The post brought up the topic of political correctness, and I’m confident in suggesting that a sizable chunk of our readership here at The Politic will claim an antipathy towards political correctness. Much of conservatism has prided itself in being politically incorrect, as have I, at times – which is why I wrote such a politically incorrect post.One of the greatest political taboos is to not Support Our Troops. They are, we hear, fighting for Canada – defending our freedom. We owe our liberty, we are told, to those who fought and died in World Wars. They did, no doubt, fight and die in service of their country, but it is politically correct balderdash to claim that they fought defending Canada.

We have not been in Afghanistan for ten years defending Canada. Operation Desert Shield was not a defense of Lethbridge or Sarnia or Cornerbrook. We did not go to Bosnia because of some existential threat to Canada. In fact, dressing up all these operations in “our troops are defending Canada” rhetoric is horribly xenophobic. We are not in Afghanistan to protect Canadians; we are there to protect Afghanis. Using Defending Canada as a justification for such a military action tells us that we only believe that Canadian lives are worthy of the sacrifice. When we talk erroneously about our mission, we are saying that the lives of Afghanis are second rate and not worth the blood of one Canadian.

But the idea that all of our military adventures have been to Defend Canada has ventured into the absurd. In that post, reader dmorris writes:

Guns don’t frighten kids,they know exactly what guns do from their experiences with video games and movies/TV,but they should learn that our “men with guns” are what saved this Country from a holocaust beyond imagining,and there is NO excuse for hiding that fact from immigrants,adult of child. [sic all around]

Just what holocaust did the Princess Pats save us from? There was no imminent concern of the holocaust spreading to Canada. In fact, we sent Jews back to the holocaust. We were complicit. And when we weren’t turning away persecuted Jews, we were setting up our own internment camps for Japanese Canadians.

The idea that all Canadian soldiers everywhere are fighting and dying for us is bogus. They are serving their country, but that doesn’t mean they are defending it. It is politically correct to play along with the lie, but I’m not going to do it. The men and women stationed in Afghanistan are not protecting Canadians (other than each other); they are trying to protect Afghanis. It seems insulting to demand that we all misrepresent the nature of their mission.

I know I’m smashing at a hornet’s nest here. I know that many Canadians have bought into the Defending Our Freedom mantra, but it’s simply not true, and I’m tired of trying to be politically correct about it.

Soweto alone had more cars, taxis, schools, churches and sport facilities than most independent countries in Africa. The Blacks of South Africa had more private vehicles than the entire white population of the USSR at the time.

Today Soweto has modern shopping malls like, Dobsonville Shopping Centre. In 2005 the Protea Gardens Mall opened. This was followed by the Baramall Shopping Centre and the Jabulani Shopping complex and the Maponya Mall. Experts say that Soweto has as much as 25% oversupply of retail space.

— like, these are all universally good things?

So what if they have all the toys, the jobs, the schools and the playgrounds? This insane outlook from Chris Kritzinger seems to assume the unknowable. Namely:
1) the black people could not have done the exact same things for themselves
2) all of the black people want all of this stuff
3) forcing natives to conform to a western lifestyle of trinkets and gadgets is good
4) trinkets and gadgets are enough to ignore the hardship, misery and out-right theft endured by black South Africans
5) maybe the black people would be happy enough with the peace of being left alone all these years even without trinkets

This demonic idea that Blacks should be grateful to the Whites deserves to be smothered. It is insane. It is cruel. It is selfish. It is wrong.

The Grits released two new television ads Friday, with the tagline: “Is this your Canada or Harper’s?”

One takes aim at the Conservative government’s decision to sole source the new generation of fighter jets, at a cost of $16-billion. The other targets the government’s move to reduce corporate taxes.

Except of course it was the Liberal Party of Canada that first signed onto the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program in 2002.

In addition to that history lesson lets see what the Liberal Party had to say in 2008  about corporate tax cuts:

“We will accelerate and deepen the currently planned corporate tax cuts, reducing the general corporate tax rate by an additional one per cent within four years. That means the federal corporate tax rate in Canada will be only 14 per cent by the 2012.” – Liberal press release, June 19, 2008

Now, with any change, there’s some apprehension. That’s natural. But as Commander-in-Chief, I am certain that we can effect this transition in a way that only strengthens our military readiness; that people will look back on this moment and wonder why it was ever a source of controversy in the first place.

I doubt it. Allowing homosexuals in the military probably will not make a difference. This will all go out like a whimper.

You have to wonder how it could be that for decades, so many young men were willing to run away from their friends and family to live in close quarters with complete strangers of the same sex while risking their lives.

I took the liberty of calmly telling her what I thought.

I told her that thousands of young men were sent off a hundred years ago to die in support of a lie. I told her that generations and generations of Canadians were taught that Canadians were under threat and that was a lie. I told her that Canadians were not under any threat in the First World War. I told her that I was tired of military history repeating itself. I told her that thousands of young women and families suffered grievously solely for financial gain of a select elite group of money grubbing liars. I told her that I have a lot of compassion for the military veterans and the ones who died in support of lies.

I told her that we continue those lies. I told her that we do not need as much oil as we pretend to need. I told her I will continue to wear my white poppy proudly. Then, she asked me if I wanted to pay 0.05$ extra for a plastic bag and I declined. I carried my loaf of bread out of the store in my hands instead of wasting a bloody recyclable petroleum product.

UPDATE (Wednesday, November 10th):
Last night, at the beer store, the kid at the counter asked me what the white poppy represents. I told him it means different things to different people and to me, it means that we have been taught a pack of lies concerning the First World War and that thousands of young men died for greed. His reply: “Yeah, well, we had to fight Hitler.” and shook his head. Yeah, well, I guess I missed that class in high school.

I just do not understand what the big deal is about throwing a grenade at a soldier during a war. If killing a soldier at war is considered murder and a war crime, surely the Western world has gone mad.

“We will not back down from our principles that form the basis of our great country, and we will continue to pursue them on the international stage,” Cannon said. “Some would even say that, because of our attachment to those values, we lost a seat on the council. If that’s the case, then so be it.”

Also at Nat Po…

Kelly McParland: It’s Canada’s foreign policy, stupid!

Getting rejected by this lot is no embarrassment; if anything it’s something to be proud of. It illustrates exactly how the UN works: You start with a set of beliefs, and then you compromise them over time, currying favour with other countries. The mystery remains why the Conservatives took such a belated interest in the council in the first place. Its most recent display of international leadership was … uh … well, I’m sure we’ll think of something. Given the anti-Israel bias that pervades the UN, campaigning for a seat on the Security Council — if it requires the OIC’s approval — is the international equivalent of applying for membership at a club that bans Jews.

John Ivison: You can’t blame it on Ignatieff. (I agree.)

Canada’s foreign policy should not be held to ransom by attempts to bribe small countries into voting for us at the United Nations.

The Conservatives are proud of what they call their “principled” foreign policy — an agenda driven by “right-wing ideology,” according to the Liberals.

But the lesson from this loss is that you can be “principled” or you can be popular. The Prime Minister should have figured out much earlier that you can’t be both.

Lorne Gunter: a meaningless seat in a dysfunctional organization.

Too much to quote. Read it all.

