Nice Moments

Today while standing on Spring Garden Rd. a large number of vehicles were driving along honking their horns in celebration. The first couple didn't have any markings or anything really defining about them, so I turned to Anna Lou and asked, "Did somebody win something?" Then I saw the first Kosovo flags. Yes, indeed, somebody "won" something today. That the people of Kosovo have declared their independence from Serbia today is an amazing fact. When you think back to the horrors of the late 1990s, resulting in the humanitarian intervention led by NATO (which the Russians attempted to prevent by vetoing a Security Council resolution at the UN--real proud moment in the organization's history) to protect them from further ethnic cleansing by the vile and thuggish Milosevic regime, it is truly a happy day for Kosovars today. It almost brought a tear to my eye to see Kosovars in Canada and their supporters being able to celebrate this moment, and I was happy to give a big thumbs up to the people as they drove past.
The NATO intervention into Kosovo was a marked shift in how we look at international relations. It was one of the first incursions into a state that was committing atrocities against its own people, and certainly the most successful, with the missions into Somalia and Rwanda being disastrous for the West. Since Kosovo, the concept of the Responsibility to Protect has been developed and fleshed out to the point that it is nearly accepted in international law. We have Michael Ignatieff, who has spent considerable time in Kosovo, to thank in part for advancing the idea. Tony Blair championed the concept among world leaders, demonstrating that liberals can and should stand up for liberal principles and apply them on a universal scale. In his lengthy career, which is marked by a strong interventionist set of credentials, Kosovo is perhaps his greatest accomplishment. Meanwhile, Ignatieff's work on the International Comisssion on Intervention and State Sovereignty is widely accepted and serves to put all states on notice that if they commit heinous acts against their own populations they will face consequences and be held accountable. What happened today demonstrates the long-term positive impact of what can happen when governments work in concert to protect civilian populations from tyrannical regimes.

In news far less important, Carey Price got his first NHL shutout last night. The young phenom was just that last night against the Flyers, making 34 saves and staving off a lengthy 5-on-3 disadvantage. Too bad the jerk Briere shot the puck into the crowd to deprive Price of his momento; he really enjoys earning those boos from the Montreal faithful. I had been bidding on an autographed photo taken the night of Price's first NHL win against Pittsburgh (plain white helmet and everything), and that I won it was a neat little thing. It'll make a fine addition to my collection.

And this morning we booked a bunch of stuff for our trip to Montreal!

News That Isn't News

Gotta love the Crappy News Network for reporting on this "story," something that I addressed in my thesis (back in 2006!!!) and which has been discussed at length in various academic articles including a major essay in Foreign Affairs in 2006. It goes like this:

Saddam Hussein let the world think he had weapons of mass destruction to intimidate Iran and prevent the country from attacking Iraq, according to an FBI agent who interviewed the dictator after his 2003 capture.

According to a CBS report, Hussein claimed he didn't anticipate that the United States would invade Iraq over WMD, agent George Piro said on "60 Minutes," scheduled for Sunday broadcast.

"For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that (faking having the weapons) would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq," said Piro.

During the nearly seven months Piro talked to Hussein, the agent hinted to the Iraqi that he answered directly to President Bush, CBS said in a posting on its Web site.

"He told me he initially miscalculated ... President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 ... a four-day aerial attack," Piro said. "He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack."

"He didn't believe the U.S. would invade?" Correspondent Scott Pelley asked.

"No, not initially," Piro answered.

Once it was clear that an invasion was imminent, Hussein asked his generals to hold off the allied forces for two weeks, Piro said. "And at that point, it would go into what he called the secret war," the agent said, referring to the insurgency.

But Piro said he was not sure that the insurgency was indeed part of Hussein's plan. "Well, he would like to take credit for the insurgency," he said.

Hussein had the ability to restart the weapons program and professed to wanting to do that, Piro said.

"He wanted to pursue all of WMD ... to reconstitute his entire WMD program."

So he was playing a game of chicken, relying on a belief that Bush was as half-determined as Clinton to deal with the Saddam problem, and had intent to reconstitute his WMD programs. I enjoy reading articles like this because they re-affirm things which I argued almost two years ago and put a measure of justification to the decision to remove Saddam from power in Iraq. Unfortunately for Saddam, his posture put him in a variation of the Prisoner's Dilemma, in which it was always in his best interest to maintain the appearance of maintaining WMD and, according to the democracy promotion aspects of the Bush Doctrine, it was always in America's best interest to remove Saddam. The two combined to be his downfall.

An Encouraging Preview of the Manley Report

I'm eagerly awaiting the release of the Manley Report on Canada's future in Afghanistan. There's a story in today's Ottawa Sun which suggests that the document will recommend a "stay the course" approach to our participation in Kandahar, an idea that has merit. I've long been of the view that Canada's isolationists are simply wrong about Afghanistan, as I feel that if not Afghanistan, where is a suitable place for Canada to have a forward presence, in the context of either peacekeeping or peace-making? Simply put, Afghanistan embodies in nearly every way Canada's foreign and defence policy: we are promoting democratic ideals and the rule of law, we are conducting counterterrorism efforts (those much-loathed "Search and Destroy" missions the NDP are obsessed with denouncing), we are promoting genuine stability in the region, and we are improving the lives and livelihoods of the people of Afghanistan through diplomatic, infrastructure, and aid initiatives. While "stay the course" is a nebulous term and one probably too-closely affiliated with Washington's policy in Iraq, keeping Canada in Afghanistan to improve the lives of people in that country while protecting the lives of Canadians here is of paramount importance to Canadian national security interests. If anything, we should be ramping up efforts--on all fronts--to ensure that we can achieve victory as much as possible before the politicians attempt to pull the plug in February 2009.

