I have never been a Harper fan but he's gained a great deal of respect from me for standing firmly behind our Military. The fact that he'd rather lose an election than put our troops in further harms way by changing the rules of engagement to Peace Keeping (in a country that isn't stable) to appease the NDP and the Bloc speaks volumns to me. Bravo Mr. Harper, bravo.:wave:
Mark Kennedy, CanWest News Service
Published: Tuesday, December 19, 2006
OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he could not live with himself if he reduced Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan to further his own political self-interest and that he’s even prepared to lose the next election if it means standing by the military.
Harper made the comments Tuesday in a candid year-end interview, conducted with CanWest News Service in his Parliament Hill office.
His remarks stand out as his strongest defence for his government’s military policy since he came to office nearly a year ago.
Since then, dozens of soldiers have died in combat in Afghanistan, and the opposition parties have insisted the government put less emphasis on the military’s combat mission in that country - with even the Bloc Quebecois hinting it might try to topple the government over the issue in Parliament this winter.
But Harper told CanWest News Service this political pressure will have no influence on his decisions.
“I don’t feel pressure by threats from the Liberals or NDP or Bloc to bring me down,” he said.
“If ultimately I were brought down on that, and even defeated on that, I can live with myself. I could not live with myself making a decision on Canada’s role in the world and our strategic and defence interests if I knew I had done that for political reasons that were the wrong reasons. That I could not live with.”
Harper said what does influence him is the notion the Canadian soldiers who have lost their lives in Afghanistan should not have died in vain.
“The most difficult part of the job I have is phoning every single Canadian family when there is a loss and talking to them,” said the prime minister. “And I have to tell you that what they ask of me in almost every case is their assurance that the government will not, because of political pressure, abandon a mission that their sons and daughters believed in and were prepared to give their lives for.”
Furthermore, Harper said the Canadian soldiers who have gone to Afghanistan are “absolutely committed” to what they are doing.
He said they understand that they are involved in a dangerous mission but that it is a worthy effort that will assist the international community and the Afghan people, and that it is also in Canada’s long-term strategic interest to fight the global war on terrorism.
“And that’s why we’re there, that’s why they went. They understood going there that not all of them would return.”
In recent months, public opinion polls have shown Canadians are deeply divided over whether this country’s soldiers should be in Afghanistan, where our troops are set to serve until February 2009. Some critics have said Canada is not doing enough to assist the Afghan people through humanitarian programs and development assistance, and that instead, this country’s approach has become too warlike and is not following decades of work as international peacekeepers.
But Harper rejected that analysis, saying Canada has an “aggressive military history” in two world wars.
“But Afghanistan is a unique mission. It’s neither war nor peace-keeping. It’s a security operation that involves pretty direct combat with the enemy.”
Harper said he understands the NDP’s position - that Canada should not have sent its troops to Afghanistan and should withdraw now - better than any of his political opponents because at least this party has been consistent. But he suggested he has even less time for the two other parties.
“The Liberals and the Bloc tell me: rebalance the mission. What does that mean? I mean, what the hell does that mean?”
“We’ve got guys there, they’re in the most dangerous province in the country. Yes, we’re trying to do development and humanitarian assistance and we’re doing that. But the fact of the matter is that they’ve got guys shooting at them. And they’ve got the most concentrated group of enemy combatants right there. It isn’t an option to cut down the military side of the operation. They have to do what is necessary to protect the local people and protect themselves. And nothing less.”
Harper said it would be “completely irresponsible” to reduce Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan.
“If other parties want to go to the people and take that position - ‘We’d leave them there but we’d tell them not to defend themselves’ - let them explain that to the Canadian people.”
Mark Kennedy, CanWest News Service
Published: Tuesday, December 19, 2006
OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he could not live with himself if he reduced Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan to further his own political self-interest and that he’s even prepared to lose the next election if it means standing by the military.
Harper made the comments Tuesday in a candid year-end interview, conducted with CanWest News Service in his Parliament Hill office.
His remarks stand out as his strongest defence for his government’s military policy since he came to office nearly a year ago.
Since then, dozens of soldiers have died in combat in Afghanistan, and the opposition parties have insisted the government put less emphasis on the military’s combat mission in that country - with even the Bloc Quebecois hinting it might try to topple the government over the issue in Parliament this winter.
But Harper told CanWest News Service this political pressure will have no influence on his decisions.
“I don’t feel pressure by threats from the Liberals or NDP or Bloc to bring me down,” he said.
“If ultimately I were brought down on that, and even defeated on that, I can live with myself. I could not live with myself making a decision on Canada’s role in the world and our strategic and defence interests if I knew I had done that for political reasons that were the wrong reasons. That I could not live with.”
Harper said what does influence him is the notion the Canadian soldiers who have lost their lives in Afghanistan should not have died in vain.
“The most difficult part of the job I have is phoning every single Canadian family when there is a loss and talking to them,” said the prime minister. “And I have to tell you that what they ask of me in almost every case is their assurance that the government will not, because of political pressure, abandon a mission that their sons and daughters believed in and were prepared to give their lives for.”
Furthermore, Harper said the Canadian soldiers who have gone to Afghanistan are “absolutely committed” to what they are doing.
He said they understand that they are involved in a dangerous mission but that it is a worthy effort that will assist the international community and the Afghan people, and that it is also in Canada’s long-term strategic interest to fight the global war on terrorism.
“And that’s why we’re there, that’s why they went. They understood going there that not all of them would return.”
In recent months, public opinion polls have shown Canadians are deeply divided over whether this country’s soldiers should be in Afghanistan, where our troops are set to serve until February 2009. Some critics have said Canada is not doing enough to assist the Afghan people through humanitarian programs and development assistance, and that instead, this country’s approach has become too warlike and is not following decades of work as international peacekeepers.
But Harper rejected that analysis, saying Canada has an “aggressive military history” in two world wars.
“But Afghanistan is a unique mission. It’s neither war nor peace-keeping. It’s a security operation that involves pretty direct combat with the enemy.”
Harper said he understands the NDP’s position - that Canada should not have sent its troops to Afghanistan and should withdraw now - better than any of his political opponents because at least this party has been consistent. But he suggested he has even less time for the two other parties.
“The Liberals and the Bloc tell me: rebalance the mission. What does that mean? I mean, what the hell does that mean?”
“We’ve got guys there, they’re in the most dangerous province in the country. Yes, we’re trying to do development and humanitarian assistance and we’re doing that. But the fact of the matter is that they’ve got guys shooting at them. And they’ve got the most concentrated group of enemy combatants right there. It isn’t an option to cut down the military side of the operation. They have to do what is necessary to protect the local people and protect themselves. And nothing less.”
Harper said it would be “completely irresponsible” to reduce Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan.
“If other parties want to go to the people and take that position - ‘We’d leave them there but we’d tell them not to defend themselves’ - let them explain that to the Canadian people.”
ottytrain2: 
