Missing the Canadian perspective

Over here in Deutschland much of the talk on CNN International and the BBC is about Afghan president Hamid Karzai's comments on Pakistan, and the issue of Taliban militants using safe-havens in Pakistan to attack Afghan and NATO (including Canadian) regions and forces in Pakistan:

Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Sunday said his country has the right to send troops into Pakistan to fight Taliban insurgents who launch cross-border attacks.

Speaking at a news conference in the Afghan capital, Kabul, Karzai threatened to send the troops after Pakistan-based Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, who vowed in May to send fighters into Afghanistan to wage war on foreign troops.

There are currently tens of thousands of foreign troops in Afghanistan, including about 2,500 Canadians, as part of the International Security Assistance Force created after a U.S.-led invasion toppled the former Taliban government in 2001.

Karzai said Afghanistan has the right to self-defence when it comes to the cross-border attacks.

"When they cross the territory from Pakistan to come and kill Afghans and kill coalition troops, it exactly gives us the right to go back and do the same. Therefore, Baitullah Mehsud should know that we will go after him now and hit him in his house," he said.

The reporters on CNN and BBC say it's a near certainty Karzai was speaking with the blessing of NATO and the Bush Administration and that they would be in line with this policy, and indeed no denials have been forthcoming from either quarter. Given the complicated nature of the U.S. relationship with Pakistan, its likely Karzai is making these comments because the Americans can't.

Now my Internet access has been sporadic and limited so I'm not sure what sort of coverage this has all been getting in the Canadian media and on the blogs. I'm sure, though, that the same people who were all over Stephane Dion for making these comments awhile back are also all over Karzai and the Bush administration, because after all those folks are usually all about ideological consistency.

"If [Pakistani leaders] are incapable of doing it themselves, it is something that we could envision with NATO forces — how to help Pakistan help us bring peace to Afghanistan," he said during a news conference in Quebec City Wednesday.

I'm sure the Conservatives have a press release out slamming Karzai, right? And the Blogging Torries are all over him? Particularly given that Karzai went even further than Dion, threatening outright invasion.

Dion, you'll recall, just called attention to the problem of cross-border infiltration and said NATO should work with the Pakistan government and military to address the issue if they're unable to do so on their own. A very reasonable position that the Conservative spin machine twisted into calls for invasion.

So will Harper be all over Bush and Karazi who actually are advocating invasion? Yeah, I won't hold my breath.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dion and Pakistan: Where's the gaffe, pray tell?

I hadn't read the papers or watched the news much the past few days, so all I'd read about these supposedly controversial comments Stephane Dion made about Pakistan was mainly headlines on news sites and blogs.

Based on those headlines, you'd think he's proposed carpet bombing or something. D-Day Part Deux. When I heard yesterday that the Pakistani Embassy was getting into the game, I thought it was time for me to find out what the heck is going on here.

And the best way to do that is to go past the spin and look at what was originally said. Here’s Dion’s original comments, in the context of making a point about Taliban insurgents slipping across the border from Pakistan into Afghanistan to attack NATO forces, then slipping back to their safe havens:

"If [Pakistani leaders] are incapable of doing it themselves, it is something that we could envision with NATO forces — how to help Pakistan help us bring peace to Afghanistan," he said during a news conference in Quebec City Wednesday.

I just have missed where he talked about invading a nuclear state, as invasions usually come without the permission of the country you’re, well, invading. What Dion said is really quite logical. If Pakistan can’t control these insurgents themselves, these insurgents by the way that are killing Canadian soldiers, then NATO should explore ways of HELPing them. Makes sense to me. Not invading. Helping, in whatever way Pakistan wants/needs.

Last night Jason explored where things began to go off the rails; it would seem when the Conservatives decided to try to reframe Dion’s comments as plotting an invasion or something, a meme then picked up by the media and the blogger hordes. Once again, the Conservatives decide to distort reality and use Afghanistan as a political ping pong ball to score partisan points.

Every step of the way though, from a snap vote on a mission extension, from refusing to lower the flags, to banning the media from repatriation ceremonies and lying about it, to misleading the HoC on detainee abuse, to denying information to the public, to releasing confidential information that put the lives of Dion, Michael Ignatieff and the soldiers protecting them in danger, crass politics has been the game of the game for this government when it comes to Afghanistan.

And once the government egged the media into distorting Dion’s comments, they’re portraying his correction of their distortions as somehow “backing-down” from his original position.

But in an interview with the CBC's Peter Mansbridge Thursday night, Dion backed away from the suggestion that NATO forces be deployed to Pakistan, emphasizing instead a need for greater diplomatic effort.

"It was diplomatic intervention with an effort that must be more concerted between Canada and our NATO allies," Dion said.

"Part of what we are doing in the south of Afghanistan, in the province of Kandahar, is nullified by the fact that the insurgents, they cross the border. They ignore the border, and when we provide security in that area, they may come back any time from Pakistan."

He’s not backing away from anything, he’s nearly repeating and further discussing his original position. The Pakistan insurgent havens are a problem, if Pakistan can’t handle it on its own we should talk with them about how NATO can help.

Perhaps the government would do better to actually look at the issue Dion raised. And it’s not exactly a new issue; it has been raised by many, within Canada and out, within NATO and out. It’s an issue that directly concerns not only the success of the mission, but the safety of our troops. Is anyone denying this is a serious problem? I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I do know a problem when I see it.

And I do a political smear job when I see one too. This was no gaffe, and anyone that actually reads the original comments can see that clearly. Let's not let the Conservative spin machine divert attention from a serious discussion on the Afghan mission.

I'll leave the last word to Garth Turner, who I think puts it well:

For the record, the Liberals are not invading Pakistan.

I heard Dion has stabled his white stallion, sheathed his sabre and holstered his pearl-handled S&W. We won’t even send any soldiers. But, as government, we’d likely stop playing footsy with a pampered dictator who has enough troops to suppress his own millions of citizens, but not the balls enough to kick Taliban butt on his own borders, thus endangering Canadian troops.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers