The National Post has a summary report up on Wolf Blitzer's interview with PM the PM for CNN's Late Edition last night. I thought the following section on the possibility of Canadian troops being sent to Iraq was interesting.
Troops are out, the Prime Minister told Mr. Blitzer, host of CNN's Late Edition."Our commitments are such that it would be very hard for us to commit troops to Iraq," Mr. Martin said, pointing to Canada's significant involvement in Afghanistan's reconstruction.
Mr. Blitzer pressed on. "The Canadian Armed Forces must have a thousand troops that could be freed up to go and help the allies and the Iraqis," he said. "Is it a matter of a shortage of troops in your armed forces, or is there a political desire not to get involved militarily?"
"No," Mr. Martin said. "Our troops are stretched very, very thin."
Mr. Martin said his government is committed to substantially increasing the level of its regular troops and its reserves. "But right now we just do not have the troops," he said.
Asked by Mr. Blitzer whether he was suggesting that "down the road, once you've bulked up your military, you are not ruling the possibility of deploying troops in Iraq," Mr. Martin ducked.
"Well, I think an awful lot, that's going to depend on where we're asked to go," he said, pointing to developing needs in such hot spots as Sudan and Haiti.
When the Post's Norma Greenaway writes that "Martin ducked", she's exactly right. It might well be political suicide for Martin to commit Canadian troops to Iraq at this point but being Paul Martin, he's going to resist giving a straight answer just as hard as he can.
But did you notice the way Blitzer followed up? Twice, at least, if this report is any guide. Why he sounds every bit the tenacious reporter trying to make a disingenuous politician squirm. It's a pity he and his compatriots won't try that with George Bush.
I saw the interview. Wolf sounded like a one of the army recruiters from Fahrenheit 911.
Whether it is political suicide or not, the fact remains that Canada does not have the troops to commit to Iraq. A situation that may be for the best. However, RCN frigates and destroyers are supporting USN task groups involved in the Iraq War and have been since the war's inception. A Chretien notion of plausible deniability. It was quite clever really. Chretien appeased Quebecers, who were most adamantly opposed to the Iraq War, defusing the PQ rally and ensuring Charest was elected, yet appeased US demands with naval support that the Liberals could claim was working under the guise of the war on terror. Now there's a "wee" bit of disingenuousness!
Aerial view of HMCS St. John's (left) with USS Seattle (center) alongside USS JFK.
The American news media is largely corrupt
and a mere shill for Bush policies at this point (As if you hadn't noticed).
JUST SAY NO NO NO to any troops being sent to Iraq. Sudan? Maybe. But keep your troops under UN or Canadian command&control.
Don't let 'em serve U.S, interests, whayever you do.
Now there's a "wee" bit of disingenuousness!
Yup.