Our Glorious Afghan Mission
- Thread starter darkbeaver
- Start date
more properly stated, they demanded to be provided with sufficient evidence to merit extradition in keeping with international protocol.
What we are doing in Afghanistan is unsupportable. But what we are doing to ourselves is not so obvious. As long as we stay in Afghanistan, we are corrupting our political culture.
>by Murray Dobbin April 10, 2007
It is stunning how quickly the Canadian military can be recast as a key part of Canadian culture, especially now that we have abandoned our historic peacekeeping role.
With no public debate, we now have a war-fighting military taking up more and more political space in Canada's constellation of defining institutions. The military and the Harper government are trying to make “the mission” in Afghanistan a defining characteristic of who we are.
The militarization of Canadian culture reflects the spread of “deep integration” — the Bay Street initiative whose aim is to see Canada effectively assimilated into its behemoth neighbour. Harper and others on the right know that in order for Canada to adopt policies similar to those of the United States, we have to make the cultural changes that will provide the ideological base for those policies.
When we first sent some 2,000 troops to Afghanistan, it was a major assignment — not strictly peace-keeping, but not war-fighting either — and yet it rarely made the news.
But ever since we took on the war-fighting role in Southern Afghanistan, our mission has become a major part of our daily cultural consumption. And our approach in the country apes the Americans' — witness our government's cavalier attitude toward the routine torture of Taliban prisoners seized by Canada and turned over to the Afghan government.
Which brings us to a crucial point — this deliberate attempt to shift our cultural landscape could not be happening without the complicity of the media, who have become willing partners in this remaking of Canada.
Regarding the prisoner scandal, the Canadian media might never have dealt with the issue at all were it not for Amir Attaran, a University of Ottawa law professor, who exposed the issue of Canadian abuse of detainees in a letter of complaint he sent to the Military Police Complaints Commission. He obtained information about three detainees via a freedom of information request. (Shouldn't it be the media who chase down these stories?) When the commission tried to find the detainees in question, they had disappeared.
The media rarely expose what goes on in Afghan detention centres. One story in a major daily newspaper dared to talk about what torture and human rights abuses actually entail by referring to a U.S. State Department assessment. That report stated: “Security and factional forces committed extrajudicial killings and torture ... [including] pulling out fingernails and toenails, burning with hot oil, beatings, sexual humiliation, and sodomy.”
Why is there is no comparable Canadian report? Because the Canadian government knows that if it acknowledged the crisis in governance in Afghanistan, Canadians would realize that the whole effort in that country is doomed to failure and built on a foundation of lies.
The media are virtually silent on the issue — and worse. In late fall of 2006, the CBC began implementing what seemed to be an explicit policy shift to build up the image of the military and downplay any negative aspects of the war. Peter Mansbridge hosted several newscasts directly from military bases in Canada that were nothing more than public relations boosts for “our troops.”
And although the CBC has dedicated considerable resources to covering Afghanistan, it rarely acknowledges that its reporters are “embedded” with the Canadian military, and that what they report, in my opinion, seems largely spoon-fed by military public relations officers.
What happened to the CBC mandate to provide Canadians with genuine debate about critical national issues? Where are the stories about corrupt and brutal Afghan police? About internal refugee camps with no facilities or medical care? About foreign aid disappearing into the pockets of officials? About the fact that we can no longer fund other foreign aid projects because Afghanistan absorbs it all so we can support U.S. foreign policy?
This situation reveals how naive we are as a nation. That old adage — the first casualty of war is truth — applies here in spades because this war is based on lies, including:
- This has nothing to do with oil and gas pipelines.
- This is a fight against terrorism. (The truth: It's an occupation being resisted by indigenous militants.)
- The current Afghan government is democratic. (The truth: Many senior figures should be tried for war crimes, and others are drug lords.)
- Girls are now going to school. (Really? How many?)
- Bombing villages will provide them with security.
- We can “win.”
The need to awnser question is should we stay? or should we go now? Without the gumption to take on the Taliban/Al Queda fighters on there own ground. In the Mountains and yes into Pakistan. The war is un-winnable. Fighting an enemy only half way, leaves them with too much advantage. And the only real tactic being employed against us is propaganda. If a civilian (or suicider) approachs our troops in a suspicious manner they are killed, we have no way of knowing if the act was deliberate. But the press created as a result is very deliberate, with the single goal of undermining our forces credibility. And to date this has been very effective. We are losing this war in terms of propaganda, public opinion both here and there, and in terms of the fact that the enemy has a safe zone and our guys do not. The last war to feature such a set of circumstances was Vietnam, and that war as well was un-winnable. At this point unless serious advances in the cause of rebuilding and gaining control can be shown to be a reality, then we should start thinking about getting out.
