Read this post or you're with the terrorists

As I read a story today on the Cons overriding normal defence procurement procedures for "national security reasons" it finally became abundantly clear to me that the Harper Conservatives are slowly adopting the same strategy as their American cousins: We're at war, so rally behind the leader and ask no questions.

That the enemy is undefined and the conditions for victory unclear is even better: the war can go on for the foreseeable future. As long as necessary. And, as you know, it's unpatriotic to criticize the President, err, Prime Minister, during war time, however long it may last. Think how that makes the soldiers feel.

How long will it be before the Cons are saying " You're with us or you're with the terrorists?" Actually, I guess they already are. Harper subtly. His blogging hordes much less so. Diddo "Don't you support our troops?"

It's a strategy that has been used with success by the Republicans in the U.S., although after some years of it, it may be beginning to ware thin. The Ned Lamont story is a sign of that.

We see it happening here though now too. Take this procurement case. When defence minister Gordon "The Lobbyist" O'Connor was the opposition defence critic, and the Liberals wanted to fast track the procurement of tactical lift aircraft for the air force, O'Connor and his Conservative colleagues effectively killed the proposal. The procurement process must be followed, he demanded.

Here's two questions O'Connor lobbed at then defence minister Bill Graham in QP last September:

Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, abandoning competition, the minister is seeking sole source procurement of Chinook and Hercules aircraft as well as 16 army requirements for Afghanistan totaling billions of dollars. Incredibly, the request for the aircraft is going forward without an approved statement of requirement. The minister is seeking billions of dollars without competition on the basis of someone's personal preferences. This is simply unacceptable.

Without open competition and proper documentation, how do Canadians know they are getting the best equipment and price?

Mr. Gordon O'Connor (Carleton—Mississippi Mills, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister is bringing the thing forward to the PMO on Monday. I am tired of the usual huffing and puffing from the minister. He usually blames a staffer or CDS for his decisions. It is his decision.

This abnormal rush to sole source equipment for Afghanistan confirms that the Liberals made a politically charged decision to commit troops to a high risk mission without ensuring they were properly equipped. This is despicable politics. This sole source is political damage control that will cost Canadians billions without a guarantee of effective cost and performance.

Is this the seed for a future Auditor General's investigation?

It would seem that Mr. O'Connor has changed his time somewhat since last fall. Now, we need to fast track the procurement to get this stuff to the troops faster. But wait, last year you said this was bad, and now, not only are you fast tracking, you want to reopen levels of regional porkbarelling outlawed since 1994…stop, don't question it, it's a matter of national security. (Accidental Deliberations has more on the contracting.)Don't you support our troops?

Then there's Con MP Garth Turner's circulation of a chain letter encouraging everyone to wear red every Friday to show their support for our troops. As Red Tory pointed out, initiatives like this invoke "the subtle implication that if one doesn’t support the mission, then by extension, one doesn’t support the troops and furthermore that one isn’t a “red-blooded Canadian.”

And, of course, supporting the troops means not questioning the government's policies, and unreservedly supporting the leader. Viva El Presidente!

Exhibit C: The debate in Parliament on the extension of the Afghanistan mission. It was hasty, debate was cut off, and it served no other purpose then to attempt to expose rifts in the Liberal caucus during a leadership race and paint the Liberals as "against our troops."

While the Democrats let continual war strategy neuter them, we Liberals need to avoid the snip snip. Its grade school debating tactics exported to the national policy arena.

I can support our troops and still question if, in light of the mounting casualty toll, we need to re-examine our strategy and tactics in Afghanistan. I can support our troops and wear my Canucks jersey on Fridays. I can support our troops and highlight the Conservative procurement flip-flop.

And you bet I can support our troops and still call out Harper, O'Connor and others for using our soldiers as cover for their own political machinations, and politicizing the military for their own political gain.

"National security" isn't good enough, Gordon. Sorry Steve, but "Liberals don't support our troops" won't fly. It may have worked for Dubaya but this is Canada, and we just have one thing to say to those that try to float that line of malarkey: Take off, Eh!

UPDATE: Here's a prime example of what I'm talking about, served up by a Blogging Tory this evening. Apperantly, by raising questions about the war in Afghanistan, "liberals" want to oppress Afghan women. I kid you not. Wrote Conservative Life:

Liberals want to bring Canadian soldiers home so that Afghan women can once again fend for themselves - cold and heartless for the sake of cheap political points. But Afghan women don't vote in Canadian elections so they are not important to liberals.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers