A war of our very own

This is a beautifully written and developed piece, and I could wish to see it printed in a major newspaper.

Well put indeed. As for the CPCers who want to get their war on - thanks for reminding me that they exist. I tend to edit people like that out of my mental universe, in tandem with their American counterparts. It's too bad Orwell's prediction in Homage to Catalonia never quite came true.

Sometimes it is a comfort to me to think that the aeroplane is altering the conditions of war. Perhaps when the next great war comes we may see that sight unprecedented in all history, a jingo with a bullet-hole in him.

It seems our Dear Leader is taking another page from the Book of Bush. How much longer before he starts calling himself Commander-in-Chief?

What I just can't understand about these neo-cons is how come they can never see past their noses. Bush goes to war, all hell breaks loose, war goes badly, Bush looks bad and loses support. Does Harper really think we will "win" his little war in Afghanistan and he will be revered as a great leader? Or will we, more likely, suffer huge losses of blood and money in Afghanistan, and be forced in the end to cut and run, our tail firmly tucked between our legs, just as the American forces will soon be doing.

I sent an angry email to Dear Leader recently, expressing my opinion that the Canadian presence in Afghanistan must be debated thoroughly before a final long-term commitment there, and received an automated reply assuring me that my comments "have been carefully noted". Sounds kinda ominous! Is the Canadian version of the NSA already at work?

(As somebody once said: Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you!).

No, I'm not really paranoid - yet. But after watching the incredible changes that have taken place in the Benighted States for the last 4.5 years, I don't rule much out anymore, even in our very own good-guy country.

You rock.

Pilgrim and Jason - Thanks for your kind words. Jason, I had long forgotten that Orwell quote. That day, however, has still not come.

Disgusted - We will not see a debate on the Afghanistan deployment because Harper has already prepped himself to become "the wartime prime minister". As for the cryptic response to your e-mail, remember, when everyone's out to get you, paranoia is just good thinking.;)

Thanks, Skippy.

if the events on the ground in Afghanistan change to the point where I would like our troops to come home, that's not necessarily "cutting and running".

that's why we need a debate now, we need to know what our mission is exactly, asap before we renew our commitment

great read, great post, i especially liked (War is not something to "support." It is something to finish as quickly and efficiently as possible)

i like that, in a world of republican/conservative talking points and branding slogans like "cutting and running" we that live in the real world need slogans as well to counter the conservative false talking points

I posted this over at Andrew Coyne's joint, which is still infested with those unique creatures who continue in their error of believing that Coyne is their prophet.

"The place has a history of defeating, in bloody wholesale slaughter, virtually every force that has ever tried to overcome it. Alexander the Great died as a result of a wound he got there. The British have thrown their sons into the bloody maw of the place on more occasions than intelligence would credit, losing entire armies more than once. The Soviet Union was only the latest to learn a hard lesson about the place. If we, and the NATO allies, are not paying very, very carefully considered close attention we'll almost certainly join the parade of lost souls.

I am not saying we should "cut and run" to use Harper's inelegant sophistry. I support this effort. I wish like hell there were not so many NATO allies drawing down their deployments but c'est la morte.

My point is that this is not an engagement to take on with casual machismo, dismissing discussion, or without full public awareness of the history of warfare on that ground. Or to take on as a sop to an offended neighbour for that matter. The blood of foreign troops has flown like a river in Afgahnistan many, many times. If the blood of Canadian men and women must join the river it must not do so without thought, consideration, attention. Not as a mere partisan reflex, for the love of god. It is perhaps the worst place history tells us about to throw our men and women into with declining levels of allied support. It is certainly not a place to try and tackle for a few generations without making very explicit what it is going to entail in terms of blood, tears and money."

I think it can indeed be called "cutting and running", if it's pulling the troops out when the going gets too tough and it's obvious it's impossible to "win" (whatever that means), despite all the bravado and gung-ho rhetoric, a la the Bushies.

Which is why the conditions for our ultimate withdrawal need to be debated and known beforehand, so we don't look like a bunch of dispirited cowards when the time comes.

All around a thoughtful post, Tim, but no need to hold my support in any light other than that I've thought about it too. I totally agree it is not cowardice or unpatriotic to disagree with the mission - particularly one that might include agressive combat and result in the loss in soldier's lives. War should never be about blind partisanship. Never.

