Topic: Lead, Please, Prime Minister

[CDN Aviator]

take it off base, ....................... Don't hide on base.

You mean " soldiers with guns.....in our cities....in Canada" ?

 

[Hunteroffortune]

You mean " soldiers with guns.....in our cities....in Canada" ?

 

Yup, that's exactly what I mean!!  Maybe you can "scare" them into supporting the mission.   

[E.R. Campbell]

Here, reproduced from today’s Globe and Mail under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is political insider Norman Spector’s ‘take’ on Harper’s circumlocution on the Afghanistan mission:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070711.wcoafghan12/BNStory/Front/home

My emphasis added.

An Afghan solution: Redefine the mission

NORMAN SPECTOR
From Thursday's Globe and Mail

July 11, 2007 at 11:30 PM EDT

It's unclear whether Prime Minister Stephen Harper has changed his mind about Afghanistan, but he's certainly shifted his rhetoric. Where once he would play for time by promising to put any extension to a vote, he's now saying he won't ask our troops to carry on absent a parliamentary consensus. Tuesday, for the first time, he even spoke of the need for a “new mission.”

To be sure, Mr. Harper is simply acknowledging what he wrought by giving up the power to take Canada to war with the stroke of the prime ministerial pen – a commendable reform that Britain's new leader, Gordon Brown, proposes to emulate. Still, you have to wonder whether he regrets not having put the onus squarely on the opposition parties last year. When I asked him a few days after the vote why he vowed to prolong the mission for a year if the House of Commons turned down a two-year extension, Mr. Harper said that Canadian troops were doing very hard work and that we owed it to our allies to be in Afghanistan.

Naive? Yes. Principled? That, too. But, to this day, critics lambaste the Prime Minister for having played wedge politics. Pish. Had the opposition killed the mission, Mr. Harper would be sitting atop a majority government.

Instead, with casualties mounting, the Afghan mission is badly tangled in domestic politics, and Mr. Harper's government, too, is bleeding. Still, both the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals have hinted at some willingness to carry on in some fashion, and therein lies an opportunity.

Mr. Harper should begin by giving Canadians the unvarnished truth about the mission's prospects. But his fundamental challenge was best expressed by British Labour MP Aneurin Bevan in a magisterial parliamentary speech at the height of the 1956 Suez crisis: “When a nation makes war upon another nation, it should be quite clear why it does so. It should not keep changing the reasons as time goes on.”

Under Jean Chrétien, it was never made clear why Canadian troops were in Afghanistan – unless it was to make up for their not being in Iraq. Under Paul Martin, the parliamentary debate on the dangerous Kandahar deployment was a one-night affair that went virtually unreported. And Mr. Harper has been shifting his rationale for the mission, while comporting himself more like a backroom boy engaged in spin wars than a wartime prime minister.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is now staring at the prospect of a humiliating defeat in a United Nations-sanctioned mission. This explains why the Democratic Party leadership supports an increase in U.S. troop strength; our British allies, too, draw a clear distinction with the Iraq war. Indeed, Britain is boosting its forces in Afghanistan by 25 per cent, and a new ambassador is warning that a 30-year commitment will be necessary to rebuild the country.

Still, Canadians are understandably disturbed to see French and Italian soldiers deployed in relatively safe Kabul and Herat. But were we simply to give notice that we wanted out of combat in Kandahar, it would constitute a serious blow to Canada's reputation. To paraphrase former Liberal foreign minister John Manley, we would be seen by the world to be excusing ourselves to go to the washroom, now that the bill has arrived.

It's because of that reputation that we've not been successful in persuading our allies to bear their fair share of the burden, a lacuna the Prime Minister noted Tuesday. But he might still be able to turn that situation around by stipulating Canada will only agree to stay in Kandahar beyond 2009 if other NATO members agree – in proportion to their capabilities – to match our commitment.

By putting to good use his minority status in Parliament, the Prime Minister has an opportunity to safeguard Canada's reputation. Canadians would then have to hope that, in considering Mr. Harper's proposal, opposition leaders would also keep in mind that, if the Taliban were to return to power, horrific human-rights scenarios could result. And that, if we'd not at least made an offer to continue the tough slogging, Canadians could awake one morning and not be able to look themselves in the mirror.

