Compare this excerpt of the Manley panel's report:
... to this journal article he published three months ago, before he was asked to head the panel:
For all the reinforced prejudice of its findings, I think the report could indeed be seen as a compromise. Whereas Dion's saying "pull out and force an international rotation," and Harper's saying "stay indefinitely," Manley et. al. are saying "step up the international effort by 1000 troops and stay indefinitely, or pull out."
A pullout isn't without risk. It puts the Netherlands in an even more difficult position and could ignite a domino of withdrawals. But if NATO can't find the 1,000 troops Manley says it needs, as Dion and Manely have both pointed out, this "international effort" might conclusively be seen, sadly, as an exercise in futility.
***Update***
I want to give credit where it's due. Kelly McParland, Politics Editor of the National Post, defied his CanWest brandname and did some great analysis on this, saying that the "Manley report spreads chaos in Punditland." Everyone seems to have interpreted the report based on their preconceived bias:
"So you got that? This is a disaster for Dion, except when it’s bad news for Harper. It’s more of the same, except where it’s a call for change. There aren’t any real solutions, though it’s just what the troops have been demanding"
Whenever we asked Afghans what they thought ISAF or Canada should do, there was never any hesitation: “We want you to stay; we need you to stay.” Without the presence of the international security forces, they said, chaos would surely ensue.
... to this journal article he published three months ago, before he was asked to head the panel:
Whenever we asked Afghans what they thought ISAF or Canada should do, they did not hesitate to say that we must stay. Without the presence of the international forces, chaos would surely ensue.Feels a bit like a smack in the face, doesn't it? Thanks to TSR for some pretty good digging.
For all the reinforced prejudice of its findings, I think the report could indeed be seen as a compromise. Whereas Dion's saying "pull out and force an international rotation," and Harper's saying "stay indefinitely," Manley et. al. are saying "step up the international effort by 1000 troops and stay indefinitely, or pull out."
A pullout isn't without risk. It puts the Netherlands in an even more difficult position and could ignite a domino of withdrawals. But if NATO can't find the 1,000 troops Manley says it needs, as Dion and Manely have both pointed out, this "international effort" might conclusively be seen, sadly, as an exercise in futility.
***Update***
I want to give credit where it's due. Kelly McParland, Politics Editor of the National Post, defied his CanWest brandname and did some great analysis on this, saying that the "Manley report spreads chaos in Punditland." Everyone seems to have interpreted the report based on their preconceived bias:
"So you got that? This is a disaster for Dion, except when it’s bad news for Harper. It’s more of the same, except where it’s a call for change. There aren’t any real solutions, though it’s just what the troops have been demanding"
Labels: Afghanistan, John Manley, Stephane Dion, Stephen Harper
1 Comments:
Manley yes, but I like it too
The Report of the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan is a triumph. It is a Triumph of the Will of the New Canadian government.
But more importantly, it is a Triumph of the Spirit of Canadian bi-partisanship - a Liberal and Conservatives coming together to defeat a common enemy in time of war.
Not the Taliban but another fanatical cult that is a greater threat to the Canadian military -- the pacifist cabal of Liberal leader Quasimodo, Bloc Cheesehead and the Moustache that Roared. When will these fanatics wake up to the fact that sometimes you just have to kill poor people to help them, it's the only humane thing to do.
...read more at www.notstephenharper.com
Post a Comment
<< Home