But I happen to agree with the mission, and what it offers to that part of the world. We can never let that country be taken hostage by the Taliban again. If you disagree with this, then it is incumbent upon you to explain your position, why leaving Afghanistan would be better for our safety and theirs, what it is that you offer to the stability of that part of the world. There is only one thing worse than blind partisanship, and that is blind pacificism. Now that I've joyfully undeclared myself a blind partisan, will you do the same for the apparent other?

Kind regards,
TM

TM - I also support the Afghanistan mission, but I also support those who do not, and those who are torn by the thought of our people being fed into a meat grinder that has chewed up history's best.

It is because I believe in nuance that Harper's use of Republican code words is so dispiriting for me. We're Canadians. If nothing else in this country, we have learned to disagree with each other in a civil manner. Americans are having a difficult time with that right now, which is why I do not welcome their terminology into our public debate.

As Disgusted, Nalornody and Banquo's Ghost note above, we don't even know the terms by which we would be victorious. I realize conflicts by their very nature are open-ended, but they do have a goal. If our goal in this one is to leave a stable and democratic Afghanistan, I am not sure that is doable. If our goal is leave in place some basic tools for Afghanis to move forward on their own terms, that sounds more realistic, but either way, we should know the terms under which we sacrifice our national blood.

I am not a pacifist. I am anti-war, with the rueful understanding that it is sometimes necessary. My thoughts on the Afghan conflict are spelled out further in this post:

http://www.pogge.ca/archives/001019.shtml

Thanks for writing, TM.

(Comment edited to remove the plethora of typos)

The Monarchist you said

"If you disagree with the mission, then it is incumbent upon you to explain your position"

lets start with 9/11 watch the video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=loose+change

if you still believe that planes brought down the towers and bin laden was the mastermind, then maybe the fact that the u.s. and nato supported al-Qaeda cells during Balkan Wars (milosovic/Kosovo) it is documented that the united states helped finance and trained the afgan arabs (mujahedeen fighters)to resist the Soviet occupation in the 1980s and later "migrated to Bosnia hoping to assist their Islamic brethren in a struggle against Serbian [and for a time] Croatian forces." so why exactly arewe in afghanistan?

I was directed here by My Blahg. I'm glad I've had the opportunity to read this thread. Well written, well balanced commentary, Tim.

Nalornody, all I will say is that one can unashamedly support the mission in Afghanistan without agreeing with every skirmish, conflict and war that took place there since the beginning of time.

Now that I've read Tim's earlier post, I have to say there is nothing that I disagree with on his position. And every monarchist worth his salt is a supporter of peace, order and good government. We also joyfully receive the rights of free Englishmen and deny the impulse of the collective. We don't believe in detached individualism, however, and distrust human nature's proclivity towards things evil. That's why every true monarchist and true Tory believes in POGG. But I'm afraid many - if not most - Blogging Tories are not really Tories at all. Not in the old traditional sense, anyways.

I think it can indeed be called "cutting and running", if it's pulling the troops out when the going gets too tough and it's obvious it's impossible to "win"

Funny, I always considered saving lives rather than meaninglessly pouring them into a meat-grinder of a mission which is impossible to win to be 'smart', myself.

Not that I'm necessarily convinced such is the case, in Afghanistan, yet. I'm just saying; you say 'coward', I say 'sensible'.

Tremendous post, Tim. I am repeating this question everywhere it seems: Why oh why do Canadian troops have to keep turning over all prisoners to U.S. forces for detention? Couldn't we handle that ourselves? It's well established what the U.S. will do with them, so I would think this part of our mission should be revisited by Parliament. Assuming we really do want to gain Afghanis' trust, that is. It seems to me this policy undermines the whole mission this way.

Garnet has the right idea - only stupid, selfish people could ever support putting our troops in an impossible position they could never win.. To "win" this war we need the support of the population of Afghanistan. The question I want answered honestly without interference from the Right Wing Noise Machine is this: Do we have the Afghans' support? (And I'm not interested in hearing lies from the usual psychotics from the Right - I want verifiable facts.)

...If we don't have that support - what are we doing there? We're not supposed to be murderers - we're supposed to be the good guys...what's going on?

When did we turn into Americans?

