The notion that all is fair in politics and war, and that every situation is only about tactics, partisan advantage and endless games of gotcha, seems to have seized the imagination of some commentators about the decision to allow military trainers to stay behind the wire in Afghanistan.
“Liberals played for suckers” seems to sum up this view.
I guess if you think politics is all about holding a wet finger to the wind that would be true. But it’s worth remembering that the most popular politician in the western world in 1938 was Neville Chamberlain, whose placating of public opinion was best summarised when he told the world it wasn’t worth getting all worked up about an argument in a small far away country about which people knew very little.
No doubt there might be short term partisan advantage in playing to the gallery about its fatigue with the Afghanistan engagement. It is a difficult, frustrating, costly, and painful military and political conflict. It is hard to see a road to success, and hard as well to see much progress in the life and condition of the people. “Troops out now” would win much applause.
We went into Afghanistan with our NATO partners, with the full approval of the United Nations. It is one of the poorest countries in the world, ravaged by 30 years of civil war. Al Qaeda and other extremist groups have found a haven in the south of the country and the north of Pakistan.
Of course all issues are about politics. But some issues can transcend partisanship. In every other country in the NATO alliance there is multipartisan support for efforts in Afghanistan, a willingness to discuss options, in a climate of public candour.
Why should Canada be any different ? Our political culture is now all about trench warfare. Everything is supposed to seen through a partisan lens, and everything played to short term advantage. Anyone who asks “what’s best for Afghanistan ?”, or “what’s best for Canada, our role as a reliable member of NATO and the UN ?” is portrayed as some kind of poor sap who doesn’t “get” politics.
It’s called doing what you think is right, talking to the public about it, and worrying less about who gets credit. There’s something almost pathological about the state of our politics, to say nothing of political commentary, if we can’t have that kind of conversation.
There should continue to be a debate about Afghanistan, Pakistan, and how to deal with the range of failed and fragile states that are emerging across the world. But enough with the nonsense about who played the partisan game better.
No military presence will change the situation in Afganistan and no troop or police training unify this contry either. So what in the hell is Canada doing there. And what is the Liberal party proposition face with these facts. Please note that the Liberal party is becoming more like the Tories or the Tories are becoming more like the Liberal but whatever it is, I did not vote for the Tories and I will not vote for anything that looks like it.
Dear Hon. Bob Rae,
“What Canadians want is to bring the troops home now.”
This desire of Canadians is what transcends partisanship and politics. Listen. Listen to your constituents. Listen to Canadians. I agree with you about talking to the public about it.
I very much question the motives of what I see as very small group of military promoters of the so-called “mission”, invasion, and what has escalated into a war in Afghanistan. The initial invasion of Afghanistan, and yes it is an invasion, and it was carried out three weeks after the events of 9/11. After nine years, questions about the events of 9/11 remain. Check out http://buildingwhat.org/
I am discussing this with family and friends and writing letters to Members of Parliament. Most respond that they totally agree that “What Canadians want is to bring the troops home now.” I am not seeking applause, I am demanding action from politicians of all the parties to carry out the wishes of Canadians. You do not answer to NATO, the UN, or whatever some international organization wants: you need to answer to what Canadians want.
I appreciate you reading.
An intelligent and thoughtful response. Thank you.
“It’s called doing what you think is right, talking to the public about it, and worrying less about who gets credit. ”
What is dissapointing is that when you did talk about it, you seem to have lied. I read the piece in the Globe and Mail this morning. For months, you said that you needed detail and that while you supported the concept of staying the devil is in the detail, well it seems that you did have detail…..just last week you claimed that you only got one phone call outlining a vague position, but according to the Globe THAT was not true either…….did you tell Michael Ignatieff or did you keep it quiet so that when he asserted the same in the media or demanded answers in the HOC he would look either foolish or like a liar as well?
You seem to want to dismiss the poltical game like you are above it all……why on earth would I ever donate money to this party when it seems like you are perfectly satisfied all running with your own agendas, not supporting the leader, doing a really poor job with the donations you have in the communications area and not working towards some sort of goal of leading government…….
You comment that….”There’s something almost pathological about the state of our politics, to say nothing of political commentary, if we can’t have that kind of conversation.”
Of course there is, what a complete and utter statement of the obvious….but that is the state of things today and if you don’t learn to work within the abject state of ridiculousness that serves as discourse these days in the media, you will lose every time and still wonder what went wrong……
Don’t get me wrong, I think you would make one terrific Foreign Affairs Minister……but you need to get elected to at least a minority to do that and it won’t be had if there is not unity and a cohesiveness in the party.
I am not ruling out a donation to the party……but I will bide my time until I get the sense that my donation will go towards a goal of gaining government with Michael Ignatieff as leader.
The problem here is Mr. Harper’s unilateral decision making process. There should have been a vote!
To say this will be non combative is an insult to Canadians and our Troops.