Harper goes beyond Kandahar base

[fcgv]

By James Mccarten And Alexander Panetta

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - Decked out in protective gear, a helmet under his arm, Stephen Harper gave a thumbs up as he boarded a Black Hawk helicopter Wednesday to become one of the only serving prime ministers to venture perilously close to the front lines of war.

Harper's trip took him beyond the safety of the heavily guarded Kandahar Airfield to the forward operating base at Ma'sum Ghar, a rocky, mountainous patch of Afghanistan hard between the Panjwaii District Bazaar and the Arghandab River that's steeped in the blood of Canadian soldiers.

But thanks to a controversial decision by the Prime Minister's Office to cancel a military convoy of journalists who were supposed to accompany him, the event - billed as historical by the deputy commander of Canadian forces - went largely unwitnessed by the media, save for a handful of photographers.

"I have a doctorate in history," Col. Mike Cessford told a news conference in advance of Harper's departure.

"No sitting prime minister, in my opinion, has been closer to combat operations than this prime minister today."

Pooled videotape showed a helmeted Harper in a khaki-coloured flak jacket, hands on his hips as he surveyed the landscape from one of the base's lookout points. Soldiers, rifles at the ready, flanked him on either side.

The base at Ma'sum Ghar sits on the very patch of rock where Pte. Mark Anthony Graham was killed and 30 other Canadian soldiers were injured when they were mistakenly strafed by a pair of U.S. A-10 Thunderbolts in the middle of a major combat operation.

It's also at the heart of a tract of territory hard-won from the Taliban with Canadian sweat and blood, but a part of the country that remains far from safe, as evidenced by a rocket attack on the base last week that killed a Canadian-hired interpreter and injured another.

"It's a pale shadow of what it once was," Cessford said of the fighting in the region. "But it cannot reasonably be described as a benign environment."

Asked whether Harper's visit would have been possible a year ago, Cessford said: "Absolutely not."

Harper began the second day of his two-day visit with a speech to soldiers gathered at Kandahar Airfield's maple leaf-festooned ball-hockey rink, where he dropped the ball at a ceremonial face-off and hinted strongly that troops won't be leaving Afghanistan anytime soon.

"You know that your work is not complete," he told about 300 soldiers, many of whom had been asked by military officials to attend the morning's event.

"You know that we can't just put down our weapons and hope for peace. You know that we can't set arbitrary deadlines and simply wish for the best."

The Liberals want Canada to withdraw its troops when the current mission expires in 2009, while the NDP wants to pull them out immediately. Finding a soldier on the ground in Afghanistan who wants Canadians to pull out in two years is a nearly impossible task.

"February 2009, I don't see this being done, and nobody wants to leave with this mission half-done," said Master Cpl. Mark Caverson, 36, from the Joint Signals Regiment based in Kingston, Ont..

"We've got a fairly good name now, we've spent a lot of time and blood building that name, so let's get this done and get this country back on its feet."

But in Ottawa, Liberal defence critic MP Denis Coderre, issued a statement saying he was "deeply troubled that Mr. Harper continues to support an open-ended counter-insurgency mission in Kandahar."

He complained that in the House of Commons the prime minister and Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor "keep repeating the stock line that Canada is only committed until 2009."

"Outside of the House, Mr. Harper and Mr. O'Connor keep hinting that our soldiers will stay longer. . . .

Why are the Conservatives opposed to handing over the reins of combat needs in Kandahar to another NATO country when Canada's current mission has ended? Why is he against such a standard and fair rotation?"

Brig.-Gen. Tim Grant, the senior Canadian military commander in Afghanistan, said there are contingency plans in place that extend beyond the current pullout date.

"The work will not be done here in February 2009, so we want to make sure we do as much as we possibly can between now and then," Grant said. "But at the same time, it would be irresponsible of us not to plan past that point, for the good of the country."

At Ma'sum Ghar, Harper shook hands and posed for pictures with members of A Squadron from the Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) armour regiment, who stood before several of Canada's Leopard tanks - aging sweatboxes that the Conservative government has already promised to replace with a fleet of cooler, more efficient models.

But no one with a notebook was on hand to interview the troops or Harper as he made his way around the base.

The PMO provided the media with only three seats aboard one of two helicopters that made the trip. They were filled by two photographers and a TV cameraman, all three of whom were part of the media contingent that travelled with Harper to Afghanistan.

The PMO's decision countermanded the military's plan to shuttle reporters, many of whom are embedded with troops, to the site in an armoured convoy.

Dimitri Soudas, Harper's deputy press secretary, said the convoy was cancelled because it wasn't part of the prime minister's scheduled agenda.

"I stick to the plan and to the schedule that we decided upon prior to departure," Soudas said. "There's more than one angle to moving the prime minister around Afghanistan, and I'm not in a position to make any changes at the last minute."