If results of rebuilding and democracy were real they would not be as hard to sell as the mythical storys are. It would be hard for the Canadian media to be any more pro-war than they already are.
Then you have never seen a truly pro-war media. Look around the world, look at how they show war in the media. They show it like its a religious pilgrimage and that only by supporting the military can you life has purpose, describing the sub-human baby-bayonetting monsters they fight, and how noble they are. Never mentioning anything bad , making outrageous statements..
Look at old Iraq's information minister, Comical Ali as he was dubbed.
Look at old Iraq's information minister, Comical Ali as he was dubbed.
Yeah, wasn't he the fearsome Jack of Spades or some crap like that??
Which is it then, was the guy a threat to the whole free world, or a humourous caricature who we should all laugh about??
I still don't get how all the "bad guys" can be the most dangeous folks on earth AND laughable at the same time, something just isn't right, eh Beav??
Which is it then, was the guy a threat to the whole free world, or a humourous caricature who we should all laugh about??
I still don't get how all the "bad guys" can be the most dangeous folks on earth AND laughable at the same time, something just isn't right, eh Beav??
Sorry Gilbert I don't understand your point. Maybe it's important. I'll take a toke break and see if I can wake up my thirty-seven and a half brain cells, then I'll come back here if I remember.
Sorry Gilbert I don't understand your point. Maybe it's important. I'll take a toke break and see if I can wake up my thirty-seven and a half brain cells, then I'll come back here if I remember. On second thought just in case I forget I better say something you can argue later. While the reality of the corruption of Canadian political culture may not seem important or possible to you , it does alarm me. That corruption makes it more possible that we will accept state sponsered terrorism as the norm and that we will accept North American Union without a fight.Things are not right in the land of the free and the home of the brave, and I don't want to become a gut sucking second class yankee nor an indentured slave of the filthy elite corporatist carpet bagging bootlicking Harpercon Fascists.
...
...
God bless the familys of our falling soliders. May their higher powers help their familys through this difficult time. We went overseas as peace keepers, yet is is causing more unrest for us at home. We
should not be at war with our hearts. Take a moment of silence for those who have suffered.
...
God bless the familys of our falling soliders. May their higher powers help their familys through this difficult time. We went overseas as peace keepers, yet is is causing more unrest for us at home. We
should not be at war with our hearts. Take a moment of silence for those who have suffered.
I don't believe our most recent mission in Afghanistan was considered "peacekeepers", as there is
no peace to keep, at the moment.
We went there to work with NATO to help the people of Afghanistan, in their attempt to push back
the Taliban who are trying to return and take power, as they did before.
no peace to keep, at the moment.
We went there to work with NATO to help the people of Afghanistan, in their attempt to push back
the Taliban who are trying to return and take power, as they did before.
Comical Ali or Baghdad Bob was Iraq's infamous information minister.
Here are some memorable quotes as US led forces closed in on Baghdad:
"There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"
"My feelings - as usual - we will slaughter them all"
"Our initial assessment is that they will all die"
Hundreds more absurd commentary here:
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/
Here are some memorable quotes as US led forces closed in on Baghdad:
"There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"
"My feelings - as usual - we will slaughter them all"
"Our initial assessment is that they will all die"
Hundreds more absurd commentary here:
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/
What's the pet name for a man (several actually) who stands up in the U.N. and claims the rationale for invading Iraq is an enormous stockpile of WMDS???? What's the pet name for a man who stands up on CNN and claims "We know where those weapons are..." (Donald Rumsfeld)
What's the pet name for a gang of torturers and social misfits filmed abusing prisoners in Abu Ghraib?"
Haven't we learned from all the wars of mankind that brutality and ihnumanity grows equally among the "civilized" as it does among the "ragheads" and the "nips" "gooks" and "slopes"...?
Who drives the wars that claim millions of lives and turn reservists and regular people into the sadistic torturing inhumane monsters we see with shoulder flashes from America Canada and every where else where all the good people live?????
What's the pet name for a gang of torturers and social misfits filmed abusing prisoners in Abu Ghraib?"
