Jonathan Kay, National Post
Published: Monday, March 20, 2006
Excerpt:
In one three-day trip to Afghanistan, Stephen Harper exhibited more leadership and moral clarity than the Liberals did in 13 years.
The Prime Minister went to Afghanistan because he understands what's at stake: If the country falls back into Taliban hands, Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar will have proven to the world -- including everyone in Iraq -- that jihadis can rout a modern Western army and transform a nascent democracy into a medieval theocracy.
The PM's main problem is that the Taliban are the enemies of not just ordinary Afghans, but of America as well. And so Canada's Left, reflexively sympathetic to anyone warring against George W. Bush, is already singing the chorus of cut-and-run.
But even the Left is divided on Afghanistan -- because our mission there has a strong humanitarian component. Across a range of human-development indicators, Afghanistan resembles a sub-Saharan nation. Linda McQuaig and Rick Salutin may believe we should let ordinary Afghans suffer because helping them would indirectly help Bush. But few Canadians are inclined to agree.
And yet, support for our Afghanistan mission could still be one major firefight away from collapsing. The problem with both the strategic and humanitarian rationales for our mission is that they suffer from what economists call the "free rider" problem. Yes, Canada's strategic interest in Afghanistan -- fighting militant Islam -- is compelling. But it is a shared interest diffused over the entire civilized world. Why should it be Canada leading the Kandahar charge as opposed to, say, New Zealand, or France? Better yet, why not just follow the usual Canadian practice and let the Americans do it?
Humanitarian arguments, too, will fall to the wayside if the body count spikes. While democracies have a high tolerance for casualties in wars of self-interest, the same is not true of humanitarian interventions -- which explains why Kosovo was bombed from 15,000 feet, and why no Western nation is willing to sacrifice a single solider to save Darfur. If the Taliban are able to stage a particularly spectacular attack, Harper will feel the same heavy pressure to evacuate as Bill Clinton did when Somali gunmen killed 18 U.S. soldiers in Mogadishu 13 years ago.
An Afghan Mogadishu would threaten not only our presence in Afghanistan, but also this precious moment in Canadian history.
Paul Martin and Jean Chretien spoke often about Canadian values, and congratulated themselves at great length about our country's Beatles-era peacekeeping tradition. But they did little to fight terrorism and rogue power in the modern world. Even when the Liberals eventually did the right thing in Afghanistan, they kept mum on the subject -- as if it were something to be embarrassed about.
Harper is of another breed. Good on him for visiting Afghanistan and saying the right things. But in the end, our deployment is an act of conscience aimed at fulfilling our moral obligation to the rest of the free world. This motivation may be laudable, but it is also highly abstract. And it is questionable whether it will survive if Canada is faced with the concrete violence produced by a Black Hawk Down moment.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/....html?id=8566c8bc-4fb9-4d1d-98f1-3cad832a5108
Lessons were learned from Clinton's cut and run from Somalia after the Battle of Mogadishu. It emboldens the Terrorists, Steven Harper know this as any Leader would.
Canada's Mission in Afghanistan is important to the Afghani people. To leave right now after the sacrifices made by Canadian Soldiers would send the Terrorists the message they want to hear.
No one wanted to cut and run in the former Yugoslavia when Canadian Forces lost members. There was no talk of Canada cutting and running during the Kosovo Bombing.
Yet in Afghanistan when the number of Soldiers lost in combat situations is low next to the number lost in accidents theres already talks of Canada cutting and running.
Canada will stay in Afghanistan to complete the mission. Those who say Canada is there for Oil or a Pipeline, get real Canada is there because it was attacked on Sept 11, 2001 as Canadians were lost. Canada is also there as a member of NATO doing it's part.
Supporting Canada's Mission in Afghanistan isn't being Gung Ho or a War Monger it's being proud of what Canada is doing. Those who don't see that and would rather focus on the negative lost the plot.