Down to Business

I'll freely admit that I've been paying relatively scant attention (by my standard, anyways) to the 2008 US Presidential Race. As a Canadian, it's something of an abomination to see a two-year campaign cycle, and the amount of money required to run a campaign is equally grotesque. One of the greatest accomplishments of Jean Chretien's career was to drastically reduce the influence of the wealthy and virtually wipe out the ability of large corporations to disproportionately affect an election race to their preferred outcomes. It is commendable that Stephen Harper has followed up on this, further limiting the extent to which an individual can contribute. None of these restrictions apply in the United States, and thus we hear of a $250 million warchest for George W. Bush and a not much smaller one for John Kerry in 2004.
One of the great problems with such a prolonged campaign is that someone who appears to be a virtual lock in the early stages turns into a total non-factor by the time the actual election occurs--hello and goodbye, Howard Dean. The potential for a timebomb to appear at a strategic time is also increased--witness Swift Boat Veterans for Truth or Dan Rather's accounting of GWB's Vietnam record. There is always the possibility for similar things in a Canadian election cycle, of course, but the compressed timeframe means that we're not subjected to multiple variations of the same theme ad nauseum. Thirdly, there are relatively few things that are discussed at a YouTube debate in August 2007 that are likely to still be resonating in the minds of voters by the time November 2008 rolls around. It's merely preliminary verbal jousting for months on end that does little to establish long-term positioning, especially in this, the era of "the flip-flop."
However, the primary season is almost upon us, and that means it is time to start paying attention. What is said in the next few weeks will determine where the Democratic and Republican bases park their votes. True frontrunners are likely to emerge in the next 50 days, while players that were playing well previously will be compelled to throw their weight behind others that have a genuine shot at winning their party's nomination. The mid-carders will start dropping off shortly, and the high-profile main eventers will have a greater number of even more intense spotlights shining on them. That means tough choices for a number of candidates, and that means the intrigue and interest will certainly be picking up.
Off the start, let me say that I am quite likely to be supporting a Democrat for 2008 unless either John McCain or Rudy Giuliani take the Republican nomination. There are a number of shortcomings facing the other Republican candidates that almost instantly disqualify them in my eyes. I cannot reasonably support a candidate who says such things as, and I'm paraphrasing here, "While Mitt Romney was promising to do more for gay rights than Ted Kennedy, I was moving in the opposition direction." It's unfathomable to me that a candidate for President of the United States would be proud to say that he was moving to deny a group of people rights--and of course, Romney himself no longer supports gay rights for Americans. With so many of the Republican candidates pandering to the religious right, they're alienating themselves from people like me who believe, to borrow Irwin Cotler's term, "a right is a right is a right." Other major issues for me include:
* Foreign Policy - I'll be looking for positions regarding the continuance of the Bush Doctrine, seeing who adopts what and who seeks to be the un-Bush when it comes to America's strategic role and primacy in the world. The candidate who articulates the strongest vision for American leadership, victory in Iraq and the broader War on Terror and Tyranny, ending genocide and human suffering, counter- and nonproliferation of WMDs, and the remaking of the system of international institutions is likely to earn my support.
* Domestic Policy - though I like my American leaders to largely follow the principle of the imperial presidency and leave the domestic agenda largely to Congress (and let's be honest here, being Canadian, what Americans do within their own borders is less relevant than what they do beyond them), there are some initiatives I would like to see. Someone has to reasonably tackle the challenge of increasing violence in the United States--against women, among gangs, as a result of drug trafficking, and otherwise. There's the looming Social Security and Medicaid crises. Education is another big issue. Homeland security and intelligence reform.

There's a lot going on in America that will be relevant and pertinent to a successful candidate for 2008. I'm looking forward to seeing who emerges in the coming weeks and months.

Get Yer Torches! We're Goin' Mulroney Huntin'!

