Eating up the Hill: Chicken Tandoori Kabob at Afghani Kabob Express

I was first introduced to the cuisine of Afghanistan during the last nomination cycle, as an Afghan restaurant in Scarborough became one of our regular post-canvass meal destinations. I enjoyed it and, since I moved to Ottawa, Afghani Kabob Express at Bank and Lisgar has been a regular dinner stop.

There is a lot of similarity between different Middle Eastern and even South Asian cuisines. Grilled meat, sometimes ground and formed, usually grilled as a kabob, with rice, salad and naan bread. Usually it's only the spice pallet that differs. With Afghan food, you also get a thicker, much breadier naan than other cuisines -- for example, the thin naan of most Indian restaurants or the pita of a Lebanese restaurant. I think I probably prefer the thinner naan, but the Afghan naan is a nice change once and awhile.

While I enjoy the chicken and beef shami kabobs -- ground meat spiced and formed into a kabob and grilled -- my go-to has become the Chicken Tandoori Kabob. For $13.99, you get a generous portion of grilled chicken breast chunks, marinated and cooked in a tandori spice. You can pay an upgrade to a fancier rice -- with shaved carrots and raisins -- but I prefer the regular rice. The salad is just OK -- lettuce, tomato, onions and dressing -- but I'll eat my vegetables to get to the delicious chicken.

It's excellent value and I always leave stuffed, sometimes with leftovers, and usually don't manage to finish all of the bready naan. And the meat is always cooked fresh when you order. And for those for whom it matters, all the meat is halal.

If I have one note, it's that I think they look at me and think I can't handle my spice. It never occurred to me until I attended an Iftar dinner (held by Muslims during Ramadan to celebrate breaking the day's fast) catered by Afghani Kabob Express, at which the Chicken Tandoori Kabob was much spicier than what I usually have. And deliciously so.

So next time, I'll have to ask them to give me the regular spice.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Ministerial responsibility is dead; Peter MacKay hides behind the troops (again)

It was shocking and troubling news when it broke two days ago: the federal government (it's only called the Harper Government when it's doing positive things) announced it would be ending the danger pay allowance for Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan.

The baffling news from a government supposedly all about the troops (unlike those other commie parties) provoked an immediately negative response, including from comedian and troop supporter (having made several trips to Afghanistan), Rick Mercer:

Harper govt cutting danger pay for soldiers in Afghanistan. bit.ly/16O5q1J - its safe now apparently.
— Rick Mercer (@rickmercer) April 9, 2013

Mercer also noted that, while the Harper Government may think things are safe in Afghanistan, the Harper government apparently disagrees:

This bone-headed decision now being a very public relations (not to mention moral) problem, now the Harper Government begins a game of political hot potato. Where does the responsibility reside? If you think the Prime Minister's Office takes responsibility for the actions of the Harper government, think again:

The Harper government has ordered the Department of National Defence to reconsider a plan to reduce danger pay for Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

Ah, so now they're the Harper government again. And this totally isn't their fault; or, at least, not the PMO branch of the Harper government. So, no responsibility from the Prime Minister. How about the Defence Minister; Peter?

Staff in Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s office said bureaucrats, not politicians, took the initiative to reduce soldiers’ hazard pay.
...
The decision was made by a hardship pay review committee whose members include a Canadian Armed Forces general-rank officer, a representative of the RCMP, and bureaucrats from Treasury Board and National Defence.
...
The Defence Minister has no power to interfere in the decision, officials said.

So, apparently it's not MacKay's responsibility. He's just the Minister of National Defence, after all. And it's not Harper's responsibility, he's just the Prime Minister. No, when the going gets tough, they hide behind the troops.

It's not a new phenomenon for the Harper government:

Military personnel were asked to dig up dirt on an opposition MP in the wake of revelations Defence Minister Peter MacKay was picked up in a search-and-rescue helicopter from a 2010 fishing trip, defence department records show.

It first emerged in a television report on Sept. 21, 2011, that MacKay’s office ordered a Cormorant helicopter to pick him up from a private lodge on the Gander River in Newfoundland at an estimated cost of $16,000. His destination was the Gander airport, where a Challenger jet was waiting to take him to a government announcement in London, Ont.

The morning of Sept. 22, Royal Canadian Air Force staff — including an officer posted in MacKay’s office — were digging through flight logs to find instances where opposition party MPs took rides aboard military aircraft, according to emails obtained by the Toronto Star.

Perhaps they need a little danger pay at NDHQ as well.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Politics mar Afghan training debate

What strikes me most about the commentary and debate on whether or not Canada should deploy 950 soldiers to Afghanistan after 2011 in a training capacity is that, instead of getting to the core issue of whether or not such a mission would be appropriate and should be supported or not, we seem to be restricted to complaints about process and evaluations of alleged gamesmanship and horserace implications.

So before we get bogged down in the political muck, let’s at least consider the policy first, shall we?

While like many Canadians I feel we’ve done our share in Afghanistan on the combat side and want to being our troops home, or at least out of harm’s way, I’d support a training mission post-2011. I do have several caveats to my support though

*It should be inside the wire with a “relatively” low risk level (ie. no active combat).

* We should be assured the Army has the capacity (personnel and materials) to take on this mission in what was expected to be a down-cycle of refresh ad resupply for them after the prolonged combat mission.

If I could be assured of those concerns then I'd support deployment of a training contingent post 2011. Why? Because I think training Afghan army and police is an important mission that is key to ensuring that when international forces do finally leave Afghanistan, they'll be leaving behind a relatively stable country with the capacity to defend itself, and grow and prosper.

I would like us to be putting more emphasis on humanitarian aid and development as well. I don't see a training mission as excluding that; we should be doing both. We are doing both. And as Andrew Coyne pointed-out on Twitter, if the country is safe enough for some to support civilians doing humanitarian development, isn't it safe enough for them to support soldiers doing inside the wire training of soldiers and police?

I think a big part of the problem has been the government ignoring what was one of the key recommendations of the Manley Commission: communicate better. Their about-face on a training mission came out of no-where, and details have been slow to trickle out. They need to build public support for this, and they're not doing a very good job yet. Part of the problem is that many are seeing this, either deliberately or in honest error, as an extension of the combat mission. That's not the case. Training and combat are two very different missions. This would not be an extension of the combat mission, that will end in 2011. This would be a new training deployment, much smaller with much less risk and no combat.

That's an important distinction to make, and with opponents deliberately trying to blur that line to inflame public opinion, the government and supporters of a training mission need to do a better job of making that distinction and providing more details to Canadians.

Now, on to the politics. I must say, I've found the politicking and the media coverage on this issue to be very disappointing. I'm particularly bemused that the same media who routinely berate politicians for uberpartisanship and not working cooperatively are viewing the issue only through a horse-race lens, and are attacking the Liberals for not politicizing the issue for partisan gain. But then I've never expected consistency from the media pundit class.

The Liberals have actually been calling for a continued training presence for several months now, so their position should come as no surprise. And it would seem to have been taken in the belief a training mission is appropriate and needed, as I don't see any partisan advantage in being out that far ahead of the issue. The Conservatives reversed themselves suddenly to come around to the Liberal position (the devil will be in the details of their actual plan, though) and the NDP has been fairly consistent in their no military presence of any kind at any time position.

Certainly there is room for a difference of opinion within any party on supporting a training mission or not, and within the Liberal Party there certainly is. That's welcome and healthy, and I welcome a debate on the merits. What I don't have time for though are self-important strategists that view this only as a political issue, that dismiss the merits of a training mission to make a purely political calculus: sure, maybe training is right, but we need to hold the NDP on the left and we can squeeze the CPC on the right if we oppose it, and the polls show... I find such purely political calculations nauseating and repugnant.

Rightly or wrongly, you should be willing to stand for something and defend it, not let focus grouping govern your belief system.

Finally, the debate on procedure. As I said, I think the government needs to make all the relevant details available to the public on what the training mission will involve. I'd welcome a debate in Parliament on Canada's role in Afghanistan post-2011, both training and humanitarian development. I do not, however, believe a vote by Parliament is necessary for a training mission to go forward. It's not a combat mission; deploying soldiers for training, development assistance, disaster relief, what have you, is the prerogative of the government of the day.

It would be perfectly acceptable for an opposition party to use an opposition day to move a debate and motion on the issue, but it wouldn't be binding. As long as the government has the confidence of the house, they're free to make such decisions.

UPDATE: It's not too often I get to say this, but Bob Rae is bang-on here. Actually, almost bang-on. I'd have avoided the Neville Chamberlain reference. Call it Jeff's first-rule of political discourse.

Our political culture is now all about trench warfare. Everything is supposed to seen through a partisan lens, and everything played to short term advantage. Anyone who asks “what’s best for Afghanistan ?”, or “what’s best for Canada, our role as a reliable member of NATO and the UN ?” is portrayed as some kind of poor sap who doesn’t “get” politics.

It’s called doing what you think is right, talking to the public about it, and worrying less about who gets credit. There’s something almost pathological about the state of our politics, to say nothing of political commentary, if we can’t have that kind of conversation.

There should continue to be a debate about Afghanistan, Pakistan, and how to deal with the range of failed and fragile states that are emerging across the world. But enough with the nonsense about who played the partisan game better.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Detainee deal can't be ad-hoc

So it appears, for now, that there will be peace in our time. In an agreement very similar to the one that the Liberals and the other opposition parties have been offering for months, and the Conservatives continually outright rejected, an agreement has been reached that will see the opposition parties briefed confidentially on the contents of the Afghan detainee documents.

Each member of the review panel will have to sign an oath of confidentiality and get appropriate security clearance before they are allowed to see the documents, both the redacted versions and the full, uncensored forms.

They will then decide as a group which documents can be made public.

Any dispute among the MPs over which material can be released will be referred to a panel of three jurists for a final decision.

That all sounds fine. That it took so much angst, vitriol, brinksmanship and drama to get here is frankly an indictment of the stupidity of our political climate today, but eventually it got to the right place: parliamentarians will get the access they need and are due, while respecting legitimate security concerns. It’s a clear victory for the supremacy of Parliament. Even if the documents aren’t made public, that’s fine. I respect security considerations. But I want my representatives to be briefed, and they will be. That's how the system is supposed to work.

Here’s the thing though. I read a quote the other day from a Conservative spokesperson to the effect that any agreement reached on the detainee documents will be ad hoc, and the government has no intention of carrying it past this issue. I think that’s a mistake.

We can’t go through this drama and crisis every time there is information Parliament needs to see that the government, for whatever reason, doesn’t want to share. It’s tedious, it’s counterproductive, and it undermines public faith in democratic institutions. This isn’t the first time a government of any stripe has tried to be less than forthright with Parliament, and it surely won’t be the last.

We need a permanent, established procedure put in place so we don’t need to resort to threats and 11th-hour deal making every time. I’ve argued before for a Commons Select Committee on Intelligence, based on the American model. That’s one way to do it, there are others. But it needs to be established and in place so that when the issue comes up, the mechanisms are there to deal with it. When you try to do each one ad hoc, it’s too easy for all sides to let political considerations get in the way of doing what’s right.

So yes, it’s great this latest crisis has been averted, and sanity has prevailed. But letting this go with an ad hoc arrangement would be a mistake. I hope that now, with the political glare of this crisis perhaps receding, our Parliamentarians will explore the systemic changes needed so we don’t need to go through this nonsense ever again.

And we can move on to other sorts of nonsense.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

I'll be back...just not quite yet...first, to Israel

Apologies for this corner having gone dark recently.

It's been a busy stretch at work, including spending most of the last week in Las Vegas for HP's Americas Partner conference. It's an event that always generates lots to cover for us, but then throw in HP deciding to drop $1.2 billion to buy Palm while I was there, and it got even busier. Was a fun trip though. Stayed at one of the newer Vegas properties, Aria, and I quite liked it. Unlike most cavernous Vegas properties where they don't want you to be reminded of the world outside, Aria has lots of glass and natural light. And there's also a route from your room to the conference centre that doesn't involve going through the casino , a first in my Vegas experience and surely a design flaw... And speaking of the casino, I'm not a big gambler but did finish in the green, including a win in the sports book from taking the Habs in game six. Didn't bet on game seven; they surprised me there.

After less than three days back home though, on Sunday afternoon I'm on the road again, but this time for pleasure. I've been invited on a week-long trip to Israel, organized by the CIC and funded by a private donor. Steve at Far and Wide will also be coming, along with some NDP/left-wing bloggers I look forward to meeting. Steve has a good run-down in the itinerary so I won't re-hash it, suffice to say it's busy, diverse and interesting. A good mix of sight-seeing and meetings with an interesting group of local politicians, journalists and bloggers, and even our ambassador to Israel. I shall try to approach it all with an open, but slightly skeptical mind. (If you're interested, here is the current Coles Notes of my opinion on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.)

I'm not sure the schedule will allow for much time for blogging during the trip, but I shall try, and certainly I'll have lots to say and share upon my return. All I ask are for two things while I'm gone: my Canucks to still be playing hockey, and my country not to have bumbled its way into an election.

Since my hiatus is to continue a little longer, a few brief thoughts on recent developments in Canadian political land:

* While we've all been distracted with either Jaffer/Guergis nonsense or the detainee docudrama, the Liberals have actually been talking and releasing policy. And much of it is aimed at rural Canada. First was some very sensible ideas around getting more doctors and nurses into rural areas by, among other things, forgiving part of their student loans if they make that commitment. This was followed by a "Canada First Good Policy" to support and promote local farmers and access to safe, healthy food, and a commitment to rural postal service.

