That's "liberal" with a small L. Although a big-L Liberal government got us into the Afghanistan quagmire, it's a Conservative government that keeps us there, even though the death toll continues to mount?
Why? Because we delude ourselves that we can bring "transformational change". Just yesterday "Call me Steve" Harper said, while sitting at the side of the arch-liberal Obama, that in 2011 Canada would be "transitioning"* from a military role to a "developmental role". Ah yes, bringing the benefits of peace, democracy and civilization to the benighted heathens.
As Margaret Wente points out in a good column in today's Globe and Mail, it ain't gonna happen. The Afghans don't want "transformational change". They are happy with their society the way it is...or the way it used to be before the westerners started mucking around.
Even if they did want to let their girl-children go to school, have free and fair elections, etc, etc, all those fine things aren't going to happen until they have a government capable of imposing its will on the entire country. As Ms Wente says, "elections hardly matter if a winner's incapable of governing. Afghanistan doesn't need an elected figurehead. It needs a good, tough warlord."
Furthermore, she asks, "If our effectiveness is zero, why are we willing to have Canadians blown up for two more years?" And she answers her own question, "Because no one wants to broach the subject."
Walt is willing to talk about the elephant in the room. Walt says, we are not our Afghan brothers' keepers. Let them sort out their problems for themselves and by themselves. Let Canada get out of Afghanistan now.
* "Transitioning?" How many times have I heard politicians and pundits use this neologism lately? It's by way of becoming the buzzword of the year. Let me remind all and sundry that "transition" is a noun, not a verb. What's wrong with a simple word like "changing"?
No comments:
Post a Comment