Haven't we learned from all the wars of mankind that brutality and ihnumanity grows equally among the "civilized" as it does among the "ragheads" and the "nips" "gooks" and "slopes"...?
Who drives the wars that claim millions of lives and turn reservists and regular people into the sadistic torturing inhumane monsters we see with shoulder flashes from America Canada and every where else where all the good people live?????
If that's the big concern all we have to do is lock down the road south of Kabul. Last time it was literally SOLD to the Taliban by the local warlord. If, however, we want to tip the balance of power toward the Tajik instead of yielding and returning to traditional feudal boundaries, we're on the right track.
Sounds like he could get a job as a whitehouse spokesperson
or the CDN Minster of Defence... ;-)
>by James Laxer
January 23, 2008
To understand the report by John Manley, you need to take a map of Washington D.C. and one of Brussels (where NATO headquarters is located), and to superimpose these on top of the map of Afghanistan, the country which is supposedly the subject of the report.
The utterly pedestrian character of this report is that it never escapes from the illusion that all political and military reality grows out of the West and that ultimately the West can do what it likes in Afghanistan, if only it summons up sufficient political will.
Manley's advice to Stephen Harper is that he should go to the NATO summit in Bucharest in April with an ultimatum that unless the other NATO countries send an additional thousand soldiers to Kandahar by February 2009 to help the Canadians who are posted there, Canada should terminate its mission in that region. It is this recommendation that gives the Report the appearance of candour and of tough realism.
Canadians, of course, have figured out that this country's commitment to the war is much greater than that of the other NATO allies. On a per capita basis, more Canadians have died in the war than is the case for the soldiers of any other NATO country, and that includes the U.S. and the U.K. Opinion polls show that Canadians want our military effort in the Afghan south ended sooner rather than later.
What is striking about the recommendation that Harper get tough with the allies is that there is nothing new in it. The Americans and the British have been saying the same thing for several years, and so too has the Harper government.
Harper can go to NATO and he can huff and he can puff, but he will not coax much out of France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, and for a rather obvious political reason. Public opinion in those countries is even more set against the war than is the case in Canada. Governments in these countries are much more preoccupied by the economic catastrophe that has been unleashed on the world by the policies of the Bush administration than they are about trying to win the war in Afghanistan launched by the Bush administration in 2001.
One thousand more soldiers in Kandahar won't make much difference to what is happening in Afghanistan. With Pakistan in a state of political upheaval and with the Pashtun regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan unwilling to endure Western occupation, NATO's war in Afghanistan is not winnable. Through the centuries, previous invaders of Afghanistan, including the British and the Russians, have learned that the game there is not worth the candle.
Increasingly, those who have given thought to this are speaking of the need for NATO to stay in Afghanistan, not for years but for decades, if it is to stand any chance of prevailing.
The idea that the Americans and the British are going to be willing to stay and fight for the long term in Afghanistan (whose strategic importance to them is often exaggerated) is a pipe dream. The American appetite for unnecessary military adventures abroad is rapidly diminishing in this hour of economic crisis in the United States.
Informal negotiations have been underway between the Karzai government in Kabul and elements of the Taliban for some time. And why not? The idea that the Karzai regime, which governs according to a constitution rooted in Sharia Law, is strikingly different from much of the Taliban and the Pashtun warlords in its fundamental attitudes to the rights of women, human rights in general and democracy, is another pipe dream.
Of course, this war has never really been about human rights and democracy. The Americans and the British are going to want a compromise peace so they can move on to deal with priorities that matter more to them.
As was the case with previous occupiers of Afghanistan, the Western occupiers will leave behind them a country even more devastated by war than when they arrived, whose people will be even more dependent on the opium trade as their means of survival than before.
James Laxer is an author and a Professor of Political Science at York University in Toronto whose writing on Canadian politics can be read at jameslaxer.com.
January 23, 2008
To understand the report by John Manley, you need to take a map of Washington D.C. and one of Brussels (where NATO headquarters is located), and to superimpose these on top of the map of Afghanistan, the country which is supposedly the subject of the report.
The utterly pedestrian character of this report is that it never escapes from the illusion that all political and military reality grows out of the West and that ultimately the West can do what it likes in Afghanistan, if only it summons up sufficient political will.
Manley's advice to Stephen Harper is that he should go to the NATO summit in Bucharest in April with an ultimatum that unless the other NATO countries send an additional thousand soldiers to Kandahar by February 2009 to help the Canadians who are posted there, Canada should terminate its mission in that region. It is this recommendation that gives the Report the appearance of candour and of tough realism.