Of course, policy isn't sexy enough for media coverage these days so you may not have heard about any of this, and the punditry that scolded the Liberals for not talking policy are, when they talk about it at all, scolding them for talking policy. Outside the Ottawa bubble, however, Canadians are much more concerned about finding a family doctor than they are about who Rahim Jaffer e-mailed. So I hope we keep pushing the policy.

* That's not to say the Jaffer/Guergis stuff isn't important. The investigations should proceed, and if serving ministers acting inappropriately or in contravention of the rules, that should be exposed and they should face the consequences. The e-mails and other documents that came out this week certainly seem to show that the Conservatives have been far from honest about Jaffer's access and influence in his seemingly not overly successful non-lobbying career. And it's often more the lack of honesty than the actual deeds that seems to hurt more in these stories, in my experience.

* On the docu-drama, the speaker's ruling this week was certainly very significant, as was the reaction of Conservative partisans. I think what some of them fail to recognize is that this isn't really about detainee torture anymore. It's about democracy, and it's about the right and responsibility of the legislative branch to be a check on the activities of the executive branch. Harper was elected by a little over 38,000 people in Calgary Southwest; he has no right to thumb his nose at the Parliament of Canada.

One has to think saner heads will prevail here. Ignore the testosterone-fueled rantings of the likes of Kory Teneycke. The Conservatives don't want an election over this. They won't be able to make it about coddling the Taliban, it's an asinine argument. It would be about a dictatorial leader refusing to respect the will of the people's elected democratic representatives. And the Cons didn't exactly fare well during the prorogation drama, now did they?

There will be a compromise reached that allows the opposition access to the uncensored documents, likely in a secret or confidential manner that respects national security concerns. We've seen signals along those lines already from Conservaland. Ironically, always concerned about political posturing and positioning, they're already trying to paint such a compromise as an opposition back-down. Truth is though, the opposition has been proposing such a scenario for months; the government has continually rebuffed it. So, as much as it matters, it would be them backing down. Let's just hope saner heads prevail all around though.

* Speaking of saner heads, the head of our military, General Walter Natynczyk, is cool with giving all of the un-redacted documents to parliament, saying the military has nothing to hide. Which raises two questions for me. One: must it be the Harper government with something to hide then? And two, if we employ standard Conservative logic here and respond as the government would in question period, I have to ask, why does our Chief of Defence Staff not support our troops, and why is he a Taliban sympathizer?

* Speaking of interlopers in our midst, turns out that pollster Frank Graves, who the Conservatives are portraying as some kind of undercover Liberal mole polluting the public airwaves of the CBC pretending to be unbiased, has actually been getting millions of dollars of polling contracts from the Conservative government. Including $131,440 from Harper's own Privy Council Office.

I'm sure Dean Del Mastro will join me in demanding that a Parliamentary Committee immediately investigate how this government could give millions of dollars in polling work to a know Liberal stooge. Or maybe they could just, you know, admit this whole manufactured drama is stupid and move on to serious issues. Either one would be fine.

* And on Graves and this culture war nonesense the Cons are hyper-ventilating about, I could go on at length but let me just say this: the Cons have been fighting a culture-war for years in this country. Urban vs. rural, Tim Horton's vs. academic elites and fancy gala goers, support the troops vs you're all taliban lovers, tough on crime vs hug-a-thug. They've been fighting a culture war, we just haven't been fighting back. All Graves "advised" was for the Liberals to start employing some wedges of their own, to fight back, to basically use some of the same tactics Harper et. al. have to some success. And this is news, somehow? For the Cons to be all bitchy about someone suggesting their own tactics be used against them, tactics which have been part of politics, by the way, forever, is just stupid.

* Lastly, I have a great deal of respect for Ujjal Dosanjh, for what he has consistently and resolutely stood for throughout his career, the principled approach he takes to public life, and the energy and commitment with which he approaches it. And I join those who have condemned the threats and attacks against him and others who have dared to stand up to extremism in any of its guises. I'm no sure I agree completely with his take on the impact multiculturalism is having on Canadian society. But it's an important issue we should be debating, and it should be a debate free of threat and intimidation, in the best of Canadian traditions.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why we need a Commons Select Committee on Intelligence

I haven’t written a whole lot on the Afghan detainee document battle between Parliament and the Conservative government. I’ve felt my blogging colleagues have covered the issue well. My own feelings, in short, are that Parliament has the right to demand documents, and it must fight for that right. Also, it can’t cede that right to a government-appointed judge. It’s a dangerous precedent that would dilute its constitutional prerogative, and besides, is also an obvious stall by the government to avoid the issue until after the next election.

I’ve been thinking, though, that the issues raised by this affair highlight the need, beyond the specifics of this case, for real, lasting structural change in the relationship between our legislative and executive branches of government, and how they deal with issues of national security. We need structure and procedures in place, so when issues like the Afghan torture documents come up, it’s handled in a structured way and not in an ad-hoc manner as we’re seeing now, where partisan considerations are seen, correctly or not, as colouring the positions of each side.

The opposition believes the government is using national security as a smokescreen to avoid political embarrassment. The government believes the opposition is willing to toss aside national security for a political fishing expedition. Neither side is willing to back down.

That’s why, looking beyond this case, we’ve got to, in so much as it’s possible, get the politics out of it.

Let’s go back to basics, and examine what the relationship between the executive (the Harper government and cabinet) and the legislative (House of Commons and Senate) is intended to be. The government governs, within the laws and budget passed by the legislature. The government acts within those laws and budget, and the legislature examines and monitors those government actions. Checks and balances, it’s called. We’ll leave the judiciary out of it for now.

It’s more defined in the U.S. system, where the executive (the president) is elected directly and separately from the legislative branch (Congress). It gets more muddled in our parliamentary system, with the executive being drawn from members of the majority (or just the largest) represented party in the House of Commons, nominally by the Governor-General. But the same principle of checks and balances holds true: the role of the legislative branch is to examine and scrutinize the actions of the executive, and national security cannot trump its responsibility to do so.

And this is an occasion where we can actually take a lesson from our American cousins. Hey, really, it does happen sometimes. They have what’s called the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. It includes Senators from both parties. It usually meets confidentially, and the White House and the intelligence agencies (the executive) is required, by law, to brief the committee (the legislative) on intelligence activities so government actions can be scrutinized and examined. Nothing held back for national security excuses: the committee hears it all. Obviously national security must be respected, and secrets must be kept secret. And the law proscribes penalties for the disclosure of confidential information. But the executive must brief and be questioned by the legislative, which can take further action if it determines it to be necessary.

We need something similar for Canada. We need a House of Commons Select Committee on Intelligence. Members from each party, sworn into the Privy Council to allow them to be briefed on confidential information by the government, and be bound by law and the penalties proscribed thereby to respect that confidentiality. The committee would meet confidentially, and be fully briefed by the government on national security matters, nothing held back, with the ability to question and probe and call witnesses like other parliamentary committees to investigate government activities in its area of responsibility.

