Friday, February 8, 2008

Craven Liberals proposing a retreat

The Liberal position on Afghanistan, deliberately vague as it is, does not stand up to serious scrutiny.

In his post ‘Those craven Liberals’ Mark Collins attempts to analyze Dion’s ‘logic’ and comes to a most realistic conclusion:
In reality, as we all know, the current Liberal demand is based almost solely on the calculation that it is politically popular and will win votes--especially in Quebec and the Greater Toronto Area. What short-sighted, crass cynicism. Mike Pearson may well indeed be rolling in his grave.
Dion Proposing a Retreat’ by Marcus Gee, similarly, tries to follow the Liberal position to it’s logical conclusion under various assumed rules of engagement, arriving at similar conclusions:

Saying you want to deliver aid without engaging in combat sounds fine on Parliament Hill, but you can't deliver aid without security. And to maintain security, you sometimes have to engage in combat with those who are trying to shatter it.

And that ... is what Mr. Dion is proposing: a retreat. Without the ability to engage in combat when needed, Canadian soldiers would be reduced to impotence - gentle shepherds in a countryside overrun with wolves. ... It is like asking cops to prevent muggings without arresting muggers.

Both Collins and Gee have it right. The Liberal proposition is unworkable in any practical sense, so the only remaining ‘rationale’ is cynical political posturing. And the Taliban must be watching this with glee.

4 comments:

hunter said...

It really bothers me that PM Harper has given the opposition, for the FIRST time in history, a say in our military deployment, and they are using it to try and gain votes. It's sickening, they are playing with our troops lives.

Dion was given the motion, and asked to provide amendments, he did not. In a speech today, he arrogantly says the Liberals will propose an amendment, and that Harper had not given them enough time.

Dion you are not the PM, and the Liberals are the opposition, how many years will it take for you to understand that simple fact?

Liberal values, they have none.

Anonymous said...

it is a strange thing. to be fighting for freedom for people who don't want it. they will only have freedom if they get rid of islam and sharia law, if they don't then we are wasting the treasure and soldiers for nothing. a return to what we are fighting against is inevetable.

wilson said...

As the latest Nanos poll suggests, anti-war 'bring 'em home' voters have returned to the Dippers and Greens and Bloc, because, Dion took the middle of the road b.s. non-position.
(wave bye-bye to them Steffi)

Further, any ammendment he makes will still allow combat for security and defensive reasons.
So, for example, securing the perimeter (how ever wide that is perceived to be, by the military) of a reconstruction site, would be allowed.
Air attacks, securing an area for reconstruction, would be allowed.
That's what our soldiers are doing now.
Medussa was the last real offensive they went on , Sept 2006.

So, is Steffi really saying it's business as usual re:security, but Cdns can not go on a spring offensive mission with our NATO allies, their role must be 'labeled' defensive or supportive....no more front lines?

The entire Afghanistan Compact (international community) expires in 2011, the target date where Afghan troops should be capable of defending themselves.

JR said...

Dion has certainly boxed himself in with his vague, 'no combat' position.

The only remaining 'no combat' Liberal loyalists, the ones who haven't gone over to the NDP/Green/Bloc position (as Wilson says), are those who think like Anonymous (it's hopeless no matter what) and those who want Canada to take up the gutless position of the NATO countries who have refused to do any heavy lifting.

Anonymous, Full secular, Western-style freedoms for Afghanis as a condition of 'success' is not a realistic aim. The UN/NATO aim is, more feasibly, to ensure that the brutally totalitarian Taliban theocracy doesn't return to power.