Oh Gordon, please don't.

Summary: Asking tough questions about Afghanistan does not mean being “against the troops.”

Let me qualify this post by first of all stating that I don’t go out of my way to make comparisons between the Harper administration and the Bush administration. Harper is much smarter than Bush, a lot less sinister, and would never receive a mandate from the electorate to remake Canada in America’s image.

Nevertheless, the current Defence Minister and former lobbyist for the whose-who of the military contractors, Gordon O’Conner, called the NDP “anti-military” when Jack Layton asked a fair enough question, “What are the goals and objectives of the mission and how do they meet our foreign-policy objectives? What is the mandate, what is the defined concept of operations, what is the effective command and control structure, what are the rules of engagement?”

How the hell does the Defence Minister qualify that question as being anti-military? Has the minister of defence been taking cues from White House briefings? I can think of nothing that sounds more Bushesque, and if the Conservatives want to avoid the Bush comparison, they’ll hold back on the ‘you’re with us or against us’ attitude. With comments like this, there is no wonder that Harper doesn't want his ministers to speak without checking with him first.

First of all, let’s be honest for a minute about why we are in Afghanistan in the first place: Canada didn’t want to appear ‘soft’ on the ‘war on terror,’ and so we volunteered to place our soldiers in harms way in order to allow America to free up some soldiers to continue on with its voyages in Iraq. (on a side note, I am hoping that I’ll be deployed to some place warm in the Caribbean as part of Canada’s contribution to the ‘war on drugs’, where I can patrol the beaches and inspect the piña colada vendors.)

Second, if we are going to stay in Afghanistan, we have to know what we are there to do and if we have the resources to do it. The said objective is nation-building, which became a goal after the United States invaded Afghanistan and setup a ‘democratic’ government that is trying to find its legs. In order for the Karzai government to gain legitimacy, it must establish “a monopoly on the use of force,” and so Canada is providing security and attempting to weed out the remainder of the Taliban.

The goal is noble in itself, but if we are going to place our soldiers in harms way we have to know whether or not those ordering the mission are actually dedicated to seeing it through. Has America forgot about Afghanistan after becoming distracted by Iraq? Does the coalition of nations fighting in Afghanistan have the time and money to actually turn that country into a prosperous democracy?

If America and its allies, including Canada, are not committed to seeing the mission through than there is no purpose in Canada putting soldiers in harms way, as we are simply wasting time and lives before Afghanistan is allowed to return to a narco-state and terrorist hideout. Making such a statement does not qualify as being anti-military; instead, caring for the well-being of soldiers should be our top priority, and sometimes this requires asking questions concerning the mandate the government has established for the mission. If all the parties in parliament agree with and are dedicated to the mission and the mandate, there will be no need for future debate in parliament. Until the government explains its position and brings about consensus, it should expect to have to answer to both the opposition, the media, and the Canadian people.

Asking questions of the government is not anti-military; however, refusing to answer them is anti-democratic.

What a Liberal Wants

Liberals have to ask themselves what they want before deciding on any candidate.

The race to lead the Liberal Party is starting to heat up, and as the Globe and Mail reported this mourning, a number of tiers are starting to take form. That is not to say the race is a foregone conclusion: there is still time for someone to come out of the woodwork, or for an also-ran to impress the Liberal masses and make him/herself a serious contender.

Before people start lining up behind candidates, it is probably time for the Liberal party members to ask themselves an important question: what kind of mandate does the next leader of the Liberal party have? Are the Liberals planning on unseating the Tories in the next election, or are they looking torwards building for the future? Once that question is decided it will become a lot easier to qualify what qualities the Liberals need in a future leader.

In an ideal world, the Liberals would fine an experienced, bilingual, female, Albertan to lead them into an election. Many liberals realize that in order to stay on top they have to make their party appear less Toronto-centric, or at least Central-Canada centric. Since said candidate doesn’t appear to be on the horizon, who is the next best thing?

The problem with the two obvious front-runners, Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae, is that no Air Canada jetliner exists with a cargo-hold big enough to carry all of their baggage. Rae will not be able to escape the fact that he was the worst premier of Ontario in recent memory. Granted, not all of that was his fault, but it’s a quick and easy thing to say, stick on a bumper sticker, or throw into a commercial.

