Mr Keeps-his-hair-in-the-fridge plays the air accordian

Since I believe nothing that Harper or MacKay say, I'd like to ask a question about today's pronouncements on The Cabinet Shuffle:

What's with this home-made podium thing that appears to have washed up on the back lawn of 24 Sussex Drive? It looked downright silly.

Looked especially silly the way Harper tried to mimic Dubya as he strode manfully across the lawn then jumped up and walked across this raft-podium-thing -- his big flat feet sounding like jungle drums on the loose plywood.

Then the air-accordian. As if Mr Eyes-too-close-together-Mackay isn't absurd enough, I really minded the air-accordian that Harper plays tirelessly while pontificating at his silly home-made podium about "what Canadians want".

I do mind. The whole thing makes Canadian governance look wack-ass stupid. Air-guitars work. But air-accordians are as dumb as home-made podiums drifting around on the back lawn from which to announce that our new Minister of Defence and advocate for war is ... Peter MacKay.

Seems to me that both

Seems to me that both Liberal and Conservatie PM's sort of shove folks into the Minister of Defence position as it's not that senior a post. But this time around a lot of money is being spent on aircraft as well as small ships. And we must not forget the second hand tanks. So what will Peter have left to do? we are due out of the present mess in Afganistan within two years and we can haul all that stuff back to be used in teh defence of the arctic, maybe. Oops just thought of a duty. drug testing on the navy ships, seems cocaine was a drug of choice in one here in BC. maybe he can get his own sniffer dog.

The 'old' PC party is now lieing down dead...

All that is left is to play the funeral march, and have a 21 gun salute.

What better way to end the PC's than to put the last PC leader into the coffin of the Ministry of Defence and nail it shut by allowing him to 'speak plainly' his way into becoming the most despised minister in governance.

DND is a death-knell to every MP whom has held the post since Brooke Claxton in the 1950's.

Such luminaries as Léo Cadieux who retired his way out from the position; Charles Drury whom got to 'act' like the defence minister but not really hold the office (TWICE NO LESS!); Kim Campbell who went on to fame and fortune as the PM for two weeks before leading the PC's into the wilderness; David Collenette who was whipped to the back-benches for his handling of Somalia and last, but certainly not least, John McCallum who was responsible for getting Canada into the Kandehar mess in the first place all the while admitting "that he had never heard of the 1942 Dieppe raid".

The post is a political graveyard and this only points to the end of the 'Progressive Conservative' wing and leadership in the 'New New Conservative' Party.

razzberry.

what????

Dream on...
I don't like Harper either, but I think the comments above are reading into something that isn't there.
What about simply having a fresh approach to a ministry? However I take that back in the case of Chuck Strahl. Chucky is definitely a plodding yes-man.

correction of what???

I was in error when I mentioned fresh approach to a ministry. The bureaucracy of a ministry never changes. Only the politicians change. What I meant to say was 'What about simply having a fresh face at the head of the ministry?'
However the comment about Strahl is appropriate.

Remember the Ianeiro murders.

Remember the poor excuse of a position from Peter MacKay on that issue. Don't expect anything from MacKay and you won't be disappointed.

We shouldn't be so nasty

We shouldn't be so nasty folks. Peter likes his dog as a companion, or so we were told when he got dumped by a previous conservative. Then it turns out the dog wasn't his either. who was it that said" Don't vote for any of them as it just encourages them?

Don't vote for any of them as it just encourages them?

yes..another trouble with voting..the government invariably gets in.

Quote:But of course that

This is a silly paragraph. "...negotiating an end..."? There is a mandate end date. His job at this point is to assess whether or not the CF's role in getting the the desired endstate is possible, and then coming up with various courses of action to make it happen within acceptable parameters. One course of action could be "...negotiating an end..." now, but only one completely ignorant of the situation there would even suggest that is a good idea.

As for the commentary from others about the post of Minister of Defense being a death knell, well that certainly did hold true then when the military was the favorite socialist kick toy, however it is not now. It would be political suicide to put a string of incompetants in there now, and Harper knows it (if he were to do that, hell, even the NDP might get a chance at office).

Peter MacKay-Minister of Defence

Way to go Steve..appointing Pistol Pete for the huge task of defending this country from all those nasty Afghans. I mean the guy must be illiterate to have signed a contract that he had no intention of keeping, nor did he have any excuse.
Now, maybe we can rest assured that we can really go to war and kill, kill, kill for no good reason either.
Maybe he will also make sure that our military casualities will equal that of the US..
Okay maybe that is the method in Steve's madness.
So Pistol Pete is now the man..saddest day in this country's history, and the most humiliating.
Joan Miller
Vancouver, BC

More to above...

