Duceppe threatens to topple Harper government

[Leafless]

"He said the government is failing to secure troop commitments from other NATO countries and the current mission risks becoming a results-free sacrifice of human life."

“We will not go along with an obtuse government that digs in its heels,” Duceppe told a Quebec City audience.'

-------------------------------------------------

What game does Mr. Duceppe wish to play, 'RUN and HIDE.'

'Obtuse' is a condescending word to describe a government that has made a commitment to participate with its allies in the 'War against Terror'.

It is not Mr. Harper's fault if some other allies do not wish to participate, in a more meaningful way.

I am certain the Harper government is well aware of what is happening and that Mr. Harper continually weighs all options pertaining to Canadian participation in Afghanistan.

Mr. Duceppe could be becoming agitated because: "Quebecers have been more skeptical than other Canadians about the mission, surveys say, and opposition in the province may deepen when 2,000 soldiers from Quebec are deployed to Afghanistan next summer."

Maybe Mr. Duceppe should realize Canada is at war and although wishful, of of more direct participation concerning other NATO allies, does not up to now affect Canada's commitment which is independent of other allies.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...3e0b428&k=57083

[mikedavid00]

I am certain the Harper government is well aware of what is happening and that Mr. Harper continually weighs all options pertaining to Canadian participation in Afghanistan.

Hey Leafless,

Can you tell me what a 'volunteer army' is? My google isn't working.

[normanchateau]

What game does Mr. Duceppe wish to play

Sounds like Duceppe respects the wishes of Canadians, a majority of whom no longer support the mission in Afghanistan.

A majority of Canadians also see the mission as a lost cause:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads=

[jdobbin]

Afghanistan certainly is unpopular in Quebec. A fight on it would probably not go well for the Conservatives there.

[normanchateau]

Afghanistan certainly is unpopular in Quebec. A fight on it would probably not go well for the Conservatives there.

Nor in British Columbia where approval for the Afghanistan mission has now dropped to only 37%.

http://www.mustelgroup.com/pdf/20061122_fvi_release.pdf

[Canuck E Stan]

Afghanistan certainly is unpopular in Quebec. A fight on it would probably not go well for the Conservatives there.

Nor in British Columbia where approval for the Afghanistan mission has now dropped to only 37%.

http://www.mustelgroup.com/pdf/20061122_fvi_release.pdf

I'm sure the Liberals will give all their support to Duceppe.

[normanchateau]

Afghanistan certainly is unpopular in Quebec. A fight on it would probably not go well for the Conservatives there.

Nor in British Columbia where approval for the Afghanistan mission has now dropped to only 37%.

http://www.mustelgroup.com/pdf/20061122_fvi_release.pdf

I'm sure the Liberals will give all their support to Duceppe.

The NDP, BQ and most Liberal MPs including Stephane Dion voted not to extend the mission in Afghanistan.

[Canuck E Stan]

The NDP, BQ and most Liberal MPs including Stephane Dion voted not to extend the mission in Afghanistan.

From the Red Star:

Such a motion on Afghanistan would pose a particular dilemma for the Liberals, who signed up Canada for the mission in the first place while they were in power.

The party is now divided on the issue but its new leader has been critical of the current mission.

"We'll wait to see (the motion) before making a choice," Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said.

Duceppe threatens to topple Harper government over Afghanistan

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe warned Monday he might table a non-confidence motion if the mandate of Canadian soldiers in the wartorn country doesn’t change.

And the other opposition parties suggested they might join a Bloc effort to that effect in the new year.

Then again they might not

Duceppe is tired of Dion getting all the media attention these days, so he has to make a show.....look for Layton to make a show next. It just might be next week.

[Jean_Poutine]

Afghanistan certainly is unpopular in Quebec. A fight on it would probably not go well for the Conservatives there.

