Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Tax cuts are coming | Main | An optimist? »

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Being cowardly about being cowardly

It's a legitimate point of view to argue that Canada should abandon Afghanistan. I disagree with it, but I can understand it. Quitting Afghanistan makes sense if you think that Canadian soldiers should never fight real wars, but should only be "peacekeepers" after the dangerous work is done; if you think that Canada has no national interest in Afghanistan; if you're a politician and want to win peacenik votes; to name a few reasons.

The Globe and Mail has uploaded a recording of Stephane Dion's comments to their editorial board about pulling out of Afghanistan. Pressed repeatedly, Dion -- who was part of Paul Martin's cabinet that decided to send troops to Afghanistan in the first place -- simply refused to answer whether he'd pull out Canadian troops if no other country would replace them. He just wouldn't acknowledge the serious fact that Canada quitting means that the Taliban, not the Americans, would rule Kandahar. He just didn't want to talk about it, switching the subject repeatedly. This is not a man ready for the life-and-death decisions of foreign policy.

With a little editing, the tape is a ready-made radio ad for the Conservatives in the next election.

Posted by Ezra Levant on September 27, 2007 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Being cowardly about being cowardly:


This guy makes Layton, the madman, look at least coherent and sensible.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-09-27 11:21:18 AM

Of course Canadians should be able to fight "real wars" but the Afghanistan mission is flawed. When will this war be won? What is the desired outcome? A stable moderate central government with significant control over the tribal warlords, elimination of the poppy trade, an elimination of Taliban and Al Quida insurgencies, stability in the country? All of that is desirable but is it possible without a serious effort to crack some heads in the largely ungoverned mountainous region of Pakistan in close proximity to the Afghani border? I think not.

Posted by: Cynic | 2007-09-27 1:38:53 PM

"When will this war be won? What is the desired outcome?"

Those same questions could have been asked before WW II. Thank God our leaders did not contemplate them - they had a war to win. That came first!

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-27 1:47:58 PM

If the CF pulls out of Kandahar (for the 2nd time) and no European country can be bribed into replacing us the US will. If the US assigned a battalion sized task force and PRT they would need about 1000 troops to replace Canada as they would not need to replace all of the base and HQ personnel we have. By Feb 2009 the US will easily have an extra battalion available for Afghanistan from the troops withdrawn from Iraq and the Afghan Army should have at least another three battalions ready for deployment. The question of our continued role has very little to do with surrendering the province to the Taliban. The primary Canadian concerns are realy whether Hillier's expansion of the CF will be derailed, the future of NATO and if the government's desire to be a "middle power" again is curtailed.

Posted by: Fred T. Ward | 2007-09-27 3:09:44 PM

If we pull out in 2009, I would encourage Canadian men and women to enroll in the US Armed Forces and fight for western values that way.


Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-09-27 3:19:39 PM

OBC, with all due respect, your statement is rather ignorant. WW II was very clear in terms of what the allied forces needed to do and a plan of attack was established on all the necessary fronts. Currently, there is no plan to achieve victory. The hotbed of the enemy is in the aforementioned region of Pakistan. Nothing is being done about it and it's affecting our efforts in a very negative way.

Posted by: Cynic | 2007-09-28 2:06:21 PM

"The hotbed of the enemy is in the aforementioned region of Pakistan."


It is in Bali, Iraq, Sudan, Philipines, Chechnya, Israel, Lebanon, India, Londonistan, Eurabia, northwest China, etc. etc. etc.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 2:12:20 PM

Cynic: Tell that to all the Thais being killed by Islamists, and all the Iraqi's, Indians, etc.

Posted by: Markalta | 2007-09-28 2:17:20 PM

Markalta ~

Thanks! Thailand should have been first on my list, what with the daily murders going on there, perpetrated by the Religion of Pieces.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 2:20:08 PM

Ok, so your solution is to wipe out all Islamists around the world? Is this achievable - are you recommending another 100 Year War to achieve this? Don't you realize that aside from Islamists being a problem, there are specific regional/local tensions that have existed for generations? Can't you take the blinders off for one second to realize that the Palestinian issue and Afghanistan issue have different origins and require different solutions? CRAPOLA? That's your response?

