Maritime Morning - Andrew Krystal

As I write, Stephen Harper is mulling over the “Liberal position” on Afghanistan.

As I am writing, another news story came in across the wire saying a suicide car bomber targeting a Canadian military convoy detonated his explosives at a busy market in southern Afghanistan today killing 37 civilians and wounding three Canadians.  

The day before, on Sunday, more than 100 people were killed by a suicide bomber outside Khandahar city. It was the deadliest bombing since the invasion of Afghanistan began in 2001.

The Liberals have proposed suggestions to the Government in order to reach a compromise on our role in Afghanistan and its duration. Why? Why a compromise?

There are some, in the Liberal caucus, apparently, that agrees with Stephen Harper’s approach to Afghanistan: an open-ended combat role and a muscular approach to Canadian involvement that would see more “peace-making and less “peace-keeping”.

It looks as if neither the Conservatives, nor the Liberals, want to use the war in Afghanistan as a “wedge” issue. Why?  

The Liberals are saying they would like to see more emphasis on reconstruction and less on combat. To that end, they would like to see the diminishment of “sweep missions” that search out the enemy to engage.

There are about four support people “behind the wire” for every one active combat personnel in the field.

Canada currently has a combat battalion of 1200 troops. Liberal defense critic Denis Coderre has said he would like to see that element out of Khandahar completely. Coderre was overruled by other Liberals and he has been back-peddling ever since. On my broadcast Tuesday, February 19, 2008 I will ask Coderre what he meant/means. Many, simply find the whole Liberal position muddled – a mess.

Simply put, if you are in Khandahar, you are in a combat zone. The only way to completely avoid security concerns is to reposition troops to the north. That would be a Liberal position that actually makes sense.

What Stephane Dion wants is to stop the bleeding and let someone else take a turn in the heavy lifting department. Approximately 70 percent of Canadians agree, according to current polls.

So, why not let the combat/no-combat aspect of the Afghanistan mission play out in a general election? It is not “playing politics” with out troops, it is about democracy in action.

In the 1930’s, the Dictators of Europe often spoke about the messy democracies that they replaced by saying that the “future of a country is not something with which people should play politics; that it should not be left to “intriguers’ and meddlers”. Only a “firm hand” can drive a cart – you cannot have a cart being pulled by 12 horses going in different directions.

You get the idea.

Democracy, and democratic processes, should never be convenient for the status-quo. Only NDP Leader Jack Lyaton, and the Bloc, are saying leave Afghanistan completely. In other words, the Conservative position, stay and fight, and the NDP position, leave now, are understandable. Leave it to the Liberals to confuse everyone.

The military are saying to me that the Liberal position is untenable because in order to have security, in order to have reconstruction in the south, in Khandahar, you have to engage the enemy, and you need the freedom to conduct engagement and not have your hands tied.

By staying in Khandhar, the Liberals are falling into a semantics trap when it comes to “security” and what it means. The military will simply conduct business as usual and the Liberals and Conservatives can call it a new name – or sell the idea that there is greater emphasis on “reconstruction” and Afghan army training.

The Quebec wing of the Liberal party, led by Dion and Coderre, clearly want an end to combat deaths and combat exposure. We have done our part, they say. To that end the Quebec Liberals are more in line with the majority of Canadians.

But the contentious nature of our involvement in Afghanistan has been high-jacked by the status-quo Tories and English Liberals who are preventing public discourse on this issue while billions are being spent and soldiers are being wounded and dying.

The only real difference between the Liberal position as it stands now and the Tory position is the Liberals want out completely by 2011. It is not much of a distinction.

Let a debate happen.

What are the Liberals and the Tories afraid of anyway, democracy?

What a concept.