Brian Mulroney's name has been in the news quite a lot lately. First the book, in which the former PM slags the deceased Pierre Trudeau somewhat harshly, which I'm guessing only five people have gotten to due to the size of the memoir. Now, though, is something a little more nefarious, and it's got the Liberals' backs up in a big way. They want an inquiry into whether or not Mulroney illicitly accepted $300,000 (no small chunk of change) from a German businessman whose name is really not relevant and 99.9% unknown outside the chattering classes. Canadians hate Brian Mulroney, not only dyed-red-in-the-wool Liberals but many Canadians at large. My favourite pub & eatery in Kelowna has a framed photo of him, tilted sideways, covered in spitballs. I don't know of a single family member that has much good to say about him. So trying to tar Brian Mulroney--15 years after he left office--is something fun and cathartic for the Liberals, who, let's face it, can use some fun these days.
Here's the problem I have with the whole thing: it's not relevant to the Canadian national interest. Not one little bit. Kinsella may want to cast Harper in a negative light for not being interested in pursuing the Liberals' request, nay, demand, for a full and thorough investigation into the matter, but he's talking into an echo chamber on that one. I don't too often disagree with W.K., but I just don't see the point in spending millions of dollars on lawyers to find out if the guy before the last guy's predecessor at 24 Sussex Drive lined his pockets for a couple hundred thousand dollars. It's greasy, it's slimy, and it sure does make Mulroney look bad, but there's really nothing for anybody in the current political environment to either gain or lose by having an inquiry. Harper's team may look at Mulroney as something of an intellectual/ideological/strategic godfather, but it's not as if Harper's got any intention of appointing him to the Senate or giving him a job on the taxpayer dime. The Liberals may get to feel good that Mulroney is getting dragged through the mud again, but it opens up the door to investigations into Shawinigate and Martin's CSL operations--if it's good for the goose... And, of course, Layton will get to gadfly around a bunch but it's not like he'll suddenly shoot up five points in the national polls. Any gains would be surface-level and fleeting, while the millions spent pursuing the inquiry would be lost to much more important and pressing programs. They could pump the money back into Status of Women Canada instead, that'd be swell.
Going back to the Liberals, I'm really astonished that they're pressing this as hard as they are. There's any number of salient issues they could target to rebuild their fortunes and attempt to knock Harper off stride. For example, there's a new poll which suggests that Canadians still lack a global conscience--er, I mean, don't want to follow George Bush's hard-right neo-conservative search and destroy so-called war on terrorism agenda--and want to get out of Afghanistan before the government's suggested 2011 withdrawal timetable. I know why it's a mission worth supporting and pursuing to a successful conclusion, but many Canadians still don't and many can't even point Afghanistan on a map. That's still fertile territory for any of the parties to seize upon and frame in a national interest perspective. Make up something tangible about peacekeeping and why we should be somewhere else instead and you may receive a boost in the polls. There's still no real social agenda blueprint put in place by the Conservatives other than some tax credits; after waking up one morning and collectively deciding that Canada must have a national daycare program, they've been pretty quiet about that lately. Oil is getting close to $100 a barrel. Given the Liberal leader's supposed penchant for the environment and competitive sustainability, where is he on the charge to finding fossil fuel alternatives? Where's the big policy blueprint that makes Canada an innovator in eco-friendly fuels and energy?
I know that it's not easy to make priorities, but seeing the Liberals flailing in an effort to put Brian freakin' Mulroney back in the spotlight instead of real issues affecting Canadian interests and, dare I say, values, is sad to see. Rather than giving Canadians an idea of where they want to take us, the Liberals are trying to re-visit the late 20th century. Harper may not be big on the vision thing but at least his ship has a setting (gotta love the North Star) that may take us into a better future.

Meeting Mister Mulroney

On Monday night Tasha and I had the opportunity to listen to former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney speak about his life and career in politics. It is the type of meeting that I always try to attend, as there are only 7 living Prime Ministers of Canada, and each of them has a wealth of knowledge and insight that they can impart. The experiences they have are unique and incredibly interesting to hear, such as Mulroney's ability to speak of his work with Ronald Reagan, Nelson Mandela, and Margaret Thatcher during the height of the Cold War and the Canadian role in ending the vile apartheid regime in South Africa. He has a canny sense of humour that all good politicians are able to wield, usually the self-deprecating kind. I know that there are many Canadians who still revile Mulroney for the imposition of the GST and a myriad of other policies, just as there are those who despise Trudeau for the policies that he initiated. Such is the life in Canadian politics.

There was much that I found myself nodding in agreement with throughout Mulroney's hour-long speech. When he spoke of the undoing of the bizarre moral equivalence that was held up between the United States and the Soviet Union, I harkened to Natan Sharansky's book, The Case for Democracy, and how removing that false equivalence brought forth a tidal wave that ultimately caused the implosion of that decrepit regime under its own weight. Listening to him recall speaking with Helmut Kohl about the future possibilities of reuniting the two Germanies was equally fascinating. Kohl's belief--proven correct--was that television would be the impetus in awakening the democratic spirit of the people of the German Democratic Republic, as East Germany was called. Seeing the colour and choice that the outside world offered to West Germans would create an untenable pressure against the oppressive East German regime that caused the Berlin Wall to come down. It is but one of many examples of the power of democracy and political openness to transform societies.

There was one major area in the field of foreign policy that I could not find myself agreeing with Mister Mulroney's position, however. He discussed the lead-up to the Persian Gulf War, and spoke of his pressure on Bush 41 to get a UN Security Council resolution or else Canada would not participate. This obviously implies that, in the absence of such a resolution, the American-led ouster of Saddam Hussein in 2003 is less just or legitimate than the original Gulf War. The senior Bush did have a point when it came to the problems in occupying Iraq post-Saddam (as current events readily demonstrate) but that is not the thrust of what Mulroney was discussing. His willingness to give individual countries a veto over Canadian foreign policy is an abdication that I cannot support. Recall also that the United States at least believed that it could get the 9 votes required to pass a resolution in the UNSC in early 2003, but the threat of the French veto scuttled all of that. I respect Mulroney's position that the cover of UN legitimacy is important, but it is not all-important and I question the legitimacy of the idea that a 14-1 vote can prevent authorization and passage of a resolution if that 1 vote is from France or Russia or China (or even the US and UK). This is the great paradox created by the structure of the Security Council, and I believe that Mulroney, like so many Canadian Prime Ministers both before and after him, is on the wrong side of the fence in his view that the absence of a UN Security Council resolution in all circumstances is justification for the continuance of an intolerable status quo.

After the speech, there was a book signing and now my copy of Mulroney's Memoirs features his autograph. There were a lot of people, so there was no opportunity to get a photo or have any real discussion. I did manage to have enough time to thank him for playing a key role for Canada in ending the Cold War and apartheid, and not much else other than a handshake. It was, all told, a very nice experience and so now I'm hoping that Jean Chretien will have recovered sufficiently in order to do a similar appearance.