And there's the truth. It's about Quebec more than Canada. From what I've read, it's more or less evenly divided in Ontario and Alberta, but there's over 70% opposition in Quebec. With 2000 soldiers expected to leave Quebec to head over to Afghanistan next summer, it should come as no surprise that Duceppe will use this to his advantage. If, however, the Canadian government starts playing politics with the mission, it's no better than the governments of the NATO countries that are not offering the support that NATO needs. Do you want to follow their example, or do you want to set an example?

I also wonder how informed these people are. The recent poll that showed a boost for the Liberals with Dion, for example, had this question: "How closely have you been following the Liberal leadership convention?" 66% of the people in the poll answered "not closely". Nice to know they're making informed decisions.

Are they against the Afghanistan war because they're informed and disagree, or just because of a knee-jerk reaction to helping Americans while Bush is President? Do they pay attention to the details, or just the body count? Did they simply read the headline Canada didn't get as much support from NATO as they hoped, or did they pay attention?

I, for one, watched the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. In one presentation, it was, quite accuratately in my opinion, pointed out that NATO bet the alliance on Afghanistan. If you want NATO to be a credible option for dealing with conflicts, you should do what you can to ensure it succeeds rather than joining the reticent. If NATO is not to be a credible option, and the UN certainly isn't a credible option for dealing with conflicts, then what? What multilateral option do you have? So, should Canada sit on the fence and criticize the Americans, or invest in multilateralism?

If Canada were to pull troops away from combat as Dion and the Bloc would like and instead focus only on development, NATO would be short even more troops that it needs to do the job, and it would only undermine the mission further. You cannot have development without security, and you cannot have security if nobody is willing to provide it. I'm proud of the work the Canadian armed forces are doing and of the fact that Canada is stepping up to the challenge even if others are not willing to. In that sense, the approach to the mission in Afghanistan follows Canadian military history.

It's not the poorly informed knee-jerk opposition to anything initiated by Bush that I would listen to, but rather what the Canadian armed forces say themselves:

General says Canadians ill-informed over Afghan debate, defends mission

On patrol with the Dragoons in Kandahar Province

"We're forging perhaps the next chapter in the history of the Canadian military, and the troops talk about that, they're proud of it, proud to be a part of it."

"There are certainly worries," Lussier says, and apprehension, and reluctance. But above all, he says, there's a mission to accomplish. "You never hear a fireman say, 'Oh I'm not going to that fire.' Well that's the way we are here."

There's foundation to his beliefs, based on national spirit and pride. "I've never known Canada to be a quitter," he says, "The Canadian army certainly never quit. I would hope that in true Canadian fashion, we'll see the job through."

And here perhaps is his greatest fear; that eventually the Afghanistan mission will become so unpopular, the public's backing will waver, and the soldiers will be left on their own.

"The worst thing we could find out over here," Lussier says, "being in this kind of environment, is that we're no longer supported at home.

"I think," he says, "that would crush morale."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...TVNewsAt11&pr=1

[August1991]

The troops from Valcartier are scheduled to replace the Edmonton troops in the next few months. Duceppe is trying to get an edge on Dion who voted against extending the Afghan mission. (Duceppe would also like a federal election now before Dion is ready.)

I don't think there will be a federal election soon. The Tories, the Liberals and the NDP don't want it, not now.

As to Afghanistan, Harper has a hard row to hoe in Quebec. With the Quebecers who may vote Conservative, he does not have to argue the principle but he must show that this effort is practical and useful. Curiously, I think John Howard is not bad as model. We must stand beside our American neighbours and if we don't do this, then what happens?

[Remiel]

...?

Why does whether we quit Afghanistan always have to be tied to the Americans? If we decide we are going to stick it to 'em and dig ourselves in in the Afghan desert, then who gives royal rats ass whether the Americans decide to go home? If, on the other hand, we decide to leave, then lets leave. If we want respect, we have to make our own decisions, period.

