The Shotgun Blog
« Did McCain plagiarize one of his POW stories? | Main | Is Canada Post on the chopping block? »
Monday, August 18, 2008
Afghanistan Independence Day: Emerson vs Young on how to mark the occasion
Minister of Foreign Affairs, David Emerson, issued a press release today wishing the people and government of Afghanistan a happy (he didn't use that word) independence day, which is officially celebrated on August 19th.
“Canada congratulates the Afghan people and their government as they celebrate their national day. So much has been achieved as Afghans have worked to rebuild their country, fully supported by the international community and the UN-mandated mission to which Canadian men and women have so proudly contributed,” said Emerson.
“The Afghan people can continue to count on Canada as we change the focus of our engagement in Afghanistan from security to development and diplomacy, with an emphasis on Kandahar province,” continued Emerson.
The Afghan people can, in fact, continue to count on Canada, at least until 2011, when Canada’s combat mission is scheduled to end. Dennis Young, Libertarian Party leader and a veteran of NATO operations in Bosnia, thinks that is too long for troops to be in the region.
“We should help the Afghans celebrate their independence by marking the national day next year by withdrawing the last of our troops from the region,” said Young. “Our presence in Afghanistan is not achieving national security objectives. It looks more and more like an expensive nation building entanglement that is costing lives.”
It’s hard to argue that nation building hasn’t eclipsed national security objectives in Afghanistan.
In his Afghanistan independence day statement, Emerson said “Canada’s ‘signature’ projects of education, polio eradication, and repair of the Dahla Dam are testimony to our enduring commitment to improve the quality of Afghan lives while deepening our partnership with the Afghan government.”
While education and polio eradication are important projects, rather than transition from “security to development” as Emerson suggests, Young is arguing that it’s time to leave altogether. “I don’t hear clear statements from this government about specific national security objectives. I hear fluffy rhetoric about development in Afghanistan -- but I don’t hear how our daily efforts in the region are making life for Canadians safer,” said Young.
Young is not the only one who’s unhappy with how the Conservatives are communicating their Afghanistan objectives. An Angus Reid poll in July showed that less than three-in-ten Canadians think the Harper government has effectively explained the reasons behind the Afghanistan mission. At the time of this poll, a press release from Harper seemed to provide good evidence of this.
In a statement on the tragic death of Corporal Brendan Anthony Downey, Harper said that "Our Canadian Forces are making an immense sacrifice to bring security to the people of Afghanistan, all the while protecting Canada's values.”
Missing from this statement, of course, is a clear reference to the national security objectives of the Afghanistan mission, which Young is calling for. Are we really in Afghanistan to bring security to the people of Afghanistan? What about our own security objectives? And is the absence of Canadian values sufficient reason to invade a foreign country and sacrifice the lives of Canadian soldiers? Canadian values are absent from most of the world.
Young was dismissive of this statement by Harper: “What’s next? Will Harper send soldiers to the Netherlands to force them to shut down their red light districts? While I would like to see Western values dominate the world, we can not and should not do that militarily. To kill someone to make them live more like us is counterproductive to say the least.”
The Globe and Mail reported yesterday that in an open letter the Taliban threatened to kill more Canadians if Canadian troops do not pull out of Afghanistan.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on August 18, 2008 in International Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e553f10aaa8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Afghanistan Independence Day: Emerson vs Young on how to mark the occasion:
Comments
"The Globe and Mail reported yesterday that in an open letter the Taliban threatened to kill more Canadians if Canadian troops do not pull out of Afghanistan."
I'm SO scared!
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-08-18 7:52:47 PM
My idea of supporting the Troops (and I do) is to bring them home. Its a useless war engaged by useless politicians and its in a useless desert in a far away land, and the people of that land should be sorting it out for themselves.
They did nothing to Canada.
Its possible the whole thing is about a pipeline anyway. Here's an interesting take on the whole thing as it might have looked in 06.
The Surreal Politics of Premeditated War:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1203-21.htm
Posted by: JC | 2008-08-18 8:06:08 PM
And more power to the Troops themselves for doing whatever good they can.
Posted by: JC | 2008-08-18 8:06:55 PM
“What’s next? Will Harper send soldiers to the Netherlands to force them to shut down their red light districts?"
That is one of the most assinine, self-serving statements I have EVER heard anyone utter.
Then, to outdo himself, he hits an in-the-park home run with this next pearl of stupidity....