We usually won’t get to know or hear what the committee knows or hears. But we can be confident knowing all of the parties are at the table, being briefed, so we can be confident our views are being represented, putting faith in the good judgement of our representatives. So if our guys have been briefed and tell is its all good, we can believe them more readily than we can believe the other guys. And secrets stay secret.

And if the committee feels that wrongdoing has occurred, that security is being used as a smokescreen, then mechanisms can be put in place to deal with that; be it the power or a procedure to seek the declassification of documents and expose them to the light of day, or a procedure for investigation, sanction, and/or court proceedings when warranted.

The details and specifics would need to be ironed out, but I think the core idea and principle is what we need to commit to: a mechanism to allow Parliament to truly exercise its oversight duties over the executive while respecting the appropriate bounds of national security. There may be other more ad hoc ways to do it, but I think a committee as outlined would a meaningful way of getting there, and a lasting structural change that would go some ways to removing partisanship from the equation.

I hope the Liberals, and all the parties, will consider going down this road in the near future, so we don’t have to suffer more dramas like the detainee document case.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephen Harper: Not a historian

Stephen Harper in question period yesterday, responding to a question from the NDP asking for a public inquiry into the Afghanistan detainee affair following the "revelation" that diplomats also warned the previous Liberal government of the possibility of torture in Afghan prisons:

"In this country PMs aren't in the business of calling public inquiries on their predecessors."

Sigh. Really, Steve? How quickly some people forget history. And one of the major events that helped lead to them holding the office they hold today. This is why we need to invest in the education system, people.

*For the record, the Liberals have long been calling for an inquiry that would also cover their term in office and conduct in government on the detainee issue. So bring it on.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Peter Van Loan is Zoro?

Think about it. Have you ever seen Peter Van Loan and Zoro in the same place? Granted, there isn't a strong physical resemblance. But in his signature on the government's quarterly progress report on Afghanistan, he does kind of give it away:

Oh, and the government released a quarterly progress report on Afghanistan.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: On CBC's Power and Politics

Every Friday, CBC's Power & Politics show has a bloggers panel. This week, I was invited to participate in the panel along with conservative blogger Adrian MacNair, CBC resident blogger extraordinaire Kady O'Malley, and of course host Evan Solomon.

I've done some radio stuff before, and I did one taped interview for CTV Newsnet during the Liberal convention in Montreal, but this was my first time with live tv and I was rather nervous. I always like to joke I have a face for radio and a voice for print.

It was an interesting experience. It was done by satellite with Adrian in Vancouver, and Evan and Kady in Ottawa. So I rushed home to shave and change (decided against a tie because, after all, I'm a blogger) and headed downtown to the Mother Corp. HQ on Front Street. A producer brought me in through the halls I recognized from Ken Finkleman's The Newsroom, and into the non-fictional CBC newsroom, where the shoot the satellite pieces.

It's an interesting set-up. At one end of the large, open-concept room there's a little raised platform with a camera and two chairs, that's where they shoot the pieces. And around us, the producers and journalists were at work. I had some time to kill so I took a seat in the newsroom and had a look around. I think they were working on that night's The National beside me, they were watching a live closed-circuit feed of the Montreal/Boston game, and Wendy Mesley came by to check in with them.

When the time for my segment approached I sat in the large chair and they wired me up with an ear piece and mic. It was a little weird because you're told to look directly into the camera and pretend the person you're talking to is there, but you can't see anything there, it' a blank screen. So it's hard to feel like you're really talking to someone. There's a monitor off to the left, but if you look at it you're looking off camera and appear shifty. The camera guy actually tilted the monitor away from me to I guess help me resist temptation, but I still looked over when I was off camera to try to feel a little more comfortable. I think it would be a lot more fun to do it with the other guests in studio.

Content-wise, the segment felt like it went pretty fast, and I think it went alright. I was rather nervous and felt I didn't remember to make all the points I wanted, and I feel I didn't do a good job of what they primarily wanted: talk about how the blogs have shaped the two issues we were discussing, the climate change e-mails and the Afghan torture documents.

On the e-mails, the point I tried to make was that, first of all, I doubt any of the bloggers going crazy on both sides have actually read all 3000 pages of e-mails. Those I've read that have, and considered them in context, conclude there isn't much at all to this story. But by and large, this is red meat for the deniers and a few bad pr days for supporters. But at the end of the day, climate change denial is no longer a mainstream position. There is broad societal acceptance that climate change is real, and we need to act. There is disagreement on what the action should be, for sure. But even the Conservative government agrees climate change is real. Denial is an increasingly fringe position, and no coordinated campaign to hack climate scientists around the world to steal e-mails is likely to change that. But the blogs do give these groups the opportunity to spread their theories and find like-minded supporters, and spread their views with or without the MSM.

On the torture e-mails, on this one I don't think the blogs have been necessarily active in shaping the story. There have been cases where the media have ignored a story for whatever reason, and after much publicity on the blogs they were forced to cover it. In this case though, the media and the blogs have both been all over it from the start. The blogs have been doing some good watchdog work though -- they were all over Christie Blatchford -- and have been helpful tracking the shifting changes in Conservative positions from day to day and keeping things in context. That's perhaps the best difference blogs can make: they can be more analytical and big picture. The MSM tend to focus on spot news without considering the wider context.

Things seemed to veer off there when Adrian took what seemed to me a shot at Kady's journalistic ethics, which naturally Kady and Evan took exception to and led to a spirited back and forth while I watched a little incredulous from Toronto, pondering if I should have prepared an attack line against my hosts (maybe something like "Evan Solomon, Don Newman was a way snappier dresser!").

I thought Adrian was off-base. The climate gate nonsense has gotten plenty of media play, certainly more than it deserves. To compare it to the torture e-mails is a false comparison. The torture story speaks directly to the behavior of the Canadian government, and has wide-ranging consequences for both the government and our mission in Afghanistan. The climate story may impact support for stronger action on climate change going into Copenhagen, but that's debatable. And while the people pushing the e-mail story insist it's the scandal of the millennium or something, they're unable to prove their case definitively. So instead, they play that favourite tool of the right: blame the media.

Finally, we ended with the sites of the week. I picked The Pundit's Guide, great non-partisan site for tracking party nominations, and for analysis and data on party fund raising and spending. Adrian went with the Canadian Blog Awards (where I'm nominated for Best Political Blog, btw, if you'd like to go vote early and often) and Kady went with Wikileaks.

Without further ado, the video:

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Briefly, on torture redactions and on Chinese rebukes

I'm in the busy period of the holiday season so time for blogging has been limited of late. I would though like to make two brief comments on recent events.

First, the Heavily Redacted Torture Documents that the Conservative government has been releasing in an attempt to make it seem like they're not hiding anything while still hiding plenty. Their excuse, national security, seems rather dubious to many observers.