Spector’s “solution” is, I fear, grasping political straws.  The root of Mr. Harper’s problem is that he, exactly like Chrétien and Martin, is using Afghanistan for local, domestic, partisan political advantage.  He, exactly like Chrétien and Martin, appears disinterested in Canada’s interests in the world – which, in my opinion, include winning what I call the Global war on Barbarism  (So named after Dr Wafa Sultan’s description of the true nature of our struggle with al Qaeda and the Taliban and their fellow travellers.)

Harper needs to tell Canadians: why we went to Afghanistan – and it was to avoid being coerced into going to Iraq, and he needs to tell Canadians why we are fighting in Kandahar – to make development possible, because most of the NGOs, including CARE Canada, are afraid to go there now and will remain so until either we help the ANA and ANP provide adequate security or the Taliban et al win.  Finally Harper needs to ‘sell’ a continued mission in Kandahar, doing the hard fighting, as being in our national best interests – even with casualties.  Thus far he has failed to do any of those thing.

[GAP]

If Harper did as you suggest, I wonder what the general reaction would be? I think it would be interpreted as straight shooting and his numbers would improve, but conversely it also give ammunition to the others and the MSM to criticize him for what ever, just because they can..

[E.R. Campbell]

If Harper did as you suggest, I wonder what the general reaction would be? I think it would be interpreted as straight shooting and his numbers would improve, but conversely it also give ammunition to the others and the MSM to criticize him for what ever, just because they can..

The MSM are going to criticize him no matter what, because:

1. He is the 'top dog' and they see it as their job to point out 'the rest of the story,' etc;

2. He is avoiding the tough issue(s) as he tries to scratch for a few votes here and few more there; and

3.  His communications strategy is not working - he has managed to enrage the media without finding any other way to communicate with Canadians.  As Ruxted said, "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

I remind readers who think I am too hard on Prime Minister Harper that I am a card carrying Conservative and a regular contributor to the party's war chest.  I want the Conservatives to win the next election but, even more, I want a competent, fiscally responsible, socially moderate and above all principled government.  For the time being, I believe, only the Conservative party can offer us most of that - I'd like to see a bit more principle and leadership.

[Flip]

I acknowledge that Edward is preaching to the conservative choir in the sense
that His message to conservatives would be different than His message to others.
I agree Harper's the best we've got, but he has to do better.

Everyday there is some new peace initiative.
Everyday the government is afraid to act.

A simple review of the facts is all we really need.

Hunteroffortune has a very real point.  Veterans groups and serving members have a lot to offer to the debate.  I guess I'm asking you guys in green to serve twice in a way.
Someone else should help.

Yes, civvies (like me) are ignorant.
We are un-aware, and conspiracy theories are sooo popular.
Very few Canadians h( in my experience) have the faintest idea what's going on.

Hearing from those who serve makes it real.

[Hawk]

I've read through all of this with great interest. Like some have said, Harper is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. With a minority he has to tread lightly. No matter what he says publicly, the MSM is going to spin it. If he said we were staying indefinitely, he'd be in trouble, if he said we were pulling out tomorrow, he'd be in trouble. 18 months is a long time - a lot could change, for better or worse. The war could well come to our doorstep. Harper could win a majority, then he'd be in a better position to lead. There are innumerable other scenarios.

I also agree the CF should be more visible. Don't know about taking guns into Canadian cities, though. Remember what happened when Trudeau did - and I happen to think he did the right thing, much as I hated his politics. We had soldiers on the streets of Selkirk MB at the time of the flood, and the whole town fell in love with them. Its good for the civillian population to see our Military in action - and not just at fairs and recruitment drives in malls. Training exercises in towns and cities would scare h**l out of some people, but others would be fascinated.

We (Canadians in general) see ourselves as a kinder, gentler society. All well and good - till some bully points his beady little eye at us and decides he wants what we have, and can easily take it away from us by force.

 
Hawk

[GAP]

"What we have here is a failure to communicate."

