Jack Layton the leader of the federal NDP party has long advocated that Canadian troops should be completely withdrawn from Afghanistan and brought home. Now he’s stated his willingness to have Canada raise the white flag for the first time in our history. Great warrior and military analyst that Taliban Jack is, he’s decreed that no international troops can win against the Taliban in that region, it is pointless to be there and our troops need to be brought home now.
His remarks were part of a speech he recently gave at the University of Ottawa. Geeze, that is the best the university can find to speak to our young people? The text of the speech is rift with lies and misrepresentations of the mission in Afghanistan which twisted his way to the conclusion that Canada should run while the running is good.
One of his first claims is that the former Liberal government sent our troops in “without a deadline, an exit strategy or any definition or measurement for success.” A deadline in a combat situation is when the objectives have been reached, it is not a point on a calendar. The exit strategy and measurement for success in the mission is not the annihilation of the Taliban, it is inhibiting the ability of the Taliban to operate in Afghanistan and allowing the building of a country, including it’s security forces to take place.
He carries on that mission “is premised on the notion that through a counter-insurgency combat mission, NATO forces will create the conditions that bring about security and stability and improve the lives of the Afghan people. To date, not only has this approach failed to achieve these goals, it has had the opposite effect.”
As General Lewis MacKenzie pointed out on Canada AM this week two years ago when Canadian troops arrived in Kandahar the Taliban had the city surrounded and it was in serious peril of being taken over by them. The Canadian troops not only pushed them out and away from the city but through some hard fought battles have dispersed the Taliban to the point that they have to resort to terrorist tactics to stay in the game.
Throughout the country, we do forget that it is the total picture that we need to look at huge changes for the better have taken place. While in Kandahar and several places across the south and east of Afghanistan any security is tenuous and a struggle to get and maintain, there are large parts of the country where there is peace, security and the job of building a nation is underway.
Remember those two big Buddhas that the Taliban destroyed in the Hazarajat region of the country in 2001? That wasn’t all that the Taliban wanted to destroy in that region had 9/11 and the subsequent downfall of the Taliban hadn’t occurred. They were moving to wipe out the Afghani people known as Hazaras. The Hazaras make up about one fifth of the population of Afghanistan but have long considered to be outsiders due to their Asian features which were likely left behind by Mongolian invaders centuries ago. This month’s National Geographic has an extensive and interesting profile of the Hazaras.
Back to Layton, who believes he has a true vision for Afghanistan — “one that focuses on bringing about security, stability and improving the lives of the Afghan people by building a path toward peace. This is the approach that I believe Canada must follow.”
So, what exactly does he think that Canada, NATO and the UN have been working towards?
Layton states, “the bulk of Canadian spending continues to be funneled to the combat mission – at the expense of development.” Sustaining combat costs incredibly more than development, however, until the combat can establish even a basic level of security development can’t take place.
He also claims that schools built by international military are twice as likely to be attacked as those built by civilian agencies. Which would explain why the military, at least the Canadian military, engages the local population in determining which projects they want and engaging them in the building of the project. The local population takes greater pride in ownership in what they have chosen to build and will defend if more fiercely.
Having already complained about the combat costs he then says “more and more development dollars are going through the Provincial Reconstruction Teams, so that, in fact, military interests are driving increasingly who gets aid, and what kind of aid they get.” Too bad he didn’t point out that civilian agencies have largely pulled away from providing aid in areas where security is tenuous meaning that for any aid to to get into those areas, it takes units like the PRTs to get it there. So, shoot the military for picking up the slack. He also fails to comment that the Manley Report suggests that the Canadian PRT should be placed under civilian control as soon as possible.
He comes to the conclusion that: “The counter-insurgency combat mission has failed to build; security for the Afghan people; a robust economy; a vibrant democracy; gender equality; or a stable and lasting peace. The evidence suggests that the current approach – after being given seven years to prove itself effective – is not working.
So, he thinks that a country, similar to our own, can be built in seven years while battling an insurgency? With thinking like that he needs to look a little closer to home. If, in a country like Canada, with all we have, someone like Layton can’t become Prime Minister after five years of leading a federal party, he should maybe pack up and leave Ottawa. He’s as much a failure as he claims the mission in Afghanistan is. More so.
Layton goes on to expound on how NATO is the wrong organization to be in charge of the mission in Afghanistan. “It is a military organization that does not possess the experience, expertise or inclination to deal with the diplomatic and humanitarian needs in Afghanistan. In short, NATO’s military focus makes it a questionable fit for the task of nation-building. And aside from it being a bad match in Afghanistan — it has executed its activities poorly. Coordination efforts in Afghanistan have been hampered by internal divisions. The US, Canada and Britain have taken on the bulk of the counter-insurgency, while the other European countries have placed considerable caveats on their involvement. Those caveats are not the result of cowardice. Rather, they indicate certain scepticism about the prospects for military victory.”
He got one thing right, the caveats are not the result of cowardice, that is Layton’s forte. So, if NATO is not the organization to undertake the job in Afghanistan, just who or what is?
He lays some blame on the Canadian government and then raises the detainee transfer issue as proof that the government doesn’t really want to lead the mission since it is willing to defer to the military on whether details on the detainees are released like other allied nations do. General Rick Hillier gave a clear response on the rationale for why the details are not released yesterday.
In response to a reporter’s question on the matter he pointed out that Canadian troops are operating in an area roughly the size of Ottawa while the Brits and Americans are operating in various areas around the south. For them to provide details it still leaves a lot of information that would be helpful to the Taliban obscured while if the Canadians provide details it makes it much easier for the Taliban to track where their people are and what is going on with them. The reality is that there are likely ways that the Taliban are finding out information, but why should the military hand it to them?
