Thursday, June 08, 2006

Bob Rae Lays it on the Table

Demanding a pullout in 2007 may not be a feasible option at this point, given that we are already halfway through 2006, but I think Bob Rae does the Liberal Party a useful service by laying out the choice for the other leadership candidates: do we organize an orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan in accordance with our own national interests ASAP, or do we drive around Kandahar getting shot at for the next god knows how many years until the Americans tell us to go home?

Specifically, Mr. Rae says:

While [Mr. Rae] supports the current mission, he believes that when the combat component expires in 2007, it should not be renewed, and that we have made our contribution with respect to combat," said spokesman Alex Swann.

He added that Mr. Rae believes Canada should focus its military, aid and diplomatic resources on reconstruction and rebuilding Afghanistan.

We should ensure we understand whether any such efforts affect our ability to contribute to resolving other troubling situations, such as in Darfur," Mr. Swann said.

Now, this is the National Post we are talking about, so they are eager to play up the "Liberals Divided" angle:

The issue is already evolving into a defining one for the party. Some Liberals say their leadership choice is now limited to Mr. Ignatieff or Scott Brison, the only two candidates who voted to extend the current mission, while a number of caucus members have said privately they cannot now vote for Mr. Ignatieff, the perceived front-runner.

And it is true that the Liberals are divided on the issue: into a very large group, broadly representative of Canada as a whole, and a much smaller group that stands on the Right of the party and feels that the way back into power is to offer the nation Conservative Lite. In fact, the 67/24 split vote in Parliament on the extension of the mission, with Bill Graham and Iggy and Scott Brison et. al. in the minority helping to prop up the Harper government, probably over-states the amount support within the party's rank and file. Certainly, Michael Ignatieff is out of step with his Toronto constituents.

And Libs should remember, this minority is from the same wing of the party that gave us Turner and Martin--a parade of losers in other words. The party should choose somebody who is willing to buck U.S pressure and bring the soldiers home, and tell these people to get back in line.

(In fact, after the disaster that was the Paul Martin government, this bunch should be offering to wait tables and sweep floors at the leadership convention)

1 comment:

Lord Kitchener's Own said...

I just don't like the idea that this seems to express that we were all aboard for kicking the Taliban and al Qaeda out of power in Afghanistan after 9/11, but somehow we never intended to help KEEP them out, so we've done enough now, and we should let someone else make sure the Taliban doen't march back in and take over the place again. Not our job??? We only like keeping the peace when we won't have to hurt anyone who is threatening the peace??? I'm not saying that's what Mr. Rae is saying, but I think the tilt is in this direction, rather than the other.

I think you're wrong about support levels in the party, and across Canada too. I know plenty of pretty left-wing people who want us to stay in Afghanistan until the threat of the Taliban/al Qadea alliance there is actually dealt with, and the Afghan government is strong enough not to fall the second foreign troops leave. I think a lot of Liberals who voted against the extension, voted against the dearth of debate, and the political motivations of the Tories in quickly bringing the resolution forward with little notice; NOT against actually finishing the job we started in Afghanistan. I don't think Canada will be any safer if we pull out of Afghanistan and let the Taliban take over again, and I'm also not thrilled with the idea of shirking our responsibilities, and letting the Americans (with their long history of success in these types of operations... NOT) try to save Afghanistan without us.

I don't know how many more times I can say it, but Afghanistan is NOT Iraq, and just because the Americans lost focus and forgot what the fight against terrorism is supposed to be about, doesn't mean we should stop fighting terrorists and religious fanatics. I understand the NDP's position (kinda, I think, on some days) and it's a principled pacifist position with which I happen to disagree. But then, foreign affairs and military matters were always the main reasons for my discomfort voting NDP (which I have done several time regardless). I thought Bob Rae would make an excellent Liberal leader (he's probably one of the smartest and most experienced political figures in the country) regardless of his electablility (which might have been a problem). However, this position has me reassessing that, and I'm actually surprised and disappointed by Mr. Rae's stance here.

Your post seems to suggest that you're worried about the Liberals drifting, and becoming a shadow of the CPC. Well, to my mind, becoming a shadow of the NDP would do pretty much the same for the Liberals electorally, i.e. nothing. Canadians want "conservative" here, and "progressive" there, and I think the Liberals always did a great job of finding the middle ground, and doing what the public wanted. To my mind, there's a risk the "new" Liberal party will lose this ability... and that won't result in an NDP majority, I'm sure....