Update Oct 20, 2010: Wall Street Journal – “Bravo, Canada”. And, Charles Adler, you need to run for office. H/T

International Trade Minister Peter Van Loan has announced a bid to strengthen the trade relationship with Israel — a move whose timing could affect Canada’s bid to win a seat on the United Nations Security Council. [...]

Since Arab and Muslim countries either control or have varying degrees of influence over a majority of the votes in the assembly, Van Loan’s announcement has the potential to lose Canada support in the ballot.

Well, pardon this lowly Canadian, but… if we have to tiptoe around and kowtow to xenophobic Muslims to get a Security Council seat then you can take your SC seat and shove it.

If Canada is to hold a Security Council seat then let us do it with our affiliations on our sleeves and sovereignty written on your chests. We’re pro-Israel. We’re pro-democracy. We’ll trade with whichever nations we want, and we will not abide anti-Semitism in order to garner support for a Security Council seat.

OTTAWA is dropping key performance standards for navy helicopters due this fall in return for the manufacturer’s promise to guarantee another $80 million in work for Canadian aerospace companies over the next two decades.

The revised deal… means the first six Cyclone choppers that fly from frigates in November won’t be required to have a system allowing some encrypted tactical information to be exchanged between ships and helicopters. [...]

The helicopters will also no longer have to pass an endurance test for flying in warmer temperatures nor a test that requires one engine to keep going if a second engine fails in higher temperatures.

The reason mankind has to hope that the world, its leaders, its newspapers, its so-called human-rights organizations, and the United Nations are right about Israel is quite simple: If Israel is the decent party in its war with the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, and nearly all the world’s countries, nearly all the world’s media, and the United Nations are morally wrong, what hope is there for humanity? If the world’s moral compass is that broken, are we not sailing into a dark age?

The MSM and blogs lit up yesterday over the “Jenin on the high seas,” as Jonathan Kay so aptly put it. Today, another prime morsel from CBC:

Turkish woman Nilufer Cetin said she agreed to be extradited from Israel after being warned jail conditions in Be’er Sheva would be “too harsh” for her one-year-old baby, whom she’d brought on the voyage. (Emphasis mine.)

Now, there are a whole slew of possible reasons why Ms. Cetin brought along her one-year-old.

Perhaps she didn’t trust her day care provider(s) to give better care for her child than she could give on flotilla bound for Gaza in spite of numerous serious warnings that the passage would not occur.

Perhaps the father of the child is an “activist” in Gaza and this was an excellent opportunity to let him see his son for the first time.

Perhaps the father of the child is an “activist” in Turkey who fondly dreams of his entire family becoming martyrs in the global jihad against the Great Satan and the Evil Jooos. (And who could pass up the opportunity to shmooze with a few Islamic nutbar big-wigs?)

Perhaps she thought she was on a tour of the Mediterranean and would simply be passing by Gaza on a $50 sightseeing, pictures-from-the-boat excursion instead of plowing full-on into Israeli forces.

But perhaps, just perhaps, she knew full well the dangers, presumed violence would occur and, like her “activist” Arabs brothers and sisters in Gaza and the West Bank, decided to put the child between herself and the evil Jooos and presume upon the moral integrity of the Israeli soldiers who would be getting a drubbing at the hands of her colleagues or thrown 30 feet between decks of the vessel.

The most logical explanation of how this one-year-old ended up on one of those vessels: human shield.

Update: 100 or more of the “activists” are jihadists and were recruited by “the same IHH handler who organized the flotilla.” One wonders if said IHH handler also encouraged Ms. Cetin to bring her child.

Update+: You can’t make this up. Ties to a Montreal terrorist cell.

The day before Israeli commandos stormed the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish ship leading a blockade-busting mission to Gaza, passengers were chanting an Islamic battle cry and singing songs reminiscent of the Palestinian Intifada.

One woman aboard the ship told an Al-Jazeera reporter the goal was “one of two happy endings: either martyrdom or reaching Gaza.” [...]

The latest flotilla was organized by the Free Gaza Movement and IHH, a Turkish humanitarian organization that has also been linked to weapons trafficking and a Montreal terrorist cell.

Update ++: Your must read for today — Peter Hitchens, “The Joys of Selective Outrage.” He’s better at the media game than his notorious brother. Some scrumptious bits:

The interesting thing is that [Modern Leftism's] outrage is so selective and inconsistent. This has long been so, and arises from the fact that the Left still hasn’t worked out how to replace the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, and so makes its ideas of good and evil up as it goes along. [...]

Another of my favourite Leftist inconsistencies is the tangle they get themselves in over Islam and Israel. In their universe Islam is good where it challenges the conservative Christian monoculture of Britain and the USA. Islam is bad when it denounces homosexuality and demands the veiling of women, and generally opposes the sexual revolution which is the main concern and aim of the modern left. Islam is good when it pursues its unrelenting war against Israel. It’s bad when, in the mythical form of ‘Al Qaeda’ or the more tangible form of the Taliban, it ‘hates our way of life’ and opposes the education of women, etc etc.

Islam’s attack on Israel (in the Islamic world) often takes rather unpleasant forms. Muslim clerics say things there that would get them drummed out of civilised society here. But Israel is the country everyone in Europe loves to hate – while making it clear that this loathing has nothing, nothing at all, to do with the fact that Israel is a Jewish state. Good heavens no. The very idea. How could you even think such a thing? Anti-Semite? Me? Etc etc. Well, no doubt these protestations are true, which is why I try to popularise the word ‘Judophobic’ instead. Call someone an anti-Semite and he will instantly and huffily say that he’s of course not Adolf Eichmann or that bad man in ‘Schindler’s List’. So he can’t be against Jews, let alone an anti-Semite. The very idea.

The Canadian military has ordered a formal investigation into how a critical report on the beating of an Afghan prisoner remained buried at National Defence headquarters.

In June 2006 soldiers captured a suspected Taliban fighter and handed him over to local police, who then beat him to the point where the Canadians had to intervene.

A report on the incident, which undermines Conservative government claims that no prisoners handed over to Afghans faced abuse, was apparently uncovered only in December.

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk ordered an investigation, which is headed by Rear-Admiral Paul Maddison, commander of Joint Task Force Atlantic.

Natynczyk’s deputy, Vice-Admiral Denis Rouleau, says the probe will look at the incident itself, why soldiers took the actions they did and how it was reported.

The report of the investigation is due March 1 and is to be made public shortly after.

Diplomat Richard Colvin testified before a special House of Commons committee in November that he repeatedly warned federal officials in 2006 and 2007 that prisoners faced the possibility of torture in Afghan jails.

This is good news, a little late, but good news nonetheless.  Will this help end the contention that no one was tortured, or that the torture was nothing more than just being beaten by a shoe.

I have more thoughts on the matter here, but I’d like to ask why it’s so controversial to suggest that we shouldn’t be complicit in torture when, apparently, our troops on the ground think we shouldn’t be involved in torture?

I’ve found Ezra Levant to have been a little reactionary regarding the Afghan detainee scandal.  The allusions made by Liberal MPs and pundits implying Canadians have committed war crimes are a little distasteful, but it does not seem helpful to get into a debate about whether or not someone made such a claim explicitly or implicitly.  Nonetheless, he does nab Mr. Ignatieff saying something rather disappointing:

Ignatieff said Liberals will work with other opposition parties to continue exploring the Afghan detainee issue while Parliament is shuttered. And he lambasted Harper for proroguing rather than complying with a Commons resolution demanding that the government turn over documents related to torture accusations levelled by diplomat Richard Colvin.