Military officials said the PMO complained that the Canadian Forces "didn't have the authority to plan anything on their behalf."

One senior military source said the convoy was cancelled, at least in part, because it didn't fit with the PMO's "cookie-cutter approach" to media relations. Others have spoken in the past about senior government officials being strongly opposed to the Canadian Forces embed program.

Harper began the final day of his two-day visit to Afghanistan by having breakfast with soldiers in the mess hall, delivering a speech lauding the troops and offering a gift of hockey sticks and balls.

"Each of you stands among the greatest of your generation," Harper told the soldiers.

"You are Canada's sons and daughters. And your country - as much as this country - owes you a debt of gratitude and its unwavering support."

But there were visible signs his audience, which crowded around the podium and sat atop armoured vehicles parked behind Harper for the benefit of the cameras, was decidedly non-partisan.

Scores of soldiers began filing out the moment the prime minister finished speaking. An officer stopped them and said: "The prime minister is still here - so that means we're still here. Get back inside."

Copyright © 2007 Canadian Press

[margrace]

Let me first say that I support our troops, I always have. We have the best soldiers in the world as proven by our participation in two world wars and our magnificent peace keepers.

But I think this trip of Harpers is nothing but a show to get Canadians to support the mission in Afghanistan. I do not think that anything he does will bring back the 55 soldiers killed there. And why are the reporters not there. isn't this another show of support for Mr. Bush's war. Harper would dearly love to have our soldiers in Iraq but he knows that Canadians are not in support of any participation there.

I think Harper is making a tactical error. If he wants to get his majority maybe he should start listening to the Canadia people. Like George Bush he thinks he can ride rough shod over the will of the people. Like George Bush he shows his dislike of the common man.

[Leafless]

By James Mccarten And Alexander Panetta

Harper's trip took him beyond the safety of the heavily guarded Kandahar Airfield to the forward operating base at Ma'sum Ghar, a rocky, mountainous patch of Afghanistan hard between the Panjwaii District Bazaar and the Arghandab River that's steeped in the blood of Canadian soldiers.

I sort of agree with margrace on this one, who said: "But I think this trip of Harper is nothing but a show to get Canadians to support the mission in Afghanistan."

If Canada was battling a real army, I doubt if you would see Mr. Harper going beyond the safety of heavily guarded Kandahar Airfield.

Canada is fighting a group that specializes in 'hit and run attacks' and incorporating suicide bombers, that picks off Canadian troops like toy ducks in a commercial shooting gallery.

[scribblet]

Not to mention that the Prime Minister is doing his job, if he didn't provide moral support what would be said then?

Taliban terrorists also target our rebuilding efforts because they don't want to see Afghans enjoy a quality of life that they don't care about. If we are serious about helping Afghans live in freedom, we have to fight for it.

The opposition ranks in our Parliament are schizophrenic in their support for the UN and its efforts. Meanwhile they demand that Canada act at once to meet its commitments under the Kyoto protocol irrespective of the costs to our economy and society, they want to dodge and escape from our commitment to the UN and to NATO for rebuilding Afghanistan. They claim the price is irrelevant in one case and too high in the other. More double standards.

edited for spelling

Edited May 27, 2007 by scriblett

[jdobbin]

Not to mention that the Prime Minister is doing his job, if he didn't provide moral support what would be said then?

Taliban terrorists also target rebuilding effortsas they don't want to see Afghans enjoy a quality of life the Taliban has no interest in. If we are serious about helping Afghans live in freedom, we have to fight for it.

Afghans will have to fight for their freedom. In the next two years, as Scott Taylor has mentioned, NATO forces should leave Afghanistan to Afghans. Our mere presence starts to be the focus of attacks rather the focus of stability. We don't have unlimited time as some think to achieve objectives in Afghanistan.

[capricorn]

We don't have unlimited time nor do we have unlimited resources. Military expenditures to keep the mission going are rising substantially.

Canadians may think the right thing to do is stay the course until Feb. 09. What Canadians may start to question is whether we should be pouring out all that money for an uncertain result.

[Leafless]

Canadians may think the right thing to do is stay the course until Feb. 09. What Canadians may start to question is whether we should be pouring out all that money for an uncertain result.

The only way to find out what Canadians 'want' is by way of a plebiscite or referendum.

All other methods are subject to corruption or manipulation and could be viewed as being 'totally fraudulent'.

[jdobbin]

The only way to find out what Canadians 'want' is by way of a plebiscite or referendum.

All other methods are subject to corruption or manipulation and could be viewed as being 'totally fraudulent'.

Plebiscites and referendum can be subjected to the same distortions and manipulation as elections. Nothing is pure.

Why not allow elected officials to represent their constituencies? If they vary too much from their wishes, they can lose their seat.

If the Conservatives wish to extend beyond 2009, let them explain why, debate it and campaign in an election on it.

