The “I was there” ploy: “I was in Afghanistan,” said Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay during last Wednesday’s Commons debate, sounding a bit in awe of himself, like Mark McGwire voicing amazement after he broke the home-run record. Michael Ignatieff quickly noted that he, too, had been in Afghanistan.
So bleeping what? I’ve been in Canada. So have most of you. If being here meant you spoke with authority, there would be no need for parties, Parliament or elections. We’d all get it right — and agree! Peter MacKay is whisked in, spends an hour with the Afghan president, goes to a pre-arranged photo op where he is moved by what he sees and flies home.
The naive Canadian sergeant described by Globe reporter Geoffrey York is also there. He goes into an Afghan village, can’t find the leader, picks out a chatty guy who seems ready to ingratiate himself, and “anoints” him for leadership. “I was able to build a rapport with him,” he tells Geoff. Reminds me of an ultra-leftist I once knew who went to work in a textile factory to foment revolution among the workers. He quickly settled on a friendless eccentric who happened to like talking about Marx’s theory of surplus value. “I’ve found the key guy,” burbled the leftist.
Being there just means you can miss the point from closer range. Near the end of The Ugly American, a best-selling novel of the Vietnam War era, a U.S. senator tells colleagues not to worry about their quickly evolving quagmire: “Because, gentlemen, I have been there. And I assure you . . .”
False dichotomy alert: I mean the choice between Canada’s familiar role as peacekeeper, espoused by the NDP, versus the “new reality” of war-making, advocated by Stephen Harper, General Rick Hillier or retired general Lew MacKenzie, who refer to Hitler and the Second World War to explain our role. Pace Jack Layton, I have nothing against using the army to make war — if war is justified. The traditional justification is self-defence. We’ve been told that’s why we’re in Afghanistan, but, um, gimme a break. The government there is on our side. There is no opposing army or government and no battlefront. There’s a slippery collection of ex-Taliban and al-Qaeda, poppy growers, warlords — who knows?
It is largely a civil conflict, just as Iraq has become. “We were at the bottom of a wadi. . . . We couldn’t move. . . . And the locals were the angriest I’ve ever seen. . . . To them, we were the enemy,” said a Canadian soldier quoted by Geoff York. That’s the locals. There is nothing clear about the situation. As Dawn Black of the NDP said, we may be making things worse rather than better by being there, for both the locals and ourselves.
I’d argue strongly that the war in Iraq has made life for Iraqis far worse than under Saddam — an amazing result — and also increased peril here by raising hostility and recruitment for terror in the Muslim world. No wonder the generals yearn for the Second World War. I know Afghanistan is not Iraq, but it’s worth recalling that the same people — Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff — supported that war for the same reasons, despite the contrary view of the Canadian majority, who turned out to be right.
Watching Stephen Harper: Our new leader seems to handle things badly when he doesn’t get what he wants or thinks he deserves. After Wednesday’s vote, which was far closer than he expected, he said the Bloc Québécois will suffer because people in Quebec want to help Afghanistan. This assumes his way to help is the only way, and anyone else is against helping. But people who oppose him may think that removing our troops would help, and that there are other forms of aid.
That same day, he pouted publicly when a committee rebuffed his choice for head of an appointments commission and said he won’t submit more names — as if it isn’t his job to carry on governing anyway. And when reporters declined to let him control questions after a cabinet meeting, he simply evacuated his team by another door. It’s as if you’re not dealing with an adult, though he’s clearly practised the role and can pull it off when he doesn’t have to deal with direct rejection. Not a great formula for a politician, especially leader of a minority government.
Support rabble today!
We’re so glad you stopped by! Thanks for consuming rabble content this year.
rabble.ca is 100% reader and donor funded, so as an avid reader of our content, we hope you will consider gifting rabble with a donation during our summer fundraiser today.
Whether it be a one-time donation or a small monthly contribution, your support is critical to keep rabble writers producing the work you’ve come to rely on as a part of a healthy media diet.
Become a rabble rouser — donate to rabble.ca today.
Nick Seebruch, editor