“Democracy breaks down if a prime minister defies the elected representatives of the people on a matter of that importance,” he said.

Ignatieff said the documents would shed light on such crucial matters as whether Canada has respected international law and human rights, “the conduct of our troops in the field” and the conduct of the government which appears to have ignored warnings about torture.

“This is really serious stuff,” he said, adding that Liberals “will not let up about this.”

(via The Canadian Press)

One of my hopes for this prorogation was for Mr. Ignatieff to begin showing some leadership.  Whatever one’s political inclinations, I hope most of us believe that a strong and principled opposition is healthy for our democracy.  I haven’t seen that from Mr. Ignatieff in the past, and, by conflating the conduct of Canadian troops on the ground in Afghanistan with the conduct of our political leadership, he does a disservice to those of us who wish to see an open and impartial investigation.

On this topic, Canadian Cynic asks:

There’s nothing magical or sacrosanct about being a member of Canada’s military. They have rules. They’re supposed to know those rules. And they’re supposed to follow those rules. And if they don’t follow them, they should expect to be punished for it. And if they knowingly and deliberately committed war crimes, what’s wrong with suggesting they be held accountable?

He is, obviously, correct.  Accountability does not disappear with the donning of a uniform.  My issue with Mr. Ignatieff’s insinuation is that we don’t have a whole lot of information to back it up.  In fact, we have stories of soldiers trying to do the right thing.  I can be as much a fan of hyperbole as the next person, but it is unhelpful in the pursuit of truth to begin with the concern that our troops are behaving inappropriately.  Further, such a stance only helps to marginalize the views of those of us who believe we need a fair investigation in order to find out what happened rather than a witch hunt.

I understand Mr. Ignatieff’s desire to score some political points.  Lord knows, the Conservative’s have scored enough at his expense.  However, what we, as a nation, need most from Mr. Ignatieff is an opposition leader who shows, you know, leadership.  Mr. Ignatieff has a wonderful opportunity to define his leadership on his own terms.

He’s not off to a good start.

McCallum: “I think the bigger weight is bread-and-butter issues, jobs and getting your children to school and all of those things. But I also think Canadians do care about democracy and about the high-handed, undemocratic attitude and actions of this government, and I think proroguing adds to the total character picture of Mr. Harper, and the fact that they may have been committing war crimes, handing over detainees knowing that they were very likely to be tortured, that is a war crime. And the fact that they’re covering it up, I think many Canadians do care about those things as well as caring about economic issues.”

This fiasco has just hit a new low and McCallum just drove a truck right smack into the middle of it.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t McCallum the minister responsible for the prisoner transfer agreements when this whole war started?

In that vein, I’d like to point out (because I haven’t seen it mentioned in many places) that Honduras has held its election to choose a new president, and that president is Porfiro Lobo.  From The New York Times:

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — Porfirio Lobo, a longtime conservative politician, appeared headed toward victory on Sunday in the Honduran presidential election, which many hoped could help the country emerge from the crisis caused by last summer’s coup and end its isolation.

The electoral tribunal said Sunday night that Mr. Lobo had 52 percent of the vote, with almost two-thirds of the votes counted. That gave him a margin of 16 percentage points over his main opponent, Elvin Santos.

The decision by the Honduran congress to refuse to re-instate former president, and wannabe dictator, Manuel Zelaya for the remaining two months of his scheduled term is great news.  Honduras still has a lot of problems, but they have demonstrated an adherence to the principles of constitutional democracy – a stand for which they have received too little support from other nations of the “free world”.

Of course, Zelaya’s comrades in tyranny are not so happy.  From Bloomberg:

Venezuela said U.S. President Barack Obama, after recognizing Honduran election results, joins earlier presidents who had “violent relations” with the continent such as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry reiterated it won’t recognize the “farce” elections in Honduras on Nov. 29, and condemned other governments in the region that have done so, including Colombia, Panama and Costa Rica.

“The government of Barack Obama is now openly inscribed in the tradition of violent relations with our continent, recalling the insulting times of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, among others,” the Foreign Ministry said in an e-mailed statement. “The position of the U.S. government was particularly shameful as the principal architect of the coup.”

Congrats, Mr. Obama.  Being despised by a dictator is a badge of honour.

That being said,  I sincerely hope that Mr. Obama is right.  I’d like to see as little death and suffering (in the long run) as possible.  If this proves to be the way to achieve this, then I will be happy to have been proven wrong.

So, what do the readers of ThePolitic think?  Is Mr. Obama’s plan a good one?  Why or why not?

(For a few other interesting takes on the subject, check out Chris Dierkes, Nick Gillespie, Glenn Greenwald and Reihan Salam.)

Let me begin by getting right to the point: we aren’t fighting a war against terror. We’re fighting a war against jihadism.

This may seem like nitpicking, or even wilful obfuscation, as terrorism and jihadism are often used interchangeably. Allow me to explain why I think it‘s an important distinction worthy of further consideration, since I also believe that this distinction is already being made in a way that suits our enemy more than it helps our cause.

A couple of weeks ago a Fox News poll came out showing that some 61% of young people in the US didn’t see the Fort Hood massacre as a terrorist attack per se, but as a killing spree. Conservative bloggers responded with anger and disbelief. To them it was obvious that Hassan was a terrorist. That the American public was getting it wrong was the fault of liberal media bias and the Obama administration’s overall failure of leadership regarding defence and security.

While media bias and government incompetence aren’t helping, I respectfully disagree with this conclusion. There are two other factors exerting an influence: terrorism is too broad a term for the enemy that we face; and we as journalists, pundits and interested citizens have not been consistently clear about the way that the label domestic terrorism should be applied. These two problems go hand in hand.

I recently had a discussion wherein it was pointed out that the key difference between terrorism and ordinary mass murder (as inappropriate as that formulation may be) is the motivation of the perpetrator; specifically, mass murderers have unclear (ie. crazy) motivations, while terrorists clearly seek to change government policy or existing social norms. This is roughly the formula given in America’s Title 18 (criminal code) definition for domestic terrorism.

Here’s the problem: we aren’t really interested in identifying terrorist motivations that don’t relate back to jihadist goals.

Let me illustrate with two examples. When James von Brunn shot up the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC, it was a pretty clear cut case of domestic terror, but committed progressives and conservatives were mainly interested in disowning his Nazi ideology and foisting it on one another. And when Dr. George Tiller was shot in his church, it was hard to see it as anything but a violent statement against the social norm and public policy status quo for abortion. It was terrorism, but mostly what progressives and conservatives wanted to hash out was the attempt by some to use the incident to smear all pro life activists as potentially violent reactionaries.

It’s understandable why the terrorism angle was mostly ignored in these cases: these were one-off events perpetrated by lunatics. It doesn’t really matter that they fit the terrorism bill; people generally understand that there’s no way to predict or control the actions of the hidden time-bombs who live among us. It’s something that we will always have to live with unless we submit ourselves to unbearably draconian intrusions into the most private parts of our lives. This would be no better than submitting to the jihadis’ will.

Conspiracies, on the other hand, can be broken. We can infiltrate and intervene, and take action to eliminate our enemies. This is one half of the War on Terror that we are fighting. This is the half that prevents future 9/11s, the half where we are succeeding.

