The NDP makes me sad.

I voted for Peggy Nash because of a dislike for Sarmite Bulte and a desire to see someone new installed, and a realization that only Nash stood a chance against her, the CPC and Green candidates not having nearly enough support.

But I genuinely liked Nash.

Now, that whole Morgan thing has turned me off. It was close and so I went with her - next time, I expect I'll toss a vote to the Greens.

The NDP are all 17 years old, I'm convinced.

Agreed. I vote NDP occasionally but if the party wants to build, it has to get people who know something about the world. Black is clearly unqualified for such an important post, and like you, Chris, I don't understand why the N.D.P. can't mention Afghanistan without talking about Darfur.

The weakness in Harper's Afghanistan argument, it seems to me, is his attempt to portray a strict cause and effect between the Afghan mission and the effort to avert future attacks in Canada and the United States. In other words, he is borrowing the Bush motto, "We fight them there so we don't fight them here." I'd be a lot more comfortable with Harper if he levelled with Canadians and admitted that this is 99% a humanitarian mission without scaring the hell out of us with talk of Canadian 9/11s.

As for Ignatieff, he at least admits that we are in Afghanistan for entirely humanitarian reasons. However, it troubles me that for such a humanitarian, he has never met a war he doesn't like. Given that there are dozens upon dozens of tyrannical regimes in the world, does this mean that Canadians should be prepared to go into every one? How do we decide where to intervene? Is there a point when the cost in lives (both civilian and military) can trump the good we seek to achieve i.e. democracy? Iggy needs to put some serious thought into this.

Everybody lies -- or so it seems some days. It's great entertainment watching you take them to task.

Milan-

Given that there are dozens upon dozens of tyrannical regimes in the world, does this mean that Canadians should be prepared to go into every one? How do we decide where to intervene? Is there a point when the cost in lives (both civilian and military) can trump the good we seek to achieve i.e. democracy? Iggy needs to put some serious thought into this.

Are you seriously suggesting that Ignatieff has not worked through these questions. Christ.

Everybody lies -- or so it seems some days. It's great entertainment watching you take them to task.

Milan-

Given that there are dozens upon dozens of tyrannical regimes in the world, does this mean that Canadians should be prepared to go into every one? How do we decide where to intervene? Is there a point when the cost in lives (both civilian and military) can trump the good we seek to achieve i.e. democracy? Iggy needs to put some serious thought into this.

Are you seriously suggesting that Ignatieff has not worked through these questions. Christ.

That was one of the only treatments I've seen which puts Ignatieff's Parlimentary speech in context. Good work.

I guess you read David Frum so other's don't have to. Brave man.

You've been given 36 hours to decide whether you want to commit Canadian troops for two more years to Afghanistan...

Chris, I know the opposition was braying this night and day, but you should know better than to repeat it. Canadian troops have been in Afghanistan for over four years now. If our MP's haven't figured out where they stand on the issue in four years, they really have no business complaining.

Harper didn't cut short the contemplation of individual MPs; every single one of them has an opinion - informed or not - and could have voted it on the spot. What he did was cut short the ability of the parties to organize against the motion. He didn't give them time to play games.

Ignatieff is for the mission in Afghanistan. He always has been. To go along with the notion that he only had a day and a half to make up his mind is...well, let's just say it's not your best effort.

I, for one, see nothing wrong with the NDP raising key issues about our foreign policy in the House, whether the "debate" was stage-managed by the Harperites or not.

Are we peacekeepers or are we American subalterns, in the thick of the battle to establish mirror-images of the US around the globe? If the former, our mission in Afghanistan represents a significant departure.

Darfur is where the real atrocities are being committed. The world stood by while Rwanda convulsed; we should not repeat that mistake in the Sudan. If we have a choice (and the NDP is arguing that we do), Darfur is the place to play a peace-keeping role.

What we have in Afghanistan is rival gangs of hard men and the shell of a "Western democracy." It was interesting to note the embarrassment of the intervenors when a Christian convert was condemned to death over there. Which would win--Western-style separation of powers or "tolerance?" In the event, the latter did: the President intervened and the man was spared. But now a cleric in the middle of all this has been appointed head of the Supreme Court by that same president.

Your post was uncharacteristically screechy, Chris. The NDP is simply standing up for Canadian values in the House. The Liberals, as usual, are all over the map, looking for votes and advantage. The Conservatives want us to throw our lot in with the US. There really is only one political choice here.

Damian,

"Canadian troops have been in Afghanistan for over four years now. If our MP's haven't figured out where they stand on the issue in four years, they really have no business complaining."

Fair point — bad wording on my part. What I meant is that they had 36 hours to decide whether to vote yes or no on a motion that was before them purely for Stephen Harper's political gain, and that's a difficult position to be in, especially for someone aspiring to become Leader of the Opposition.

"What he did was cut short the ability of the parties to organize against the motion. He didn't give them time to play games."

Right, because he was too busy playing his own.