Let's take a big leap of faith for a moment here, and suspend rational thought, and posit that both sides are acting in good faith without political motive: that the opposition want to get to the bottom of serious accusations, that the government has legitimate national security concerns around full disclosure, and that neither is motivated solely by political aims (embarrass the government, or hide the government's culpability.)

There is a way around this. During the Paul Martin government he had each of the opposition party leaders sworn in as members of the privy council. This gave them high security clearance so that, in theory, they could be briefed on confidential and secret matters of national security.

So, IF the government isn't just hiding to hide misdeeds, and if the opposition isn't just out to score points, WHY doesn't the government call in the opposition leaders and brief them. Show them the full, uncensored documents. If the documents show no cause for concern, then we move on. If the documents do raise serious issues, then they continue to call for a full public inquiry.

Of course, such a solution would require all sides to put politics aside and behave like adults. So let's not hold our breath.

Second, China's Premier Says Bad Things About Stephen Harper. Frankly, I largely agree with Wen Jiabao on the substance of his criticism of Harper's China policy. Nevertheless, the episode leaves me feeling sympathetic towards Harper, not China.

As the saying goes, "no one can hit my brother but me." So when the leader of a country like China takes a shot at our PM I'm going to be pissed, even if that PM is Harper. It's an instinctive defensive, nationalistic reaction.

Besides, to offer the criticism behind closed doors is one thing. To do it in public was a total dick move by China.

As for the opposition, including my Liberals (hi Bob!), you'd be wise to constrain your comments to legitimate criticisms of Harper's China policy. Saddling up beside a Chinese government with a history of human rights abuses, of oppressing its people, censoring the press and the Web, and so on, just to buttress your political attacks ... that's just another dick move, frankly.

To coin a phrase, We can do better...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper uses our troops as a human shield

It’s not a new low for the Stephen Harper Conservatives, but rather a continuation of their import of the worst of the tactics of the U.S. Republican Right. The “you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists” rhetoric, the labeling of opponents as “Taliban sympathizers” or “un-Canadian” or “against the troops.” Basically, smear and appeals to patriotism substituting for policy and debate.

Over the weekend, however, Harper took his cheap political hectoring to a new low. Speaking about a Canadian Navy vessel, using serving sailors as political props for his photo-op, Harper launched into a baseless partisan attack against his political opponents, who have had the temerity to raise questions about his government’s handling of reports of torture of Afghan detainees:

"Let me just say this: living as we do, in a time when some in the political arena do not hesitate before throwing the most serious of allegations at our men and women in uniform, based on the most flimsy of evidence, remember that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are proud of you and stand behind you, and I am proud of you, and I stand beside you."

This was an attack unbecoming of a Prime Minister of Canada, and to do so aboard a naval vessel with our sailors as background is doubly disgusting. But it has been all too common a tactic by Harper, by Peter MacKay, by Conservative pundits and the Blogging Tory keyboard commandos: when under attack for their political decisions, hide behind the military and smear your opponents.

Let’s make one thing perfectly clear, once and for all, although it really shouldn’t be necessary: absolutely no one here is attacking or making allegations about our military members. Harper is slinging bullshit. The torture scandal is entirely political. This is about what members of the Harper government knew about allegations of tortured Afghan detainees, who knew it, when they knew it, and what action they took and why. Absolutely no one is questioning the decisions or activities of our men and women on the ground, in uniform. Just the Harper administration in Ottawa.

Indeed, if our troops have been put in a compromised situation here, if they may have turned over detainees who went on to face torture in Afghan prisons, then that is the fault of the politicians and civil servants in the Conservative government that ignored the warnings of Richard Colvin and others. It is the Conservatives that would have failed the troops, and that’s one reason why the opposition wants to get to the bottom of this mess.

But instead of investigating this, instead of looking for answers, or even admitting mistakes may have been made by his government, Harper and his ilk are inventing fictitious attacks against the troops. For Harper, the military is a convenient human shield. He can hide behind them and lob grenades at his political opponents, labeling any return fire as unpatriotic attacks on our soldiers, sailors and airmen.

It’s disgusting and unprincipled, and Harper, the Conservatives, and all good Canadians, should be ashamed of his behaviour. Our military deserves better than to be used as a human shield by a Prime Minister unable to fight his own battles.

Related reading:

Scott Tribe: Harper causes me to post twice on a Sunday - very rare
Jane Taber: Using the troops as props

UPDATE: Scott Taylor, a veteran and experienced investigative reporter on military matters with strong ties to the rank and file, rips into Peter MacKay:

Initially, MacKay charged that by retelling "Taliban lies" Colvin has essentially been fuelling enemies’ propaganda machine. When that tactic failed to score a hit, MacKay wrapped himself in the flag, curled up in the fetal position and pleaded for everyone to "stop attacking his soldiers." This is an emotionally charged issue for many of those who are justly proud of the service of our Canadian Forces, and MacKay claiming that Colvin is somehow attacking our military will immediately invoke their ire.

Although the manoeuvre was dramatically played out by MacKay, the fact is that no one engaged in this debate has alleged wrongdoing on the part of any of our troops.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

It's not the torture, it's the cover-up

I haven’t followed the ins and outs of Richard Colvin’s testimony and the ensuing Conservative smear campaign super-closely, but I do have some thoughts here on what the issues are and how the opposition should be pursuing them.

To me, this isn’t so much about allegations of torture in Afghan prisons, and the program of the Canadian military transferring prisoners to Afghan custody where they could face abuse. When the government, after much public pressure and pressure from the opposition parties, finally revamped the transfer program a few years ago it was an acknowledgment by the government that yes, there is a problem here, and we need to take appropriate action to ensure our soldiers aren’t unknowingly complicit to abuse.

Colvin’s testimony served to underline the necessity for the reform of the transfer program, and again raise the question of who knew what when, and why the government took so long to act.

What is new, however, and newly damaging and meriting of close scrutiny, is Colvin’s testimony of how when he tried to raise these issues, he was constantly shut-down, told to report verbally so there would be no paper-trail, his memos sent to the circular-file.

You can say that the reports of torture and abuse he raised are hearsay and second or third-hand, whether that matters or not is debatable but it is a legitimate point.

But what is not second-hand, what is not hearsay, are the roadblocks he ran into from his superiors in government when he tried to pass these allegations and reports up the chain of command. He had direct, first-hand knowledge of being told to report verbally so there would be nothing on paper, nothing that could be released under Access to Information requests.

Whether the allegations of abuse were legitimate or not, and indeed if they weren’t the government wouldn’t have later revamped the transfer programs, they should have been evaluated and considered and not covered-up. This is compounded by the extraordinary lengths the Conservatives went to in attempting to stop Colvin from telling his story, whether to the courts or to parliament.

It’s not the crime, they say, it’s the cover-up. Here it’s probably both, but the cover-up may be more damming. The Conservatives are trying to distract attention by trying to discredit Colvin's testimony as third-hand hearsay. We need to pivot back to the cover-up, and the direct attempts to stifle and suppress his reports.

