I've been trying to figure out what bothered me so much about the NDP's recent decision on Afghanistan - to remove Canadian troops immediately. I've made no secret of my support of the NDP - indeed, I've been quite vocal about it. But I would like to think that I've also made it clear that my support for the NDP is based on reason and the fact that my beliefs coincide best with those of the NDP, not blind partisanship.
(Side note: In the US, blind partisanship - supporting Democrats, whatever their views - is certainly a defensible position. Ending Bush's destruction of the Constitution is a necessity, and the GOP simply won't do it. In Canada, our Parliament affords us more flexibility and honesty in our voting.)
So what do I do when - like now - I find myself disagreeing with the NDP's policies on a matter that's pretty important, and central to the problems the next government will face? Like Mike at Rational Reasons, I find myself much closer to Gerard Kennedy's views on Afghanistan than to the view that Jack Layton is propounding. But more unsettling to me has been the form this debate has taken within the NDP. I couldn't put my finger on it until a few days ago, watching Layton speak about Afghanistan, when he called it "George Bush's war."
On the surface, I suppose that's a fair label. Of course, it was also Jean Chretien's war, and Paul Martin's too. Hell, I supported the war, and Canada's involvement in it. Doesn't that make it my war as much as theirs? (Obviously, I'm not slinging a rifle in the Hindu Kush, but then neither are Dubya, Paul, Jean, or Stephen.) Nevertheless, the attempt to smear this war as something akin to Iraq - the obvious intent - disturbs me, and actually disturbs me more than the NDP adopting a policy that a slim majority of Canadians now favour.
I should say that I have a number of reservations about our war in Afghanistan, basically all of them revolving around two key questions: 1) What are we doing there? 2) Can we succeed? I fear that whatever the answer to #1 is, if we flat-out refuse to accept a political solution with the Taliban, the answer to #2 will be a simple "no". Even our Conservative defense minister seemed to accept that conclusion, until someone from Sussex Drive put a horse's head on his pillow.
But back to Jack. For Layton to try and label this "Bush's war" is a way of reducing the complexities of the real world in to a sound bite. It's an either-or dichotomy that doesn't exist in the real world. It is also insulting the intelligence of the Canadian voter, who have enough brain cells to decide whether this war is worthwhile or not, notwithstanding the American connection. It is, in short, about as useful and realistic a category as the "Axis of Evil" or "Islamofascists", and I hate to see my party using the linguistic tricks of the Republicans.
And on the merits of a precipitous withdrawal, I think the NDP policy is flat wrong, for the simple reason that Canada has committed to at least 2009. Like it or not, we made a committment. Withdrawing without giving our allies a long period of advance warning - at a time when NATO is calling for reinforcements, no less - would, I think, be the final nail in the coffin of Canada's international credibility.
On the flip side, the NDP have just given the Liberals the nicest present an opposition party could ask for. Want to paint the NDP as loony-tunes and knee-jerk anti-American when it comes to the real world? Knock yourselves out, guys. But Afghanistan isn't terribly popular at the moment - in fact, it's about as unpopular here as Iraq is in the US - and you'll have a hell of a time turning it around without supporting Harper.
Or, you could elect Gerard Kennedy leader, walk away with half of the NDP vote, and win the next election. Your choice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Thank you John for stating exactly how I feel. Despite my very public concerns and soul searching on this, I could not put my fnger on it untl I read this.
I agree 100% - the language is akin to the rhetoric of the right and I find it distateful and insulting to my principles. And I worry that my party of principles is not adopting this BECAUSE a slim majority of Canadians support it - that's something the Liberals and the Cons would do.
I'm going to be watching very closely for the next few months...good to see I'm not alone (and I sure thought I was).
No, not alone at all Mike.
I'm a Gerard Kennedy supporter and I was really happy with the line he is taking on Afghanistan - I think both the 'support our troops' crowd on the 'right' and the 'cut-and-run' crowd behind Layton are missing what seem to me to be fairly obvious problems. I wrote about those problems yesterday, you may be interested in checking them out. http://torontogavin.blogspot.com/
G
If you would bother to read my blog you will see why this war is wrong, and not the original mission at all.
Given that the position the NDP will draft over the next two weeks I have outlined in my reply to the Sir Robert Borden Papers. And it is not just withdrawl, it is civil society building.
Do try and read more than the MSM.
The party also developed a major election platform that leaves the Liberals in the dust.
Jack is right this coming election is between the NDP and Tories. The Liberals had their chance and blew it. Which is why none of the wise men of the party are running for leader.
P.S. the polls show that Canadians do not like Harpers love in with Bush, and Jack focusing on that is pragmatic
realpolitick which everyone complains that the NDP never does.
I think you are making a fundamental policy mistake here.
On your major point: you suport the Gerard Kennedy position that Canada should stay in Afghanistan support a different policy. The problem is Canada has zero influence on U.S. policy in Afghanistan. (Heck as a U.S. citizen I have zero influence on U.S. policy in Afghanistan.) If you stay there you are not supporting nor even doing anything to advance some other policy. You are supporting the current U.S. policy as actually executed under the control of George W. Bush. You can't expect a significant change in this in the next two years - not even in the unlikely even that the Democrats take back one or both houses. The Afghanistan war, unlike the Iraq war is still popular in the U.S. - based on most U.S. citizens knowing nothing about it, but assuming that unlike Iraq we are kicking bad-guy ass there.
Your second point is that Canada gave its word. My question there is: was this word given unconditionaly? If the U.S. decided to arrest every fifth Afghani male and sacrifice them to Moloch would you still be obliged to stay and help? Well, that is not quite what is happening, but it is pretty bad. The U.S. carries out the same policies of collective punishement and support of death squads we do in Iraq. As in Iraq we arrest huge numbers of people (a large percent of whom are innocent), hold and torture them without trial- releaseing some but not all. In addition Afghanistan has become one of the major centers for holding people kidnapped by U.S. or for the Europe in Europe, Pakistan, the Phillipines ect. I don't think your nation gave its word to suport anything like this. Given that you can't stop it or ameliorate it in any way, the NDP is right to advocate that you no longer be an accomplice. If you disagree, you would need argue I think either than the occupation of Aghanistan is not as much of a net horror as I am describing or that Canada's staying in will ameliorate what I am describing in some significant way.
Hi,
I’m not a Dipper, so my comments address the impression that the NDP gives off when it comes to foreign affairs. In watching the convention on CPAC (yes, I’m a bit of a wonk), one woman delegate, whose name escapes me, seemed to encapsulate the NDP on foreign policy. She said something to the effect of the following. “The NDP mustn’t come off as knee-jerk anti-war. We need a cogent foreign policy.”
Ironically, that’s exactly how the NDP comes off. I have not seen anything that resembles a coherent foreign policy from the Dippers, or for that matter, from any of my fellow Liberals with the exception of Ignatieff. A few newspaper articles and sound bites don’t amount to a foreign policy.
With that said, perhaps the lack of such policy is by design or convenience. It definitely makes it easier to criticize the foreign policy of others. Perhaps the NDP sees itself as the perpetual dissenter.
Moreover, the anti-war rhetoric comes at an opportune time, just as Canadian discontent rises and world disapproval of G.W. Bush does too. Such talk seems to play into the populist roots of the Party.
However, the big draw back to all of this is that it furthers the image of a Leftist fringe party, which never will never make a break for true power by appealing to the all important centrist vote.
These remarks are made as an outsider, so please take them for what they're worth.
Post a Comment