"To kill someone to make them live more like us is counterproductive to say the least.”
Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2008-08-18 8:29:52 PM
Canadian Observer,
I read your comment before reading this post. I thought for sure you must be responding to another commentator here, on the Shotgun. Maybe someone who wandered in from one of the sillier parts of the Internet.
Then I scrolled up. All the way up. Oy. I expected a little more from Young, that's for sure.
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-08-18 8:40:45 PM
“We should help the Afghans celebrate their independence by marking the national day next year by withdrawing the last of our troops from the region,” said Young. “Our presence in Afghanistan is not achieving national security objectives. It looks more and more like an expensive nation building entanglement that is costing lives.”
--
Well said Mr. Young.
Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2008-08-18 9:46:42 PM
Zeb makes a good point. He isn't afraid of being attacked by the Taliban. So, why are we there?
CO: Can you be more specific? What is silly about
"To kill someone to make them live more like us is counterproductive to say the least.”
Posted by: attitude | 2008-08-18 10:16:36 PM
If Canada should withdraw from Afghanistan, then it must prepare for war. Canada's enemies would be strengthened by a withdrawal because such a move would signal pure cowardice and lack of moral and intellectual merit. Then Canadians would argue forever about 'the wrong move'. [Canadians must stay the course as though it were a way of life.]
Posted by: dewp | 2008-08-18 11:52:49 PM
dewp
We're all entitled to our opinion and I respect yours. However, does it not occur to you that we are fighting a war that was brought about by US foreign intervention? That Canadians are dying so that the US can have permanent bases around the oil supplies? The West has been manipulating and supporting brutal governments in the middle east for decades and the people of those nations are obviously unhappy with that situation. So, are our enemies simply people who want out from under the brutal dictatorships that were put in place by the west? I don't condone "terrorism" on any level but is it wise to engage in a "forever war"?
Maybe its time we used our military to defend "our" nation and stop fighting for the business interests of other nations. I personally place a very high value on our troops and don't believe they should be fighting for Exxon.
Posted by: JC | 2008-08-19 6:28:15 AM
You tell who Emerson is, but don't give Young's position or even first name? Now THAT'S inside baseball.
Posted by: Matt | 2008-08-19 8:18:44 AM
Good catch, Matt. It was just sloppy writing. I've fixed it, adding Young's first name to the story.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-19 10:10:48 AM
Threats by the Taliban really aren't all that scary, because "if" they could kill more Canadians and Americans they "would" be doing it.
Posted by: glen | 2008-08-19 11:45:57 AM
Right glen: So if they aren't a threat, why did we invade?
Posted by: attitude | 2008-08-19 1:02:29 PM
attitude: good question. Why did we invade? I really couldn't tell you based on information I get from the t.v. and newspapers. I do mean the Taliban are'nt really a threat in Afganistan, but they are a threat in Canada& the U.S. because we are allowing them to set up shop here. It's just a matter of "when".
Posted by: glen | 2008-08-19 1:19:02 PM
An amazingly frank and critical opinion piece. Is it a voice in the dark, or is it a rising sentiment that is gathering critical mass?
Most amazing to me is that this is not found on some backwater weirdo website, this is right from the front page of Marketwatch, which in financial terms is pretty well mainline news.
Election is in November. Could it be that another dark horse could emerge?
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/why-we-love-americas-outrageous/story.aspx?guid=%7B0D31C880%2D32CD%2D4BA1%2D8133%2D329EA57CB069%7D
Posted by: JC | 2008-08-19 4:41:12 PM
Glen: "I do mean the Taliban aren't really a threat in Afganistan, but they are a threat in Canada & the U.S. because we are allowing them to set up shop here."
Can you explain? The Taliban has attacked how many times in Afghanistan and has killed how many soldiers? And how many attacks have they committed in Canada?
Please clarify because that statement sounds ridiculous.
Posted by: attitude | 2008-08-19 5:06:13 PM
attitude: Yes the taliban have killed our soldiers, and our soldiers have killed far more Taliban. According to the news the U.S. & Canadian troops are kicking some butt over there. And yes as in any war there is always going to be casualties on both sides. You don't actually think there is never going to be a terrorist attack in Canada do you? We have people here that hate us, and yes they are setting up shop here, because our government isn't really in the position of [deporting for instance], anyone who preaches hatred on their websites etc. We as taxpayers are even supporting this by giving these people welfare, amongst other things.