The Afghanistan Panel

My hat goes off to Prime Minister Stephen Harper for creating a panel of "renowned" Canadians to collaborate and provide a detailed action plan for what Canada should do vis-a-vis Afghanistan following the end of the current mission in February 2009. The four options provided by Harper clearly indicate that the mission will be significantly different than the one that Canada is currently conducting, which means that the NDP will no longer be able to trot out such ridiculous lines as "search and destroy missions" or, due to the timeframe, "fighting George Bush's war." No doubt they'll come up with new slogans to counter the legitimacy of these four key conceptualizations for Canada in Afghanistan in 2009 and beyond, straight from the mouth of the Prime Minister:

Option one is to continue training the Afghan army and police with the goal of creating self-sufficient indigenous security forces in Kandahar province so Canadian troops can start withdrawing in February 2009.

This is as close to the status quo as we will see. As noted by fine blogs such as The Torch earlier this summer, the PM has pretty much given up hope of getting an extension of the current mission beyond the current parliamentary mandate. What makes this concept distinguishable from the status quo is that it provides for the beginning of the draw-down of Canadian Forces personnel starting early in 2009 and continuing until some undefined time in the future. The focus will be on improving security in Kandahar by assisting the Afghan security forces to step up their training and on-the-job efforts. It's essentially adopting the "as Iraqi forces stand up, American forces will stand down" plank that the United States had previously used in Iraq, with little success due to lack of political will on the part of the Iraqi government to actually stand up. We know that the Afghan government has been more assertive, however, and that may lead to this approach getting a strong recommendation from the panel. Canada's police and military forces are well-respected around the world for their professionalism, and if we can impart those skills, insights, and abilities upon the Afghan forces, they will be in good shape.

Option two is to focus on reconstruction in Kandahar, which would require some other country or countries to take over our security role.

This would require a shift in resource allocation and, more significantly, compelling one or several of Canada's European allies to step up their efforts. The first part of that is much easier. Canada has a tremendous international aid program headed up by CIDA. They do excellent work, and this is the type of "niche" activity that Canada could really appropriate and make it a defining feature of Canada's foreign affairs. It is something that appeals to many Canadians that buy into the myth of the blue-beret'd Canadian peacekeeper handing out sacks of grain and stopping conflict by doling out hugs. It wins hearts and minds to have Canadians working hard to build schools, hospitals, working to mediate differences between competing factions, and basically doing anything that involves building the state and not shooting terrorists. I like the concept a lot because it would serve as a template for Canada building a reputation for nation/state-building in post-conflict reconstruction and stabilization efforts. This is an area that is going to be of increasing significance in the coming years and decades. The American military Leviathan is sans peer when it comes to taking down the bad guys and eliminating hostile elements, but it is less adept at building things back up to establish a viable alternative to the status quo ante bellum. I'm predicting a more stringently multilateral America starting in 2009--whether a Republican or a Democrat is elected--and if Canada is going to remain engaged in the world and doing democracy promotion-related activities, this is the type of thing that can make Canada a desirable ally.
However, the second half of this equation is where the problem comes along. Harken back to the 2004 US Presidential Election, when John Kerry was musing openly that a victory for him would cause an instantaneous shift in European attitudes to American-led operations outside of the European defence perimeter of NATO's traditional area of operations. He figured that he'd be able to recruit Europe into Iraq to assist in the reconstruction of that country. It was, and still remains, a fantasy. We simply cannot rely on Europe to provide robust numbers of troops to take on the heavy lifting in this "out of area" international effort. There is considerable talk in European countries participating in Afghanistan to withdraw their efforts and drastically scale back their activities in the UN-authorized operation to rebuild Afghanistan. I can't foresee anybody other than the British stepping up to take over the hard power operations in Kandahar if Canada decides it wants to focus strictly on reconstruction efforts. I don't even know about their level of interest, as Gordon Brown is seemingly less the liberal interventionist than Tony Blair. I would really like to see this concept being adopted, but it is predicated on a very shaky foundation. The realist in me can see the glaring problem of hoping for the best when it comes to relying on reluctant allies to adopt our current role. They have seemingly less desire to sacrifice blood and treasure for the sake of Afghanistan than we do, and that results in it being very unlikely that they would increase their participation.

Option three is to shift Canadian security and reconstruction efforts to another region of Afghanistan.

This option runs into the same problem as that faced in the previous conception. If we leave Kandahar, somebody has to step in and do at least as good of a job as we have done during our tenure there. It would have to be one of the major countries stepping in, because they are the only ones that have a force capability to send at least 2500 troops to the region. France doesn't even let its soldiers off their bases at night. It pretty much comes down to Britain or Germany at that point, and I don't know if we can convince them to take on Kandahar. We simply can't pick a new place and not ensure that some other country comes in to fill the void. Geopolitics, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and unless we get one of our allies to take over Kandahar, some more nefarious entity (read: the Taliban) will unless by some miracle Kandahar is completely secured by February 2009.

And option four is to withdraw all Canadian military forces after February 2009 except a small contingent to provide security for our remaining aid workers and diplomats.

A.K.A. Cut and run. This is the preferred option of the NDP and the radical left. The hard work of reconstruction and stabilization in Afghanistan will almost certainly not be done by February 2009. These types of efforts take at least a decade, possibly even longer under the circumstances. There is so much work to be done in Afghanistan, whether we're talking about human security and human rights, stability, democratic institutions, and law and order. Like I said earlier, Canada does this type of job really well, and it would be a real shame to see our leaders decide to withdraw all of our expertise from Afghanistan to leave the job to others. I'm sure that other countries can do the job, possibly as well as Canadians, but doesn't it reek of abdicating responsibility and embracing the cocoon? In situations where we can help, and our assistance has been requested, there is a degree of obligation to do so. Yes, it costs money and it may cost lives, but the long-term benefits stand to be enormous. Waving goodbye to Kandahar and Afghanistan while the work is incomplete has a ring of immorality to it, and I hope that this option does not end up being recommended by the panel.