Well it seems that as of tonight, even Rex Murphy of the CBC has donned his combat boots, a clear signal, as is Harper's pitiful posturing a la Bush, that its time to close ranks and rally 'round the flag folks. What we have here is what our quebecois cousins call 'un fait accompli' - an accomplished fact. To debate it now will bring accusations of defeatism: we are undermining our brave boys (and nowadays girls, too) overseas.
While I don't know if our constitution is as clear, stateside only Congress has the power to declare war. The last time any such debate occured in Canada was just before September 9, 1939 when J.S. Woodsworth was the only Member of Parliament with the courage of his pacifist convictions to vote 'no' to declaring war on Germany, Italy and Japan (the last 'good war', remember?). Since then we've (and more conspicuously the States) have avoided such silly democractic folderoll by never again declaring war on anyone ever- not even in Korea - while mowing 'em down (and getting mowed down) anyway. The modern way is to put our troops in harm's way first, then castigate any opposition as defeatest.
It broke my heart to watch the CBC's visit to 'Red Devil Inn' on the National. If I'm not mistaken, the 'Red Devils' are the 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. Don't let the 'Light' in their name deceive you, for these are the bravest of the brave, one of the most decorated units in the Canadian Armed Forces. Above regimental battle honours like Passchendaele (two VCs), Vimy, Somme 1916 (WWI) and Landing in Sicily, The Moro, Hitler Line, Gothic Line, North-West Europe 1945 (WWII), the 2nd Battalion, PPCLI alone carries a thin blue streamer enscribed simply: 'KAPYONG'. The Wikipedia with crisp military dispassion describes it thusly: "The Battle of Kapyong was waged during the Korean War. The battle began on April 22 and lasted until April 25, 1951. To this day Kapyong stands as a model of consolidation, organized withdrawal under attack by superior force and courage and determination against superior numbers. Three units were awarded the Presidential Unit Citation (US) in recognition of the courage and fortitude displayed in the Battle of Kapyong. The units that received the honor were two Commonwealth battalions, the 2nd Battalion of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment, as well as "A" Company of the 72nd Heavy Tank Battalion, United States Army. Two incidents, one involving the Australians and one involving the Canadians, indicate the overwhelming situation in which they took a stand. After a night of fierce fighting an Australian major managed to get through on a radio phone to a general of the 1st U.S. Marine Division. The general was incredulous, thinking it was an enemy agent speaking. He told the major that the unit no longer existed, that it had been wiped out the night before. The major replied “I've got news for you, we are still here and we are staying here.” The Canadians, whose position had been infiltrated, were in danger of being overrun. They called down artillery fire on their own position in order to dislodge the attacking Chinese soldiers."
They covered themselves in glory and I honour them for it - but as the poet Thomas Gray put it: "The paths of glory lead but to the grave".
No more Kapyongs - bring our troops home now!
Apologies for a long, but heartfelt, post.

While I don't know if our constitution is as clear, stateside only Congress has the power to declare war.

Our constitution is quite clear; the Prime Minister has the sole authority capable of declaring war. The House can vote and debate all it likes, but at the end of the day, if a Prime Minister wants a war, nothing but bringing down the government itself can stop him.

As for the 'discuss and vote' rallying cry starting to make it's way around, I do think the first is important, perhaps vitally so, but the second? The Liberals sent those soldiers to Afghanistan in the first place, and the Conservatives are always happy to do something military, especially if it makes us look good to the Americans. With the two largest political parties onboard with this idea, what could the outcome of such a vote possibly be other than to maintain the status quo?

By “support the troops” I understand that to mean that when people say things like
"there was not once when I would not have preferred them to be safe at home"
people nonetheless respect the decision of individuals to not remain at home.

If you want to remain at home that is, of course, entirely possible. But who puts you in a position to dictate what others do? This is not to say that if the military as a group wants to mix it up somewhere, the rest of population should always just defer to them. But it is to say that when the personnel who would be the ones to execute the action are keen to do it, that should play a role in the collective decision to take the action. Bottom line is that I fail to see why it has to be seen as an entirely collectively dictated decision when it could be professional, operation decision to at least some degree not unlike a decision to deploy a SWAT team in an urban setting. You may see heavily armed police on your streets if a hazard appears. Did you put them there? No. But if soldiers appear in foreign lands in situations that, at this very low intensity conflict is scarcely different from a SWAT team deployment, what is the difference? A hazard is professionally recognized, and professionals respond to it. There is a need for democratic oversight but where is the need to ignore professional input entirely? Supporting the troops means assigning some value to their opinions on their deployment.

