Posted on 01/23/2008 2:47:20 AM PST by Clive
Manley report invokes the spirit of Pearson
Comment: Manley's message aimed at Stephane Dion
John Ivison, National Post
John Manley was asked Tuesday if his panel's report on Canada's future in Afghanistan was consistent with Liberal tradition. He was about to blow off the question, when he seemed to think again.
As a Liberal shorn of his party gag, Mr. Manley let rip and gave an impassioned defence of the report's findings, invoking the spirit of Lester B. Pearson as the "father" of U.N.-authorized interventions in war zones.
"Absolutely this is in the Liberal tradition," the party's former deputy leader thundered. "I think that countries like Canada have an important, meaningful role to play in protecting our values, standing up for the rights of individuals [and for] the human security of people whose government can't protect them -- that's something we as Canadians have talked a lot about."
The journalist who asked the question was about to pose his supplementary but Mr. Manley was in mid-stride. "We're a rich country, we've got to do some of this stuff ... The world isn't a pretty place but I happen to believe that the people who came before me in the Liberal party believed in a strong role for Canada on the international stage and would say there are times when we have to be counted, times when it matters." He concluded his extraordinary outburst by almost whispering, "that's what I think."
Journalists looked at each other, wondering at whom the tirade was aimed. A read of the report makes it clear -- Stéphane Dion.
The Liberal leader emerged from his caucus meeting in Kitchener to reaffirm his stance that his party wants the combat mission to end when the current mandate runs out in February, 2009.
But the Manley report dismisses that as an "artificial deadline," saying there is "no operational logic" for choosing it as an end date.
What's more, the report is clear that to withdraw from a combat role, in favour of training Afghan forces as Mr. Dion advocates, "falsely implies a clear line between training roles and combat activity; in reality, training and mentoring sometimes mean conducting combat operations with them."
Mr. Dion doesn't appear to have much wiggle room but if he was half the politician Mr. Manley is, he would clasp that statement close and say that's what he meant all along -- combat if necessary but not necessarily combat.
Liberal deputy leader Michael Ignatieff went some way toward that position on Monday, when he told Canwest News there was room in the Liberal stance to accept a continued presence in Kandahar for training. He artfully suggested Mr. Manley is "not in the status quo business" -- implying he would dump on the government's handling of the war, and favour the Liberal alternative.
That's certainly one way of interpreting what was released Tuesday. But a more accurate reading would to say it is a complete and utter repudiation of the Liberal policy on Afghanistan under Mr. Dion, who looks increasingly like a cork bobbing on a torrent he cannot control.
Mr. Dion believes that rotating out of Kandahar should not be seen as abandoning the Afghans or NATO. But Mr. Manley and his colleagues are clear that an abrupt departure of Canadians troops, without new allied forces taking their place, would trigger a security collapse and damage Canada's reputation as a trustworthy ally.
The panel is hopeful that, with the addition of more troops and new equipment, the Canadian objective of building an Afghanistan where the government can protect its own people is achievable.
The report says there is no clear consensus when the Afghan police and army will achieve sufficient size and competence, but that between now and 2011 we should see a gradual transition where lead responsibility for security transfers from Western forces to the Afghans. This should lead to a "rapid reduction" of Canada's military contribution, the report concludes.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper should have no trouble endorsing Mr. Manley's findings. Mr. Dion may decide to make the report an election issue and refute its recommendations, on the basis that public opinion polls suggest most Canadians want out of Afghanistan.
If he does, he should beware. Mr. Manley said yesterday that in his experience people don't necessarily vote according to their opinions on any given issue; rather, they vote for the party that is best prepared to handle those issues.
Mr. Manley inferred that Mr. Dion's political ancestors will be raging in their graves at his current course and there are members of his caucus who feel he has boxed himself into the 2009 corner. If Liberals can't agree to back their leader when Canadian lives are at stake, why should anyone else?
-
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.