Harper at CFR

Before I get into this, does anybody out there subscribe to the PMO mailing list? Are you also not getting any messages from them lately? **Update** Never mind, just received two of them this morning. Good job, old chap, on the surplus!**

Luckily, I do still receive the podcasts (yes, I listen to the Prime Minister on my iPod...Bush's weekly radio address too), and the latest release is Harper's speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York this week. It is a great speech, delivered in front of a highly intelligent audience, and the Q&A that followed the speech is equally impressive. For those who don't know, the CFR is the body that publishes the most influential political science journal in the United States, that being Foreign Affairs. So the questions they ask are top-notch IR/poli sci stuff, and they result in serious responses from a serious prime minister. It is a far cry from the usual sham that goes on when he is interviewed by the Canadian mainstream media.

In the early minutes of the speech, Harper spoke of the need to promote democracy in the world, as well as open markets, the rule of law, and political pluralism. A more democratic world will be a more secure world, in which people are more free to pursue their dreams without fear of repression from their government. To hear Harper talking about this is very welcome to me. His section on Afghanistan was inspiring while remaining pragmatic. He understands that all the social, political, and economic progress in Afghanistan will arise out of a secure state, and that further progress in Afghanistan will bolster the security of the state. When people have a stake in a brighter future, they will be more willing to defend it. At this time, Afghanistan cannot do so on its own, and Canada has a responsibility to help, and it is fulfilling that. I hope that when decision time comes next April, Canadians of all political stripes will look at the accomplishments we have made there and helped the Afghan people achieve, and realize that we cannot walk away from that prematurely.

To conclude, it would be fantastic if Harper spoke with such clarity and conviction when making speeches for domestic consumption. However, he can only give amazing responses to relevant questions, and that is something the Canadian media need to realize. The political theatre environment of Canadian domestic politics today doesn't exactly encourage the type of speech that Harper gave at the CFR. It's all about the soundbite, who can "get" who the most often and the hardest. To date, Afghanistan has not been treated with the seriousness it deserves. Opposition politicians talk about how Afghanistan wasn't among Harper's "five priorities" in the last election, or that because the work is hard we should come home, or any number of asinine things that are said with an eye on the next SES poll. When conducting foreign policy, domestic politicking should not have a place at the table. Doing what is right and in the country's national interest should be first and foremost among considerations as to what actions, if any, the state should take. Promoting democracy, in the Americas, in Afghanistan, and all over the world is in the Canadian interest, and the political wrangling of leftist opposition parties undermines that pursuit.

Use the Time We Have

It's become clear in recent weeks that, barring a major policy shift from the opposition parties, Canada's commitment to Afghanistan will end in February 2009. They are overtly pre-occupied with extricating the Canadian Forces from Kandahar at that arbitrarily-set deadline, and have demonstrated no enthusiasm whatever to re-deploying to another region or a strategic recalculation of what Canada's military, diplomatic, and development personnel could and should do in Afghanistan beyond the current commitment. For its part, the government has indicated it is unwilling to forge ahead with a renewed commitment if it unable to secure the support of the other political parties. This is a bizarre way to conduct foreign policy, putting political interests ahead of national interests and principles, but nonetheless, this is how Canadian policy-makers operate.

I have been and remain a staunch advocate of Canadian participation in Afghanistan for as long as it takes to secure victory, which can be defined as creating conditions in Afghanistan that: eliminate the threat of the Taliban to the extent that the Afghan national security forces can police and subdue them without international assistance; provide for a stable democratic government with political institutions that are more likely to progress than to backslide into an illiberal authoritarian regime; permit a reasonable level of infrastructure in the areas of housing, education, health, and a legal justice system. We're not looking to create a landlocked Sweden, but we can assist in putting Afghanistan on the road to develop its future according to the wishes and interests of its people.

With the political context and conditions of victory established, I would like to urge the government to do all in its power to contribute to the success of Afghanistan in the months leading up to February 2009. We need to establish benchmarks in Kandahar so that we can determine whether or not progress is being made in critical areas of defence and development, and determine what tactics and strategies we can employ in concert with the Afghans and our allies to achieve those benchmarks and ensure that progress, to the extent possible, is linear. If this requires a larger contribution of Canadian personnel and resources, so be it. If this requires a diplomatic initiative to obtain greater contributions from our allies, so be it. There are going to be necessary commitments to make to Afghanistan in the forthcoming 18 months if we are to utilize our (apparently) remaining time there efficiently and effectively in order to leave a lasting mark on that country.

As I see it, this will be the great objective for the trio of Defence Minister Peter Mackay, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier, and International Development Minister Bev Oda. They will have to work long and hard on this endeavour, garnering support for a strong push to the finish line from our allies, from the government, and from a still-skeptical Canadian public. I wish them all the best, and for continued progress in Afghanistan.

What is the Canadian Public's Interest?

This is a question that I, and many others, have and will continue to wrestle with. It is clear to me that there is a distinction between the national interest of Canada and the interests of the Canadian public when it comes to the mission in Afghanistan. I've written many times on Canada's participation in the reconstruction and stabilization mission in that country, and I am very proud of our contribution to that noble mission. Speaking as a Wilsonian realist, there is no doubt in my mind that ensuring security and prosperity in Afghanistan is in the Canadian national interest and concurrent with our ideals of promoting democracy, human security, and liberty in the world. I know that I am not alone in that perspective; the folks over at The Torch are staunch supporters of the mission, and yesterday I read an all-too-rare post by my former Dal colleague Riley expressing his continued support. There are thousands of other voices out there who get it.