To the extent that it is a collective decision, it might be pointed out that Canada does not have a long history as a neutral. On the contrary, Canada has been one of the most willing countries to send expeditionary forces overseas. If this were Switzerland or Sweden, I would be more out of place in suggesting Canada remain engaged in areas were non-engagement would mean tacitly supporting havens for terrorists and druglords. It is not improper to assess the question in a context of tradition.

Except apparently it's improper to address the question in the context of the centuries of history of warfare in the country in question.

Arthur and DougP: I can certainly understand your reticence when it comes to embroiling our soldiers in Afghanistan. No place has the same reputation for chewing up and spitting out foreign armies, but those armies have gone there as conquerers. Our role is different, and we are approaching it differently. I think our people can do good work there.

Arthur, I can't tell you for sure if we have the support of all Afghanis, but i know we have the support of some, including President Karzai. I know Karzai's reach through the countryside is limited (he is often mockingly referred to as "the mayor of Kabul" by regional warlords, but he does speak for Afghanis who want a measure fo peace in their lives. We'll see, I guess.

Arthurdecco, the Canadian troops have the full support of Afghanistan's democratically elected government. What more do you want?

Sure Woodsworth was courageous. Being courageous doesn't make you right.

It's heartening that so many people, above all on the left, have recognized that war is the basest of human failures. It's people killing each other, a total negation of our principles of human rights, a doorway to nihilistic violence that sows the seeds of its own perpetuation. It is "nations trekking from progress."

So we hate it, and we should. That doesn't make Woodsworth's courage much more meaningful, however. Was it courageous or right to refuse to fight Hitler? Was it courageous or right, in a more modern context, to leave Somalia in shambles? Is it moral to stand on the sidelines of Rwanda and East Timor and Bosnia and Darfur?

Expect a heavy p.r. barrage, combined with sustained sniping of any surviving naysayers, in an attempt to bring the majority (60%) of perversely wrong-headed canucks who don't 'get' our 'mission' in Afghanistan around to the 'right' way of thinking(pun intended).
Brian, I only wish this were Sweden or Switzerland, as I believe neutrality would be Canada's best option in a war-crazy world apparently headed straight for Armageddon. Lest anyone think Sweden and Switzerland are panty-waist wimps: know that both are armed to the teeth. Both enforce compulsory national service and adult males remain 'on call' in the reserves 'till about age 55, with alternative public service opportunities for concientious objectors. Nobody, not even Hitler, has f**ked with either for a long, long time now.

I just heard one of the talking heads on CBC Newsworld Politics state that Canada is at war. When it's put that baldly, I feel a surge of angry resentment arisin' in my chest.

One minute the Canadian hawks are trying to tug at my heartstrings about helping the Afghanis (which I find hard to deny), and the next minute they're telling me we're at war and, as Hillier said, we'll be killing people.

And they think we don't need a debate in Parliament on what the hell we're doing there????!!!

But of course, since we're at war, apparently, I guess people will just have to "watch what they say", lest we encourage the enemy and demoralize the troops.

Is the door open or is that cold chill I feel coming from Ottawa?

Excellent post and good links, Tim. The issue of our role in Afghanistan is one I've been grappling with ever since our deployment.

Karzai wants us there, but do the people? (Yes, I know he was 'democratically' elected, thus supposedly speaks for the majority..) And as another poster here asked, "what do we hope to achieve there?"

Admittedly, I am anti-war, but like you, I also recognise that sometimes war is the necessary evil "for which even the most peaceful society must sometimes be ready". But I still question our Afghan mission. As the history of that country has shown, conquerors have been badly defeated, their blood deeply steeped in the Afghan soil. The US likely has other objectives; I only hope we are not duped into aiding them. If we can truly help in bringing stability to the country, that is one thing, to prop up the US in their hegemonic aspirations is quite another. I suppose only the unfolding events and time will tell. How long? 5 years, 10, 20, till we can say that we've achieved a modicum of success (whatever that may be, since we don't really know the full objectives)?

I sincerely hope that we will not needlessly spill our soldiers' blood in a no-win endeavour which in the end will not have made much difference.

I'm of two minds about Harper. While I don't like the extreme -right-lite style of the current Conservatives and the PM, at least they have an agenda that they plan to stick to.

Harper inherited this deployment to Afghanistan from the mealy-mouthed Liberals who have not been able to do anything but spin the language for the last decade or so. I don't think anyone, stepping into the PM's office, would turn around and repudiate the military obligations made by the former government without a pretty damn good reason.