I remind readers who think I am too hard on Prime Minister Harper that I am a card carrying Conservative and a regular contributor to the party's war chest.  I want the Conservatives to win the next election but, even more, I want a competent, fiscally responsible, socially moderate and above all principled government.  For the time being, I believe, only the Conservative party can offer us most of that - I'd like to see a bit more principle and leadership.

I agree 100%

[Greymatters]

I totally agree that the Foreign Affairs department is responsible for getting information to the public about what we are doing over there.  When faced with I-lost-count-how-many opposition groups, the opposition group message becomes predominant if it isnt opposed. 

But in reality, Foreign Affairs doesnt have that 'us' mentality, its has an 'all about me' mentality.  It doesnt act to make Canada look good, its acts to make themselves look good.  These guys are all supposed experts at dealing with the media whenever there is some high level negotiation going on or when they attend a summit.  But if they arent in the limelight getting the glory, the point is lost on them.  Given Foreign Affairs' past opposition to working with the military on anything, and the trend among Foreign Affairs members worldwide to frequently blame the military for when their efforts fail, its no surprise they have no interest in actively supporting the mission (after all, many of them intend on become leading politicians and academics some day - who wants to be tied to a war scandal?).

Harper on the other hand is also becoming a disappointment and falling under the curse of every leader before him.  Its no longer about whats best for Canada, its about whats best for the Conservative party, and that is 'we want to get re-elected for another term'.  If the mission becomes unpopular (ironically due to lack of government support at the moment) then the government will distance themself from the mission.     

[E.R. Campbell]

It appears that governing by polls and relying upon political consultants were not exclusively Liberal tactics.  Here, reproduced from today’s Globe and Mail under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, are two stories re: the war on public and political opinion

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070713.wafghanpr13/BNStory/National/home

Change tune on war, PM told

ALAN FREEMAN
From Friday's Globe and Mail

July 13, 2007 at 1:12 AM EDT

OTTAWA — The Harper government has been told to stop referring to “fighting terrorism” and the Sept. 11 attacks, and to banish the phrase “cut and run” from its vocabulary if it is to persuade a skeptical public that the military mission in Afghanistan is worth pursuing.

A public-opinion report says only 40 per cent of respondents across Canada, and almost none in Quebec, support the deployment. To change the perceptions, it recommends putting the emphasis on “rebuilding,” “enhancing the lives of women and children,” and “peacekeeping.”

The report to Foreign Affairs was prepared last month by The Strategic Counsel . It paints a bleak picture of weak public support for the military mission, for which the firm blames “unbalanced, mostly negative” media coverage of the war and misperceptions about the mission's purpose.

Only 40 per cent of Canadians support the mission, according to Strategic Counsel data. And the firm says the public views information from Ottawa “through a thick lens of cynicism.”


“They feel that much of what government says is propaganda, intended simply to appeal to the voting public and to spin stories in a positive manner,” the report points out.

The report is based on 14 focus-group discussions of two hours each, conducted in seven locations across Canada last November.

Canadians of different age groups from rural, urban and suburban regions of the country participated. Strongest support appeared among participants who were 36 and older. In Quebec – focus groups were conducted in Laval and Drummondville – “support was virtually non-existent.”

The report warns that the Afghan mission could be “a lightning rod” for the government. And because of “continuously negative” media reports on casualties and lack of results, the legitimacy of Canada's involvement could be questioned. “Suspicion and cynicism are taking hold in the absence of hard facts and positive stories about progress,” the report states.

“There is a growing belief that the government is trying to avoid talking about the issue to play down the grim reality that the mission is failing.”

The firm said the “communications landscape” is dominated by mounting casualties, and a feeling that “things are getting worse.” Many Canadians believe that the soldiers are part of a U.S.-led mission, and some even think Canada invaded Afghanistan.

Many respondents believe that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are a U.S.-led response to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.

The report urges the government to promote the fact that Canada has highly professional troops who are “helping the people of Afghanistan” and “getting results even if it's difficult.”

The consultants say the public is divided into soft supporters, wafflers and strong opponents.