My opinion is that they wished to go the polls, not talk about Afghanistan and then commit to 2012 after they won.

[noahbody]

Harper would dearly love to have our soldiers in Iraq but he knows that Canadians are not in support of any participation there.

Yes, Harper would love to have soliders in Iraq and soldiers on the streets of Canada. He is the anti-christ and wants to boil your children in oil from Alberta, before eating them with fava beans.

[jdobbin]

Yes, Harper would love to have soliders in Iraq and soldiers on the streets of Canada. He is the anti-christ and wants to boil your children in oil from Alberta, before eating them with fava beans.

I think Harper's letter to the New York Times accurately reflects what his opinion of where Canada's troops should have been when the U.S. and Britain invaded Iraq. He's probably glad that he dodged that bullet.

[BC_chick]

Harper would dearly love to have our soldiers in Iraq but he knows that Canadians are not in support of any participation there.

Yes, Harper would love to have soliders in Iraq and soldiers on the streets of Canada. He is the anti-christ and wants to boil your children in oil from Alberta, before eating them with fava beans.

That is the most ridiculous response on so many levels. I'm not even sure I follow - are you denying that Harper supported the Iraq war? Or are you having such a difficult time coming up with an explanation for this MONSTROUS misjudgement on the part of your infallible hero that your only attempt at a justification is to put childish words in the mouth of the person who is raising this legitimate concern about his questionable pro-war views?

[jdobbin]

That is the most ridiculous response on so many levels. I'm not even sure I follow - are you denying that Harper supported the Iraq war? Or are you having such a difficult time coming up with an explanation for this MONSTROUS misjudgement on the part of your infallible hero that your only attempt at a response is to put childish words in the mouth of the person who is raising this legitimate concern about his questionable pro-war views?

I expect that when Harper returns to the House tomorrow that he will say that the Opposition supports terrorism. He just can't help himself sometimes.

I'm just wondering how much it cost for the photo opportunity in Afghanistan. This is something that even the normally supportive National Post is wondering about. You have to wonder when two cabinet ministers and one prime minister visit the same school three times.

Here's how the Sun newspaper chain reported the event.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/200...211999-sun.html

8:15 a.m.: Harper delivers a pep-talk style speech to the troops -- many of whom were unaware their prime minister was even in the country until moments before he strode up to a podium along the goal-line of the camp's ball-hockey rink.

9 a.m. onward: Harper jilts reporters yet again and takes a helicopter to tour a military outpost that was the site of heavy combat as recently as six months ago. Reporters settle for briefings with Canadian Forces, foreign affairs and aid officials, file their stories and rush to pick up some souvenirs and haggle for Afghani carpets along the camp's boardwalk or in the American and Canadian PXs.

[Leafless]

The only way to find out what Canadians 'want' is by way of a plebiscite or referendum.

All other methods are subject to corruption or manipulation and could be viewed as being 'totally fraudulent'.

Plebiscites and referendum can be subjected to the same distortions and manipulation as elections. Nothing is pure.

Who is talking about elections.

Iam talking about corrupt telephone polls and this is what current Canadian governments do, to supposedly find out what Canadians want, how Canadians feel about important issues.

This has nothing to do with representation but a lot to do with how the federal government want Canadians to think about a certain issue.

[jdobbin]

Iam talking about corrupt telephone polls and this is what current Canadian governments do, to supposedly find out what Canadians want, how Canadians feel about important issues.

This has nothing to do with representation but a lot to do with how the federal government want Canadians to think about a certain issue.

I tend to think plebiscites and referendums are subject to corruption and manipulation as well. You don't?

[sharkman]

Harper would dearly love to have our soldiers in Iraq but he knows that Canadians are not in support of any participation there.

Yes, Harper would love to have soliders in Iraq and soldiers on the streets of Canada. He is the anti-christ and wants to boil your children in oil from Alberta, before eating them with fava beans.

Hmmmmmm, fava beans.

[southerncomfort]

Harper would dearly love to have our soldiers in Iraq but he knows that Canadians are not in support of any participation there.

Yes, Harper would love to have soliders in Iraq and soldiers on the streets of Canada. He is the anti-christ and wants to boil your children in oil from Alberta, before eating them with fava beans.

That is the most ridiculous response on so many levels. I'm not even sure I follow - are you denying that Harper supported the Iraq war? Or are you having such a difficult time coming up with an explanation for this MONSTROUS misjudgement on the part of your infallible hero that your only attempt at a justification is to put childish words in the mouth of the person who is raising this legitimate concern about his questionable pro-war views?

What MONSTROUS misjudgement, if your talking about Iraq, he hasn't done anything on that, and Afghanistan is just a follow up of Liberal policy. Oh yea...Harper he's so scawy scawy he eats children and maybe hes even a reptillian kitten eater ROTFL

[cynic43]

Harper is scawy scawy alright...did you get a load of him in that flak jacket with his well fed belly

hanging out?

how scawy was that ?