The politicians calling for a debate didn't have to wait for a new government to make this demand; they could have held Martin's feet to the fire at any time. I notice that weaselly Jack Layton is front and centre, yapping like a dog about a government he helped put into power. This is just a stick to beat the Cons with.

For all any of us knows, Harper may be pro- or anti-war. His verbal style tends to be blunt and uncompromising, but at least he's getting the message across. Ever see a live interview with Paul Martin? The guy never gave a straight answer to anything.

Moreover, who the hell knew what Chretien was saying at any particular time...the guy redefined the term-"obfuscation". I don't think Brian Mulroney knows what truth looks like.

We have to go way back to our buddy Pierre to find a plain speaking guy. To those posters who object to Harper's "American-style rhetoric", read the attached lines (you can get the whole thing at Wikipedia, if you like):
"Trudeau: Yes, well there are a lot of bleeding hearts around who just don't like to see people with helmets and guns. All I can say is, go on and bleed, but it is more important to keep law and order in the society than to be worried about weak-kneed people who don't like the looks of ...
Ralfe: At any cost? How far would you go with that? How far would you extend that?
Trudeau: Well, just watch me."

Pierre was real clear on what he was going to do. The War Measures act was put in place and Canada didn't become a police state.

No matter what he says, if things get too hot in Afghanistan for our troops, Harper will find a way out at the first opportunity.

But I still question our Afghan mission. As the history of that country has shown, conquerors have been badly defeated, their blood deeply steeped in the Afghan soil.

And had we gone in as militant conquerors, you would have a certain amount of support to your argument. However, the fact that we have lost only ten soldiers in something like four and a half years (possibly even counting the four 'friendly fire' casualties from the Americans) suggests that we're not exactly doing anything to get Afghanis terribly riled up at us. Of course, that could change easily enough, especially if Harper takes some of the worse ideas from the neo-cons down south, but for the moment at least we seem to be doing fairly well, if only in a limited sphere. Of course, with twenty-three hundred soldiers, less than half the number of uniformed police officers in Toronto alone, your sphere is going to be limited by necessity.

Harper's timely visit to Afghan was political. What do you expect? He's the PM! But I am more concerned with his leadership. Sure Chretien visited Afghanistan, but how many times did he visit the Canadian Forces abroad in Afghanistan and Bosnia during his long tenure? And how often has Harper gone in his short tenure? Chretien failed to support Canada's military by visiting with soldiers at the ground level (junior ranks of the CF) during his time in office. And he failed to demonstrate to Canadian citizens his personal support for Canada's military. Media attention was focussed elsewhere, contributing to Canada's ignorance towards the Canadian Forces.

Harper is not trying to be more like the Americans. He is not trying to model George Bush. He is not even trying to demonstrate to the Americans that we are worthy allies. He is being a leader. He is role-modelling the level of support that he wants Canadians to show for their military. He is doing exactly what his job requires of him. This is not about party-politics, it is about political leadership and although I didn't give it to him during the election, Harper gets my vote now.

Perhaps I need to clarify my last blog. I like what the author had to say about supporting the troops, but not the mission. I doubt there are many Canadians at all who would say that they don't support the troops... but the question is, how do you show it? To me, supporting the troops means writing letters, it means providing equipment and money for good training, it means talking to and listening to the concerns of the leadership, and the non-leadership within the forces. It means more good press.

So what is my solution to this discussion? If the majority of Canadians oppose the missions that the government sends us on, then the government needs to spend more time thinking carefully about the mission and needs to consult with Canadians before sending soldiers abroad.

I only ask that when you consider the idea of sending soldiers on missions, ( and pressure the government in your respective direction) that you also consider the nature of the military. As many of Canada's top commanders have been telling us, you could throw all the money and equipment at the army that you want, but Canada's military needs time and experience to improve. And experience is gained through operations. The most realistic form of training is when you hear the snap of real rounds flying past your head. The best lessons that we can teach our soldiers are lessons that have been proven to work in combat. If we do not put Canadians in situations where they face these risks, then we will train a generation(s) of soldiers who have no combat experience. And then, God forbid there ever comes a day when we need to defend the country, need to go to war, or need to support a country who is at war, our soldiers will die gloriously because their country prevented them from taking part in valuable lessons where eight Canadian soldiers die in places like Afghanistan, rather than 800 that die later because they failed to learn those lessons.

