Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.
Jim Mc Nulty, Montreal Gazette, 16 Nov 06
Article Link (Subscription required)
As sales pitches go, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor's
promotion of Canada's mission in Afghanistan is more remarkable for
what he leaves out than what he puts in.
His speech this week to the Vancouver Board of Trade was full of
patriotic vigour and rally-round-the-troops emphasis on the need for
Canada to support freedom and democracy.
In that sense, he didn't need to convert the Canadian public. Of
course we support the troops, and of course we endorse freedom and
democracy.
But fact is that the public has deep concerns about the mission
that go beyond the death toll of 42 Canadians.
Canadians are worried about other big NATO countries' refusal to
join our troops in the south of Afghanistan, where Taliban put up
fierce resistance.
We are troubled by the ease with which Taliban pour in from
Pakistan, which supported the Taliban prior to 9/11.
Pakistan remains a jihad factory. Its semi-autonomous border
regions with Afghanistan are home to extremist madrassa schools that
churn out Taliban by the hundreds. Pakistan's military intelligence
harbours many Taliban *supporters*.
Canadians remain anxious about the expansion of Afghanistan's
poppy-based drug economy, fuelling heroin supplies around the world.
And at the end of the day, Canadians wonder about fighting for
freedom and democracy in a country that counts dozens of warlords,
drug lords, thieves and other seriously corrupt individuals in its
barely-functioning government.
Stephen Harper's team might not have all the answers at hand, but
it needs to at least address the questions - something O'Connor
failed to do in any meaningful way.
He completely avoided the subject of Pakistan's questionable
resolve in the battle, and the corruption in Hamid Karzai's regime
in Afghanistan.
On the drug issue, he said it was a responsibility of British
forces, which have so far failed spectacularly.
As to the unwillingness of NATO partners to join Canada in the
south, O'Connor said "it's our expectation as time goes on in
Afghanistan that these caveats will be removed."
One month ago, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said that
Canada "cannot continue to do this" without more NATO support.
Asked how much longer "cannot continue" means, O'Connor replied
that "we are quite capable of keeping the commitment we have in
Afghanistan going into the future as long as you can imagine it."
That doesn't jibe with Mac-Kay's statement, and it won't wash with
the public, a majority of whom said in a recent Environics poll that
Canada should withdraw troops before its 2009 scheduled pullout
arrives.
Platitudes and rhetoric are no substitute for strong answers on
tough questions.