The soft supporters often see the mission as one of peacekeeping, and worry that there is no overall plan or clear markers for success.

Most of those consulted were viewed as wafflers, who are “unclear on exactly why Canadians are in Afghanistan, what they are doing and what we can expect to be accomplished.” While they support restoring human rights to Afghans, they are not sure how being in the country can benefit Canadians.

The report said the government needs to give the wafflers more “concrete examples of progress, focusing on the benefits for Afghan women and children.”

The strong opponents were in Quebec and among those between 18 and 35 years old. They believed that conflict is best resolved through peaceful means and that it is an American fight.

These Canadians believe that Afghanistan is “a hopeless cause,” whose economy is dominated by opium and will be reduced to chaos after the Canadians and other NATO forces withdraw. Strategic Counsel said little can be done to change these views, but efforts should be made to “blunt the edges of their opposition.”

The report states that the biggest communications challenge is to change the perception that the mission is a departure from Canada's tradition of peacekeeping. In fact, the authors claim the Afghan mission simply adapts peacekeeping to “the changing nature of global conflict.”

The firm recommends disseminating figures on the number of schools built, jobs created and poppy fields eradicated.

It also says the government should find spokespersons, including prominent Afghan women, the Afghan ambassador to Canada and “key Canadian journalists” committed to in-depth stories, naming The Globe and Mail's Stephanie Nolen and Radio-Canada's Céline Galipeau as examples.

The report did not say how these journalists could be persuaded to take on this role.

So, it appears that the chattering classes have won the battle, if not the war: the NDP is on the side of the angels and the poor, war ravaged, abused Afghans will have to fend for themselves because Canadians are convinced that we  invaded Afghanistan in pursuit of a hopeless cause.

And the solution to the problem of a biased, celebrity obsessed media which has, intentionally, misled the Canadian public: enlist more journalists to ‘sell’ the mission.

And, in support oft my oft expressed fear that Prime Minister Harper’s Afghanistan ‘policy’ is aimed, squarely, at discomfiting the opposition rather than protecting and promoting Canada’s vital interests in the world:


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070713.wafghan-mission13/BNStory/Front

New Afghan rhetoric a ploy to sway Liberals, defence watchers say

BILL CURRY

Globe and Mail Update
July 13, 2007 at 1:10 AM EDT

OTTAWA — New plans for Canadian troops in Afghanistan are clearly aimed at pressing divided Liberals to support a mission beyond 2009, defence experts say.

Government and military officials are publicizing a change in focus to the mission that would see Afghan civilians move quickly through military training and onto the front lines. Direct combat by Canadian troops would be reduced as they switch to a supporting role for the emerging Afghan army.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently used the phrase “new mission” to describe any Canadian activity in Afghanistan beyond Parliament's commitment to February, 2009. His language expanded on previous comments, in which he said any military activity beyond 2009 would occur only with parliamentary consensus.

“I think he is genuinely reaching out to the Liberal Party,” said David Bercuson, director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary. Dr. Bercuson predicted the Tory argument to the Liberals will be that a leading NATO country like Canada cannot pull out entirely from Afghanistan.

“I also think there are pressures within the military to take the emphasis off what is going on right now because the effort is humongous,” he said. “I don't think the military is unhappy with a change in focus in the mission.”

The executive director of the Conference of Defence Associations offered a similar take on the government's recent comments.

“They won't convince NDP,” Alain Pellerin said. “It's mainly for the Liberals. They're sort of split 50-50 to a large extent and I think there is a desire for a party that aspires to be the government again that they can't very well afford to say ‘We're leaving in 2009 and whether there's a NATO country that replaces or not, we're leaving.' It wouldn't be honest.”

If the Prime Minister was in fact reaching out, the Liberals were not in any mood Thursday to entertain the offer.

Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre said he wants Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor fired and a 2009 exit plan in “black and white on paper” before discussing what might happen after 2009.

“We're saying we're getting out of the combat mission. Find another country,” Mr. Coderre said.

The Liberal MP said he can't trust the Prime Minister's latest comments about an end to the current mission because Mr. Harper previously said he opposed arbitrary deadlines.