BY THE BY, speaking of Rick Hillier jumping in to take a few swings at Colvin and say he knew nothing about nothing, it's worth remembering that it was Hiller as Chief of Defence Staff who tried to clamp-down on the growing scandal in 2007 by ordering the halt of the release of any information on the detainnee program under Access to Information on flimsy national security grounds.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Fung and Smith: Current kidnappings in Afghanistan aren't being reported

Last week I attended a very interesting Canadian Journalism Foundation event at the Ignatieff Theatre at the University of Toronto. The Globe and Mail's Graeme Smith and CBC's Melissa Fung took part in a panel called Kidnapped, Threatened, Under Fire: Three journalists confront the realities of reporting in conflict zones.

You'll recall that Fung was kidnapped in Afghanistan just before the 2008 election in October, and the news of the kidnapping was embargoed and not reported by the media until her release in November

Fung and the Globe's Smith, both of whom have spent several tours reporting in Afghanistan and embedded with Canadian soldiers, were on hand to speak about their experiences reporting in a war zone.

I'd hoped to hear Fung talk about the experience of her kidnapping and release, but she indicated she wasn't yet ready to talk about that. Understandable, but disappointing. There was still some very interesting insights and comments shared, however. I'll present my notes below (mainly expansions of my live tweets), followed by my comments.

*Graeme Smith on his prep for going to Afghanistan: He knew nothing going in, read lots of stuff on the plane, and the Globe also contracts safety training from British ex-marines.

*Melissa Fung CBC also provides safety training, advice was if you're in trouble offer them money and, if you're a woman, cry a lot. Unfortunately she forgot to cry.

*Smith every time he's on a plane landing in a war zone he asks himself if he's satisfied with his life if the plane crashes. It's dangerous work, you need to feel its worth it,

*When to leave in a dangerous situation? Fung says you rely on your local Afghan fixer, but no where safe. Smith says it's not what the fixer says but how wide their eyes are, are they afraid? If so, get out.

*Smith The Taliban are firing rockets at Kandahar Airfield, there's no aiming systems they just point them in the right direction and pray – literally.

*Fung you can't consider the danger of everyday life there and dwell on the risks or you'll be paralyzed by fear and unable to function.

*Smith I learned I'm not an adrenaline junkie. I've had rockets, bullets and RPGs fired at me and my office raided by masked gunmen. Its not fun.

*Fung Being there gave me new appreciation for the everyday lives of our soldiers. And the Afghan people live with this danger every day, it makes me appreciate how lucky we are.

*Fung Our editors always ask before the writer leaves the base is it safe? They do care about our safety.

*Smith He finds the editors asking is it safe to be a bit silly. Of course its not safe, its Afghanistan!

*Smith jokes their editors concern on safety is also partly HR management: he can't write them stories if he's dead.

*Fung You wouldn't be a good journalist if you're not impacted on some level by the people you cover. Yes we're objective, but we're humans first.

*Smith We can lessen conflict by reporting on it. The media did an investigative series on torture in Kandahar prisons and system was subsequently changed.

*Fung If people tell her 'you almost lost your life media shouldn't be there' she replies you don't understand why the media does what it does.

*Smith I'll give intelligence agencies background briefings but won't give them actionable intelligence "I won't be another Stevie Cameron" (this gets some moans from the crowd)

*Fung I'm not really ready to talk about my kidnapping yet.

*Smith They used to be a lot more free to move around Kandahar but since Fung was kidnapped the media have been locked down to base without a military escort.

*Fung When she was released from captivity she was surprised about the media embargo and that there was no reporting of her kidnapping. When she was in captivity she was thinking 'man this a helluva story for my colleagues.' She doesn't know if the embargo was the right thing or not, it was the CBC's call.

*Smith We're fighting a losing war right now and he wonders why we're there.

*Fung The government says we're there so young girls can go to school, but originally it was the Taliban and 9/11. The government's pr message changed.

*Fung You can really tell how a country is doing when you talk to the women and children and see how they're being treated.

*Smith He can only mainly talk to men because of Afghan cultural rules. As a woman, its easier for Fung to write on the private lives of Afghan families and talk to normal people.

*Fung Its hard to talk to regular people because you can't stay in one place for more than five minutes for safety reasons. You don't want people to know there's a foreign journalist at a certain location.

*Fung If there was a kidnapping of an NGO woke and the NGO asked the media not to report it because they're in danger they'd absolutely honour that request.

*Smith and Fung both say the media are honouring currently requests not to report on several unresolved kidnappings in Afghanistan, for their safety.

*Fung She'd like to go back if the CBC will let her. There's still stories to be told and our troops are still there We need to keep going back.

My thoughts

When I first head of Fung's kidnapping and release and of the media embargo on coverage of her kidnapping until after her release, my first thought was that's great, but isn't there a double-standard here? It's great the media were all willing to do this for one of their own, but I'd find it hard to believe that, faced with the kidnapping of a non-journalist, they wouldn't just fall back on the old public has a right to know argument.

I was somewhat heartened by Smith and Fung's assurances that, were they to receive such a request, they'd honour it. One of the audience questioners was from an NGO who had a worked kidnapped in Africa, and she was quite strong on this question. The key though is to be very proactive to put the lid on, because once it starts to come out, its hard for the media to ignore. And, of course, with blogs and the Web, its hard to keep these things secret.

I was also fascinated and surprised to learn that at least one or two current Afghan kidnapping cases are under a media publication embargo. Whomever they are, I hope they're safely released soon.

Meanwhile, within the journalism community the debate continues over whether such embargoes are a good idea or not. Myself, I tend to err on the side of the safety of the kidnapped person rather than on my right to know they're in danger. Of course, there may be cases where publicity is desired, or warranted; it's a judgment call. However, it's important that NGO or journalist, the media's standards be the same.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

General Leslie on Fox News: I'll take the slanders for our young men

As mentioned earlier I attended a Canadian Journalism Foundation-sponsored event tonight where the commander of Canada's Army, Lt. General Andrew Leslie, was the speaker on the role of the media and the military in our democracy. Very informative, interesting event.

Since what I'm sure is on everyone's mind is the Fox News story, I'll jump ahead to that. About mid-way through the Q&A, a reporter from the CTV National News (they were taping, so look for it on the news tonight) asked Leslie for his reaction to the Fox comments, and specifically the slanders on his name. Follows is a rough account of his reply (may not be word for word):

“Did I say I looked forward to these questions?,” he laughed. “We all know the superb quality of the Canadian soldiers who represent us as truly world class, they have a reputation as tough, capable soldiers. We've shed a lot of blood in Afghanistan, and I just wish some of the private citizens – certainly they weren't former soldiers – of some of our neighboring countries and allies were more aware of our contribution … in a very tough fight. (And as for personal attacks on him) if our young men are willing to fight for our country, I'm willing to get slandered for them.”

That last bit earned Leslie his strongest applause of the night from the audience.

