I don’t get it. Stephane Dion the current liberal leader says the mission must change. I don’t get it. I really don’t. I know the optics of war are bad, but this whole movement from a combat role to a rebuilding role makes next to no sense. No in fact it makes no sense. What is the reason for the change in mission directives? Quicker change in Afghanistan? Less casualties to Canadian troops? Better politicking?

Lets be honest. The only answer is the last one. True change in Afghanistan can only happen when the Taliban is not destroying what you have been building. Its really hard to build a school with people shooting at you, or you build a bridge to have it blown up the next day. Regardless this is an old argument. I think more interesting is to reduce the casualties to Canadian soldiers. The challenge with this argument is that Canadian troops are not dying in combat operations. Look through the headlines and find out how Canadian soldiers are dying. Its road side bombs and suicide bombers. These are actions that attack rebuilding operations! So this is not an option… That leaves? Politicking.

If the only reason to change the mission is optics they you might as well take the incredibly naive JackLaytonesque view of war is bad we should go home, peace is good if we aren’t there there will be no war. *sigh*

The real honest to goodness truth is that Canadians need to take two views. Either we continue with the mission, which means fight when we need to fight, build when we are able to build, and give the country a shot. Or we abandon the Afghani people and go home, we say we don’t really care what is happening in their country because it doesn’t directly affect us.

I honestly see pros and cons to both options, but the whole idea of War vs. Peace seems like something you would hear a 4 year old say.

Share This