By Barbara Yaffe, Vancouver Sun
The only question to be asked about Gordon O'Connor's cross-country spin job on Canada's participation in the war in Afghanistan is "what the heck took him so long?"
The Harper government acted bass-ackwards on the military offensive -- not surprising because Conservatives have shown bad instincts from Day 1 on military ventures.
When the party, in Opposition, should have embraced the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defence system in February 2005, it demurred, pandering to misguided public opinion.
The Harperites feared alienating the anti-American crowd and sending voters into the arms of Liberals who chose to nix the venture rather than pursue a worthy policy; why would Canada have refused a no-cost offer of cooperation with the U.S. in a bid to protect the northern part of the continent from missiles that one day could be fired by some rogue nation or other?
Incidentally, on May 12, the Harper government adjusted its stand and more logically mused about allowing a free vote in Parliament on BMD.
Admittedly with the benefit of hindsight, it's now clear that Opposition Conservatives also erred in advocating the sending of Canadian troops to Iraq. While Harper won't admit it today, in 2003 he argued that Canada was letting down its American allies by refusing to join the battle to topple Saddam Hussein.
It was Liberals who opted to join the Afghanistan offensive, with the tacit approval of the Opposition Conservatives. Notably, then-PM Jean Chretien acted unilaterally and without seeking any public mandate for the initiative.
Then, this past spring, the Harper government precipitously called a snap vote in the Commons to extend the mission. A narrow yea vote resulted in Canadian troops being posted to Afghanistan an extra two years beyond the original commitment, until 2009.
Canadians who noticed were taken aback.
Harper appears now to recognize the folly of his political course. Yes, he won the Commons vote, but without proper debate and without winning over public opinion.
As Canadians began dying in Afghanistan, people became disenchanted and the troops have been left serving without sufficient moral support from the home front.
From the start, legitimate points were there to be made in favour of participating in the mission. But the public never heard them because of Harper's lack of political sensitivity.
The assignment was sanctioned by the United Nations because Afghanistan is a failed state that has a documented history of being used as a terrorist training base. Obviously, it's in Canada's own security interests to have soldiers helping the cause of rebuilding the country and defeating the Taliban.
(Whether our troops are going about the task in the correct way is a topic for a separate debate.) Yet, to date, all Harper has offered Canadians to justify the heavy lifting in Kandahar has been a glib statement about refusing to cut and run.
And so, an October poll showed more than half of Canadians consider the price too high for Canadian participation.
Now, at this late date, O'Connor -- unfortunately one of cabinet's less convincing orators -- is being dispatched on a special cross-Canada tour to make a pitch for continued Canadian participation in Afghanistan. He was in Vancouver Tuesday.
All that can be said about the O'Connor venture is, better late than never.
It's to be hoped the Harper government will develop some expertise in leading public opinion on military matters instead of just exercising power and implementing policy. Because it's clear this government has differing intentions with respect to Canadian security and force deployment.
A 2006 assessment by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies Annual Review of World Affairs has this to say about Canada's defence strategy: "There is a growing consensus in Ottawa that Canada's international role has suffered as a result of a haphazard approach to the hard-power foundations of its security and defence policy.
"The return of the Conservatives to government has resulted in a higher priority being placed on defence and in particular on hard power."
Let's hope the Harperites at last are recognizing the best place to begin discussing and consulting on such a marked adjustment of priorities is in Parliament and community halls across the country.