Those last two posts are from me, Tim F. not the other "Tim" author. Just to clarify.

Thanks.

Tim F. - I think by the content of your comments, people might have guessed they weren't from me.:-)

I don't agree that we should necessarily particpate in more wars simple as professional development for our armed forces, but I also don't deny that fighting men and women can't get any better experience than in the cauldron of combat.

The decision to deploy our forces or not must be made based solely on the merits of the mission, not for any other reason. Thanks for your thoughts on this issue.

Garnet we may not be there with the explicit intent to conquer the country but we are there to pacify it.

It's quite probable that this will require strategic and tactical decisions which will make the distinction between conquest and pacification moot to many Afghanis. And, for that matter, to many other people in the region who resent any foreign intrusion of any kind. For religious or ethnic reasons of their own or even mistaken impressions to be sure but no less deadly for that.

Garnet we may not be there with the explicit intent to conquer the country but we are there to pacify it.

This is quite true. But pacification and conquest are not necessarily the same thing, and not only can, but should use very different techniques. The Canadian Forces absolutely should not behave like conquerors; they shouldn't dismiss local populations and cultures, they shouldn't persecute local civilians, they shouldn't exercise their capacity to violence at the slightest provocation, all manner of things. Basically, they should look at what America is doing in Iraq, and then do the exact opposite, because that is a war fought for conquest, whether the Americans want to admit it or not.

It's true that not every Afghani is going to be happy to see us there. There are Taliban loyalists, terrorist soldiers and sympathisers, and the more mundane criminal syndicates and petty warlords, none of whom want us there. The important thing, however, is for the Canadian Forces to be careful that, while engaging these forces, they don't let their conflict spill over into the lives of ordinary Afghanis. They also need to take quick, constructive steps towards strengthening and, in many cases, simply building for the first time a national infrastructure. If the Canadians, and the NATO force in general, can demonstrate that they support Afghani self-rule, if they can show that they genuinely want to improve living conditions, and if the generals and commanding officers can keep their troopers from falling prey to the racism and hubrism that so soured things like our Rwandan peacekeeping operations, then I think it's entirely possible for us to actually be seen as a positive force by the majority of Afghanis, or at least as the lesser of two evils by a large degree. It won't be easy or quick, of course, but it's absolutely possible, and the only strategy that promises even a chance of success.

Garnet: Thanks for your continuing thoughtful posts on this subject. BTW - I checked out your assertion that the PM can declare war and you're technically correct. The GG has the power actually, but she would never act without the PM's 'advice':
"Royal Prerogative: Reserve powers of the Canadian Crown; being remnants of the powers once held by the British Crown, reduced over time by the Parliamentary system. Primarily, these are the Orders-in-Council which give the Government the authority to declare war, conclude treaties, issue passports, make appointments, make regulations, incorporate, and receive lands that escheat to the Crown." - Wikipedia
So in order to prevent an order-in-council declaring war, one _would_ have to bring down the government. As far as I'm concerned, its just one more reason why we don't declare war anymore, too much democratic shenanigans involved. Just send the troops in, then excoriate any opposed as unpatriotic.

I think the reason we don't declare outright war anymore can be seen in the reaction to our presence in Afghanistan; people are horrified at the idea of the Canadian Forces being used to do anything other than dig out Toronto or stand around not saving people in Africa. Personally, it's a mentality I find remarkably shortsighted and more than a little bit mean. Think about it; what the 'peacekeeping only, ever!' people are saying is, effectively, the Afghanis haven't suffered enough to warrant our help. In order to make us feel better, they should have had to fight a bitter civil war, reduce both sides to battered impotence and then, as a last resort, invite in UN peacekeepers; only then are they worth us getting involved. And even then, we're not actually going to do anything.

So. Easier for the Liberals and Conservatives alike to have a sort of gentleman's agreement to sidestep the idea of 'declaring war' and just do what they feel they have to do, lest it get the masses all worked up. It's immensely cynical, but honestly, given the modern Canadian view on intervention anywhere around the world (ie. Don't) it's a bit tough to really blame the party leaders for their tactics. I mean, if you honestly felt that Canada could, and should, help Afghanistan, wouldn't you fudge the parliamentary system a little to make it happen?

Well said.

I haven't gotten anything done recently. I've just been hanging out doing nothing. I haven't been up to anything these days, but it's not important. Today was a total loss.