NDP Leader Jack Layton said recent comments on the mission by Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hillier are confusing. The NDP will continue to insist on an immediate troop withdrawal, Mr. Layton said.

“To have the general musing about new approaches makes you wonder what we have a Minister of Defence for. What does he stand for?” he asked.

“I worry about the confusion that we're hearing here. It's looking a little too much like policy on the fly … and that should concern all Canadians.”

Gen. Hillier gave an interview to a Quebec City newspaper this week as soldiers from CFB Valcartier prepare for their first six-month tour to Kandahar beginning on Sunday.

Training Afghan soldiers to take on front-line combat assignments will be the main focus for Quebec troops, the general told Le Soleil.

However, direct combat will remain a part of the Canadian mission until more Afghan troops can be trained.

“Our priority is to move from a situation in which we lead the combats with the support of the Afghans to one where the Afghans lead the offensives with our support,” he said, estimating 3,000 Afghan soldiers will be in place by August.

[Exarecr]

How sad to see our last hope to remain relevent and"in the news",so to speak being fretted away by of all groups the Conservatives who only want to behave like Liberals it would seem with respect to their incessant en devours to lead by polls and perceptions. There hasn,t been leadership in this Country since Mulroney let the Army clear up the Oka mess. Could you imagine any politician in any party now giving the army its marching orders in Oka today ? Of course the army of today would be forced of the roads by days of action, so I  suppose nothing will ever really change. What happened to our sense of stoicism or stubbornness  that we allow the media to so twist and distort the facts we just blissfully glaze ahead in slack jawed stupidity while the rest of the world that wants to matter fights the good fight because its the right thing to do. Australia is all Canada used to be and could still be with leadership and purpose of mission. As the countries who "chose to matter", gather in Passchendal to remember true slaughter of magnitudes Canadians never heard of because of war history being politically incorrect and thus erased from our memory, the most importtent mission facing Canada now is one of information. See you all in Kingston.

[Technoviking]

I found this:
The services come as public support for the mission dwindles. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has also been advised to tone down his language on topics such as "fighting terrorism" and the 9/11 attacks.
The advice is part of a public-opinion report prepared last month by The Strategic Counsel for Foreign Affairs, according to The Globe and Mail.
In order to counteract apparent fading support for the mission, the report recommends emphasizing peacekeeping, rebuilding and Canada's role in helping to improve the lives of women and children.
The report says only 40 per cent of those sampled across Canada actually support the mission in Afghanistan. In Quebec, support for the deployment was at close to zero.
The report blames "unbalances, mostly negative" media coverage and a lack of understanding about the purpose of the deployment, for the low support.
The report also found many Canadians believe Canada is part of a U.S.-led mission, or that Canada invaded Afghanistan. 

Says it all, doesn't it?  Those who know the whats and the whys know and support the mission.  The ignorant think that we are there on some "Bushite adventure", whatever the hell that is...


Source:  http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070714/soldier_funerals_070714/20070714?hub=TopStories

(Shared in accordance with the fair dealings thing)

[Cdn Blackshirt]

The report also found many Canadians believe Canada is part of a U.S.-led mission, or that Canada invaded Afghanistan. 

Agreed.  This part pretty much sums up the problem....I can also tell you which way the people who are this ignorant vote....

Who wants to guess?


Matthew.   

[E.R. Campbell]

There is a more complete report here.

[ArmyVern]

There is a more complete report here.

Thanks Edward, the two topics are now merged.

[Baden Guy]

Agreed.  This part pretty much sums up the problem....I can also tell you which way the people who are this ignorant vote....

Who wants to guess?


Matthew.   

"A public-opinion report says only 40 per cent of respondents across Canada, and almost none in Quebec, support the deployment.”

So about 60% across Canada oppose the mission and most of Quebec.
And you "can also tell you which way the people who are this ignorant vote...."   Interesting 

[E.R. Campbell]

I’m going to assume, just for the sake of argument, that there was some consistency in the polling.  I’m guessing that “support was virtually non-existent” means, say, 5+% support and 10+% undecided and, therefore 80+% opposed.  That means that in the Rest of Canada we might find something like 55±% support and 40±% opposed and 5% undecided.