[kimmy]

The NDP, BQ and most Liberal MPs including Stephane Dion voted not to extend the mission in Afghanistan.

Really, Norm.

By "most Liberal MPs," do you mean "somewhere less than half of them"? Because if not, then the vote should have been defeated easily.

I agree with what Jean Poutine wrote. I am very disappointed that support for the mission in Afghanistan has fallen, and I am appreciative of those Liberal members who did vote to affirm our commitment to it. I predick dat de Jean Poutine will become de mos' poopoolaire member of de message board!

-k

{I wonder if he has monogrammed golf balls? }

[Jean_Poutine]

...?

Why does whether we quit Afghanistan always have to be tied to the Americans? If we decide we are going to stick it to 'em and dig ourselves in in the Afghan desert, then who gives royal rats ass whether the Americans decide to go home? If, on the other hand, we decide to leave, then lets leave. If we want respect, we have to make our own decisions, period.

There are the obvious reasons such as America being a close ally and a member of NATO, but the question I'd put to you is: why the opposition to working with them? Do you feel the same way about the British? Do you think that Canada is not as willing to work with the Brits as the Americans? History obviously shows that we are.

[jdobbin]

As to Afghanistan, Harper has a hard row to hoe in Quebec. With the Quebecers who may vote Conservative, he does not have to argue the principle but he must show that this effort is practical and useful. Curiously, I think John Howard is not bad as model. We must stand beside our American neighbours and if we don't do this, then what happens?

John Howard doesn't have Quebec to deal with. Nor has the Labor opposition been all that strong until recently.

If Howard went to an election today, he would lose to Labor.

Today's news...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...231-601,00.html

http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/

[Cameron]

Very good post JP. I must admit that being part of a family with a member (my younger brother) going over in February, I tend to seek out information on a grand scale to feed my desire to find out what is happening. If it is from troop reports, to posts on other message boards, I try and get the story from the horses mouth, so to speak.

I do find that the people I talk to about the mission are ill-informed on it. They have a knee-jerk reaction when you ask them about pulling out. They are all yes's. But when I pose more questions about reconstruction and who will provide the security and HOW that security should be administered, I tend to have blank stares.

You can either have a proactive approach to the Taliban and terrorists or a reactive one. Are you going to go after the Taliban and put pressure on them in a forceful manner and then begin rebuilding. Or are you going to concentrate more on rebuilding and react to attacks on the troops, similar to what we saw in Rwanda where the troops were instructed to only react to the aggressors if they were fired upon.

I can see it being very difficult to go the path of Jack Layton and company because of the inherent fact that if we aren't putting pressure on the Taliban then they will regroup in areas where the pressure has been released and set up shop and make it difficult to continue the reconstruction. Taking one step forward and one step back to put it in perspective.

[August1991]

You can either have a proactive approach to the Taliban and terrorists or a reactive one. Are you going to go after the Taliban and put pressure on them in a forceful manner and then begin rebuilding. Or are you going to concentrate more on rebuilding and react to attacks on the troops, similar to what we saw in Rwanda where the troops were instructed to only react to the aggressors if they were fired upon.

That's a good point.

Harper should refer to the situation in Rwanda because it it is well known. We can stand aside and not get involved. Or, we can get involved. If the Canadian Forces had been involved in Rwanda, what would have happened and how many of our soldiers would have died?

What do our troops do? In Afghanistan, if we are supporting drug warlords, making inevitable a greater civil war or helping radical Muslims, then support will not exist.

This should be absolutely crystal clear.

[normanchateau]

The NDP, BQ and most Liberal MPs including Stephane Dion voted not to extend the mission in Afghanistan.

Really, Norm.

By "most Liberal MPs," do you mean "somewhere less than half of them"? Because if not, then the vote should have been defeated easily.

Kimmy, you have a unique mathematical ability or a short memory.