Aside from the relative ease of proving multiple homicide, authorities face with Hassan the problem that, without solid evidence of a conspiracy, it will be difficult to prove a terrorist motivation at the time of the Fort Hood massacre. Regardless of his prior statements, his email correspondence, his business cards, his questionable charity, or his yelling the Takbir, Hassan may in fact end up beating a terrorism rap, should the prosecution even try to bring that charge.

But in the bigger picture what’s more important than legally proving that Hassan fits the definition of a terrorist is the undeniable acknowledgement among the general public that he was clearly inspired by the jihad against the West. People must readily recognize that he remade himself into a jihadi, an agent of an ideology dedicated to the eradication of our modern world. They must also recognize that it is this ability to inspire from a distance (through the actions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al) that allows jihadism to spread faster and more effectively than any previous form of terrorism could ever draw and train recruits.

And so the second and more challenging half of our war is to remain vigilant and to see jihadism for what it is, without bogging down in the broader problem of identifying what makes a terrorist. It is the jihad’s ability to spontaneously create new self-guided agents that makes it different from every other form of international terrorism that ever came before. It is the jihadi’s uncommanded allegiance unto death to the goal of the jihad that makes him different from every other form of domestic terrorist. It is the ideology of the jihad that binds them, and it’s this combination of inspiration and self-recruitment that poses the greatest threat to our way of life.

President Bush, when called upon by history to fight the War on Terror, had the difficult task of identifying an ideological threat without appearing to start a war against a religion. He used the term terror instead of jihad to avoid inciting a backlash within the Muslim diaspora, to avoid potentially making a bad situation much, much worse.

In so doing he chose a generalization that is proving to lack focus in the long term, while also failing to maintain it’s intended rhetorical cover. It’s clear to me that we’re only focusing on jihadist terror and I have to believe this is clear to young Muslims as well. These are young people who may be trying to decide which side of this war they want to be on. Perhaps we can sway them to our side, perhaps not, but I have my doubts that continuing to beat around the rhetorical bush* will help our case.

Generalizing about the enemy we’re fighting has had a downside, and it’s working to the enemy’s advantage. While we stick with terms that have outlived their usefulness sixty percent of young Americans may have lost sight of what we’re really up against. Our enemy and it’s future agents have not.

*That’s a cliché only; no pun intended.

(Thanks to the comments section at AoSHQ. You know who you are.)

Whereas, on November 18 former senior Canadian diplomat to Afghanistan Richard Colvin testified in front a House of Commons committee stating that most if not all Afghans handed over to Afghan authorities by Canadian forces in Afghanistan were subject to torture; and

Whereas, Colvin wrote as many as 17 memos via the appropriate channels attempting to alert the appropriate authorities reaching as far up as one of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s senior security advisers to the likelihood of Canada’s complicity in enabling the torture of Afghans via the appropriate channels of communications that have been heretofore ignored; and

Whereas, despite a long and distinguished career of service to his country, the Harper government has responded to Colvin’s testimony in a dismissive and cavalier fashion and has explicitly questioned Colvin’s credibility instead of addressing his concerns; and

Whereas, the government of Canada has not only failed to adequately address Colvin’s testimony, but has also acted in a questionable and potentially obstructionist manner towards a Military Complaints Commission whose purpose was to address those concerns; and

Whereas, the Canadian government has a history of failing to notify the Red Cross of any prisoner transfers in Afghanistan in a timely fashion; and

Whereas, the use of torture techniques by Afghan authorities in places like Kandahar is understood to be standard operating procedure; and

Whereas, the use of torture techniques on prisoners is morally abhorrent and anathema to the values of Canadian society and government;

Therefore, we the undersigned citizens of Canada demand that the government of Canada submit to and coordinate a full public inquiry into the serious allegations and concerns that have recently come to light around Canada’s involvement in delivering Afghan prisoners into conditions of torture by Afghan authorities.

We’ve had our own little debate about the matter, so I thought I’d let all our readers know in case they wanted to sign the petition.  Normally, I don’t bother with online petitions, but, considering that I decided to stir things up the other day, I thought I would, pace Scott, put my money where my mouth is.  So I signed his petition.

Colvin said he was specifically told by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former foreign affairs adviser, David Mulroney, to use the phone instead of putting anything in writing about prisoner abuse, which Colvin said contradicted Canadian policy and international law against surrendering to the risk of torture.

“There was indeed a policy, but behind the military’s wall of secrecy, that’s exactly what we were doing,” said Colvin, who is now the deputy head of intelligence at the Canadian Embassy in Washington.

Unsurprisingly, the Conservatives and military brass have a bit of a different take on the subject.

The Conservative government and senior military brass were in full damage control Thursday as they sought to discredit accusations from a top diplomat that Canada turned a blind eye to reports that Afghan prisoners were tortured after Canadian soldiers surrendered them to local control.Defence Minister Peter MacKay dismissed Richard Colvin’s allegations that virtually all Afghan prisoners were tortured as “nothing short of hearsay, second- or third-hand information, or that which came directly from the Taliban.”

As MacKay went on the offensive in the House of Commons, the recently retired head of Canadian forces overseas, Lt.-Gen. Michel Gauthier, said there was no way that Canada would have knowingly participated in a “war crime” of handed over detainees to torture.

So, who do we believe?  The Liberal’s Foreign Affairs critic, Bob Rae, suggests we should trust Richard Colvin’s account:

Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae said that [Defence Minster Peter] MacKay’s attacks on Colvin — a man who is now Canada’s head of intelligence at the Canadian embassy is Washington and presumably considered credible enough to hold the senior post — are “reprehensible.”

Rae also pointed out that MacKay contradicted himself in the Commons by insisting that Colvin’s story was “full of holes,” but then later saying that the diplomat’s concerns played a part in Canada’s decision to strengthen its transfer-of-prisoners arrangement in 2007 to allow for followup visits to ensure detainees weren’t tortured.

My guess is that Colvin’s story is a little embellished.  Without any corroboration, I’m hesitant to believe that the Canadian establishment in Afghanistan was so completely infested with corruption and criminal activity.  Nonetheless, on the whole, I’m ready to side with Mr. Colvin.  The government’s argument is weak and implausible.  It seems unrealistic that no prisoners whom Canada turned over to Afghan authorities were tortured.  Mistakes are going to happen, sadly, but the Conservatives’ offensive is just a little bit too much.

Even if the government was not complicit in any wrongdoing by senior officials in Afghanistan, its refusal to properly confront this issue after the fact makes them accomplices.  If they want to return to side of the righteous, they must make sure that this never happens again; they must take the NDP’s advice and create some sort of public investigation.

It is imperative that any investigation be public.  Stephen Harper’s government has already made too much of an effort to hide inconvenient testimony to be fully trusted to take care of this matter on their own.

Moreover, considering that Canadian investigators in Afghanistan are willing to turn a blind eye to the rape of children – even when our soldiers alert them to the tragedy – how can the public trust them to ever hold the guilty accountable?

Some notes that I have…

1)Yes, the US Congress would have to ratify any treaty that US President Obama enters into; historians recall Woodrow Wilson’s messy attempt at starting the infamous League of Nations, in which the then-President came back to the States and find that Congress wouldn’t allow the US to join it!