Dawg,

It's quite something to be called "screechy" by someone who seems to be channeling Maude Barlow. How are the NDP "standing up for Canadian values" by suggesting that we abandon the mission in Afghanistan simply because a mission they consider more worthy has come along? If they want Canadian troops in Darfur, they should argue the case independent of Afghanistan. And if they want Canadian troops out of Afghanistan they should argue the case without backhandedly hinting, as you do, that the only reason we're there is to facilitate American imperialism.

Darfur is a cause worth supporting. Afghanistan has always been a question in my mind: even though the Taliban was the bottom of the end, I'm not convinced that we have a good replacement in the current regime.

Canada simply doesn't have the resources to accompany the Anericans on all of their adventures. Surely stopping, or helping to stop, genocide, is more worthy than helping to set up an American client state?

I have no idea what Maude Barlow thinks about all this. Can you point me to a reference? I don't want to stray too far from the Line, after all. :)

"Are we peacekeepers or are we American subalterns..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

What Dean said. Er, linked to. Afghanistan has nothing to do with Darfur, Dawg. The NDP remind me of people who shout down government funding for Project X on the grounds that the money would be better spent on the homeless, but then conveniently forget to support spending money on the homeless until Project Y comes along.

False dichotomy? Come on. Canada, as you both know, doesn't have unlimited military resources. Hence we really do have, literally, to pick our battles. It's not just Afghanistan OR Darfur. It's Afghanistan OR anywhere else. We simply don't have the capability for a serious commitment to both.

Hence there is a choice. You surely aren't suggesting that we can get heavily involved in both places?

Yikes. Sorry, Dean, Chris' last sent me down a false trail.

Perhaps "subaltern vs. peacekeeper" is indeed a false dichotomy. So what are some of the other choices, or, more importantly, when will we see our country adopt one of them?

Dawg - sorry for the dilatory response: the weekend called...

First - the notion of "peacekeeping" as a blue-helmet force interposed between two armies is gone. In general, it is nation-states that can afford armies, and increasingly they are not going to (open) war. Instead, we have conflicts between "armies" that range from mob to rabble and struggle to reach the status of "militia" - and more and more often, these warring entities are involved in "civil wars" as in (the former) Yugoloslavia (although some of the belligerents claimed to be 'nations' if not states), and more clearly in Rwanda, certainly in Sudan, the DR Congo, and - according to some of the critics - in Afghanistan. If the choice is to be "peacekeepers" or nothing, then we have to realize that there is no "peacekeeper" option - we either withdraw from the world (at least in terms of projection of force, involvement in conflict and military matters) or we accept a different role.

Much of the commentary from the NDP evokes this idea that we should return to a "traditional" role as peacekeepers - I am not sure if they are ill-informed, and actually think that role exists, or if they are disingenuous, and know that the role is gone but know that calling for that role is a convenient disguise for unilateral disengagement. This was my first objection to your comparision - one alternative does not actually exist.

Second - I am not sure in what sense we could usurp the US position in world affairs; as the pre-eminent global military power everyone wil be subordinate to them. To paraphrase Nixon: "we are all subalterns now." I suspect, though, that you meant it to be pejorative: you see the alternative to "peacekeeping" as being a junior partner to the US hegemon, a willing participant in establishing (or extending) a US Empire. I don't see that this is what we are doing in Afghanistan; along with NATO allies (including, yes, the US) we are "peacemaking" - and the goal is a stable, reasonably free Afghanistan that does not support terrorist operations. think that is a worthy goal, and I believe it is within sight.

Dean: thanks for your comments, dilatory or not.

I don't support isolationism. I believe Canada has a role to play internationally, and part of a mooted UN rapid-response team in a place like Darfur would be where I would support active intervention.

But Afghanistan is a different kettle of fish. Yes, it is indeed a civil war, between rival gangs of hard men, never mind the shell of an American-style democratic state being propped up by foreign armies. The opium trade, harshly suppressed by the Taliban, is now literally back in full flower. A fundamentalist cleric has been appointed to head up the country's supreme court--a man involved in the recent imbroglio over a Christian convert being condemned to death.

I just have to ask myself--and you--what the hell is in it for us to be in Afghanistan? What are we fighting for? Whose peace are we keeping? Or making? Outside of American geopolitical interests in the region, it's not that easy to say. "Terrorism" is a red herring--it's been quite a while since Afghanistan could be considered the terror capital of the world.

In the meantime, we're waist-deep in the big muddy. For how long, as villages full of civilians continue to be bombed, are we going to be "sorry about that?"

We're in the wrong place, and the NDP is right on the money, even if Black goofed by being upfront about the state of her knowledge of military affairs. But you don't have to know how to assemble a tank or what enfilading fire is to figure out that our involvement in a brutal civil war is neither in our interests nor those of the majority of Afghanis.

Dawg - why do you expect that things would be any different in Darfur than they are in Afghanistan? Instead of clan and tribally-based conflict, we have ethnic conflict - which is (probably) deeper-rooted and less amenable to coalition building and resolution of old differences. We have no opium trade to deal with - but we do have oil resources, and a superpower with an economic interest. I see many of the same people complaining about Afghanistan now making the same complaints about Sudan in four years, if we were to commit there - assuming that a workable intervention group could be assembled in the first place.