Funny... First six months in office, and the Tories managed to keep more promises then the Liberals kept in eleven years in office.

O'Conner's short coming? He was a doer, not a talker. He accomplished a lot of good, and a lot more is in the pipe, he just never talked about it... It is a trap most soldiers get into, not singing the song of ones own success. When the detainee thing popped up, the man could not make immediate comment to the press because he was on a plane getting to Afghanistan. The man got in, and worked on details that got so messed up in the politics of what the previous government did and did not do, that we do now have an acceptable half way solution (sidebar: the ideal solution would be us handling detainees while training Afghan corrections reps... However, our man power as been stripped to the point where such a thing is simply no longer possible). The vast majority of the mess that we are in today, and the solutions (ie huge expenditures) are a direct result of the past 30 years of abuse and neglect.
Now granted, this is all my opinion, based on my expereince in Afghanistan, several other deployments, ad at 15 years service now... If you want fact, look it up in google, and pull it from all sides, and meet somewhere in the middle. I have found some of the best stories out of Afghanistan now days are not often on the front page of the news paper, but usually somewhere on page 20 below the fold... Of course, for most of the average population (even those nay sayers of the evil MSM) they are so heavily influenced by what they see on the front page.

Well if that's the case

What the hell is Hillyer doing?

By that I mean, all "that trumpet" does is blow its own horn. Doesn't sound much like your idea of a responsible military man.

If you're looking for something substantive, you might want to try reading this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/world/asia/12afghan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

I hope it'll open for you - if it doesn't, let me know and I'll find a way to get it to you.

This is an American war and it has been screwed up by the Americans. We haven't got the beans to put it right and all the propaganda (which is what the CPC is really into) - pls see this:
http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2007/august/15/report/

won't make a damn bit of difference.

If you just got back History 1, I'm glad to see you made it and didn't just become another wasted Canadian life bleeding out in country.

SPIN DOCTOR moving on...

I amend my earlier thought that Peter MacKay is being 'set up for a fall', I now say that he is the SPIN DOCTOR surgeon who is now going into high gear to work on the 'new plan' to get us all into 'war (peace) fighting (keeping)' mode in Afghanistan.

This piece in Embassy points to the former post of MacKay; the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade as the 'sources' of the 'new plans'. This makes MacKay an MD in Spin and we should all prepare ourselves for a really sickening barrage of propaganda aimed at making us 'feel good' about the stupidity of our actions in Afghanistan.

Just remember when the b#ll sh!t starts flying around the TIMELINE.

WE DID NOT GO INTO AFGHANISTAN TO BUILD SCHOOLS OR GIVE RIGHTS TO WOMEN ETC.

TO DO THIS WOULD INVITE OTHER "NATIONS" TO DO THE SAME TO US.

WE WENT INTO AFGHANISTAN WITH THE AMERICANS.
In the words of Jean Cretien (Oct 7, 2001):
"I told him (US President GHW Bush) that Canada stands shoulder to shoulder with him and the American people. We are part of an unprecedented coalition of nations that has come together to fight the threat of terrorism."
TO FIGHT THE THREAT OF TERRORISM.

We, in Canada, are suckers just as much as the poor american populace. Time to wake-up from this nightmare.

G West, you are right about

G West, you are right about the time the article was posted, however, after reading this new(old) article, I stand by my assertation.

I leave in the whole paragraph, but only talk about the first couple of sentences.

I have said it before, and will say it again, change does not come over night. Never has, never will. Women did not wake up one day, and get the vote the next.

Slavery and segregation did not suddenly end (still on going in some places today).

Migrant workers on the CN and Rideau Canal were not suddenly welcomed with open arms... All these things, which I am sure everyone could agree were very worth while, and benifit today's society immensely did not occur over night...

In some cases decades of tireless campaigning, education, protesting, and fighting took place before we got what we enjoy today. I do not think I could find a "reasonable" person today that would argue that any of those things should not have occurred immediately when conceived, however, most understand that human beings are stubborn, obstinate and greedy by nature, and must be cajoled, prodded, educated and sometimes beaten in to things that would benifit them.

The article admits, and then dismisses by burying it that good is being accomplished in Afghanistan. Our goal has always been to create growing spheres of development and security in Afghanistan, so that this growth can be sustainable, especially in the face of an enemy which would prefer the Afghan people remain impoverished (I will get into my theory on that much later). -more to follow-

-follow on- The rest of the

-follow on- The rest of the article appears to not support the contention of many "progressives" that the West should leave Afghanistan... If anything the article appears to argue for more troops, and more effort.