In that case, assuming the PMO and the Conservative Party election brain-trust take account of this sort of thing and also assuming the PM’s change of tone is related to this sort of ‘knowledge’ of where Canadians are ‘at,’ then Québec is, once again:

•   Out of step with the national view; and

•   Driving the national policy agenda with its unique point-of-view.

If we look at a bit of electoral data we mightsee something like this:
(Read in four columns: Region,  Tory 2006 results, Campbell’s guesstimate of the potential results of an election to be held soon, Results realistically required for a Tory majority)

National:  124/308  134/308  154/308 
BC:  17/36  19/36  21/36
Alberta:  28/28  28/28  28/28
Prairies:  20/28  20//28  20/28
Ontario:  40/106  45/106  51/106
Québec:  10/75  15/75  27/75
Atlantic Canada:  9/33  7/33  8/33

The Conservatives might gain a handful of seats by ‘coming up the middle’ in some strong, three way, Green/Liberal/NDP battles – especially in BC and Ontario.  They should make a few gains in Ontario’s 905 belt.  They must make substantial gains in either Ontario or Québec if they want a majority – there is no realistic alternative.  I’m guessing they see Ontario as a tougher nut than Québec; thus they will pander to Québecers – even when that makes for very bad national policy.  But there’s a problem: if you pander to Québec  once you must continue, and up the ante, or Québec will abandon you.

It’s an interesting political dilemma.

[Baden Guy]

Well done Edward, very interesting Sunday morning reading.
 I very much like your earlier thread comment that "And, in support oft my oft expressed fear that Prime Minister Harper's Afghanistan ‘policy’ is aimed, squarely, at discomfiting the opposition rather than protecting and promoting Canada’s vital interests in the world: " This is the only way I can make seen of a strategic tough political game player with no military experience or exposure.

But ref your last comment as I look at your numbers they reflect the same old political balance parties always face in Canada to gain a majority. You have to get Ontario or Quebec. Harper's not going to get a majority in Quebec, yes he might up his seat count a bit, so key is getting more seats in Ontario. But  short of a poll confirming it my feeling is Ontario has majority urban opposition to the war and hence the move to gain middle of the road Liberal support. Looks like a smart political move.

[Cdn Blackshirt]

"A public-opinion report says only 40 per cent of respondents across Canada, and almost none in Quebec, support the deployment.”

So about 60% across Canada oppose the mission and most of Quebec.
And you "can also tell you which way the people who are this ignorant vote...."   Interesting 

I'm going to withhold the initial words that lept to mind and instead just tell you to roll your eyes at somebody else!

Does it not strike you as coincidental that there is approximately 40% support for the Conservatives right now with 60% split between the Liberal Party, the Dippers, the Greens and the Block?

I'm not saying that all Conservatives who currently back the mission are 100% knowledgable about all the facets, but I believe based on my conversations with known conservatives, those that aren't 100% up to speed have cast their dye based on "principle-based intervention".  That is, we're involving ourselves to make a positive difference.

On the other hand, in my conversations with those whom I know are dedicated to other parties (that 60%):
95% couldn't find Aghanistan on a map without labels on it.
90% believe it's George Bush's war (85% will also believe GWB orchestrated 09/11)
95% have no concept of the impact on women and girls & education specifically between NATO intervention & not
95% have no concept of the terrorism training implications if NATO abandons Afghanistan and it reverts to a Waziristan-like terrorist breeding ground.

I should add, in my many conversations with non-conservative voters, when you suddenly introduce the women's education & rights facet of the debate, a majority suddenly have their eye-brows pop-up and the general response is "Gee, I didn't know that."