149 MPs voted to extend the mission in Afghanistan. Of those 149, 30 were Liberal MPs. I know it's incredibly hard to believe but there are more than 120 CPC MPs. The majority of Liberals did NOT vote to extend the mission. Source:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0518?hub=Canada

[Remiel]

Well, Jean, I always get this feeling that the American administration (or at least the Bush Jr. administration) doesn't expect us to work *with* them, they expect us to work *for* them.

I wouldn't trust the British government right now either. They seem to be working for Bush more than with him, ever since the start of this whole fiasco.

NATO should only be important to us if our decisions actually carry weight with our allies. Being expected to blindly follow in line behind the US and Britain is not an alliance, its a subordinance, and I will NEVER be for the subordinance of us to them.

I didn't want to send our guys to Afghanistan back in 2001, but the I'm not sure I want to bring them home now either. If you look at the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan, the American and British soldiers in Iraq, from all accounts, DO NOT want to be there. Our guys and girls in Afghanistan DO want to be there.

Keep this is mind: Not supporting the mission does not necessarily equal to wanting to withdraw our forces. It can mean wanting a better mission (read: goals, objectives, strategies, plans).

( Sometimes I wonder if we would be having better luck in the battle for the hearts and minds of Afghans if the Americans and British could be replaced by NATO troops from other countries, if necessary by sending the Brits and Americans to take over what those troops are doing in other parts of the world. Then there would be none of the " villains " responsible for Iraq in Afghanistan, which I think might go over better with the populace. )

[normanchateau]

The NDP, BQ and most Liberal MPs including Stephane Dion voted not to extend the mission in Afghanistan.

Really, Norm.

By "most Liberal MPs," do you mean "somewhere less than half of them"? Because if not, then the vote should have been defeated easily.

Kimmy, you have a unique mathematical ability or a short memory.

149 MPs voted to extend the mission in Afghanistan. Of those 149, 30 were Liberal MPs. I know it's incredibly hard to believe but there are more than 120 CPC MPs. The majority of Liberals did NOT vote to extend the mission. Source:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0518?hub=Canada

Harper should have allowed more time on this debate. If he had, the outcome might have been different.

[Argus]

What game does Mr. Duceppe wish to play

Sounds like Duceppe respects the wishes of Canadians, a majority of whom no longer support the mission in Afghanistan.

A majority of Canadians also see the mission as a lost cause:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads=

A majority of Canadians couldn't find Afghanistan on a map.

A majority of Canadians couldn't find Nunavut on a map. And most couldn't tell you the difference between them.

[jdobbin]

A majority of Canadians couldn't find Afghanistan on a map.

A majority of Canadians couldn't find Nunavut on a map. And most couldn't tell you the difference between them.

And a majority of Canadians might vote Harper out because of what they don't know about Afghanistan. Who's fault do you think that is?

[Jean_Poutine]

Most of the killing in Rwanda was done with machetes. Dallaire said he could have done the job with a few thousand soldiers, and I don't doubt it. If you put a few thousand well armed soldiers in there with a robust mandate, I'm sure people using machetes would have second thoughts pretty quickly. As they say, don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Basically, the amount of force that Canada has in Afghanistan now could have prevented hundreds of thousands of deaths in Rwanda. According to Samantha Power, the killing happened at a faster rate than the holocaust, but Dallaire told the UN about the threat before it unfolded. Kofi Annan also asked over 80 countries to contribute forces. So, there's no way they can say that they were caught off guard.

The mission in Rwanda failed because the UN didn't have the political will of member states, and that's the achilles' heel of multilateralism. Similar problems are popping up with the NATO mission in Afghanistan. It's critical to overcome it if multilateralism is to work.