So, Fox drama aside, back to the beginning and his speech, which I had to watch from an overflow room via CCTV because I'd arrived 5 minutes late and, although there were still seats and I was pre-registered, the door was shut so CTV could tape. Annoying. (They let us in for the Q&A)

Kvetching aside, I thought Leslie made a very reasoned, thoughtful performance that made an honest effort to make both the Army's case and the case for media oversight of the military. I'll present my bullet-point notes on Leslie's speech and answers, and save my comments for the end.

* Soldiers and the media walk towards the sound of the bullets.

* He's faced some tough media interviewers, but by far the toughest audience he ever faces is his own soldiers. They're professionals and their lives are on the line, they want to know what they need to know, they have tough questions, and they're not afraid to ask them.

*The kinship between Canadians and its military is closer now than it's been in many years.

*Media scrutiny is essential to a successful military, and he welcomes that scrutiny.

*The military needs to be properly equipped to do the jobs its tasked with. And they don't decide the missions, the Canadian people (though their elected representatives and government) do.

*The rapid succession of evolutionary steps armies are taking to respond to the new threat paradigm is unprecedented, with traditional doctrines being re-examined and changed. We're well beyond the Cold War paradigm.

*We've reconfirmed our Army's reputation as one of the best small armies in the world. Yes, the cost is high, but it's an immutable fact that influence in international relations is often exacted by our men and women in uniform.

*We're increasing the Army's intellectual horsepower. We're improving support for families but more has to be done, he's the first to admit that.

*Speaking on Toronto he said we're still sensitive about the snowstorm so we won't talk about that but hey, you called and we came with shovels. This earns a laugh.

*Retention and recruitment is a major challenge. Attrition rates have risen from a traditional five to six per cent to a current nine to 10 per cent. Military has the same demographic challenges as the private sector, and so many soldiers are leaving for jobs on “Civvy Street” is causing him grey hairs. You can't walk off the street and be a regimental Sargent-Major, you need to start at the bottom.

*The Army leadership is obviously biased for our soldiers. But Canadians need to know the unbiased picture, and for that the Army relies on the media. Only with independent media scrutiny can Canadians be sure they're getting the clear picture. So long as it's far and balanced. But we need an engaged citizenry.

*There's been times where the results of your unbiased reporting have caused the Army to feel like it has digested a litre of cod liver oil. But while it tastes horrible, it's good for you in that it causes the Army to identify and ackowledge problems and take corrective action.

*Afghanistan is in some ways like Canada's Vietnam in that it's Canada's first TV war. It's real, and it's in your face. Media are embedded in the field. There's a constant media presence in Kandahar. It's challenging, bit it's been a success. The best PR for the Army is to let soldiers talk to the media, for for the media to see what they do.

*Through the media, Canadians need to see the faces and learn the names and the stories of our fallen. It's important for Canadians to be aware of the consequences when the Army is deployed to dangerous places.

*(Question on peace vs. war, necessity of war, and peacekeeping) We need a multiplicity of ways to deal with global threats. No soldier wants to go to war, but they're willing to go if they're told to by their country, to fight, and do die if necessary for their country. He happens to believe there are certain things worth dying for. There is diplomacy and other tools but when that doesn't work, you turn to the military, and folks in uniform go out and do their jobs and risk their lives in support of our international objectives. Soft power can't be disconnected from hard power, they're intrinsically linked. What's in the colour of a beret? The beret (we're wearing in Afghanistan) may be dull camo (instead of blue) but he still thinks we're doing the work of Pearson.

*(Oversight, can you spread democracy where its not wanted?) He's a strong believer in ministerial and parliamentary oversight. He thinks democracy is worth fighting for, but that's not his decision, that's yours. That's your debate to have.

*(Question, something about Afghanistan and the historical failure of 'scorched earth' approaches) The over application of military force is nit the way to get people onside that want better lives for their sons and daughters. This isn't' the Cold War, the military is now a much more able and sophisticated instrument. Sometimes we do have to fight and kill, that's not the objective but we will, especially if they're truing to get through to the people we're trying to protect. But it's not the objective.

*(Question on what's next, re-equipping the Army, future threats) If it's not complicated and dangerous, why send us? In the future, until more technology emerges, we need to equip our people with more amour and more Kevlar so they're protected when they go out. But once the work really begins when the ramp goes down. Where we go next the solution will not solely rest with the military, they'll go with diplomats and humanitarian groups to build society and the rule of law.

Infantrymen today are akin to the special forces of yesterday. If you want us to have those capabilities it's not a matter of flipping a switch. It takes 20 years to build a battalion commander, 25 years to build a regimental Sargent-Major. You want to think carefully of the consequences of throwing away capabilities an uncertain future may demand.

*(Question on poppy issue in Afghanistan) He's definitely not an expert, but he has yet to see a proposed solution to the poppy issue he could wholeheartedly sign-on to that doesn't raise questions once you consider the second, third, worth order of implications. And it needs to be a solution the Afghans can accept, to what degree can we push our ideals and values onto them?

*(Question, comment on George Galloway banning) No, I will absolutely, categorically, not comment on that. Good try though, and I complement you for it.

*(Same guy, but you think about retired generals speaking at political events, like Rick Hillier to the Conservative-sympathetic Manning Centre) An underlying premise of the democratic model is that, when in uniform, we're completely subordinate by law, practice and tradition to the government of the day. But when we hang-up that uniform we have the democratic right to go to the microphone and speak our minds. And that's a right Hillier spent his career in uniform defending.

*(Globe's Hugh Winsor asks long, and good, question. He says Leslie is very open and candid, and so are the soldiers on the ground, but there's a disconnect in the bureaucracy at DND. During the detainee affair, misinformation was given to the House of Commons and to the media. And after the detainee affair, DND set up a committee to vet and stall any contentious Access to Information request. How, Winsor asked, do you square your desire for openness and media scrutiny with the roadblocking by DND?)

Leslie gave Winsor a sarcastic “thanks Hugh” (apparently they go back a bit) and considered it carefully before answering delicately, noting he has nothing to do with the Access committee and he doesn't run the military end of the Afghan mission, so he's not an expert of the detainee issue.

But he said he thinks DND learned a lot of interesting lessons from the detainee affair, such as the consequences on iterations of working with Afghan military and police, with a nascent judicial system, and with limited oversight of prisons. He said the argument could be made that, with its investigative resources, the media shone a cold, hard light on the issue and now it's being handled much better, so the system works.

My Thoughts

If you're still reading at this point, I'll say I agree with much of what Leslie had to say, and I think he's a strong advocate for the Army and for the soldiers in the field. Obviously he had to be careful in his answers at time, he serves political masters and he needs to operate within their guidelines and desires. And that, frankly, is how it should and needs to be. We don't want soldiers making policy.