2)No, the treaty isn’t much different from other institutions and treaties the US entered, be it the UN, NATO or NAFTA. The difference, if Lord Monckton is to be believed is that the treaty is specifically designed in order to lock the US into it, which could quite well be a reaction to former President Bush’s removal of the US from previous agreements Bill Clinton set up.

3)Finally, while the US is the focus of this video, shouldn’t we be having more discussion about this treaty and what it means for Canada? On this note, it looks like all of our politicians are failing us by not looking out for our great nation!

Tom Piatak assesses it well:

Comes news this morning that our beloved President has at last won the Nobel Peace Prize. We can all be glad that the Nobel committee overcame the stark racism that denied Obama the Nobel Prize for Literature for Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope. I suspect that racism has also been behind the denial of the Nobel Prizes for Economics, Physics, Chemistry, and Medicine to Obama, whose accomplishments in those fields very nearly equal what he has accomplished so far in the Presidency. We can only hope that we make contact with extraterrestrials before Obama leaves the White House, so that other worlds will be able to join ours in giving Obama the honors he so obviously deserves.

Or as John Podhoretz surmises:

I can’t agree with my colleagues here on CONTENTIONS that a) Barack Obama should reject the Nobel Peace Prize or b) be embarrassed by it. The Nobel Committee chose him wisely because he does, in fact, represent the organization’s highest ideals.

He is an American president queasy about the projection of American power. He is an American president who rejects the notion of American exceptionalism. He is an American president eagerly in pursuit of legitimacy to be granted him not by those who voted for him but by those who do not cast a vote and who chafe at American leadership. It is his devout wish that America become one of many nations, influencing the world indirectly or not influencing it at all, rather than “the indispensable nation,” as Madeleine Albright characterized it. He is the encapsulation, the representative, the wish fulfillment, the very embodiment, of the multilateralist impulse. He is, almost literally, a dream come true for the sorts of people who treasure and value the Nobel Peace Prize.

It’s the most obvious choice, once you think about it, since Michael Moore won an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine.

Satire to one side, Peter Schramm offers a sensible enough strategy for Obama’s way forward:

I woke up to this stunning decision (as the WaPo calls it) this morning. (We should be prepared to be surprised in politics, right? And we never are, are we?) The problem is that everyone understands that he doesn’t deserve it (and I mean no disrespect to the President Obama). One wag said on CNN this morning that the lefties in Oslo are attempting to tie Obama’s hands on foreign policy, especially regarding decision on troop levels in Afghanistan. Maybe. But this does give Obama a great opportunity: Mickey Kaus suggests that he turn it down. I agree. It would be magnanimous-like act, offered by a statesman who understands that the world does move, or should move, on merit. If he accepts it, there will be a political backlash for some will start arguing that his future war decisions will be taken for the wrong reasons. He cannot afford that opinion settling in on the public. The decisions on Afghanistan, just to cite the most obvious example, are tough enough to figure out without such calculations. He should turn it down.

All three opposition parties have demanded that a diplomat who may have crucial information about the alleged torture of Taliban prisoners be allowed to testify before a military watchdog inquiry.

The Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois each took turns peppering the Tory government Friday with questions about Richard Colvin, whom government lawyers are trying to strike from a witness list.

In this situation, being part of a cover up is as bad – as evil – as being part of the original transgression.  Torture has no place in the military operations of a liberal nation.  I’m not trying to put my head in the sand and say that it will never ever happen if it is not sanctioned by high-level decision makers, but when suspicions arise, our military and political structures have to be tuned to identifying and eliminating these abuses.

If the Conservative government wants to maintain a hawkish foreign policy, that’s fine; they’re the government and they get to take the lead in setting policy (though they don’t have the only say).  If, as part of this philosophy, they feel that certain interrogation techniques are valid, techniques that the rest of us might consider unacceptable, then they should be open and direct when questioned.  They should defend, in both practical terms and ethical terms, the interrogation techniques that our military sanctions, and they should do so in an open and robust debate.  They should not try to control the participants to an official inquiry.

Even the rhetoric they are employing is offensive, both to our intellects and to our soldiers.  Check out this exchange:

[Liberal MP Marlene] Jennings said the “honour and dignity” of Canadian soldiers demanded that the government be more open and stop “stonewalling” – something [parliamentary secretary to the defence minister, Laurie] Hawn, a former military officer, interpreted as a slight against those in uniform.

“To suggest the Canadian Forces or this government does not take seriously the type of allegations – allegations only – that have come forward is obnoxious,” he said.

This is utter nonsense, and Mr. Hawn should be ashamed, as I would think a man of his position is smarter than to actually believe the tripe he let out.  Ms. Jennings was defending our troops.  Our troops, on the whole, are honourable and they respect the inherent dignity of humanity as they carry out their difficult and dangerous tasks.  In order to maintain any sort of integrity in the military structure, when allegations of torture are presented we must shine as much light on the situation as possible.

This is the practical application of an interventionist liberal foreign policy.  Assuming that our soldiers are not, inherently, torturers (which was Ms. Jennings’ point), and deciding to fully investigate any allegations of torture is not “obnoxious”.  “Obnoxious” would be an obstinate stance that claims there can be no reason to be concerned about the possibility that the government and military are not doing there utmost to investigate and eliminate crimes against basic human decency.

I’m with Jim Manzi on the issue torture.  Even if we put aside the ethical issues relating to torture, torturous nations do not thrive; they do not persist.  This is not the type of nation that Canada should become.  Further, attempting to hide information about torture will serve us no benefit, either.  As a nation, we cannot survive by avoiding the truth and walling off information to the public.  Sticking one’s head in the sand serves no purpose but to expose one’s neck.

Oh, and we should stop supporting the U.S. in their goals for poppy eradication, it’s just not worthwhile.

I’ve been thinking a fair amount about this recently after reading a series of posts at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen.

So, what do people think?  Should we stay the course, retreat to isolationism, return to our traditional peacekeeping role or develop – as I unfortunately put it in a response over there – a muscular, interventionist, liberal foreign policy?

Feel free to comment here, or pop over to The League to participate in their discussion.

“It seems like men take women as servants, so they can be abusive towards them,” she explained in a hushed on-camera interview conducted secretly in Kandahar while her husband was at work. “It’s not just the husband, there’s also the mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law, and they all rule over me; … whenever I do something bad, anyone who gets angry with me beats me.”

Rather than poring over textbooks, Sitara has spent most of her sophomore year willing herself to feel love for the illiterate, middle-aged Kandahari who is now her husband, learning to look after his family’s livestock and reconfiguring her singed plans for the future into a form compatible with her new life as this wife.

Earlier this decade, there was reason for hope for women’s rights in Afghanistan.  Sufficiently optimistic, Rangina Hamidi left the United States for Kandahar in 2003 to help women improve their lot.

“They were saying we would rather have the Taliban’s time,” Ms. Hamidi recounted. “A lot of them are not coming out of the house. A lot of them are fearful. They said that at least during the Taliban’s time we were not being killed left and right, for no reason. When women were killed or beaten, there was a reason behind it. Right now, you don’t need any reason to be killed or to be abused or to be abducted. … So women are saying, ‘Forget it.’”

Everyone should read the entire article.  It’s heartbreaking, but important.