Canadians, of course, have figured out that this country's commitment to the war is much greater than that of the other NATO allies. On a per capita basis, more Canadians have died in the war than is the case for the soldiers of any other NATO country, and that includes the U.S. and the U.K. Opinion polls show that Canadians want our military effort in the Afghan south ended sooner rather than later.
What is striking about the recommendation that Harper get tough with the allies is that there is nothing new in it. The Americans and the British have been saying the same thing for several years, and so too has the Harper government.
Harper can go to NATO and he can huff and he can puff, but he will not coax much out of France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, and for a rather obvious political reason. Public opinion in those countries is even more set against the war than is the case in Canada. Governments in these countries are much more preoccupied by the economic catastrophe that has been unleashed on the world by the policies of the Bush administration than they are about trying to win the war in Afghanistan launched by the Bush administration in 2001.
One thousand more soldiers in Kandahar won't make much difference to what is happening in Afghanistan. With Pakistan in a state of political upheaval and with the Pashtun regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan unwilling to endure Western occupation, NATO's war in Afghanistan is not winnable. Through the centuries, previous invaders of Afghanistan, including the British and the Russians, have learned that the game there is not worth the candle.
Increasingly, those who have given thought to this are speaking of the need for NATO to stay in Afghanistan, not for years but for decades, if it is to stand any chance of prevailing.
The idea that the Americans and the British are going to be willing to stay and fight for the long term in Afghanistan (whose strategic importance to them is often exaggerated) is a pipe dream. The American appetite for unnecessary military adventures abroad is rapidly diminishing in this hour of economic crisis in the United States.
Informal negotiations have been underway between the Karzai government in Kabul and elements of the Taliban for some time. And why not? The idea that the Karzai regime, which governs according to a constitution rooted in Sharia Law, is strikingly different from much of the Taliban and the Pashtun warlords in its fundamental attitudes to the rights of women, human rights in general and democracy, is another pipe dream.
Of course, this war has never really been about human rights and democracy. The Americans and the British are going to want a compromise peace so they can move on to deal with priorities that matter more to them.
As was the case with previous occupiers of Afghanistan, the Western occupiers will leave behind them a country even more devastated by war than when they arrived, whose people will be even more dependent on the opium trade as their means of survival than before.
James Laxer is an author and a Professor of Political Science at York University in Toronto whose writing on Canadian politics can be read at jameslaxer.com.
>by Michael Byers
December 19, 2007
Earlier this month, I received an invitation to appear before the "Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan," headed by John Manley.
My initial reaction was positive. For several years, I've worked hard to sound the alarm about flaws in Canada's counterinsurgency mission and our policies on detainees. Speaking to a panel set up by the government would, I thought, provide a useful opportunity for repeating my concerns.
But then I decided to do some research on the panel.
It quickly became apparent that the word "independent" was a misnomer. It would be difficult to find five people more likely to recommend an extension of the mission than Mr. Manley, Derek Burney, Jake Epp, Paul Tellier and Pamela Wallin.
Canada's mission is as much about Canada-U.S. relations as it is about Afghanistan. So it is probably not a coincidence that all the panel members are avowed supporters of close economic and political ties with the United States.
Mr. Manley, as foreign affairs minister, led the post-9/11 effort to convince Washington that Ottawa was serious about border security. More recently, he co-authored a report that advocates a full customs union between the two countries as well as a common security perimeter – supported by much tighter integration between the Canadian and U.S. militaries.
Ms. Wallin, who served as consul general in New York, played a central role in persuading American opinion-makers that Canada was fully supportive of the "war on terror." She now works as a senior adviser to the Council of the Americas, a free trade-promoting organization that counts some of the largest U.S. corporations among its members.
All five of the panel members have been captured by Big Business. Between them, they sit on 19 corporate boards including Nortel and CIBC (Mr. Manley), CTVglobemedia (Ms. Wallin), CanWest Global and TransCanada Pipelines (Mr. Burney).
The panellists seem to share the view that a strong relationship with our southern neighbour is the sine qua non of economic prosperity and therefore Canadian foreign policy, whatever the decisions of the U.S. administration of the day.
Two of the five panel members have close ties to the Canadian defence industry. Mr. Burney served as president of CAE Inc., the largest Canadian-owned military contractor. Mr. Tellier headed up Bombardier when it was heavily involved in training pilots for the Canadian Forces and other NATO countries.
