Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ktsnake
We were discussing some cowardly Canadian politician's thought that because of 4 casualties, Canada ought to withdraw from Afghanistan and bargain with the Taliban for a peaceful regime.
Of course, the Taliban's version of "peace" involves Al Qaeda training camps, stoning women, generally things which would make even the most criminally violent American or Canadian soldier blush. But that's neither here nor there, is it?
|
Sigh… it’s a little more complicated than the “hey he wants a withdrawal so he must be a coward” belief makes it out to believe (despite what Harper and the “Conservatives” are promoting up here).
Jack Layton wants a withdrawal of Canadian troops, unless two things happen:
1) That the Canadian Forces switch back to a role that is primarily security and reconstruction – something that they where having a lot of success with.
2) That the Parliament engages in a public debate that’ll will give all parties (and the general) a chance to understand and concretely define the role and goal of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan.
Now the reasons for the above are the rising Canadian casualties as they have shifted into a primarily combat operations role. Now the casualties while disturbing to the NDP, it isn’t the deaths that is the main political concern: rather it is the assumption of combat operations. The Canadian Forces switched to combat operations at the behest the Pentagon/White House in order to relieve the pressure on US forces in Afghanistan, so that troops could be in turn shifted to Iraq.
The NDP objects to this as the Prime Minister ordered this done without consultation from Parliament, and because it is indirectly lending support for the US war in Iraq. The actual redeployment of troops was “technically” a violation of Parliamentary protocol; in that at the very least the PM should have announced it in session, and not done it while Parliament was on holiday. The second part, the indirect support for the US effort in Iraq, is a more troublesome political problem – in that the Conservatives effectively and unilaterally reversed the ruling of Parliament and the Senate (as well as the public) to not lend military or political support for the US actions in Iraq, which were declared a violation of international law. If they had debated the issue in the House there is a very good chance that the redeployment would not have gone through, and in fact would have caused a serious challenge to the Conservative’s minority government.
Now as for Layton's wish to have talks with the Taliban, again it is not so simple as "hey lets make peace and have them take over again"... Layton simply believes that the more moderate members of the Taliban should be included in the reconstruction effort, at least verbally if not physically.
Now all of this would be even more politically volitile if the Liberals actually had a leader and a firm political policy ~ as it is at the very least Layton's calls for debate or withdrawal are being recieved and echoed by a larger audience... including the Conservatives political partners in Parliament the Bloc Quebecois.