But I digress from Taliban Jack’s expose.
Layton argues that by following the recommendations of the Manley Report that war will be intensified and expanded. Using as an example, past history: “The Russians were in Afghanistan for 10 years. At one point they made decision to switch from a ground effort to using helicopters because they thought that it would mean fewer casualties for soldiers. This is what Manley is proposing Canadian troops do.But when the Russians made the switch, insurgents secured ground to air missiles and shot down helicopters.”
Gee Jack, you failed to mention a couple of things. First, the Russians were an army of invasion and unwanted occupation vigorously opposed by the Afghan people with the help of the Americans. Second that said Americans helped fund the ground to air missles that shot down the Russians. You’re comparing apples to oranges.
Layton boldly predicts: “In ten years the history writers will be recording that there was a turning point in history when the clarion call of Canada was heard. They will be teaching that Canada’s decision provoked a reconsideration of the impasse into which the Afghan conundrum was finding itself increasingly locked. The first step along this path is the clear indication that we are withdrawing our troops now through an operational plan for a safe and secure withdrawal.”
What are you smoking Layton? First of all, after the Russians left Afghanistan the Americans followed suit. They left the country on their own to fend for themselves. After considerable turmoil the Taliban rose to power and provided sanctuary for Osama bin Laden and his band of merry followers and we know what they did. Jack, did no one teach you that a history ignored is one bound to be repeated?
Layton claims he’s not the only voice calling for this: “President Karzai, Afghan Parliamentarians and aid groups have all spoken of the need to kick-start the dialogue that will bring about a lasting peace.” First of all you can only dialogue with someone who is actually willing to do so. Conversation can’t take place without at least two being engaged and the Taliban is on the record as stating only their way will do. Second, Karzai has also all but begged for Canada to stay and continue the mission in Kandahar, but Taliban Jack isn’t interested in hearing that.
He has it figured out though exactly who should lead the mission in Afghanistan: “The path to peace requires a political, not a military, approach. To carry out this vision, the key international body involved in Afghanistan must be the UN, not NATO. Unlike NATO, the UN’s explicit mandate is to preserve and promote international peace and security.”
Gee Jack, you forgot a few details here. That in the UN’s quest to preserve and promote international peace and SECURITY, they have recognized that you can’t have peace without security. To that end it was the UN who asked NATO to go into the country and secure it. The UN has mandated this mission from the beginning, a wee small detail you keep ignoring. You can only preserve and promote a peace that exists, there is not yet a complete peace in Afghanistan.
The UN Secretary General recently wrote in the Globe and Mail:
“Almost more dismaying is the response of some outside Afghanistan, who react by calling for a disengagement or the full withdrawal of international forces. This would be a misjudgment of historic proportions, the repetition of a mistake that has already had terrible consequences.
The United Nations has been in Afghanistan for many decades. Our institutional memory stretches back to the traumas of the Taliban, and beyond to the era when rival militias battled one another for the meagre spoils of a country broken by civil war. Our hopes for the future look to a day when Afghan state institutions stand on their own, able to tackle with dignity the difficult tasks of reconstruction and development while providing security and justice within secure borders.
I believe that day is within reach. We cannot let it be lost to the inhuman violence of today’s insurgents.”
More of the text can be read here at Angry in the Great White North. The full text is behind the Globe’s paid barrier. So Jack, you going to engage some more of your selective hearing here or will you accept the knowledge and wisdom of the UN who knows more about Afghanistan than it appears you can muster?
Layton says, “I believe that Canada can and should be a voice of moderation, realism and peace on the world stage.” It will be, as long as the likes of you can be kept off the stage.
In his concluding remarks he invokes someone who truly was a well respected player on the world stage, Lester Pearson:
“As Lester B. Pearson said: “Of all our dreams today there is none more important – or so hard to realise – than that of peace in the world. May we never lose our faith in it or our resolve to do everything that can be done to convert it one day into reality.”
It will take courage and leadership, as it always has.”
Something you will never understand Layton, is either courage or leadership, you possess neither.
Layton, like a lot of others including Dion, apparently never really got Pearson’s legacy. Pearson understood that peace had to be attained by making hard choices and sometimes having to fight hard to get that peace. Once won it then had to be held just as hard and fast, which is in part what led him to work towards the establishment of peacekeepers. Jack Granatstein writes an excellent profile on Pearson in the National Post.
Pearson also had a hand in the creation of NATO. He wasn’t afraid to send troops into harms way if it meant ultimately securing peace, the protection of the weak and defending our national interests. Underlying Pearson’s moves were resolve and strength, something Canada as a country has shown whether fighting battles like Vimy Ridge or standing between two aggressors and keeping them at arms reach from each other.
Layton is a lost cause, he doesn’t have either the brains or ability to understand Canada’s place in the world. Dion might have some potential if he could find a back bone.
If he really believed in the legacy that Pearson left the Liberal party he’d find the guts to stand up and advocate that not only should Canada put our shoulders to the wheel and complete the mission in Afghanistan, at least to the point the Afghans can take over their own battles, he should be advocating for our own military to increase the commitment to get the job done.
That’s a pipe dream, Dion is no leader. As much as I don’t like Harper, he’s the closest thing we have to leadership on this issue.
notice: The content of this post contains my opinions and my right to express them. I will respect your right to express your opinion in the comments as long as you’re not abusive and you respect my right to my opinion.
April 19th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
[...] Taliban Jack Wants to Bolt From Kandahar (0) [...]