Three of the five are linked to the Conservative party. Mr. Epp was a cabinet minister in Brian Mulroney's government. Mr. Tellier served as clerk of the Privy Council in the same government. Mr. Burney led the transition team after Stephen Harper's January 2006 election victory.
Most worrying, some of the panel members have already expressed clear views on the very issues they have been asked to examine. Just two months ago, in the journal Policy Options, Mr. Manley wrote: "We often seek to define Canada's role in the world. Well, for whatever reason, we have one in Afghanistan. Let's not abandon it too easily."
It cannot be denied that a clear-eyed assessment of Canada's future role in Afghanistan is needed. Seventy-three Canadian soldiers have died, hundreds more have been seriously wounded, and many billions of dollars spent.
But if Mr. Harper really wanted objective advice, he'd have modelled the Manley panel on the Iraq Study Group in the United States.
The ISG was created, and its two co-chairs selected, by a bipartisan group of U.S. congressmen. George W. Bush endorsed the group but did not choose its members.
The members of the Manley panel have been hand-picked by the prime minister.
Logistical and research support for the ISG was provided by an independent think tank, the U.S. Institute for Peace.
The Institute for Peace set up four working groups composed of non-governmental experts from across the political spectrum. It established a "military senior adviser panel" composed of retired rather than serving officers.
The Manley panel is inordinately dependent on the government. Its six-person secretariat is made up of some of the same officials who have been overseeing the Afghanistan mission. Prominent among these are David Mulroney, the current director of the government's Afghanistan Task Force, Sanjeev Chowdhury, the former director of the Afghanistan Task Force, and Col. Mike Cessford, the former deputy commander of the Canadian mission.
The ISG was charged with conducting "a forward-looking, independent assessment of the current and prospective situation on the ground in Iraq, its impact on the surrounding region, and consequences for U.S. interests." In other words, its mandate was drawn in such a way as to encompass all issues and options, including diplomatic ones.
The mandate of the Manley panel has been focused on recommending one of four set options, all of them featuring continuing roles for the military.
Alternative policies, such as negotiating with the Taliban, have been effectively excluded from consideration. So too have the opportunities for non-military responses to the crisis levels of opium production and the lawlessness in northern Pakistan. And little room has been allowed for serious consideration of whether NATO troops should be replaced with UN peacekeepers.
The ISG operated on its own timetable, and chose to delay its report until after the 2006 congressional elections.
In contrast, the Manley panel has been given a deadline of Jan. 31, 2008. This ensures the report will be released before the next election, when it can be used by the Conservatives to buttress their position of extending the counterinsurgency mission for another two years.
So why would Mr. Manley – a Liberal – play into Mr. Harper's hands?
My guess is that he'd feel duty-bound to answer any prime minister's call. Like the many well-intentioned individuals who have agreed to speak to the panel, or submitted written briefs, Mr. Manley wants to make government work.
I suspect it is this intrinsic loyalty to a democratic ideal that Mr. Harper seeks to exploit. He wants the legitimacy that Mr. Manley and other non-Conservatives can provide.
Well, he's not getting any legitimacy from me. Although it pains me to say it, the Manley panel is a sham.
This article originally appeared in the Ottawa Citizen and is reprinted here with the author's permission. Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia.
December 19, 2007
Earlier this month, I received an invitation to appear before the "Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan," headed by John Manley.
My initial reaction was positive. For several years, I've worked hard to sound the alarm about flaws in Canada's counterinsurgency mission and our policies on detainees. Speaking to a panel set up by the government would, I thought, provide a useful opportunity for repeating my concerns.
But then I decided to do some research on the panel.
It quickly became apparent that the word "independent" was a misnomer. It would be difficult to find five people more likely to recommend an extension of the mission than Mr. Manley, Derek Burney, Jake Epp, Paul Tellier and Pamela Wallin.
Canada's mission is as much about Canada-U.S. relations as it is about Afghanistan. So it is probably not a coincidence that all the panel members are avowed supporters of close economic and political ties with the United States.
Mr. Manley, as foreign affairs minister, led the post-9/11 effort to convince Washington that Ottawa was serious about border security. More recently, he co-authored a report that advocates a full customs union between the two countries as well as a common security perimeter – supported by much tighter integration between the Canadian and U.S. militaries.