You are correct that at the moment Afghanistan is not a terrorist supporter or staging area; the problem is that it could (and almost inevitably would) rapidly become one if the current NATO involvement were to be withdrawn before the country is stabilized.

Dean:

Afghanistan isn't going to be "stabilized." It's a failed state, and it isn't about to get re-built in America's image. That's all optics, and about a micron deep.

You are right that Darfur could prove to be a quagmire too, and there would be naysayers here shaking their heads about that. The trick is to define the damned mission, and timetable it. In Darfur, genocide continues. The proposed UN rapid-response force that Dallaire has been pushing (I think he's been misquoted about it being there already--it's not) makes sense in emergency situations. Darfur would clearly be a humanitarian mission.

I just don't see the Afghanistan adventure as one of those. Lots of bad stuff happening there, but not genocide. As for it reverting to a terrorist staging area when and if NATO gets out, why? Why not Saudi Arabia and Yemen, where the 9/11 bombers came from? Why not Indonesia?

Dawg - I don't expect Afghanistan to be rebuilt "in America's image" - but I do expect that there will be something there that is better than the hardline theocracy that was there before. I agree that Darfur will be (or would be) a humanitarian mission, and would be a good use of the UN rapid-deployment force. If there was one. If a certain UNSC member would allow them to go. If the African Union (the only established force in the area) would allow them to arrive. That's three huge hurdles to overcome, before we even start to deal with logistics - the most obvious one being the need for airlift - or go through the roster of which nations would participate, or consider the poor record of recent UN deployments:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1126/p06s02-wogi.htm
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=200261&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/
http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2005/09/18/un_forces_in_congo_battle_a_reputation_for_ineffectiveness/
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/ctte/5919rev.pdf?OpenElement

I just don't see that any effective engagement in Darfur is in the cards

"Why not Saudi Arabia and Yemen, where the 9/11 bombers came from? Why not Indonesia?"
There are possibilities for any state to become a sponsor of terrorism. I think the chances are lower in these states (and other likely suspects, like Pakistan), as they are not yet 'failed states' as Afghanistan was - and may be again. While the 9/11 bombers cam from Saudi and Yemen they could not organize and train there other than clandestinely - a government with at least a semblance of the ability to project force internally will oppose them. If Afghanistan reverts to a Taliban-like government such operations would be routine, and would not be opposed by any governmental authority - indeed, they could well be supported by it.

Afghanistan isn't going to be "stabilized."

Your pessimism, Dr. Dawg, isn't shared by anyone I know on the military side. In fact, I shared a drink recently with a CIMIC officer who's been-there-done-that, including in Afghanistan, and he thinks we simply need to keep doing what we're doing.

The difference between your pessimism and his optimism, I suspect, is that he can back his opinion up with real experience, whereas you're simply playing the pundit from second- or third-hand. Feel free to correct me if you have any insight beyond what you read in the papers or watch on the evening news, but my guess is that you don't.

And before you dismiss the experience of a simple soldier, know that the man's day job involves a legal degree and an employer in the financial sector on Bay Street. He's been around a bit too long to be taken in by any particular political agenda.

To me, this entire discussion exemplifies the biggest single problem we have with political discourse: we all look for and choose to believe the information that supports our predecided position on any given issue. Dr. Dawg wants to believe we have no interests in Afghanistan, he wants to believe it's hopeless, he wants to believe our efforts could be far better spent in Darfur. I want to believe we're doing the right thing in Afghanistan, I want to believe we're making progress, and I wish to God we had the resources to make a bigger dent in the mess in Sudan. While I like to think I can make a better case than Dawg, wanting or wishing doesn't matter the slightest to the reality on the ground.

While I like to think I can make a better case than Dawg

Well, you won't do so with an argument from authority. In any case, a law degree and experience on Bay Street is about as relevant to the situation in Afghanistan, I would guess, as my own background in public life.

In any case, a law degree and experience on Bay Street is about as relevant to the situation in Afghanistan, I would guess, as my own background in public life.

Not unless you can marry that civilian knowledge to military skills as a CIMIC officer it isn't.

And call it an argument from authority if you want. My point was simply that you believe Greg Weston or Rick Salutin or today's anti-war journalist-of-the-moment over those who have been on the ground in country because you choose to. And I believe the soldiers and diplomats who say we're doing good things because I choose to. Either of us might be right, but I'm more confident in my sources because they're qualified to form these opinions.

I don't believe you can say that of most pundits when it comes to issues of security, nation-building, or development assistance.

Damian: You're putting a lot of stock in the word of one officer. Some U.S. generals thought Iraq could be pacified with 100,000 troops. Some (the wise ones it turned out) said 250,000 +. Some Candian generals believe we can win in Afghanistan while others think that soldiers aren't much good at the kind of nation-building we're asking them to do.

Most of us haven't been on the ground in Afghanistan - that doesn't mean that we can't draw lessons from history, recent events, etc., or that those of us concerned about the mission should be lumped in with Rick Salutin.