Apolitical Staples

Given Canadian troop levels, and the need to train the expected new recruits, isn’t it an either-or situation, except for token contributions?

What I am trying to say is that the ‘or’ of Sudan may never even be asked.

This whole Darfur issue is very bothersome from many perspectives. The most bothersome aspect - apart from the ongoing killing - is the way the opposition parties play politics with this issue. I hope that Mr. Harper soon finds a way to call them on it.

It is a difficult issue for Harper because he knows that the Liberals were told by Hillier that they could do both, when they were in power.

Doesnt matter if canada can do both. The UN wont authorize a force, and Sudan doesnt want them.

We could have our whole army sitting here shovelling snow in Toronto and it still wouldnt matter at all if the UN and Sudan dont change their minds.

“It is a difficult issue for Harper because he knows that the Liberals were told by Hillier that they could do both…”

Is there confirmation of that, Greg? I thought it just came from an “unidentified source” - has Hillier or the Minister of Defense commented? Have the Liberals made a statement for attribution?

I’m not doubting you - I just haven’t seen it.

The genocide in Sudan has been going on for three years.

WHERE were the headlines for the Liberals to DO something there as they were engaging our troops to stop the genocide and torture and murder of citizens in Afghanistan.

Both serious issues - neither can be ignored - but it would seem that along with gutting our military the Liberals just kept their heads down on Sudan and hoped it would go away.

The media helped - no big headlines; no media polls on Sudan back then.

No Jack Layton screaming; no Bloc ….only poor David Kilgour who was treated like a loony tune for trying to get us to focus on Sudan. And then martin made some feeble undoable promise to Kilgour to bribe his vote while also bribing Belinda and trying to bribe Inky Mark and the Grewals amongst others.

He was making life and death decisions without parliamentary consultations for strictly partisan political power reasons - as usual.

Let’s put the onus back where it belongs here and not let the media get away with ignoring the Liberal’s despicable handling of this file.

I would like to suggest to Jim Travers that he be part of the peacekeeping mission in Sudan. Maybe his journalistic skills would improve then.

I see that the Iraq debacle has not dampened the enthusiasm for regime change in certain quarters.

The regime in Sudan is probably the best you can get. The fighting around Darfur - orchestrated by the govt backed militias or Janjaweed - is basically a tribal/ethnic battle.

There has recently been a peace treaty, and now would be a good time for NATO to provide air cover and/or logistics for the AU ground troops. Canada could provide armed escorts for the relief agencies, for example.

Afghanistan & Darfur are not an either/or case. However, sooner or later, NATO needs to ask a very important question: what exactly does it hope to achieve in Afghanistan, and for how long can they defer an entente cordiale with the non-Mullah Omar (i.e. majority) factions of the Talibans. Remember: the Talibans were (and still are) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Pakistani ISI, with substantial financial support from Saudi Arabia. Repressive and medieval as they were, they did bring stability to the region and eliminated the opium farming (which is now flourishing again). A limited NATO air & special forces presence should be sufficient to prevent another Al Qaeda commune from sprouting, of which there are many now in Iraq anyway.

If you read the independent coverage from Afghanistan - long overshadowed by the grotesque soap opera that is Iraq - you will find that the Karzai administration is really only in charge of Kabul. The rest of the country is under the control of various warlords, some of whom are friends of Iran, Uzbekistan, Russia, and in the S/W border along Pakistan, the Taliban.

I would, therefore, pose a different question. What exactly is NATO doing in Afghanistan today, and what should it be doing in the future? Canada could take a lead role in framing that question within the context of our military commitments.

“cb”, I cannot accept what you call stability.

Actually I am not interested in stability at all. What I want is peace. And without freedom there is no peace.

Poorly reasoned argument GS. What would you suggest NATO do next - invade China? North Korea? Zimbabwe?

Governance is not a graduate seminar where we can cogitate ad infinitum in an air-conditioned room on peace and freedom. It is about making choices, and seeing and dealing with things as they are - not as you wish them to be.

Reality v fantasy. Truth v fiction. Real people die when we allow ourselves the luxury to wallow in fantasy and fiction.

And real people die when we wallow in stability. What’s your point? But I do agree that regime change won’t work everywhere. China? Work from the inside to introduce freedom. North Korea - their “stability” will destroy their country from the inside. Zimbabwe - good candidate for another “never again” intervention.

Allison - great post and great idea - you are completely right in saying that Darfur has been going on for years and only now the opposition and the MSM start screaming for something to be done!.

Jimbo - time to own up to your own partisan slip ups - you and your colleagues missed the boat on this one by not making the kind of demands you now direct to the Tories!.

Shame on you!

Sorry Deaner, I agree with you about the source, but the government has not denied it so I would assume the Liberals could produce one if needed. Interesting though. If the Libs are lying and get caught. :)