“These are the fundamentals of counterinsurgency, and somehow we forgot them or never learned them,” he added. He noted that “the United States has 11 carrier battle groups, but we still don’t have expeditionary nonmilitary forces of the kind you need to win this sort of war.”

“We’re living in the past,” he said.

Up until this point, I did not find anything I could really disagree with. However, the above quoted paras illustrate the usual NYTimes approach of reporting from afar. The Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) quoted in the article are all over the country, doing exactly the kind of work these quoted paras say we are not doing. I know this, as this was my task while in Kandahar.

The first post I quote a para that says some positive steps were made... Is the author argueing that these are accidental?

-more to follow-

-follow on- The basis of

-follow on- The basis of Taliban, AQ and indeed all terrorist recruiting is refugee camps.

The poor, the disenfrachised. Some very infamous terrorists do break the norm and come from "middle income" class educated persons, however the majority are found in the refugee camps of Iran, Pakistan, etc etc (just dealing with Afghanistan in this post).

To address this, the PRTs are the primary focus of the mission. Not the combat. Yes, combat appears to be the focus, because the media, which is profit motivated and hence needs to sell papers focuses on the combat effort without ever mentioning for the most part that all such "kinetic" actions are actually in support of the PRT efforts.

To rebuild a school, to train hospital technicians, to train police, to dig wells, to rebuild the country requires some form of security (ie no bombs going off, no one kidnapping and or killing aid workers, no burning schools down). See link here for the CIDA website which discusses on going and future projects, as well as progress made to date:

http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/cidaweb/acdicida.nsf/En/JUD-129153625-S6T

The question I have, is why is it the Taliban and other warlord/insurgent groups are so opposed to the development of Afghanistan?

A lot of the actual work being done is being done by the Afghans themselves. We train the Afghans to build, to demine, to help others, then we provide the tools and guidance while the do many of the projects themselves. All of the projects are projects which Afghans put priority on, not Coalition Forces, and hence projects Afghans define as their needs. And yet the Taliban, and other insurgent groups are fighting the projects and burning them down whenever they get a chance. The most dangerous job in Afghanistan right now, IMHO, is the Afghan national aid worker (regardless of task, be it doctor or deminer). -more to follow-

-follow on- My theory as to

-follow on- My theory as to why this happens is that it is far easier to subjugate a population that is poor, hungry and uneducated. This is something which has been demonstrated throughout the history of man.

The Roman Catholic Church effected this policy to great effect during the Dark Ages. The people were kept poor by the land owners and the "lords". The people were kept uneducated by only being permited to read the Bible. And the people were kept hungry by the steep taxes they had to pay.

If the goal of the west was to impose our will, and build pipelines (or whatever other none-sense is out there), then to be blunt, the easiest path and the most cost effecient path to get there is to follow the Taliban model. If it was conquest we wanted, why are soldiers dying whilst negotiating the rebuilding of schools? The cost politically to countries like the US for putting Afghans into that kind of situation (al la the Dark Ages) would not be as steep as the caskets coming home now...

The Taliban does not want reconstruction to occur, and they sure as hell do not want Afghans to have a chance at health care, education, jobs, and potential future security. As such things would errode any potential future hold they could effect on the Afghan people.

Always remember that the Taliban doctrine (which by the way is, Whabbism) is actually foreign to Afghanistan and is utterly at odds with Pastunwali, and most other ethnic and religious beliefs which Afghans hold very very dear. The biggest short coming of the Russians, and the down fall of their efforts there, was to meddle in the religious beliefs of Afghans... Something the Coalition Forces are avoiding like the plague currently.

Don't think so!

That's pretty funny actually. How long do you think this unprecedented coalition would be there if Uncle Sam went home?

We're there to prop up George - despite whatever soft soap they try to sell the Canadian electorate. Time once was when a government thought to reflect the attitudes of the voters - at least SOME of the time. Now pee wee is more interested in manipulating the electorate by spin and subterfuge and he’s not above seeing a bunch on Canadians maimed and slaughtered into the bargain apparently.

If Bush had kept his promises and not invaded Iraq, there was a chance to change things in Afghanistan - as I've said several times before. And that long article from the Times last weekend spells it out – chapter and verse: They blew it, and we're blowing it by staying on to hold the Americans' hand. Any time you find yourself following pee wee Rambo, Ricky Hillier and Don Cherry you can be pretty sure you're lost.

The Taleban cometh

Leaving Afghanistan leaves the Taleban and their foreign allies in control.

If the Canadian people answer "yes" to a referendum with a clear question saying

"Do you support Cdn forces leaving Afghanistan if it means handing back the country to the Taleban?"