Ms. Wallin, who served as consul general in New York, played a central role in persuading American opinion-makers that Canada was fully supportive of the "war on terror." She now works as a senior adviser to the Council of the Americas, a free trade-promoting organization that counts some of the largest U.S. corporations among its members.
All five of the panel members have been captured by Big Business. Between them, they sit on 19 corporate boards including Nortel and CIBC (Mr. Manley), CTVglobemedia (Ms. Wallin), CanWest Global and TransCanada Pipelines (Mr. Burney).
The panellists seem to share the view that a strong relationship with our southern neighbour is the sine qua non of economic prosperity and therefore Canadian foreign policy, whatever the decisions of the U.S. administration of the day.
Two of the five panel members have close ties to the Canadian defence industry. Mr. Burney served as president of CAE Inc., the largest Canadian-owned military contractor. Mr. Tellier headed up Bombardier when it was heavily involved in training pilots for the Canadian Forces and other NATO countries.
Three of the five are linked to the Conservative party. Mr. Epp was a cabinet minister in Brian Mulroney's government. Mr. Tellier served as clerk of the Privy Council in the same government. Mr. Burney led the transition team after Stephen Harper's January 2006 election victory.
Most worrying, some of the panel members have already expressed clear views on the very issues they have been asked to examine. Just two months ago, in the journal Policy Options, Mr. Manley wrote: "We often seek to define Canada's role in the world. Well, for whatever reason, we have one in Afghanistan. Let's not abandon it too easily."
It cannot be denied that a clear-eyed assessment of Canada's future role in Afghanistan is needed. Seventy-three Canadian soldiers have died, hundreds more have been seriously wounded, and many billions of dollars spent.
But if Mr. Harper really wanted objective advice, he'd have modelled the Manley panel on the Iraq Study Group in the United States.
The ISG was created, and its two co-chairs selected, by a bipartisan group of U.S. congressmen. George W. Bush endorsed the group but did not choose its members.
The members of the Manley panel have been hand-picked by the prime minister.
Logistical and research support for the ISG was provided by an independent think tank, the U.S. Institute for Peace.
The Institute for Peace set up four working groups composed of non-governmental experts from across the political spectrum. It established a "military senior adviser panel" composed of retired rather than serving officers.
The Manley panel is inordinately dependent on the government. Its six-person secretariat is made up of some of the same officials who have been overseeing the Afghanistan mission. Prominent among these are David Mulroney, the current director of the government's Afghanistan Task Force, Sanjeev Chowdhury, the former director of the Afghanistan Task Force, and Col. Mike Cessford, the former deputy commander of the Canadian mission.
The ISG was charged with conducting "a forward-looking, independent assessment of the current and prospective situation on the ground in Iraq, its impact on the surrounding region, and consequences for U.S. interests." In other words, its mandate was drawn in such a way as to encompass all issues and options, including diplomatic ones.
The mandate of the Manley panel has been focused on recommending one of four set options, all of them featuring continuing roles for the military.
Alternative policies, such as negotiating with the Taliban, have been effectively excluded from consideration. So too have the opportunities for non-military responses to the crisis levels of opium production and the lawlessness in northern Pakistan. And little room has been allowed for serious consideration of whether NATO troops should be replaced with UN peacekeepers.
The ISG operated on its own timetable, and chose to delay its report until after the 2006 congressional elections.
In contrast, the Manley panel has been given a deadline of Jan. 31, 2008. This ensures the report will be released before the next election, when it can be used by the Conservatives to buttress their position of extending the counterinsurgency mission for another two years.
So why would Mr. Manley – a Liberal – play into Mr. Harper's hands?
My guess is that he'd feel duty-bound to answer any prime minister's call. Like the many well-intentioned individuals who have agreed to speak to the panel, or submitted written briefs, Mr. Manley wants to make government work.
I suspect it is this intrinsic loyalty to a democratic ideal that Mr. Harper seeks to exploit. He wants the legitimacy that Mr. Manley and other non-Conservatives can provide.
Well, he's not getting any legitimacy from me. Although it pains me to say it, the Manley panel is a sham.
This article originally appeared in the Ottawa Citizen and is reprinted here with the author's permission. Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia.
Transparent government: When they're being sued.
We don't torture. We just handem over to them what do.
Swing beside Bush, Steve, you prick.
http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/To...rue&newsitemid=CTVNews/20080123/afghan_080123
We don't torture. We just handem over to them what do.
Swing beside Bush, Steve, you prick.
http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/To...rue&newsitemid=CTVNews/20080123/afghan_080123