Canada to stay in Afghanistan
The Globe and Mail has the breaking news:
The minority Conservative government was supported by just enough Liberals (including noted academic and party leadership hopeful Michael Ignatieff) to put the motion over the top.
Canada has about 2,300 troops in Afghanistan. And, according to the Globe, "Canada has... been asked by NATO to consider taking over the command of the entire Afghanistan mission in 2008".
Yet public opinion is deeply divided over Canada's military presence in Afghanistan. Sixteen Canadian troops have been killed there since 2002. The latest was Nichola Goddard: "A female Canadian soldier was killed Wednesday during an intense firefight with Taliban insurgents near Kandahar, marking what is believed to be the first death of a Canadian woman in combat in more than 60 years."
The debate will continue.
A motion to extend Canada's mission in Afghanistan narrowly passed in the House of Commons Wednesday night despite a lack of support from the NDP and the Bloc Québécois.
The motion, which squeaked through 149-145, called for the support of the House in extending the military mission by two-years, after its current commitment expires in February 2007.
The minority Conservative government was supported by just enough Liberals (including noted academic and party leadership hopeful Michael Ignatieff) to put the motion over the top.
Canada has about 2,300 troops in Afghanistan. And, according to the Globe, "Canada has... been asked by NATO to consider taking over the command of the entire Afghanistan mission in 2008".
Yet public opinion is deeply divided over Canada's military presence in Afghanistan. Sixteen Canadian troops have been killed there since 2002. The latest was Nichola Goddard: "A female Canadian soldier was killed Wednesday during an intense firefight with Taliban insurgents near Kandahar, marking what is believed to be the first death of a Canadian woman in combat in more than 60 years."
The debate will continue.
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
8:10 AM
1 Comments:
Last night, Ignatieff had his John Kerry Moment.
He stood up when the votes were being counted on the extension of the Afghanistan mission of Canada, and voted yes, conditionally .... He said he was voting yes on condition that the mission was not changed during the two year extension which Harper was seeking.
Some years back, John Kerry stood up to vote for war in Iraq, and made his support of Bush conditional. Later on, when it became apparent that Bush – who clearly was not to be trusted when the vote was called, based on his past actions – had misled the Senate, Congress and the American voters, Kerry opposed the war, saying that "I was for it before I was against it."
In a year or so, when it becomes apparent that Harper has changed the mission in Afghanistan, Ignatieff will face the same dilemma, and will most likely say the same thing Kerry did.
The pity about Ignatieff's vote last night was that he should have learned from Kerry, Bush and Harper that his conditional vote would not cut it. He wanted his cake and wanted to eat it as well. Kerry found out to his cost that this did not work with people like Bush.
Ignatieff should have listened to Harper, when he spoke about his views on Canada and military force, in 2003. Perhaps he was out of the country at the time and missed the speech. Harper made his intentions very clear. In his article headed Rediscovering The Right Agenda, written in June 2003, Harper wrote in Report Magazine: "Conservatives must take the moral stand, with our allies, in favour of the fundamental values of our society, including democracy, free enterprise and individual freedom. This moral stand should not just give us the right to stand with our allies, but the duty to do so and the responsibility to put "hard power" behind our international commitments."
In order to understand Harper, you need to read his own words, and apply them to his current actions. He has not changed his core beliefs, he admitted during the election. Ignatieff showed that he is failing to measure the man who whipped the Liberals in January 2006.
Can the Liberal Party afford to have as its own leader a man who does not learn from history?
I think not.
By
Anonymous, at 11:07 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home