Remember in January, when Stephane Dion suggested maybe NATO should work with Pakistan to bring some stability to its border region as part of our desire to bring peace to Afghanistan?
The Conservative government, Stephen Harper and the Blogging Tories went ballistic, saying Dion had gone crazy and was proposing Canada invade a nuclear state. Madness! Was the verdict from the right.
I wonder how they’ll react to this?
NATO troops in eastern Afghanistan fired 20 artillery rounds at insurgents inside Pakistan after coordinating with Islamabad, officials said Tuesday.
Meanwhile, five Afghan troops were killed in a clash with insurgents in the west.
The military alliance said it fired the rounds after insurgents attacked its troops in Afghanistan's eastern Paktika province with rockets from across the border on Sunday.
"The artillery fire caused a secondary explosion at the rocket launch site, which indicates additional munitions in the location," the NATO statement said.
The Pakistani military confirmed the two sides coordinated in an attack on insurgents in Pakistan but provided no other details.
I trust Harper and Peter McKay will quickly issue a statement condemning NATO, no? Or maybe they could just apologize to Dion. Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
5 comments:
"The Pakistani military confirmed the two sides coordinated in an attack on insurgents in Pakistan but provided no other details."
The 2 sides cooperated.... yes?
Here was Dions... not long after I might add Pakistan arguing that their territory is sovereign and they would accept no help.:
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/295123
"If they (Pakistani leaders) are not able to do it on their own, it is something we could consider with NATO, how to help Pakistan help us bring peace to Afghanistan," Dion said Wednesday.
So what changed? I don't know. What I read tells me that NATO just completed an operation not only with with Pakistan's blessing but also their help. And what I read back then was Pakistan blasting Dion for suggesting that NATO ignore the borders of Pakistan and do what needs to be done.
See the difference?? International cooperation and dialogue instead of international incident??
From your quoted section, I just added the bolding:
"If they (Pakistani leaders) are not able to do it on their own, it is something we could consider with NATO, how to help Pakistan help us bring peace to Afghanistan," Dion said Wednesday.
You said Pakistan and NATO cooperating. Your own quoted section says Dion said NATO should help Pakistan, if Pakistan can't do it by myself. As in, cooperate.
Thank-you for reinforcing my point. Dion was right all along.
Dion suggested sending a military alliance to find a political solution??
Right.
But lets not forget in this politically correct world that it is not what you say or how you mean it.. it is how the recipient takes it.
------"We have, at the highest level, made it clear that Pakistan will not allow any foreign forces to operate within its territory under any circumstances.
"The sovereignty of the state will not be compromised at any level as the government and people of Pakistan are fully capable of handling their security matters themselves."
And Pakistan did not take the statement that a foreign military within their borders very well. Dion may well have been right about cooperating with Pakistan, but he didn't ask them about it before suggesting we send in troops.
Like I said I don't know what changed that Pakistan is interested in help now.
barcs I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse, just having a little fun, or you are just legitimately reading some there that isn't. But it seems pretty clear to me. Dion said if Pakistan can't handle the security situation on its own, we should help them. Not invade, help. And now, we actually are helping them. Obviously, what has changed is Pakistan is now willing to accept the help. Before, not so much. Perhaps some of the aforementioned diplomatic negotiations took place to secure their willingness.
Sometimes its all 3... (with a couple more problems tossed in too)
:)
The basic point is the diplomatic channels it was done through and the reaction of Pakistan to each situation.
The point is NATO (not Harper) did it right and Dion did it wrong (based on the reaction of Pakistan).
And based on that evidence (how Pakistan reacted). I don't see why you would expect a reaction from the Tories condemning NATO.... since Pakistan is obviously not threatening NATO with defending their borders now as they did with Dion.
Quite the contrary... I would expect the Canadian government to commend NATO for working with non-NATO powers without inflaming a diplomatic situation.
Post a Comment