But there are also thousands who don't, and some of them happen to occupy important places in our media and government. These folks are the ones who are winning the public relations side of this conflict, undermining the government, public support, our Canadian Forces, our allies, and the people of Afghanistan in reaching the objective of a peaceful, secure, democratic Afghanistan that need not worry about a resurgent Taliban-al Qaeda symbiote overtaking that country again.

And it appears that they have gotten to the Prime Minister.

The Torch today cited a news story in which the following was stated:

Mr. Harper reaffirmed his government's plans to seek a "reasonable degree" of parliamentary support before considering any extension to the current Afghan mission, or agreeing to a new one. But when asked whether he has any desire to prolong the combat mission in southern Afghanistan beyond 2009, Mr. Harper said, "No."

I don't know if he's just being coy, and leaving out whether or not the Government plans to have a continued presence in a different region of Afghanistan after February '09, or if he's conceding that there's no chance of Canada being a participant in any part of the larger reconstruction and stabilization mission. My great fear is that it's the latter. I'm not going to go into another diatribe on why Afghanistan should matter to Canadians, and why I feel as though we should maintain a strong leadership presence in the country. I've done that enough, which is why I'm putting links to some of my many posts on the subject. What I really would like to know is why can Canadians not wrap their heads around the importance of Afghanistan's future and how it is squarely in our interests.

Why Afghanistan Matters

What Canada Must Overcome to Succeed in Afghanistan

On Timetables and Afghanistan

PMSH in Afghanistan

They Still Just Don't Get It

A "Two-Palestines" Policy?

The events of the past week in the Gaza Strip have potential to shake diplomacy and statecraft in the Middle East for months and years to come. With the de facto establishment of Hamas-stan in Gaza, the West is quickly turning its attention and support to Mahmoud Abbas' moderate government based out of the West Bank. Today we learned that Canada is going to resume its aid to the Palestinian Authority, and presumably other countries are going to follow suit in an attempt to bolster his Fatah party as the best potential partner for peace and the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. This is sensible, as moving forward is in just about everybody's interest, but it also an approach that may lead to future difficulties.

In the short term, it will appear as though the West is abandoning the Palestinians in the West Bank who want no part of a Hamas-led territory. We have already seen large numbers of people flocking to the border with Israel in an attempt to get out of Gaza and into either Israel or the West Bank. Those people who are not as fortunate or do not have the means to get out of the Strip will be trapped in what can only be described as a hellhole. There will be no direct international aid flowing to a terrorist organization because we know that Hamas will not use the moneys for advancing the interests of the people in Gaza; rather, they will use it to purchase arms and disseminate anti-West/anti-Israel propaganda. Meanwhile, they will utilize the images of Palestinians in the West Bank living comfortably and blame the suffering of Palestinians trapped in Gaza on Israel, the occupation, and anybody else that they believe they can credibly pass the buck to.

Additionally, a territory dominated by Hamas will become a mini-Afghanistan circa the late 1990's. They will use the land to train people for jihad against Israel, instructing them how to use illegally-purchased assault weapons, devise IEDs, and inflict damage against civilian populations. With the war against Hezbollah fresh in everybody's minds, Israel will no doubt be compelled to fortify itself against a likely attack emanating out of Hamas-controlled Gaza. This will only allow Hamas further propaganda opportunities to incite violence against Israel.

With aid restored to Abbas, he will be able to strengthen security in the West Bank, crack down on insurgents and terrorists, and demonstrate that there has been progress and possibly seek new discussions about a Palestinian state in the West Bank. There will be considerable support for this initiative should he be able to consistently demonstrate progress in the West Bank along well-established political and security metrics. I'm looking at a timeframe of months here; if the West Bank consolidates while Gaza continues to deteriorate, by the end of the year there will be two very different sections of land that have long been considered the foundation points for a future Palestinian state. It is doubtful, of course, that the Palestinians will only accept a state that is only half of what has been the consensus view for the past decade, but if Gaza becomes a lost hope, will Abbas cut his losses and accept the best deal he can?

This is a very fluid situation, though clearly things are not looking good for the future status of the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip. Unless the tide turns, we may well be looking at a two-track policy vis-a-vis Palestine. And that could have very serious and grave consequences for the future.

US and China to Work Together?

In the wake of my little discussion with LaRoche about the future of US-China relations earlier in the week, this statement from the US Secretary of Defence strikes me as a good sign:

“I believe there is reason to be optimistic about the U.S.-China relationship,” [Robert] Gates said at an annual gathering here of defense ministers from the Pacific region.

h/t NYTimes

They Still Just Don't Get It

This is largely picking up something off Kinsella's, but deserves to be repeated and rebuked, time and time again:

"It's a hard sell, this terrorism stuff. When more people are dying on our side of the world from bathtub mishaps than terror outbreaks, you wonder how long the paranoia can linger."

The comment comes from the G&M's Lawrence Martin, a contemptible piece written on May 24th. Like most of the latent anti-Americans running around the Globe's offices, Martin would love to bury his head in the sand and act as though the world hasn't dramatically changed since 9/11. Look at the framing of the greatest issue in global politics and international relations of the 21st century: "this terrorism stuff." It's just a simple thing, a collection of things, and not one that's easy to convince people is actually really an issue at all. Sort of like trying to tell people that dust bunnies will cause massive amounts of lethal allergic reactions and thus we must all hunker down and start cleaning. Take that, grand strategists of the world!

I know, I know, freedom of speech, different political perceptions, to each their own pair of rose-coloured glass, and all that stuff. But it really makes you wonder how some people can look at the reality of the world around them and arrive at the conclusion that falling down in the bathtub constitutes a greater threat to Canadian, American, and global security than a movement whose stated agenda is to kill four million Americans and any other infidels that obstruct their path to reconstituting the Islamic caliphate of centuries long gone.