I think what clouds the Canadian prespective is what Lewis MacKenzie calls "the peace-keeping myth." Canadians have to get passed this idea that Canada is a nation of peace-keepers. Peace-keeping was created as a solution Suez Canal crisis, and it works when nations involved in a conflict want a peaceful solution. Politicians like selling it to the public because it's cheap, relatively low risk, and the idea of bringing a peaceful solution to a conflict is popular with the public. However, it's since been applied to situations where it's not appropriate, and failed miserably. If you look at the missions since the fall of the Soviet Union, for example, they are mainly internal conflicts within nations. The governments are incapable or unwilling to stop the violence, and so there is no peace to keep. Peace-keeping is one tool in the box, but not a tool for all jobs.

Paul Martin recognized this in what he called "responsibility to protect". He argued that where governments fail to protect their people, others should step in. It's one thing to acknowledge it, however, and another to do something about it. You're still faced with the same problem of finding political will within multilateralism, but also the will to step into sovereign countries and do so against their will potentially. Also, as we all know, the higher the risk, the harder it is to sell to constituents.

However, take Darfur for example. Approximately 400,000 have died while the government of Sudan stalled. So, would Canadians support sending troops into the area, welcome or not, and use force if necessary to save hundreds of thousands of lives, or would they prefer to sit back and watch? If put that way, I'm sure there would be more support for the use of force.

In addition to acknowledging the problems and finding the poltical will to do what is necessary to deal with them, you also need the ability to respond, and that means properly funding the military. I've heard that even members of the NDP want something done about Darfur, but we're already commited to Afghanistan. Why be in a situation where we have to choose one? During the Cold War, we had 10,000 troops in Germany under NATO. Why can't we deploy half that, and either be involved in two missions simultaneously, with approximately 2500 troops in each, or about 5000 in one? Why should we struggle with troop rotation when deploying 2500 troops to one mission? The answer is that Canadians have been conditioned to believe that they are a nation of peace-keepers, and peace-keeping is cheap; therefore, the government can reduce military spending, which reduces capability.

In 1993, the government cut the defence budget to 1.1% GDP, and reduced the number of people in the armed forces by about 22,000 to help eliminate the deficit. However, we've since had more than $70 billion in federal surplus, and only now are we starting to invest in the armed forces again. The Conservatives are commited to replacing old equipment, bringing troop strength back up to pre-93 levels, and as a long-term goal, bringing the defence budget back up to NATO average (2-3% GDP) where it was from 1976-1993. On this, I support them 100%. In contrast, the Liberals, under Paul Martin, promised to add 8,000 people to the armed forces, but that isn't even half of what they cut in the 90s. Going around talking about the responsibility to protect without properly funding the military is empty rhetoric.

[geoffrey]

Great post JP. Welcome!

[Argus]

A majority of Canadians couldn't find Afghanistan on a map.

A majority of Canadians couldn't find Nunavut on a map. And most couldn't tell you the difference between them.

And a majority of Canadians might vote Harper out because of what they don't know about Afghanistan. Who's fault do you think that is?

If people won't read newspapers or magazines, or put any thought into the basis for their political beliefs there isn't a lot anyone can do about it. It would be nice if such people weren't allowed to vote, though.

There was a throwaway line in today's Toronto Star story on Afghanistan's president cursing at the Pakistanis. It was: According to a tally by The Associated Press based on reports from Afghan and western officials, nearly 4,000 people have died in war violence during 2006 — mostly militants but also including about 300 civilians.

Yet if you asked many of those who want us to run away you'd be told the war is going terribly, we're accomplishing nothing, and the Taliban are on the verge of driving us into the sea (yes, I know there's no sea, but regardless...)

[normanchateau]

A majority of Canadians couldn't find Afghanistan on a map.

A majority of Canadians couldn't find Nunavut on a map. And most couldn't tell you the difference between them.

And a majority of Canadians might vote Harper out because of what they don't know about Afghanistan. Who's fault do you think that is?

If people won't read newspapers or magazines, or put any thought into the basis for their political beliefs there isn't a lot anyone can do about it. It would be nice if such people weren't allowed to vote, though.

My sentiments as well but unfortunately the majority would disagree...