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.