Posted by: Cynic | 2007-09-28 2:24:08 PM

Same solution - eradication. Their goals are one and the same - our elimination. Tit for tat, no matter how long it takes. Otherwise, we will be the dead ones.

You can't negotiate with men who want you dead - other than to negotiate if they will kill you this week or next week.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 2:28:18 PM

And for those who want to see how this war is truly faring, read this:


Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 2:44:47 PM

Well, I understand your view now although I think lumping in every single regional conflict into one big Al Quaida global threat is simplistic and wrong. There are many Muslim paramilitary groups and people who would otherwise be considered terrorists who oppose Al Quaida. They care only about gaining/preserving power in their area and they do now want to wage war on all things democratic and western. The world is more complex than you think.

And what about the issue of Pakistan? Are you not aware that much of the Taliban and Al Quaida reinforcements are coming from regions in Pakistan? Should this not be addressed if we are to succeed in Afghanistan?

Posted by: Cynic | 2007-09-28 2:46:47 PM

Typo: should read "they do NOT want to wage war..."

Posted by: Cynic | 2007-09-28 2:47:57 PM

Read the above link in my last post, and Pakistan will be clearer for you.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 2:54:30 PM

Look--I think the motion on the floor is that some people in Canada would like to see the Canadian Forces, (or is that forthese)go around the world, in pink urban camoflage uniforms, with limp wrists, singing to the tune of the late and not so great Tiny Tim--Tip Toe, Through the Tulips!--M16 not included.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-09-28 3:23:44 PM

Oh, my picture of the situation is very clear, don't worry about it. If this blog entry you linked to is factually correct, it sounds like good work is finally being done about the safe haven in Pakistan. Unfortunately, most objective analyses do not paint a rosy picture of this situation. This blog entry does and I hope it's correct.

Posted by: Cynic | 2007-09-28 11:12:15 PM

A good reference obc. I also hope that it is true. I have to wonder though why Peter MacKay and Hamid Karsai are willing to talk to the Taliban. When you have an enemy on the run, is it not best to bury him?

Posted by: DML | 2007-09-29 10:02:41 PM

HAHA, enemy on the run?? Did you not see what happened in Kabul today? Oh, I guess not, since the Western Standard can't even get their fortnightly "newspaper" printed and released on time, I doubt they'd report an incident that happened within the last 24 hours.

Posted by: Lefty_99 | 2007-09-29 10:32:45 PM

So Taliban Jack wants to negotiate with the Taliban. The terrorists have replied:

"Taliban Balks at Peace Talks, Demands U.S., NATO, Leave Afghanistan"

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — The Taliban will "never" negotiate with Afghan authorities until U.S. and NATO forces leave the country, a spokesman for the group said Sunday, again rebuffing an overture for peace talks from President Hamid Karzai.

Karzai said Saturday he would be willing to meet personally with Taliban leader Mullah Omar and give militants a position in government in exchange for peace. But Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi repeated a position he announced earlier this month, saying there would be no negotiations until U.S. and NATO troops withdraw from Afghanistan.

"The Taliban will never negotiate with the Afghan government in the presence of foreign forces," Ahmadi told The Associated Press. "Even if Karzai gives up his presidency, it's not possible that Mullah Omar would agree to negotiations. The foreign forces don't have the authority to talk about Afghanistan."

SURE THEY'LL TALK - when Nato leaves - so they can attack the fledgling government without interference. That's what terrorists want - negotiations until they get the upper hand again. Dippers are naive losers!

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-30 9:40:07 AM

And look who the Dippers want or=t talk to - people who hang homosexuals & destroy artistic culture:

"Militants fail to destroy Buddhist carvings in Swat"

MINGORA - Pro-Taliban militants failed in another attempt to blow up rock carvings of Buddha in Swat district, police said on Saturday. The militants, late Saturday night, tried to destroy the Buddha carvings through powerful explosives but failed in their attempt in the Jahanabad area of Swat Valley. Police sources said shrapnel from the blast hit the rock but didn’t damage the Buddhist images. “It appears to be the work of the local militants who condemn these relics as being un-Islamic,” police said.

IT'S ALL part of the Taliban's 1% for Destroying the Arts programme. And in Egypt, their allies have declared that the pyramids too must be destroyed for having no connection to Islam.
...and as usual, not a peep from the leftist "art-loving" pro-Osama Dippers.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-30 10:04:27 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.