO, USA, etc etc
rinse and repeat

If only we'd really remember stuff on Selective-Remembrance Day.