So here’s my question for readers of ThePolitic, what, if anything, should Canada do about such situations?  Despite my libertarian leanings, I support a muscular, interventionist, liberal foreign policy.  I know we can’t save everyone in the world, but I’m unwilling to believe we can’t save some.  We’re in Afghanistan already, and our reasons for entering the war were reasonable.  I submit that, since we’re there already, we focus on doing some good.

Of course, that leads to the next question, what sort of good can we do?

CTV’s Rosemary Thompson said the not-so-secret purpose behind Harper’s latest Arctic voyage is to show the world that Canada is serious about protecting its sovereignty.

“All this of course, is not just flag-waving, but to show Canadians and the world that Canada is an Arctic country,” she told CTV’s Canada AM from Iqaluit on Monday morning.
—SNIP
“The Americans are competing for part of this land, as are the Russians, the Danes and the Norwegians,” Thompson said.

I would like to hear somebody ask the Prime Minister (or any politician for that matter) simple economics question concerning this matter. Such as: “Who in their right mind would wrestle “control” over the arctic from Canadians? Taking control over the arctic would mean accepting the burden of subsidizing all of the industry and lifestyles of the people up there. Currently, in our global economy, the rest of the world gets to buy our resources at prices that are subsidized by Canadian tax-payers! Why, oh, why would any foreigner take that burden?!?”

Oh! I forgot! The global-warming-climate-change environmental hysteria card! We must defend our North because the polar ice caps are melting! Canadians will be drowning on the coasts and rushing up to the Northern territories for refuge. Silly me!

Despite what is on the line, Robert Huebert, the associate director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, says Canada may be falling behind in its efforts to declare its sovereignty in the Arctic.

Hmm…. I have a hard time paying attention to the military-folk who need to defend their raison-d’etre in this global economy.

I have never been to Afghanistan and I have no interest in going there. I really can not understand why anybody would care to go there — unless, of course, there is some pretty lucre to be gained. However, methinks that Canadians are sending a poor message overseas. This:

The village was unveiled just last month, in a project Canadian military officials hope will show how reconstruction and the prospect of employment can convince Afghans to turn away from the insurgents.

is obviously a pathetic failure. I hope clear-minded Afghans think: “Well, that did not work. If we want jobs, we are going to have to rely on ourselves. Governments suck at securing jobs and the economy.”

What could be more ridiculous than to try to teach people that you need a foreign military government to create jobs? The Canadian government can not even create jobs in Canada!

ThePolitic offers a heartfelt and sincere thank-you to the men who stormed Normandy and eventually crushed German National Socialism and Italian Fascism.

May all who “crossed over” on that fateful day and in the decades since rest in peace.  May those who grace us still enjoy peace for the remainder of their days.

I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect the Brits believe in British Exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek Exceptionalism…Now the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think we’ve got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful values of other countries or recognizing that we’re not always going to be right…

While the tone that President Obama struck was promising, in that American Exceptionalism is one area in which the U.S. has always needed to work on — it is no more special than any other nation in history in and of itself, but rather benefits from adopting a free enterprise market and laws founded in natural law for over 200 years.

Unfortunately, the US President went on in the statement to talk about the world working collectively and revealing his bias towards consensus politics, betraying a bit of ego on his part. Today, we got a practical example of what consensus politics under Obama means as the Commander-in-Chief has warned Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu that he doesn’t want a surprise strike on Iran during his Presidency. This comes while Obama is openly courting favour with Iran, a government that has publicly declared its burning desire to wipe Israel off the face of the map and that is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon with which to carry out its threats. If you were Israel, would you so easily trust Barack Obama? Since when does any country’s political leader answer directly to the US President for actions that do not directly affect the US? Better yet, where are all the liberals who, six years ago, cried about the US breaking international law by going into Iraq to ask these questions? Are the rules different now that a Democrat occupies the White House? I, like others who supported the Iraq War, have at least a plausible justification for my views in that Saddam Hussein had threatened the United States verbally. If such an argument exists for the US inserting itself into the brewing war between two other nations, let’s hear it. I’ll take your call…day or night, my lines are open!

The particulars involve the United States Government issuing a “Letter of Marque” to a merchant ship as a kind of free pass to attack and repel hostile forces on the sea, by any means necessary.

It’s funny really, just the other day I was thinking about letting loose the “public” to protect themselves on the shipping lanes, or private enterprises operating as a for profit security force to go after these pirates who have been hijacking international ships. Turns out, I wasn’t alone on that. And even further to that, there is legal accomodation in the United States to do just that!

Obviously the system would have to be modernized, but if done quickly, it would provide an alternative means by which companies can protect their investments when entering designated ‘Pirate infested waters’. Additionally, it would provide jobs, security and investment opportunities without being a burden on the ‘public purse’.

Why can’t everyone do this? Well, back in 1856, the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law expressly abolished Privateering. The major powers of the time agreed and signed on, but the United States (whose navy at the time was virtually non-existant comparitavely speaking) declined to agree citing the need to have the option of arming merchant vessels in a time of war and retained the privlige of issuing these Letters.

Can Canada do this? I’m not certain of the legal inheritance of the obligation and/or adoption of this Declaration by Canada given that at the time, we were not an independant nation, but now that we are, and Canada’s name does not appear to be recorded… I’ll leave that to more legal minds than my own. However, if allowed, it would certainly be a possibility for some enterprising groups who might like the idea of patrolling the high seas for Queen and Country…

Just a thought.

There has been a LOT of criticism againt the current Conservative Government for their spending of late. And while as a Fiscal Conservative it makes the bile rise in my throat, my brain has me fighting to keep it down with a few considerations.

I want to throw it out there that there has been a LOT of Corrective spending happening.

Now, when I say corrective, I’m referring to PMSH having to spend in order to correct what we as Conservatives view as errors made by the previous Liberal government.  Errors such as the near-mothballing of our Military Forces. General Hillier referred to it as the Decade of Darkness, and Conservatives by and large agree. Conservatives, as I recall, were thrilled by such an endearment and viewed the rebuilding of our Military as a positive thing for our country.

But that doesn’t come free. Our troops needed updating, retraining, re-arming, and re-supplying. IF we were to be able to carry our own weight in international missions, we were going to need the wherewithal to do just that. Once there, they needed protection and security and the tools to do what was asked of them. Enter Corrective Spending. The large purchases made here (helicopters, Globemasters, tanks)  are not ongoing spending. Once purchased, they will need maintaining of course, but the big-ticket purchase will have already passed.

Moving on. We ARE participating in an international, UN sanctioned War. It’s not something that is frequently referred to, but we ARE a Nation at WAR. Again, that doesn’t come free. But also, it’s not going to go on forever.

This Conservative Government chose to make amends for the wrongs commited by previous governments. Things such as the Chinese Head Tax. The Residential Schools issue etc. Those apologies also came with renumeration. This has cost the Federal Government millions of dollars. But this too is Corrective Spending or One-off spending. Once resolved and restitution paid, it’s over.

This Conservative Government has also chosen first to acknowledge that there is a Fiscal Imbalance, and second, to try and tackle it. Something that no previous government has even considered. This has resulted in increased transfers to the provinces and the shouldering of additional responsibilities on the federal side. This likely will be a task that continues, but with co-operation from the provinces, a balance is likely to be found. (This is assuming that the Premiers can get past whining in order to try and squeeze as much as they can out of the Feds…)

I believe that if you were to remove examples such as these (and there are others), you’ll find that the Conservative Government under PMSH is spending at least the same, if not less, than other more so-called thrifty governments.