Then by all means we should leave.

And then dismantle our military and change our Constitution to say "We want a society with no obligations, no sense of community, no willingness to help others, we just want a Canada that is a good place to shop"

And I will move away in disgust and leave Canada securely in the hands of the "Sovereign Individuals" secure in the knowledge that any sacrifice that doesn't make money is too much for Canada to bear.

There will always be another...

The confusion regarding Afghanistan is understandable, since the region gets very little coverage in school history classes. That would be if there were 'history' classes any more, 'Social Studies' does not cover it.

Frank asks:

The answer would be a resounding yes (better than 60% would be my prediction, supported by the Strategic Councel documents (hint look at page 4). So such a question is not likely to be on any ballots.

A smart option is to 'bury' the story, and I really suspect that this will be more likely the case, as much as I would like to see this really debated it will not be, just like the history of the world is not really taught anywhere. Do not expect such a plan of action as called for by Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada to be implemented in anything like an obvious way. There will be no full page ads, there will be no editorials, there will be no infomercials, and there will be no full colour brochures in your mail box.

There will be 'seemingly' private persons coming forward to present 'information' as fact. They will be interviewed on Canada AM, they will be published in Macleans, they will be quoted by the TV news anchor and the pundit. There may be a 'segment' showing a well dug or a school foundation built, or a hospital ward getting medicines (like they used to get from MSF now long gone). See page 27.

This will be touted as the 'good works' that the 'multi-skilled, flexible and professional Canadian Forces are providing Peace Support'. See page 24.

The front (wo)men will not use words like 9/11, freedom, democracy, values, fighting terrorism or cut and run. See page 26.

---cont---

...another version of 'the taliban'

---cont---

This will be the ultimate form of bafflegab in an effort to totally get the subject changed from why we went into the region in the first place, with no understanding of it or its history or its social structure, things that have existed for 3000 years in very close to the same way as we see them today.

The region will always find another Pashtun tough men or mean spirited ideology; especially when they are pushed by outsiders, like the Macedonian Greeks, the Mongols, the British, the Soviets and now us, to get them through the difficult times and back to where they want to be...left alone in each of thier tiny valleys to farm and eke out a living THEIR OWN WAY.

So whether we stay or leave the civil war that has been brewing since the 1970's will reach a conclusion, the only decision we need to make is what part we really want to play in it.

I don't think that's the only way to characterize the question

As I've said before, have the referendum, but be honest about it. Tell the country that it'll mean 100,000 troops in a permanent army and everything that entails - not just 6 month turnarounds that guarantee promotion in the regular army, conscription and a hell of a lot more blood - with no guarantee of any kind of success at the end.

I'm all for sharing and caring - but on our terms and in circumstances where we're wanted, needed and have a real prospect of doing good and actually helping in the long run. This cheap stuff is just lame - relying on the US for air support (although I see the Brits have asked them to bug off because of unnecessary civilian casualties) and the Germans for tanks and Halliburton for support services gives people at home the wrong idea.

Most of the testimony from Afghanistan that isn't coming from someone who is bought and paid for doesn't sound much like it's working to me.

There are at least 10 countries in Africa who need and want us more.

murdock

Yes, you've said you're totally against anything called "mission creep" which means no one 10 years from now is allowed to do do anything different than what we had in mind now. I on the other hand could care less about "mission creep" which I see as "the ultimate form of bafflegab".

Who cares, we've all been around for 3000 years. The past is a different country, a statement never truer than it is now.

Talk about bafflegab, we're not at war with Afghanistan murdock, we're allied to Afghanistan and fighting those who wish to control it, enemies both foreign and domestic.

Being as the Taleban can't win without resorting to violence, my idea is that we help the white hats against the black hats.

You on the other hand would prefer we wait till the black hats shoot the white hats and then recognize them as the non-elected government of Afghanistan.

I see no reason for your position beyond Canada avoiding the expense of helping someone else.

Referendum

I'm fine with that as long as we also describe in detail what the Taleban will do to those we abandon. The price of leaving should be given equal air-time to the price of staying.

And have been since de-colonization but Canada wasn't interested in helping them either and I doubt a referendum would back troops, civilian workers and money to Africa in any appreciable amount either. Even when the genocide in Rwanda was going on we weren't exactly setting the world on fire trying to stop it.

murdock and the referendum

Better than 60% on a fair question? Interestingly I've always said people aren't willing to make the necessary sacrifices to prevent eventual environmental collapse either.

Its certainly possible people would balk at the idea of giving up a new bridge or a tax cut in order to pay for the war in Afghanistan. I hesitate to ever underestimate people's greed.

not said at all

Frank, putting words in my mouth:

No.

