I thought it was all About the Truth

I find it ironic that as I write this blog this morning in Saskatoon, the building I am in is swarming with security personnel here to protect George “Dubya” Bush, one of the world’s most infamous war criminal/public speakers who did a great deal to get us all into the mess I am writing about.

I would guess that neither I, nor any reader really knows what the Government was told about prisoner abuse in Afghanistan. It has to make you wonder though, why Harper and his gang have fought so hard to keep people from testifying about it. I don’t know but, unless they are complicit in some way, why would the government not want the truth to come out.

Almost three and a half years ago Richard Colvin, a senior Canadian diplomat, sent the first of more than a dozen internal reports warning of the suspected torture and abuse suffered by Afghani detainees. He reported that soldiers in the Canadian Armed Forces routinely handed over prisoners to local "authorities," yet Harper's Conservative government apparently, has yet to hear of it officially

Moreover, that same government has done everything they can to stop Colvin from testifying. One has to ask, why would a career diplomat go public with the charge that he informed the government of his about Canada’s involvement in this abuse if it wasn’t the absolute truth. Surely his attempts to bring the truth forward are a significantly career limiting move.

On top of that, several civil servants who have been call to testify have been threatened with discipline if they do give evidence and worse, perhaps even face criminal charges.

Peter McKay, a politician whose credibility was severely tested during the Conservative/Reform merger, has come forward to say, the government never saw the scores of memos sent to it, about the prisoner abuse. When no one seemed to believe young Peter, Harper jumped into the fray backing up his defense minister.

Now the Chief of Defence staff is saying that he is going to do an investigation to find out what happened to the memos. Call me cynical but, that sounds to me like just another attempt to do just the opposite. Can you imagine the Chief of Defence staff coming forward and announcing that there were no problems with the flow of information and that everything was sent to government through the appropriate channels. This guy is in a tough spot. Don’t hold your breath if you are looking for clarity.

What is also interesting is that Rick Hillier has resurfaced. A good deal of these alleged abuses supposedly took place on his watch. In his new book, which is about to be released, retired general Rick Hillier clearly not happy with the PMO and their treatment of him. Perhaps that is another piece of the puzzle or on the other hand, perhaps the PMO's new strategy is to just piss everyone off.

So like I said, I guess we don’t know who is telling the truth. I don't know about you but my money is on Mr Colvin. I haven’t believed much Peter McKay or his boss have said for several years now.

Not a Day Past 2011

I was struck by a piece by Stephen Saideman from McGill University printed in the Globe & Mail today, suggesting that Canada will lose stature on the world stage when we pull out of Afghanistan in 2011. Saideman argues that, “Canada has gained a great deal of influence because of its willingness to lead and bleed in Kandahar” and he suggests that all that could disappear.” I wonder.

I wonder how the hell we got there in the first place. How our governments have been willing to trade our treasured reputation as a peacekeeper for a pat on the head from an ineffective American President mired in a conflict he seems to have barely understood.

I have to ask, where we have gained all this stature and influence as suggested in the article. Our Prime Minister may have been pleased do George Bush a favour but in my view, our stature as a nation took a huge hit. Lets face facts, it all makes Harper look like a toadie. There is nothing wrong with having differences with our neighbour to the south. Differences of opinion are a healthy part of any relationship. We have to ask ourselves, how did doing the American’s bidding help us out in our relationship with the rest of the world? Not one bit.

The article argues that other nations which have chosen to either sit this one out or to only supply troops in a non-combat role are suffering from a failure in leadership. He argues that they have shied away from the conflict “because of potential domestic political liabilities” rather than trying to sell the war to their peoples, no matter how unpopular it was at home. What a load of hogwash.

I’m from the school which would argue, the people elect the government therefore the government has at least some responsibility not to abandon the will of the people.

Most Canadians support the men and women who are serving in Afghanistan, be it in the armed forces or in a more humanitarian role working for NGOs or other groups providing aid. For the most part the soldiers are not there at their own choosing but at the bequest of overweight pasty-faced politicians whose misguided decisions have put them in harm’s way.

We were comfortable with our nation's reputation as a peacekeeper and I would argue that most Canadians are not comfortable seeing our troop in a combat role. Generally we feel we should never have committed our troops into this conflict in the first place and would be happy to see us bring our men and women home.

That is not a contradiction.

People like Saideman argue that we are making a huge contribution to that country yet, since 2004 there has been a 49% increase in insurgent attacks, a 100% increase in poppy production and Afghanistan has dropped 56 places in the annual corruption rating. It has to make one wonder how one defines these sorts of things.

From my perspective every damn day is a day too long to be engaged in that conflict but, I will live with a 2011 withdrawal. So, let us not be persuaded by the likes of Mr. Saideman.

Let's get out of this mess.