I also believe that once we are out of this recession which was beyond the control of anyone in Canada (Conservative, Liberal, NDP or BLOC), and once we are past the Corrective Spending and War Time spending, we will see the fruits of the changes being made by this current government. Unfortunately, what usually happens is that while the Conservatives take the heat and make the hard decisions, the public becomes unwilling to wait and elects a Liberal government who then reap the crop of Conservative seeding, unjustifiably propagating the myth that “Conservative times are hard times” when in fact, Conservatives shoulder the responsibility for laying the groundwork for the Good Times.

It seems that the push for Peter MacKay to become the next Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) may have new wind in it’s sails, Turkey and Poland both really like him, although Turkey also really doesn’t like the Danes…

Right from Alberta says:

“So what,” you say, “it’s only Turkey.” Well it seems that Turkey has a veto in this matter and could go against the remaining 25 member states of NATO in their selection of the Danish PM.

In the Polish News, an un-named diplomat also has very nice things to say about our current Minister of Defense:

It is believed that the Polish government thinks that the Canadian Peter MacKay will be a better candidate to lead NATO because he is “young, super-intelligent, dynamic and resourceful,” a diplomat told Rzeczpospolita off the record.

And they said Condoleeza was eyeballing him…..

In any event, you can be certain that Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party is closely watching these events as they unfold. Should Peter MacKay choose to accept the position at the head of the NATO table if it’s offered, it might give her a slightly better chance at running in Central Nova again.

I’m glad the Prime Minister is seeing the wisdom of this approach now. Now let’s make sure Canada is a very active proponent of it and involved in it and bringing forward resources to help.

It’s a question of being thankful that the Prime Minister is now seeing that the pursuit of peace in Afghanistan requires negotiation. We’ve been trying to convince him of that for some time. He’s come to that conclusion. I welcome it. Let’s make sure that Canada is very active using those skills and that reputation that we have as a country for being involved in peacemaking.

Geeze Jack, I thought we were Peacekeepers, not Peacemakers.

But I’m thankful that the the Leader of the NDP is now seeing that the pursuit of peacekeeping in Afghanistan requires peacemaking. We’ve been trying to convince him of that for some time. He’s come to that conclusion. I welcome it.

In a word, no.

On Sunday March 1 2009, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was interviewed by Fareed Zakaria on CNN wherein he stated the following:

“We’re not going to win this war just by staying,”

“Quite frankly, we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency. Afghanistan has probably had – my reading of Afghanistan history (is) it’s probably had an insurgency forever of some kind. ”

“What has to happen in Afghanistan is we have to have an Afghan government that is capable of managing that insurgency.”

In response to this, Opposition Parties in the House of Commons attacked the Prime Minister for agreeing with them.

Yes, you read that right. The Opposition Parties and their Shadow Cabinets are attacking the Government for speaking in a manner that reflects what they believe. Nevermind the fact that we always knew going into this conflict that a permanent NATO presence in the country wasn’t an option. Nevermind the fact that killing every last member of the insurgency was never possible or indeed, even a stated goal.  No, the Opposition Parties want Stephen Harper and the Conservatives to be the enemy on this issue. They don’t want him to agree with them, or more dangerous for them, to be seen as agreeing with him. To that effect, they are attempting to paint this as a “flip flop” and try to make hay with it.

“By the way, Mr. Speaker, remember ‘cut and run’? Remember ‘we’re not going to leave until the job’s done’? What’s going on, Mr. Speaker?” said NDP MP Paul Dewar.

Not that we’re really listening to the NDP these days, but you’d think they’d at least be cheering about the idea of Canada leaving Afghanistan instead of attacking the government on that position. Oh that’s right, they flip-flopped themselves on that issue when their ‘Obamessiah’ came on board with Afghanistan. Or did they? The NDP confuse me regularly with their inconsistencies…

‘Nonpartisan’ is becomming the political catchword of 2009. With the new Administration in the United States ‘reaching across party lines’ et al, the constant stream of pleas from Canadian Political Parties to take nonpartisan approaches to governing and the expectations of Canadians to get on with governing, one might think that politicians would do just that.

The problem is, we don’t want it. Not really. When you get right down to it, we voted in (at least those of us who did vote) a Member of Parliament who represented the largest share of a particular belief and philosphy in a particular area. Those beliefs and philosophies are usually contrary to the other candidates. We then expect that person to go forth to Ottawa and defend and if possible, implement said positions; positions which are contrary to those who stand in “Opposition”.

The concept of a nonpartisan government would hand us such a homogenized, bland and stale system in which we might as well vote on every issue ourselves in national referendums. That would become tedious in short order and would ultimately fail miserably.

What surprises me though, is the track the opposition parties are taking on this issue. Instead of acknowledging the accuracy and maturity of the Prime Minister’s statement, they want to attack it as a reversal and somehow twist it into something offensive for their own benefit.

To me, it seems like the Prime Minister is attempting to put a realistic face on the mission and provide some serious and conscientious leadership on an issue that today, more than ever, needs clarity and vision.

Leave it to the Opposition to muck it up.

Again.

It may seem bold for a movie star to get the immediate attention of the head of state. However, I think Clooney is using his celebrity status the right way. I think more movie stars, rock stars and athletes should do the same. Naturally, that will lead to some kooky stuff too but like any market, there should be freedom of choice!

As more and more celebrities risk their careers over causes that mean a lot to them, they are effectively offering a parallel competing market in politics. This is exciting.

“Canada has done more than survive this financial crisis. The country is positively thriving in it.”

“Canada has been remarkably responsible over the past decade or so. It has had 12 years of budget surpluses, and can now spend money to fuel a recovery from a strong position.”

“American car companies have moved so many jobs to Canada to take advantage of lower health-care costs that since 2004, Ontario and not Michigan has been North America’s largest car-producing region.“

Sounds great! Where can I find this Canada?

Perhaps I’m being a little too suspicious in the aftermath of the Buy American loopholes, but it seems to me that we may have a little reverse psychology going on here. I may be alone in that thought, but then again, it only just occured to me today, and I’ve read that article before, admittedly feeling a little smug as I did.

If things are so rosy in Canada that our economy is “thriving” in such desperate times in America, why would American companies or industries even look to Canada to spend their money? After all, we’re doing so well without their money, aren’t we? Would it be unreasonable of me to think that such a glowing picture of Canada would stir up patriotic sentiments in the American economy encouraging them to spend their money where it would do the most good; in America?

Every country is paying lip service to anti-protectionist promises, and the recent ‘near-miss’ with the “Buy American” provision in the US bailout package, may have prompted people to create an illusion that everyone else is doing much better than they are, and let the people create their own “Buy American” policy, without having their government craft a Policy.

It’s openly evidenced by such groups as the CAW and the USW that not everyone agrees with that position.

As an article in the National Post says, they should know better.

“The union leaders making this argument bargain for a living, so maybe they’re right. The trouble is that in geo-political bargaining the size of your chip matters. The United States has the world’s biggest, richest internal market. They presumably would prefer not to lose the Canadian market but if it comes down to hardball, our market is just one-tenth the size of theirs.”

They can do without us, even if it would cost them. When the chips are down, we simply can’t do without them. You know, they probably realize that.