Bottom Line:  Afghanistan is currently unpopular because it is being branded as a Conservative effort.  Based on it being a Conservative effort, it is blacklisted as being acceptable by ALL on the Left.  All they need to hear is that Harper is for it, and they are automatically against it, and feel no need to actually educate themselves to understand it.  If you applied some sort of knowledge test to voters (or poll participants) about where Afghanistan is, what the issues are, etc. and only allowed those to vote based on passing that test, I think you'd find you that 95% of your 60% that currently oppose the mission would fail.  Furthermore, my father taught me at a young age that not all opinions are equal.  Only when your opinion is based on a solid foundation and you yourself have subjected that opinion to repeated objective criticism and fault-testing is ANY opinion worth the air it is spoken upon.  I should add in addition to the filter that the Left is currently applying to all things "Conservative", the Left in our country has become incredibly lazy.  We live in a country with free access to information, and instead of having any interest in educating themselves on issues like Afghanistan, Taxation, Kyoto, etc., the people who congregate in the Liberal Party, Green Party, and NDP seem more interested in tuning into the latest reality show.  Quite frankly, it's an afront to democracy when eligible voters CHOOSE ignorance because of this laziness.

Now I'm going to show more respect than you showed me by not rolling my eyes at you, but I would like your response....


Matthew.   

[Baden Guy]

Hmmmmm....well upon reviewing my comment to your comment I have found .........that .......I .....was .....wrong.
After reading Capt.Sensible's comment I made the mistake of tagging your reply with the 40% in support of the mission.
Whereas all you actually were referring to was "The report also found many Canadians believe Canada is part of a U.S.-led mission, or that Canada invaded Afghanistan."  A fact that you obviously find irritating as do I.

My personal take is that the Afghanistan mission is complex, involving many aspects Taliban, Pakistan, President Musharraf, the Afghanistan people and their cultural history, drug lords, Islam etc etc. This is one reason why I found the recent deaths a source of personal anger as Canadians in general have not taken the time, as you say, to become informed on the many componets affecting this mission.

Sorry about the confusion on my part but that's the risk you take when you try responding to numbers.  Ref your reply, we are probably not both in the same spot on the political spectrum but we most certainly are in our desire for Canadians to step beyond the screaming evening news and take the time to learn the facts behind ISAF's goals in Afghanistan and the enviornment affecting reaching those goals.

 

[MarkOttawa]

As for confusion, a post at The Torch:

Afstan: First get your facts right
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/07/afstan-first-get-your-facts-right.html

Mark
Ottawa

[E.R. Campbell]

When he stays in his lane (strictly domestic politics) and when he is able to restrain his all to evident distaste for all things Conservative, Lawrence Martin is worth a read. Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is his latest from today’s Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070715.wcomartin16/BNStory/Front/home
I have edited out a few typos the Good Grey Globe let slip by in the on-line edition.

Can Harper make Canadians feel good?

LAWRENCE MARTIN

Globe and Mail Update
July 15, 2007 at 11:21 PM EDT

The governing Conservatives, looking to get untracked after an uninspired spring, think they're onto something. The plan? Turn their leader, Sergeant Grim, into Kaptain Canada.

Party strategists have been peering into history, going back exactly half a century to the rise of John Diefenbaker.

This was a time (in contrast to the later Dief years, when he descended into his own inferno) when a heady patriotism stirred Canadians. It wasn't the type of nationalism, a more defensive nationalism, that Liberals and New Democrats would later feed off. It was a Canadianism of proud heritage, national symbols, new horizons.

The Conservatives now see an opportunity to tap into such a patriotic vein, to play on classic elements of the Canadian identity – The True North Strong and Free – and bolster their support.

Last week, they were pitching northern sovereignty. Plans for a new deepwater port. Outlays of $3-billionthis is notes for new patrol ships. Not the big icebreakers that were originally planned. But a bigger presence nonetheless.

Not shy about an image as a war guy, the Prime Minister has been building up the military to make the country feel stronger, give it more clout on the world stage.

He has been boasting of Canada's great storehouse of resources. We're “an energy superpower.” He plays frequently on national symbols such as hockey. Recently, in a gesture that Mr. Diefenbaker would surely have appreciated, Stephen Harper even brought the old flag, the Red Ensign, out of the dustbin.

