War is peace
The likelihood of a Spring election fought over the issue of the war in Afghanistan, though bandied about for a few days, is now rather low. In all likelihood, neither leading party (Liberal or Conservative) liked the prospect of battling over which party's position was more out of touch with Canadian public opinion. (Opinion in Canada has been pretty steady at 55-60% opposed to the war since mid-2006. See the graph here.) So, a compromise is being worked out, likely involving an extension of the mission until 2011 (as per Conservative hopes), with a recast emphasis on training and reconstruction (as Dion's Liberals have envisioned).
In explaining his efforts to reach a compromise with his Liberal foes, Harper deftly articulates a certain bi-partisan mindset:
"It isn't normally my habit to defend the Liberal party," Harper said, explaining that the Liberals sent the country into Afghanistan and directed Canada through the Second World War "because the parties that run this country understand that in a dangerous world, you sometimes have to use force to maintain peace." (link)
1 comment:
... the parties that run this country understand that in a dangerous world, you sometimes have to use force to maintain peace.
Two things in that statement stand out for me. First, when Harper refers to "the parties that run this country", is he (a) sneering at the smaller parties denied much influence in parliament because of our first-past-the-post system? (b) admitting that the Liberals and Conservatives aren't so different after all? (c) sneering at the Canadian public, who clearly don't "run this country"? (d) all of the above.
Second, the reference to using force "to maintain peace" is disingenuous. Nobody claims it's a peacekeeping mission.
Post a Comment