A goal for Afghansitan

Ok, so clearly people reading this are not into the conspiracy thing. That’s fine. Go on living your lives as if everything you believe is actually true…

Seriously though, there was an interesting article in the New York Times this weekend about the “chattering classes”—essentially a group of critics who have a voice “amplified” by the media. In the article, a blogger, Markos Moulitsas claims that “Absolutely everything and everyone in politics is driven by media today.” Presumably he means “the media,” a distinction I made clear to my ESL class this week, but anyway, his point is that it’s all about looking good.

I disagree. There is a great deal of posturing and massaging of media relations in politics, but in the end, it has to be about implementing your agenda. For example, the Conservative government may have made more middle of the road promises in the election, and they may have succumbed to the idea of a “debate” on Afghanistan—but that doesn’t mean they care what people think.

During this so-called debate, Jack Layton threw back a bunch of questions the Defence Minister had himself asked of the Liberals last session:

“"What are the goals and objectives of the mission and how do they meet our foreign-policy objectives? What is the mandate, what is the defined concept of operations, what is the effective command and control structure, what are the rules of engagement?" Mr. Layton asked, quoting Mr. O'Connor.”

In response, O’Connor called Layton and his party “anti-war.” Those questions don’t seem anti-war to me, they seem like questions that should be answered before a military mission is sent off. O’Connor’s supposed answers—

"Events in Bali, Madrid and London have all showed how vulnerable we are to terrorism," he said. "Must we wait for terrorists to appear in Vancouver, Montreal or here in Ottawa before we recognize the very real threat that they present to our security?”

—don’t make sense. The tired refrain of a potential terrorist attack in Canada doesn’t cut it. I don’t mean to sound naïve—and that is what the powers that be in Western governments (Canada, U.S.A., Britain) are playing on: the fear we could be next—but is there any real possibility of attacks taking place here? London is an important world city. Madrid was in the midst of an election being fought on whether or not Spain should stay in the war. Bali seems so out of the way as to be banal, but I’m sure there must be some connection. Anyway, what is our place in the hierarchy of the world? Pretty darned low. So, then, is the likelihood of a terrorist attack on us.

Of course, if we do choose to get involved, our stock on the potential terrorist target could rise. Michael Ignatieff makes a good point that he has been to Afghanistan pre- and post-Taliban. Apparently life there is better now. There are good things to be fought for over there. But if that is the case, the Defence Minister needs to say so. He needs to relate the goals of the mission to our foreign policy objectives. If achieving better treatment of women in the 3rd world is part of our foreign policy, then say so, and say that’s why we are in Afghanistan. But don’t say it’s because if we don’t go there, terrorists might attack Vancouver.

I certainly don’t expect to hear from the Defence Minister that we are in Afghanistan because the Conservatives and their friends are sympathetic to the American military-industrial complex and can stand to make some money out of it. That’s too much honesty for even the chattering classes to ask for. But a little direction would be good. A little justification, not self-righteous chest pounding, and fear-mongering, should be the product of this debate.