« Home | The Sachs plan for ending poverty » | Layton's smile of the day » | Spending in the currency of ideas » | CNN highlights famine in Malawi » | Fighting for a breakthrough » | The campaign from yesterday » | The Ignatieff saga » | Religion as a uniting force » | The ivory tower complex » | Let them look on the bright side » 

Friday, December 09, 2005 

Layton's foreign policy: withdrawal

Apparently, NDP Leader Jack Layton essentially called today for a halt to the deployment of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, implying that Canada should perhaps withdraw from the mission altogether. Layton suggested that it was an initiative pressed forward by American President George W Bush, and that Canada shouldn't drift into a larger war. I'm not entirely sure what implications this will have for the campaign, but it seems that Layton is trying to make a bit of an Iraq parallel to Afghanistan in his remarks, and is perhaps reading off the same page as some American Democrats. I don't really see how this policy of his will help him make any gains for the NDP, though. It seems to me that Canadians are rather supportive of our presence in Afghanistan, and will continue to be unless casualties get exorbitantly high.

Beyond simply the campaign effects, though, I want to note how much I totally disagree with much of what Layton has said. He suggests that this is a war led by George Bush that Paul Martin is blindly and secretly leading Canadians into. The fact of the matter is that the Afghanistan mission has always been a multilateral one. At first, when the goal was to aid the Northern Alliance and topple the Taliban, the invasion had full UN backing and was endorsed by much of the world as a valid response to 9/11 - and rightly so. After the Taliban fell, the role of foreign troops turned to one of nationbuilding and security, ensuring that Afghanistan does not become a failed state and can make a smooth transition to democracy and a new government. That's why Canadian troops are there, and it's a valid mission that Jack Layton is foolish to undermine. Will there be casualties? Yes, likely - Defence Minister Bill Graham has argued as much for months. But neither that fact nor the fact that the role of Canada is expanding beyond Kandahar to perhaps the more important yet dangerous long-term role of provincial security is reason to get out and call for withdrawal. Canada is playing an important role in the stabilization of a state whose collapse would be catastrophic. Calling for our withdrawal from a multilateral effort by trying to link it to George Bush or claiming that it has been done secretly (also false) is ridiculous - as far as I'm concerned this is one reason why I don't want Jack Layton's hand on the foreign policy rudder. I hope that most Canadians think the same way.

You sound a bit bitter there, EX-NDIP.

The lament here is simply how hoards of North Americans fail to see the absolute need to reverse and contain the advances of Jihadist terrorists on many fronts.

The pressing need is to stay the course and invest in the backing required to allow a self propelled democracy take hold in Iraq.

This Jihadhist movement is uniquely dangerous because it is diversified and has no single head that can be disabled. It can be self motivated in any country and attack for a percieved common good.

There have been cells squashed in the USA and recently one out of a San Diego Mosque.

The terrorist spirit was powerfully encouraged when the Russians threw up their hands at the constant mindless sniping years ago.

This was no doubt whipped up to the *troops* as a great victory when in fact, it was only a move of common sense. That and 9/11 are no doubt used to great effect in motivating the Jihadist trainees. TG
http://BendGovernment.blogspot.com

Post a Comment

News Sources

Progressive Bloggers Liblogs

Blogwise - blog directory Blogarama Powered by Blogger