Posted by: glen | 2008-08-19 6:16:50 PM
OK Glen: Using your logic that the Taliban are very dangerous in Canada and not so dangerous in Afghanistan:
Should we not be pulling the troops home where the danger is? Didn't the Georgians pull out of Iraq to fight the Russians? Protecting the homeland has always been the first priority of a military.
Posted by: attitude | 2008-08-19 10:53:53 PM
attitude, maybe you should ask someone in the military that question. I am not military trained so I really can't base an opnion on what to do with our troops. I'm only guessing but I do think sooner or later when we do pull our troops out of Afganistan its going to go back to the same old archaic drug infested place it's always been. How many cells are right here in Canada making money here to send over to the Taliban?, can't answer that either but I'm pretty sure it's happening.
Posted by: glen | 2008-08-19 11:58:18 PM
glen, just a thought...
sinse you mentioned "drug infested" a thought hit me.
The Taliban... drug runners.
The CIA... drug runners.
Maybe this is a "Turf War" :)
In which case...bring our troops home.
And the Taliban have been publicly funded by telethons in Saudi Arabia...you know "our friends" the Saudi's?
Posted by: JC | 2008-08-20 12:26:10 AM
That's a good thought JC, you just never know. Personally, I don't like reading about our soldiers getting killed for trying to help a country that will probably not go for democracy in the long run. So ya,bring em home.
Posted by: glen | 2008-08-20 12:58:28 AM
“What’s next? Will Harper send soldiers to the Netherlands to force them to shut down their red light districts?"
No need for that.
Mayor Job Cohen is alreay on the case.
*
"I'm only guessing but I do think sooner or later when we do pull our troops out of Afganistan its going to go back to the same old archaic drug infested place it's always been."
It is still archaic and will continue to be.
Speaking of drugs, did you know there's a raise in heroin importation to Canada since we're down there ?
Posted by: Marc | 2008-08-20 7:59:05 AM
The middle east conflict is about oil, we all know that. We need the oil, and we need to keep foreign interests from securing it. Of course when I say we, I'm referring to "the west".
If Afghanistan is an important piece of property because of a pipeline route, then I think the government needs to make that clear to everyone. I think enough of us would understand, and support the strategy. Only an idiot would ever believe a bunch of windmills are going to hold this society together.
If this mess is all about protecting our interests, then Canadian troops are appropriate. If it's more about corporate interests, then how about letting them provide their own security? If big oil companies were given the green light to set up their own security, they could probably have things under control in a short time. The US army already has a big bunch of contractors in Iraq. A private army wouldn't have to deal with all the political BS. They wouldn't have embedded reporters. The Geneva convention would be just a legend.
Posted by: dp | 2008-08-20 9:38:23 AM
The middle east conflict is about oil, we all know that. We need the oil, and we need to keep foreign interests from securing it. Of course when I say we, I'm referring to "the west".
Posted by: dp | 20-Aug-08 9:38:23 AM
That's an interesting statement because while oil is at the heart of the middle east conflict, whose interests are really being served? The US only imports about 12% of it's needs from the middle east. If the taps from the middle east were shut it would cause some hardship but the bulk could be made up from imports from elsewhere. Much if not all of North and South American is essentially oil independent of the middle east. So is the West fighting in the middle east so that ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP or Total can get a piece of the action? If that's the case we've been sold a bill of goods.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-20 10:48:19 AM
"So is the West fighting in the middle east so that ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP or Total can get a piece of the action? If that's the case we've been sold a bill of goods"
Hey Stig, Lets not forget Halliburton, The Carlyle Group and Blackwater.
For anyone who doesn't know who the Carlyle Group is, they are a munitions / arms dealer that is jointly owned by the Bush and Bin Laden families...cute huh?
Posted by: JC | 2008-08-20 11:34:13 AM
The Carlyle Group is more than an arms dealer. I think you'll find a couple of other interesting names attached to the Group. You'll also find the Group listed as having interest in a good many Canadian projects. Once you start peering through office windows, you'll come away more bewildered than you were in the first place.
Posted by: dp | 2008-08-20 11:43:48 AM
Hey Stig, Lets not forget Halliburton, The Carlyle Group and Blackwater.
Posted by: JC | 20-Aug-08 11:34:13 AM
I didn't forget them, the question was whose interests are being served?
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-20 11:44:41 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.