Dion: "As long as we don't solve the problem in Pakistan, I don't see how we can solve it in Afghanistan."
Read it again - this analysis might not jive with the childish "pro-war" or "anti-war" verbal vomit spewing forth from bloggers everywhere, but there is nothing ambiguous about it whatsoever.
The logic which follows goes like this: if what we are doing in Afghanistan is burdened by futility due to the porous border with Pakistan, it seems perfectly sensible to suggest some kind cooperative diplomatic strategy with Pakistan.
"The point of Mr. Dion's comment was to say that Canada wants NATO to work diplomatically with Pakistan to ensure Pakistan is part of the solution in the region, Mr. Coderre said."
Why isn't this "shift in strategy" coming from NATO officials? Why are there no NATO replacements to speak of? Frankly, because NATO is an ineffective, wasteful dinosaur of an organization that is paralyzed by nationalism and pettiness of its members.
Canada need not be manipulated into submission by NATO, exploited by the international community, or treated like an international janitor - one that spends its time mopping up the floor rather than plugging the leak.
(Obama made simlar comments a few months back - though alluding to military action - and was similarly chided before the establishment came around a few months later.)
Read it again - this analysis might not jive with the childish "pro-war" or "anti-war" verbal vomit spewing forth from bloggers everywhere, but there is nothing ambiguous about it whatsoever.
The logic which follows goes like this: if what we are doing in Afghanistan is burdened by futility due to the porous border with Pakistan, it seems perfectly sensible to suggest some kind cooperative diplomatic strategy with Pakistan.
"The point of Mr. Dion's comment was to say that Canada wants NATO to work diplomatically with Pakistan to ensure Pakistan is part of the solution in the region, Mr. Coderre said."
Why isn't this "shift in strategy" coming from NATO officials? Why are there no NATO replacements to speak of? Frankly, because NATO is an ineffective, wasteful dinosaur of an organization that is paralyzed by nationalism and pettiness of its members.
Canada need not be manipulated into submission by NATO, exploited by the international community, or treated like an international janitor - one that spends its time mopping up the floor rather than plugging the leak.
(Obama made simlar comments a few months back - though alluding to military action - and was similarly chided before the establishment came around a few months later.)
Labels: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Stephane Dion
2 Comments:
James, you approach Dion's Pakistan thoughts from the same bewildered perspective he uses. You see it from the point of policy which conveniently omits both tactical and strategic issues. People have been fighting to control this region for centuries. Going back to Alexander, if you like, which invader/conqueror would you wish us to emulate? How many troops will this take and for how long? Where are we to find this force and who will back it? Once you remove the question out of the realm of the policy wonk there's utterly nothing even remotely coherent in Dion's proposal.
Did I say something about invading or conquering? Did Dion?
You seem to have just practiced the very same flawed assumptions I warned of.
Bewildered indeed.
At least you've got the wisdom of history on your side - thanks for educating this lowly, unwashed, illiterate bottom-feeder.
I thought someone with your wits would steer clear of the Bush-style black-and-white for-or-against nonsense that I just pointed to.
Or did I mis-read you? The bewilderment setting in again.
Did they have nuclear weapons in the region back then, too? Teach me.
Perhaps, were I the invading war-monger you're making me out to be, I'd emulate you in hopes of tempering my chauvinistic tendencies.
What happened to all the Afghanis, anyway? Do they still live there? Surely Afghanistan is a Canadian province by now?
Post a Comment
<< Home