Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Kennedy on Afghanistan... Bring them home now...

AKA "What was so bad about the Taliban?".

I'm pretty much in complete agreement with Paul Wells on this one. Wells says "To be clear: if I had ever thought Kennedy the best candidate for the Liberal leadership, this speech alone would be quite enough to disqualify him in my opinion."

Now, I still haven't been paying enough attention to the race to decide who I would like to be the next Liberal leader but this speech alone is quite enough to disqualify Kennedy in my opinion (copyright, Paul Wells, 2006). So, there's one down.

Given the talk in the media, I guess my choices are down to Ignatieff, Dion and Rae. As Wells puts it, one who supports the mission, and two ditherers. Great. I used to think Ignatieff was too "right-wing" for my tatse (speaking relatively of course). Now I'm starting to think maybe the whole party's too "left-wing" for my taste, if the rhetoric on Afghanistan lately is any indication. I don't know who I'll vote for next time around, but this convention could have a lot to do with whether or not it's the Liberals.

Kennedy says ""If Canada can't have an independent voice in Afghanistan, then where will we?".

I say, if we can't stand with our NATO allies, under a UN mandate (!), fighting the religious fanatics who sheltered and supported Osama bin Laden to keep them from returning to power, at the request of the democratically elected government of Afghanistan, then whose side are we on? If our "independent voice" means we ignore the UN mandate, and abandon our allies in Afghanistan from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Turkey, the UK, and non-NATO partners in Afghanistan such as Finland, Sweden, Ireland and New Zealand then what does that independence say about us? Do we plan to be "neutral" in an area of the world where Switzerland (SWITZERLAND!!!) has taken sides? (Admittedly, there are only 4 troops from Switzerland in ISAF... but it's SWITZERLAND for Pete's sake). Kennedy calls us an "occupying force". Well, that's how the Taliban sees us, but the democratically elected government of Afghanistan has requested our presence. And it's been sanctioned by the United Nations. So, we should pull out because the Taliban and their supporters are upset? We should stop fighting the Taliban, and concentrate on building an infrastructure (and providing construction workers) for them to kill and blow up? Just because we don't like Dubya? To call that idiocy is an understatement.

I hate to say it, but since I'll NEVER vote for Harper's Conservatives, if the Liberals lose me on Afghanistan, I may have to stay home on the next election day (well, not stay home... I've always felt that was unpatriotic... but I'll go to the polls and have to spoil my ballot).

Should be an interesting winter!

Recommend this Post


Anonymous said...

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Your Kennedy may vary.

Lord Kitchener's Own said...



Anonymous said...

Wow. Take it easy. Kennedy didn't say to pull out of Afghanistan, he said the mission needs a re-evaluation. Quite frankly, the majority of Liberals and the Canadian population agree with him.

The Tiger said...

Come over to the dark side... :-)

[I made my move in March 2004.]

Anonymous said...

Chin up. I wouldn't fear much about the Liberals changing their position en masse and come off sounding like the NDP. Once their leader's been selected and they go into an election, the term 're-evaluation' will only mean something about how Canadians deal in the operation and they would stlll be of help in the international effort in Afghanistan. At least that's what I assume will happen.