Ignatieff suffers from being unknown outside of universities and not very well liked withn them. Ignatieff by all means should be the candidate of young liberals, as young people will naturally gravitate towards people who they are familiar with their environment. The problem is that few trust him because of his support for the Iraq war and dodgy comments on the use of torture. Ignatieff may try to state that he bore less responsibility than a head of state in backing the Bush administration, but as a public intellectual he has to be held accountable for creating an ideological launching pad for a reckless administration. Ignatieff could have easily said, “I would support a removal of Saddam Hussein, but not one that is illegal.” The problem is though, he didn’t. He lined up behind the Bush administration, and few are going to easily forget or forgive. Furthermore, let’s not forget that the man spent the past 30 years living abroad, only to come home to run for office. As Jeffery Simpson pointed out on Saturday, would any other country permit a man to pull off such an act? Could you envision an American living in the U.K. for 30 years, only to return for the democratic primaries? I doubt it!

The one candidate who I am starting to like more and more is former Ontario Education minister Gerard Kennedy. At first I thought it was rather presumptuous for a minister in a provincial government to think he could run and win the Federal Liberal Leadership, but the more I read about him the more I think he could in fact be the man for the job.

There are many reasons why I think he could be the candidate to watch. First of all, although he’s currently a resident of Ontario, his roots are in the west. Second, his background includes a lot of social work, which is always a plus for politicians who want to portray themselves as connected to the average Canadian. Thirdly, he’s bilingual. Finally, if he as popular in Ontario as everyone says he is, he could very well reverse the trend in that province towards Stephen Harper. By keeping Ontario from turning Tory blue, the Liberals could at least manage to hold the Conservatives to a minority government for quite some time. Finally, he is young enough that even if the Liberals loose the next election, come the next one he still wont be receiving CPP. The more time Canadians have to get to know him the better.

Lastly, I want to say that I think Belinda Stronach made the right decision in staying out of the race. Unlike others who will run just so that the rest of us don’t forget who they are, Belinda does not have that need. She can take the next 8-10 years to develop into a solid, bilingual candidate with extensive parliamentary experience. In the meantime, I applaud her efforts to change the way Liberals elect their leaders. I wish her the best of luck.

The Belinda Factor

The Belinda Factor:

Summary: Does Belinda really have what it takes to be the leader of the Liberal party?

Belinda Stronach, to no-one’s surprise, is thinking about making a run for the Liberal leadership. Unless Michael Ignatieff is struck with a horrifying bout of diphtheria, Bob Rae vanishes in a mysterious skydiving accident, and Scott Brison is consumed by a pack of fierce wolves, she most certainly will not win. In my mind, the Liberal party would have to get pretty desperate for a leader, or very pessimistic about its future chances, to choose Belinda to lead it into the next election.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe it is high time Canada proved itself a civilized, progressive nation by ELECTING a woman as Prime Minister (Kim Campbell’s summer job as PM hardly counts). But is Belinda really the best we can do?

First of all, Belinda speaks French like an 8th grade late immersion student (late immersion often begins at grade 6 or 7), and I think we all agree that, this day in age, bilingualism is a necessary part of the job description. Recently a reporter asked her in French if she was going to run for the leadership. Belinda asked for the question to be repeated. Do you get my drift?

Secondly, Belinda has hardly proven herself in political life. In fact, she’s brought nothing but bad luck for the Liberal party. Her first act was to bring about the gay marriage between the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives. The child of that gay marriage was a united opposition determined to end Liberal hegemony. Belinda then switched to the Liberal Party, became a cabinet minister, and the party lost for the first time in 13 years.

Even as a parliamentarian and a cabinet minister, Belinda has impressed few. She’s spent less time speaking in the house of commons than most back benchers, and she’s yet to convince anyone that she has a firm grasp of the many different issues facing the future of our country. During her failed attempt to lead the united Conservatives, Belinda spoke often about “new ideas” and “fresh leadership,” but she never really got around to discussing what either of those would entail.

Finally, the other reason why I feel she needs to prove herself as a parliamentarian has to do with the fact that many doubt her career in the private sector has come about due to her natural talent. Sure, Magda Autoparts is very successful, but so long as people remember it was her father’s company to begin with, few are willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, if Belinda wants to be taken seriously she’ll have to prove that she is good at SOMETHING that the rest of us can observe and say, “you know, she’s right, she is good at that!” Maybe she’s a good Soccer player; maybe she’s a world renowned Urdu poet; or maybe she makes a mean lasagna, for the love of all that is true and sacred tell me you’re accomplished at SOMETHING and make me believe it!

Maybe I’m cynical, but I can’t help but think that Belinda’s failure to buy success in Canadian politics proves that in our democracy substance still prevails over style. With her millions of dollars and important connections, Belinda has been able to hire well informed advisors and coaches, all with the goal of turning her into a sincere and plausible leader. So far their efforts have yet to produce results, and unless Belinda manages to turn things around quickly, I hardly think she’ll succeed as the leader of any party.