It is exactly this type of laissez-faire attitude, the sentiment that we can let our guards down simply because it's been more than five years and Canada still hasn't been on the wrong end of a terrorist attack led by al Qaeda or some other network, that will embolden the terrorists to actually attack us. So soon Martin forgets that only a year ago a plot to storm Parliament, capture and behead the Prime Minister of Canada was uncovered. We owe it to our law enforcement and intelligence agencies for preventing that attack, and the countless others that have not happened.

In Lawrence Martin's world, Canada would unilaterally declare that it's getting out of "the terrorism stuff," post haste. But as surely as someone falling in a bathtub, an attack against this country for its participation in Afghanistan would follow. Complacency and cowardice are the allies of the terrorists. They know that Canada is soft, its underbelly (the Canadian public and especially the media) ripe for a solid body blow. They think that we would mimic Spain's decision after the Madrid bombing to get out of Iraq, by getting out of Afghanistan and cowering from coast-to-coast-to-coast. Lawrence Martin would likely be the first to run an article in the G&M proclaiming our surrender, unless Jack Layton were able to nudge him out with a guest editorial comment.

This is what makes the Left so dangerous: by portraying those of us on the Right as hysterical and full of paranoia, and the Right refusing to engage in that type of childlike debate, they appear to hold more rational thought and thus by default capture public sentiment. It happened with Ballistic Missile Defence, it happened with Iraq, it happens from time to time on matters pertaining to Afghanistan. The Left cries out, the Right says nothing, and thus the people--largely apathetic and disengaged on foreign affairs--hear only the Left and take on those positions.

This is deeply troubling for Canadian national interests and our security. I sincerely hope that somebody out there with a large pulpit starts tearing down the facade of credibility that people like Lawrence Martin and Jeff Simpson have in the minds of Canadians. Those type of writers simply don't "get it" when it comes to the nature of 21st century conflict. You can't teach an old dog new tricks, so expecting people who grew up in the airy-fairy world of Trudeau to understand the intricacies of fourth-generation warfare, terrorism, and counterinsurgencies is a little rich. But somebody out there needs to start countering these dimwits, or else the body count from terrorism will quickly outgrow the fatalities incurred from slipping in the shower.

In the past couple of days I've had a handful of discussions about the future relationship between China and the United States. There is a growing concern about China's emergence on the world scene and the perceived threat to Washington's global hegemony, with some folks getting the sense that, in true realist fashion, the two will inevitably become rivals in a new Cold War-like scenario.

If China becomes a rival or enemy of Washington, it will mark the greatest strategic failure of the West in centuries. Both sides have far too much invested in one another, with China owning a significant portion of the U.S. overseas debt. Any significant provocation would thus spell disaster for the global economy. Militarily, China's build-up is actually more of a blessing for the United States because it will also somebody else to become responsible for handling crises that may/can/will arise in Asia. Washington may serve now as the global policeman, but it is a role that many are not comfortable with, either in the United States or around the world. China is merely assuming its natural role as a regional hegemon, and Washington would do well to be accomodating of that and work with China to strengthen bilateral relations so that they may work together on regional and global issues.

The predominant reason that China's military rise is seen as a threat is because of the US military guarantee to Taiwan. Washington fears (and justly so) that any increase of China's power will cause the leadership on Taiwan to get extremely antsy and provoke some sort of conflict between the island and the mainland, which would trigger a traditional great-power war between China and the US. That should be avoided at all costs. Both parties possess nuclear weapons, huge conventional standing armies, and a war between them would cost millions in lives. The fate of Taiwan is not worth that loss. I profess that I am not totally up-to-date on the status of relations between Taiwan and the mainland regarding unification, but these discussions should move along so that the natural reunification of China can occur without sparking a global incident.

We may not like some characteristics of the Chinese leadership and their political system, but we have far too much at stake to go down the traditional path of the realists and assume that any rising power is doing so automatically to challenge the United States for global supremacy. We need to integrate China into the functioning Core of world powers, give them the respect they deserve, and work alongside them to defuse some very testy issues in the region. We can and should still chide them (privately) for their record on human rights and urge them towards a more democratic system, but we should not allow such matters to cloud overall judgment on the best course. Statecraft has taken a major hit in recent years, but forging a partnership and working with China is a much greater objective in scale, scope, and ambition than merely acquiescing to traditional thinking that it is inevitable that rising powers will automatically challenge a hegemon for supremacy.

On Timetables and Afghanistan

Unfortunately I missed Thursday's parliamentary debate on Afghanistan. Thankfully, I have Hansard, available on the Internet. As I've been reading through it, I am struck by something that the Liberals repeatedly insist about the extent of Canada's commitment to the mission:

Hon. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Halifax about the necessity to show, despite the arguments, that we are trying to help the people of Afghanistan and play a good role. I respect her point of view. I still think we may do good things in the next two years.

Canada is committed until February 2009.

Reading that statement troubles me greatly. We're in it, but we're not in it for "as long it takes" or "until the government of Afghanistan is satisfied with the security situation in the country and requests that ISAF leave effective [insert date]" or "until the Taliban can no longer threaten the people of Afghanistan." No, Canada "is committed until February 2009." Then, pack 'er up, folks, we're going home.

I dread the thought that these people were governing the country in 1915. "Canada is committed until January 1917" or some other such date that had no bearing on, or relation to, the course of the War or the prospects of victory for the Entente countries and their allies. Jay Hill raised a similar point about the Nazis. Imagine if William Mackenzie-King, the Liberal Prime Minister during WWII, had only sufficient backbone to say that Canada would fight Hitler until 1943. Timetables and arbitrary deadlines don't work when applying them ex post facto and they do not work today.