Never said that at all.

Your 'perfect' world of white and black is a muddy, grey mess in Afghanistan. Your 'so called' white hats are wearing ones so dark that unless you look really close (past the layers of blood) you cannot see the white any more.

The whole concept of the 'black hatted' taliban is nuts! With the use of armor and concentrated air assault (like the US was doing in 2002, 2003 and 2004!) the Mujehedin are back in business! This has nothing to do with religious significance, it is about preservation of a way of life and the means to have a life. With the trigger happy Americans running around for three years blasting anything that remotely looked like it might have sometime contained an enemy position they have de-housed half the population, whom have fled into Pakistan or Iran. Found some shelter or comradeship there and the desire to re-pay those whom declared them foe. This has been a way of life for at least the last 5 generations in the area, the US was nuts to try and use force at all, their own CIA should have warned them of the consequences!

I say that your 'white hats' are blacker than the ace of spades and we are better off to stand back and let the civil war sort out, permit those whom want to leave to have a place to come...here in Canada. Once the military situation settles then we deal with those whom we have to, remaining is only a recipie for disaster.

*=the border referred to here is with Pakistan.

Amin Saikal is Professor of Political Science

Observers the world over are in agreement that the situation was handled badly and the best solution is to get out of the way for now.

Quote:There are at least 10

Um, which countries? If you suggest Sudan, I will laugh, as Sudan and the AU have stated categorically that they do not want our help, or anyone else in NATO... That is the first point, second, if you think for one second that operations in Sudan would be much better then the operations in Afghanistan currently, you are dreaming. Sudan would have to be taken by force to force a peaceful solution there. Any other thoughts on that is so far removed from reality and knowledge of what is happening there it is unbelievable.

I'll comment more when I get back on tomorrow (I just hit back page on a lengthily post, and so, I am calling it for now, but before that).

no need to abandon anyone

how many living in Khabul?

2.5 million, according to wikipedia, not all will want to come, but we certainly have more than enough room within the immigration targets and needs.

Shipping them here will be cheaper than sending more tanks and trying to keep them operating while using them to make more enemies.

Welcoming them here will plant the seed for them to perhaps go back in a generation and re-start with a larger view of the world?

At the very least we, Canada, stop being the bird-dog for the US.

murdock

Regarding my simple "black and white" view, aren't you the one that claimed the Taleban were just a bunch of peace-loving shepherds looking for a nice place among the valleys of Afghanistan to raise their families?

Right... The fact that they take people hostage and kill them or just kill them without taking them hostage is just their way of saying "thank you neighbour"?

Aha! I've seen you've been working on an explanation for all those "foreign elements" among the Taleban I mentioned last time. You've now declared them to be ex-Afghans forced into foreign countries because of the US. The fact that news organizatiopns have interviewed many of them and that they were never in Afghanistan before the war means nothing I guess.

Letting all the Afghans come to Canada was actually my idea originally, but there's a problem with that. Namely that it serves the interests of the business sector here who would use that infusion of people to drive down wages and engage in their usual union-busting tactics. Since you don't want Canadians to make any sacrifices I assume your concern also extends to Canadian workers? Or should the economic burdens of Afghanistan fall on unionized Canadians to the benefit of business leaders now dealing with retiring baby-boomers?? Phil Hochstein has asked for immigration to be increased because he doesn't like wages rising, I'm sure he'd be happy to take millions of Afghans and I know developers and realtors will roll out the red carpets for all those from Kabul needing a new home so they can keep the housing bubble going.

Sadly

If the Taliban don't get 'em then the warlords will. My position on Afghanistan has been consistent from the beginning.

It was always nothing but an American show and we went in as their handmaidens; which was fine as long as they kept their commitments.

They didn't so we should have walked - period. It’s the only way to deal with liars.

As I've said numerous times before, bring the women and children and any one else, to whom we've given false hope, to Canada. Spend the billions we're wasting on this pyrrhic effort in country on helping them be settled here and leave the Americans to contend with the mess they made. I think I've been suggesting that as long as you have Frank.

There are more than ten African countries who'd be glad to have our help without going near Sudan - but I'd be happy to go there too as part of the recently announced 26,000 person UN effort.

Gift to May

I see this as a handwraped gift to LIzzy May; if she stands any hope of winning against P-Mac, she'll need to move past the small "g" green vote and garner anti-war sentiment.

Harper and the CPC stands to gain more than any other party by an increased Green Party presence, as it could effectively spilt the environmental vote (no green voter would honestly consider the CPC as a viable choice).