Just some food for thought.

Category 1: Leadership
Grade: D-

If there was one crucial area that Mr. Bush needed to get together if all the others were to come into place, it had to be leadership. On this front, President Bush often faltered. Certainly, he had moments of great eloquence and really looked the part of the most politically powerful man on Earth, but these sadly were the exceptions to the rule, wherein Mr. Bush opted to go about governing without consulting or appealing to the governed. High points that spared Mr. Bush an F in this ranking included his determined and appropriate response after the darkest day of his terms, 9-11-2001, and his his State of the Union address in February, 2003 where he put forward his most convincing and passionate address on why America needed to get rid of Saddam Husein’s murderous regime in Iraq. Ever since his re-election in 2004 though, Mr. Bush has basically been asleep on the job — going through the motions, press conferences and visits but more or less AWOL either on setting an agenda for the nation or going to the people in order to articulate a vision. Had Bush done better, not only would he now be seeing the new President (Democrat or Republican) continuing on with his objectives, but his inability to control and lead his staff to execute the War on Terror would not have led to the major setbacks the war saw recently.

Category 2: Vision
Grade: B

If there was an area that was hampered by President Bush’s lack of will to actually lead, this would be it. People with long memories might correctly point out that Mr. Bush came into office looking quite content to be a caretaker President who talked a lot, but did little. When 9/11 occurred though, that all changed and for a few years we saw his administration embark on what looked to be an impressive attempt to clean up the foreign affairs mess left behind by former US Presidents like Clinton, Reagan, Carter and Nixon, and Eurocrats during the past fifty years. Bush correctly pointed out what FDR noted during World War II — if the United States was to survive as a liberal democracy, it was going to have to harness and seed liberal democratic values around the globe. In FDR’s day, this was because of the Japanese and Germans; in Bush’s, it clearly was militant Sunni states and the old Cold War adversaries like China and Russia. Sadly, while the vision was badly in need of delivery, it was going to be a long and gruesome process if properly executed. Between Bush’s poor leadership and his administration’s bungling of the first fronts on this objective, it became clear shortly into his second term that America will either need a better advocate to sell this plan, or be destroyed for its failure to execute.

Category 3: Economic Policy
Grade: C-

Sadly, this area will be a lasting legacy of Mr. Bush’s and it will likely hurt the Republican Party for at least the next decade’s worth of elections. While Mr. Bush is not responsible for the wholesale selling out that his GOP colleagues in Congress conducted during the first six years of his term, he certainly fed the fire by shoring up spending on useless and damaging programmes such as No Child Left Behind or the sub-prime mortgage expansion. We’ve seen the results of the latter, but the former will take another generation. While liberals were rightly critical of Bush’s over-spending during his presidency, these were crocodile tears at best (as I believe the next four years will certainly show); however, this has allowed the Democratic Party to position itself as the party of fiscal prudence, a ridiculous notion to anyone who lived in the last half of the 20th century. It might be fair to point out that many of Bush’s disastrous fiscal policies were merely continuations of his predecessors or that his tax cuts earlier in the decade spared America an earlier market collapse, but when you’re the guy in the big office, it’s still your responsibility when the house comes crashing down. Bush would’ve learned well by studying the deskplate of one of his predecessors as it relates to the resting place of a dollar bill.

Category 3: Social Policy
Grade: A-

Perhaps the best area of Bush’s work, although a soon-to-be-irrelevant effort due to bungling in other areas. Bush held firm in the wars waged on the family during his term, and even scored a few victories — a few young lives exist today that wouldn’t have if Al Gore had been President. The overall culture war is a tricky area for any President to navigate though since it is becoming more and more clear that two Americas exist today and neither wants anything to do with the other. This not only puts political pressure on a President, but largely negates any point solutions they propose. As such, Bush’s successor is likely to undo any of 43′s reforms, leaving only the appointments Bush made to the bench as any sort of true legacy. On this front, it remains to be seen how his decisions will impact the nation, although the initial survey indicates that Bush had a golden opportunity that family advocates were waiting decades for and he blew it as the clock was winding down to zero. There will certainly be an influence on the courts thanks to Bush, but certain appointments suggest that things could’ve been much better than they now are.

Category 5: Legal Policy
Grade: C

While this category can encompass both domestic and foreign policies, I’ve said my peace about the latter in previous categories. Bush the domestic President was a curious study. The lasting laws he passed included moving daylight savings time in include more of the calendar year, or tinkering with internet laws. His administration was rightly taken to task for restricting the freedoms of U.S. citizens after 9/11, although it would be difficult to see how any other President would’ve acted differently had they been in his shoes. The whole design of the War on Terrorism justice system will likely be debated for decades to come, although Bush was a trendsetter in that he started to build on just how the U.S. government will deal with foreign nationals which commits crimes against its citizens and territory. Perhaps this category, because it is the actual implementation of everything else Bush represented for the last eight years, is the most telling since it was muddled, contradictory at times and downright mediocre on the whole.

On that note, perhaps, when people look back at the Bush presidency, they will see a few shining moments, surrounded by an agenda of confusion and with a world of turmoil and darkness. However, before history judges George Bush too harshly, it’s equally important to remember the alternative: between Al Gore and John Kerry, it is difficult to see how America would’ve avoided the financial meltdown of 2008 or faced the dangers of a world that won’t be satisfied until America is, like Bush, is just another page of history.

Overall Grade: C

If we want to dismantle the networks that support and create terrorism, then we have to adjust our definitions of civilian and combatant accordingly. That change has been forced on us by the terrorists, which is one of the reasons we cannot abide their presence: they want real non-combatants to die in droves in order to undermine our morale, precisely because we want to remain in a World War II mentality.

Does that mean we should reject rationalism and our humanity and kill everything in sight? Of course not. I don’t want my son to think that we have to wipe out all Muslims any more than I want Muslims to think that they have to wipe out all Christians and Jews. We do have to understand, however, that strikes on terrorists who bury themselves among civilians will create the collateral damage terrorists fully intend as a demoralizing influence on our will to resist them.

In short, we need to understand this war as something other than Hitler rolling into Poland or Japan bombing a naval base in Pearl Harbor. We face a network of radical theological nihilists who want to destroy civilization by using our civilized impulses against us. We have to maintain those impulses but not shy away from doing the necessary work of ridding the globe of this new and dangerous cancer, militarily, politically, and financially. That will require the West to understand that the collateral deaths are the fault of the terrorists, whether that is in Afghanistan, Gaza, Iraq, or anywhere else where terrorists launch attacks in the midst of civilians.

Accusing him of a “barbaric act” is an absurdly inflammatory statement. It suggests to me that the powers-that-be in Iraq are still in a totalitarian mindset that is completely devoid of any concept of individual autonomy.

The Iraqi government said Zaidi had carried out “a barbaric and ignominious act” that did not correspond to the role of the media.

“At the same time that we condemn this ignominious act, we call on the television channel of this reporter to deliver a public apology for this act which sullies the reputation of all Iraqi journalists and the whole media.”

I guess the possibility that this reporter should be independently responsible for his actions is foreign to the Iraqi government. Also, the Iraqi government seems to instantaneously be able to speak on behalf of all Iraqi journalists and media.

My suspicion is that it will take a long time before Iraqis see freedom — if ever. The aims of government in Iraq seems to control its citizens more than to govern.