[geoffrey]

That is the most ridiculous response on so many levels. I'm not even sure I follow - are you denying that Harper supported the Iraq war? Or are you having such a difficult time coming up with an explanation for this MONSTROUS misjudgement on the part of your infallible hero that your only attempt at a justification is to put childish words in the mouth of the person who is raising this legitimate concern about his questionable pro-war views?

I wouldn't go that far. Paul Martin was pressing hard for an Iraq commitment behind the scenes of Chretien's government, and many in the Liberal party were on board with it. It did take them nearly a year before they decided on the issue, after all.

I would hardly label Harper an extremist for supporting the Iraq war, he wasn't alone in Canada, nor were the Conservatives.

[capricorn]

Canadians may think the right thing to do is stay the course until Feb. 09. What Canadians may start to question is whether we should be pouring out all that money for an uncertain result.

The only way to find out what Canadians 'want' is by way of a plebiscite or referendum.

All other methods are subject to corruption or manipulation and could be viewed as being 'totally fraudulent'.

Is there not a role for Harper's psychic in all this? It would be cheaper than a referendum or an election. Unless, of course he already brainwashed her, then the results of her mind-reading of Canadians would be corrupted.

[jdobbin]

I wouldn't go that far. Paul Martin was pressing hard for an Iraq commitment behind the scenes of Chretien's government, and many in the Liberal party were on board with it. It did take them nearly a year before they decided on the issue, after all.

The only one I ever heard say that is Sheila Copps. Is there any other source?

[geoffrey]

I wouldn't go that far. Paul Martin was pressing hard for an Iraq commitment behind the scenes of Chretien's government, and many in the Liberal party were on board with it. It did take them nearly a year before they decided on the issue, after all.

The only one I ever heard say that is Sheila Copps. Is there any other source?

Sheila not good enough?? Bottom line, someone was holding up the decision, likely more than a backbencher considering how long it took. Martin makes sense, Sheila agrees.

[jdobbin]

Sheila not good enough?? Bottom line, someone was holding up the decision, likely more than a backbencher considering how long it took. Martin makes sense, Sheila agrees.

Copps was pretty angry with Martin. When I saw her article on the subject, I recall several people remembering the story differently.

[Canuck E Stan]

The Iraq file: Who wants to fight shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. now?

One Martin quote that made the rounds of political websites during the last election (and continues to do so today, even on the NDP site) came from his interview with the North Bay Nugget in April 2003, when he was campaigning for the Liberal leadership.

* He said: "I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible." That segment is usually all that shows up on political blogs. The full quote goes on to read: "There's a huge need for front-line medical professionals. There's a huge need for policing. And there's a huge need for infrastructure rebuilding."

When Martin became prime minister at the end of 2003, the Bush administration announced it would not offer contracts to help rebuild Iraq to any non-coalition members. Canada complained. It had just committed troops to Afghanistan, to relieve U.S. forces there, and it was offering $300 million to send police trainers, electoral officials and medical personnel to Iraq, though most would get no closer than Jordan.

* That was the basis for Martin's position, going into the 2004 election, that "once the war in Iraq began, Canada was far from neutral."

Later, in December 2004 after the Bush visit to Canada, Martin was pushed by CNN interviewer Wolf Blitzer to agree to commit Canadian troops to Iraq at some point. He dodged the question even when it was repeated twice, saying Canada had enough commitments in Afghanistan, Haiti and the Sudan.

* Finally he said: "We did not agree with the invasion of Iraq," adding "once that was done, once we're into the situation where we want to create a democracy in Iraq, take those elections and rebuild Iraq [then], as far as I'm concerned, we are at one with the United States."

That last part, at least, seems to be exactly where Harper is today(2006).

[noahbody]

I wouldn't go that far. Paul Martin was pressing hard for an Iraq commitment behind the scenes of Chretien's government, and many in the Liberal party were on board with it. It did take them nearly a year before they decided on the issue, after all.

The only one I ever heard say that is Sheila Copps. Is there any other source?

"Canada should be there." Paul Martin (Halifax Daily News, January 15, 2003)

[jdobbin]

"Canada should be there." Paul Martin (Halifax Daily News, January 15, 2003)

I'm afraid that is only part of the quote.

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/realitycheck/iraq.html

One Martin quote that made the rounds of political websites during the last election (and continues to do so today, even on the NDP site) came from his interview with the North Bay Nugget in April 2003, when he was campaigning for the Liberal leadership.

* He said: "I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible." That segment is usually all that shows up on political blogs. The full quote goes on to read: "There's a huge need for front-line medical professionals. There's a huge need for policing. And there's a huge need for infrastructure rebuilding."