“Canadians are feeling good about their country,” our super patriot leader said in British Columbia last week. No need to worry about that “squabbling” between Ottawa and the provinces. There is “a strong air of optimism.” This summer, he will be spending a good deal of time doing Canadian promo gigs on the international stage. He's presently in Latin America and the Caribbean, where, with stops in Colombia, Chile, Barbados and Haiti, he wants to strengthen economic and political ties. To foster relations on the continent, he will host a three amigos summit with the U.S. and Mexican leaders next month in Montebello, Que. Then it's on to Australia for talks with pan-Pacific leaders, among them his close Conservative buddy, Aussie Prime Minister John Howard.

A foray to the Arctic is also planned. The northern vision was a hallmark of the Diefenbaker campaign that helped him to his crushing majority in 1958. He never did put meat on the bones of his rhetoric, but many Conservatives see these times of warming climate as being right for northern dreams.

Their leader has been criticized as a micromanager, a grouchy control freak who is too dour for the times. Getting out of Ottawa, getting on the world stage with big patriotic themes, while leaving the controversies to ministers at home, could work well for him.

Mr. Harper is no Diefenbaker. The Tory tornado saw himself as personifying the national will. No one could sell Canada like him.

The brandishing of a Canada-first policy is also quite a stretch from the Stephen Harper we've known. This is the one-time regionalist who touted building a firewall around Alberta and who, when asked whether he loved Canada, sidestepped the question. He was seen as more inclined toward a course of continental integration, much more in keeping with the legacy of a Brian Mulroney than a Diefenbaker.

But he is a politician who can readily change his spots, who doesn't seem worried how far he veers from past credos.

He can contrast his new-Canada vision to the vague Liberal look. Last week, the Grits scored points on culture – something missing from Mr. Harper's Canadiana themes – with Stéphane Dion's new policy of support. But the party's biggest boasting point over the past few years, one on which they can embarrass the Conservatives, has been its position on Iraq. For reasons unknown, they barely mention it.

Mr. Harper had run out of an agenda this spring and was looking for something. The country is rolling in bucks and stacked with resource riches. There is cause, even with the difficulties of the small war in Afghanistan, for Canadian optimism.

With a change to his grim-guy approach, the Prime Minister might indeed, as his strategists hope, be on to something. A leader who can make the country feel good is a leader who succeeds.

Many (most?) pundits agree that Prime Minister Harper had a rotten spring thanks to his own failure to have a follow up agenda.

He has done well, very well by and for the military – but that’s not a big vote getter in Canada.  His ‘Arctic sovereignty’ mantra should work because it is, at its base, anti-Americans and a large majority of Canadians respond well to anything anti-American, anything that is which will not cause delays at the border.

As I have said elsewhere we appear to have entered an extended pre-election period. (I say extended because I cannot see why or how the Liberals would be tempted to dump the government any time soon – they’re broke and they need to strengthen Dion’s leadership reputation (those Tory attack ads appear to have worked!) and they’re doing well from Conservative dithering, better than they are doing from their own policy proposals.  I cannot see why the Liberals would want to go to the polls in 2007, at all, and probably not in 2008, either.)  So 19 Oct 09 looks like the date of the next election – it’s more than two years away!  Harper has decided he needs that long to turn voters’ minds away from why they dislike/distrust him and to give them some ‘feel good’ government.

The demise of the Afghanistan mission may be the price he decides he can/must pay to get the (many more) seats he needs in Ontario and, especially, Québec, to secure a parliamentary majority.

[GAP]

As I have said elsewhere we appear to have entered an extended pre-election period. (I say extended because I cannot see why or how the Liberals would be tempted to dump the government any time soon – they’re broke and they need to strengthen Dion’s leadership reputation (those Tory attack ads appear to have worked!) and they’re doing well from Conservative dithering, better than they are doing from their own policy proposals.

With the setting of predetermined election dates, we should get used to US style electioneering and long, drawn out pre election campaigns. As for Dion, I can't see him coming back with anything at all....especially with Rae, Martha Hall-Findlay and Ignatiff chomping at the bit to replace him. Their optimum choice was that Dion would lose to a new minority Conservative government and the Liberals would have another leadership race, but now it looks like they will have to tough it out until late 2008 (I think that's when another review is due) and dump him them, but dump him they will....he's gone and is going nowhere.