dndtalk.com/wordpress/?page_id=233
We don't talk enough about Canada's contributions to fight against terrorism. Specifically fighting Al-Queda in Afghanistan (in the southern and eastern provinces of Kandahar, Helmand, Kunar, Kost, Paktia and Paktika*). The above link gives readers a complete run down of our operations. Stephen Harper is often depicted as a puppet of the United States. It's plain wrong. Harper simply understands the stakes - call it the historian in him. For Canadians who feel that our troops should be called back it should be reminded that Canada is a popular destination for terrorists. We are involved even if we don't want to come to terms with it. Even the Liberals understood this much. I prefer to view Harper as leading this country. I don't have to agree with someone to respect him.
There was no such leadership under the Liberals. Even now they babble without a clue. Chretien didn't lead he pandered. He was more Mackenzie King in his waffling than Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
America's decision to combat terrorism is legitimate. They were correct in identifying the problem. The question is whether they have found the proper solutions. The reality is that Iraq was a reluctant theater in the wider battle against terrorism. Al-Queda most certainly saw it this way. Maybe Afghanistan wasn't the sole country to deal with. The idea of a democratic society bordering Iran and other dictatorships in the regime is a tempting notion. It's also been a divisive (necessary?) distraction. That's my interpretation. But why did America choose Iraq? Disassociate yourself from your political allegiance and think about that for a second. Or can the answer only be answered through the prisms of partisanship?
My only concern is that America becomes trapped in a situation between fighting bandits and neglecting to keep an eye on nation-states. The nation-state is not dead after all. We should not forget that Russia is far more capable of inflicting damage on the U.S. on a massive scale than any terrorist organization. China remains a communist state on steroids. Another concern is the erosion of America's air force. It is the American Air Force that had given America its decisive edge over all nations. Now its tanker fleets need to be upgraded.
As for the wider geopolitical angle, behind the scenes it's hard to believe that China, Russia and India aren't supporting the United States. With their own problems and skirmishes with Islamic militants, I suspect that they are riding America's tail. In fact, many Arabs were also glad to see Saddam go. They too had recognized the rise of Islamic terrorism as a threat to their religion and respective governments. Only they were paralyzed to fight it. It doesn't help that the Arab world both appreciates and resents the Americans at the same time. America is taking the heat for countries who quite frankly want to rid themselves of the same scourge. Ask any major nation in private if they feel America is morally wrong in fighting terrorism. I'm willing to bet this blog the answer is no.
It all adds up to Canada doing its part.
*billroggio.com
"But why did America choose Iraq?"
ReplyDeleteThe first name for Bush's unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq was
"OPERATION IRAQI LIBERATION"
It was changed because the acronym it spawned answered your rhetorical question.
Hardly rhetorical. Foreign Policy listed 19 reasons a couple of years back different officials in the upper echelons of American power used. Something a little complex took place. They settled on one - WMD. They were convinced of this and probably thought they could go with the people with this one. It was the eassiest to "sell." It was not crazy to go with this.
ReplyDeleteIt was not only crazy, it was unlawful.
ReplyDelete