Canada, or at least its political parties, desperately wants to believe in the existence of an international community. I hold no such delusions. Yet I am perplexed: if Canada wants to support the international community, why is it not prepared to participate in its major endeavours until they are completed? A good hockey player doesn't arbitrarily leave the ice with 15 minutes left in the second period (note: NOT AN ANALOGY TO AFGHANISTAN'S CURRENT PROGRESS!), they stick around until the final whistle blows. What if, in February 2009, conditions in Afghanistan, specifically Kandahar, are worse today than they are now? What if the Taliban is only days away from collapsing when we pack up and let, say, the French, who don't leave the base after dark, take over?

Canadians know, or should know, that their government and military forces are doing an incredible job in Afghanistan. Refer to Ted Menzies' contribution to the debate on Thursday to see some of the accolades that Canadians are receiving from the Afghanistan government. The work that we are doing not only in Kandahar, but in providing aid to the entire country to facilitate reconstruction, is invaluable to the progress and hopeful success of that country's people. And of the Liberals, he said, this:

They are unable to see that each of those numbers, each of those millions of little girls going to school, has a name, a face and a hope that there is better life than the one they have known. Canada is not helping numbers. We are helping real people who deserve no less than we do: shelter, food, water and the ability to provide for their families. Why do the Liberals believe the people of Afghanistan deserve to be abandoned?

Which, of course, leads me to the NDP. Try on this for logic:

Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP): We know that Afghan women are still subject to arbitrary imprisonment, rape, torture and forced marriage. This is why in August last year the NDP asked that the present mission end.

I cannot, for the life of me, contort myself and my thinking to square the circle that because atrocities are still happening in Afghanistan, Canada should no longer participate in Afghanistan to end atrocities. In my view, that quote right there eliminates the NDP from holding any authority or legitimacy when it comes to promoting human rights and equality. They see that gross human rights violations are occurring, and when Canada has the chance to put an end to it, they want Canadians to have no part of it.

I am regularly disappointed by Canadian parliamentarians, and reading Thursday's Hansard provided more of it. When I hear Denis Coderre ranting and raving about Canada purchasing tanks, I cannot help but feel as though Canada is not a truly serious country in international affairs. I can't fathom even Dennis Kucinich going apoplectic in Congress because the Pentagon has announced it is seeking to buy some new tanks so that American forces have the best equipment available to them to win.

Canadians are clearly not in Afghanistan for imperialist reasons, though the nutbar that posts stickers around Halifax claiming we are may disagree with me. We've been looking for an exit strategy before the first CF members set foot in the country. We're there for the very best of reasons that are coinciding with our values and our interests. Yet some factions are decided upon removing Canada from Afghanistan as soon as possible, even though atrocities are still occurring and the mission is not complete. If not Afghanistan, to these people I ask, where?

Shed No Tears for Musharraf

A story in today's Post details the current troubles being experienced by our "ally" and military dictator, Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf. As you can imagine, my sympathy runs very low for the leader of a government that doesn't permit elections and enforces sharia law against the women of his country (readers will recall my March 3rd post where I discussed the state-mandated gang rape of a young woman for an offence her brother committed).

The imbroglio surrounding Musharraf intensified with his dismissal of the country's top judge on a whim. You see, dictators have the ability to make a mockery of institutionalized checks & balances and the rule of law in that fashion. He's also dispatched police officers to rough up the judge when on his way to court hearings to determine the legality of Musharraf's action and whether the judge can be fired (given that Musharraf has already installed a replacement, you can imagine how this will all end), and has been leaning on the Pakistani media to ease up on the anti-Musharraf stories in the newspapers.

Which brings us to the broader global problem: the United States has invested a lot in Musharraf to assist them during the War on Terror & Tyranny, to the tune of $10B in the past 5 years. If the concept of sending such funding to a tyrant to advance American aims sounds awfully Cold War-ish to you, you're not alone. It is exactly this type of alliance that undermines American calls for the rise and establishment of democratic rule of law societies around the world. It's fantastic that Pakistan has been helpful in rounding up some al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists--but not all of them and not all of the time--but the benefit gained from that does not cancel out the country's deficiencies in transparency, democracy, liberty, and the rule of law.

The problem in all of this is that if Musharraf is ousted, we don't know who he would be replaced with. Many in Pakistan do not support Musharraf's siding with the United States, and there is a significant level of Islamist fundamentalist sentiment. Many support, silently or otherwise, al Qaeda, and Pakistan was one of only three countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan during their brutal tyranny over the country. It is entirely possible that he could be replaced with the Pakistani equivalent of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, which would actually be worse than Ahmedinejad because Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. We know that top Pakistani nuclear scientists have already been arrested for attempting to sell nuclear know-how to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

This is where cold realism thrives. Musharraf is odious to the values we seek to advance in the world, but he's less bad than several potential alternatives that would impose strict(er) Islamic law, deny rights even more than presently, and openly support al Qaeda and the Taliban. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal makes it a country of great strategic importance, within the region and globally. American cash has worked to keep the extremists in line and somewhat mollify opponents of Musharraf's US partnership. Any shift in Pakistan could have severely negative effects in Afghanistan, the initial front of the War on Terror and arguably the greatest success to emerge from the American-led policy of regime change. These are not considerations that can be discarded simply to support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. But that doesn't mean we should necessarily shed any tears for the "beginning of the end" for Musharraf.

*Note: this post almost got lost by GooBlogger's gremlins. I blame the snow.