Obviously, while Leslie's message on welcoming media scrutiny is a good, appropriate one, there is a strong dose of propaganda to that. And while I think he's sincere, when you ask the media, the public and DND what an appropriate level of such scrutiny would be you're going to get three different answers. And a fourth when you ask the Harper government, and their view is the only one that counts.

So, no matter how genuine he is on it and whether all of DND is on board or not, the message is the right one and it's up to us, the public and the media, to keep the pressure on the military (and the government) to live-up to Leslie's desire for scrutiny.

And to ensure that, when we do ask our military members to saddle-up, it's for the right reasons, and that we've got their backs.

_____
**Help send a BCer to BC for the Liberal convention. Donations are tax deductible. Any support is greatly appreciated.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

F*ck you Fox News

On a day when four more brave Canadian soldiers gave their lives in Afghanistan, I come across this video of Fox News openly mocking Canada and the sacrifice our country and our military has made in the country. I'm really pissed off right now. Hey Jason Kenney, as long as you're looking for people to ban from the country, how about the assholes at Fox News?!



_____
**Help send a BCer to BC for the Liberal convention. Any support is greatly appreciated.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Troops home by February, 2009: Why, that's now!

Imagine what the world would be like today if the NDP had exercised a dose of pragmatism (which they were willing to do during the coalition talks, if it meant they got seats in cabinet) and had voted with the Liberals on this motion two years ago:

A Liberal motion to end Canadian combat operations in southern Afghanistan by February 2009 was defeated in the House of Commons on Tuesday.

The NDP joined the Conservatives in defeating the motion, which lost by a close vote of 150-134.

NDP Leader Jack Layton said the vote was nothing more than a green light for an extension to the mission. The NDP wants the troops out immediately.

Yes, that's right. If the NDP had given an inch and voted with the Liberals on this motion, the last of our troops would be home from Afghanistan by now. Something to ponder, I think, as some of my friends on the left take glee today writing about Conservative and Liberal war mongers, and Jack Layton's prescient leadership.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Grow a pair, John Manley

The headline reads "Harper's Afghan comments spot-on, says Manley" What does the former Liberal foreign affairs minister and perpetually rumoured leadership candidate have to say?

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's candid statement that the Taliban cannot be defeated -- and that responsibility for the war must instead be given to Afghans -- was endorsed on Monday by John Manley, who chaired an authoritative 2008 investigation into Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

(snip)

Manley said years of "rhetoric around democracy" had raised false hopes in Canada that NATO could build a modern country "out of a very poor, highly dysfunctional state."
Instead, he said NATO must focus on more basic goals of economic development, and of building up Afghan institutions.

"The prime minister is right that the objective should be to 'Afghanize' security, by training and equipping the Afghan National Security Forces, army and police, so that they take it over," said Manley in an e-mail on Monday. "Canada should fulfill its military commitment without flinching through 2011, and expect to make continuing contributions to development and governance thereafter."

Let’s take a closer look at John’s comments here, particularly this one:

Manley said years of "rhetoric around democracy" had raised false hopes in Canada that NATO could build a modern country "out of a very poor, highly dysfunctional state."

While we ponder just whose cut and run, with us or with the terrorists rhetoric that was all those years, here’s another line from the story:

Manley's Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan called on Ottawa 15 months ago for honest talk about the mission. In an CNN interview televised on Sunday, Harper did exactly that.

So John Manley is lauding Harper for no longer pushing rhetoric he says has raised false hopes about the mission while giving him a pass for raising all that rhetoric in the first place. Manley is also lauding Harper for heeding his panel’s recommendation for honest talk with Canadians, some 15 MONTHS AFTER he recommended it, and doing it ON CNN, which I’m sure some Canadians probably do watch.

Honestly, John Manley, grow a freakin’ pair, will you? You seem to have no problem going on TV and “telling it as you see it” when it involves stabbing a knife in the back of the leader of the political party you purport to be a supporter of. Can you not summon a fraction of that supposed gumption to call Bullshit on the obvious revisionism and shortcomings of the Harper government?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Psst! The Conservatives say the Afghan mission will cost $11.3 billion

I know the government has nothing to do with the order in which news clippings appear in my inbox, but the order of these three clippings does seem fittingly apropos:


Now which of these stories do you think the government wants to downplay? If you guessed the one sandwiched between the two big-ticket spending announcements, then you would get a gold watch if we hadn't had our budget cut, so you'll have to settle for a kudos instead.

Because hey, what better time to release your first full accounting of the cost of the Afghan war, and that you were $3.3 billion off on your earlier estimate, then a day you're also announcing flashy new anti-crime legislation in GangLand(TM) BC, investing millions in Vancouver-area rapid transit, and creating an emergency $3 billion fund for stimulus?

Here's the story they'd rather you not read above the fold on the front page tomorrow, or hear about in the first segment of the news tonight:

Ottawa pegs direct cost of Afghan mission at $11.3 billion
(Afghan-Cda-Cost)
Source: The Canadian Press
Feb 26, 2009 13:33

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

PANJWAII DISTRICT, Afghanistan _ The federal government has quietly revealed the direct cost of Canada's 10-year involvement in Afghanistan _ an estimated $11.3 billion.

It's the first complete fiscal accounting of the mission, which Prime Minister Stephen Harper had previously suggested would cost about $8 billion by the time it ends in 2011.

The figures include estimates for the involvement of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Canadian International Development Agency, Corrections Canada and the RCMP.

The incremental cost estimate does not include post-2011 disability and health care costs for soldiers wounded in battle or diagnosed with post-traumatic stress.

The forecast runs considerably less than the $13.9 billion to $18.3 billion estimate the parliamentary budget officer came up with last October at the height of the federal election campaign.

The new federal numbers suggest almost 80 per cent of the price tag _ $9 billion _ will be for military operations and hardware.

Oh, and perhaps the defence committee (or public accounts?) could summon Peter MacKay and Kevin Page and ask them about this:

The forecast runs considerably less than the $13.9 billion to $18.3 billion estimate the parliamentary budget officer came up with last October at the height of the federal election campaign.

You'll recall, of course, that was a report the Conservatives would much rather you hadn't seen during the campaign.

So why is the Conservatives' estimate so much lower than the estimate prepared by the independent parliamentary budget officer, a position they themselves created?

Inquiring minds, etc.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: BBC reports on Obama's visit

I always find it interesting to see how foreign media cover events in Canada. Here's a third-party look, as the BBC reports on U.S. President Barack Obama's visit to Canada yesterday. From the British perspective there was just one key issue: Afghanistan. Makes sense, given the heavy military presence they have in the country. Also interesting that they used clips from just two people: Obama, and Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae. Nada from Stephen Harper.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Ixnay ethay Ovietsay

From the department of unhelpful comparisons, via an AP story on Afghanistan troop reinforcements:

The planned reinforcements will bring the international force to roughly the same level as the contingent the Soviets deployed to Afghanistan in the 1980s, in an unsuccessful effort to defeat the U.S.-backed fundamentalist rebellion there.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers