An accident like this could never happen in the Canadian navy

Even as we speak, America's frost-backed neighbours to the north are voting in a federal election of more than the usual significance. As they headed to the polls, President Trump reiterated for the umpteenth time his suggestion that Canadians and their nitwit country would be better off as the 51st of the Disunited States of America.

On Truth Social today he wrote,  "Elect the man [meaning himself!] who has the strength and wisdom to cut your taxes in half, increase your military power, for free, to the highest level in the World, have your Car, Steel, Aluminum, Lumber, Energy, and all other businesses, QUADRUPLE in size, WITH ZERO TARIFFS OR TAXES, if Canada becomes the cherished 51st. State of the United States of America.

"Look how beautiful this land mass would be. Free access with NO BORDER. ALL POSITIVES WITH NO NEGATIVES. IT WAS MEANT TO BE! America can no longer subsidize Canada with the Hundreds of Billions of Dollars a year that we have been spending in the past. It makes no sense unless Canada is a State!" 

Walt has highlighted the part about military power because we saw a demonstration today of the power of the new US Woke Forces. Britbart News featured this headline:

U.S. Warplane Falls Off Aircraft Carrier into Red Sea 

It seems that earlier today a multi-million-dollar warplane fell off the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman into the Red Sea. The accident that injured one sailor, the Navy said. A tractor that was towing the fighter plane — a model that cost $67 million in 2021 — also slipped off the ship into the sea. 

"The F/A-18E was actively under tow in the hangar bay when the move crew lost control of the aircraft. The aircraft and tow tractor were lost overboard," the Navy said in a statement. "Sailors towing the aircraft took immediate action to move clear of the aircraft before it fell overboard. All personnel are accounted for, with one sailor sustaining a minor injury." 

The carrier and its other planes remain in action and the incident is under investigation, the Navy added. No details of recovery work were released, nor was anything said about the race, religion or sexual orientation of the sailors involved in the incident.

Walt humbly suggests that the Canucks stay with the weak little armed forces they have. Something like this could never befall the plane (note the singular) on board the HMCS Jean Chrétien, pictured below.

VIDEO: Remembrance Day 2019 - Lest we forget

I was going to write the customary platitudes about remembering and honouring those who made the supreme sacrifice in defence of freedom, democracy, the right to boo the umpire and so on. But after listening to Don Cherry (see previous post) I have something more to get off my chest.

Sure, I'm wearing my poppy, and shame on those who don't pay at least a little attention to this day and its meaning. But that doesn't mean that I approve of, let alone encourage war. I am familiar with the concept of the "just war", but IMHO most of the wars fought by the AABC countries (America, Australia, Britain, and Canada) since 1812 have been fought by the wrong people, in the wrong places, for the wrong reasons. I'll except World Wars I and II, which America, to its everlasting shame, entered late. And maybe Korea. But I've never felt that any war since Korea has been worth one drop of the blood shed by so many, or one dollar of the billions spent.

That doesn't mean I won't remember and honour those who gave their lives. When duty calls, you have to go. If you volunteered to serve in the armed forces, what did you sign up for? Many were misguided. Many were misled. But they did their duty and kept the promises they'd made. As was famously said of the British Army, they were "lions commanded by donkeys." And there they lie, in Flanders fields, at the bottom of the south Pacific, buried within a numbered hill somewhere in Vietnam.

Was it all worth it? Listen to John McDermott's excellent rendition of "The Green Fields of France". The visuals are from the "Great War", World War I, "the war to end all wars".

John Robson: Questions that will get you booted off the leaders' planes

What follows is really for those of our Canadian readers who wish their political leaders would give clear answers to their questions about the issues of the day. American readers (as well as Brits, Aussies, anyone and everyone) will also find it useful to clip, save and adapt to their own countries' politics for the next go-round.

This is copied, almost verbatim, from "Here are the questions that would get me kicked off the federal leaders' planes", by John Robson, in today's National Post, the only major Canuck news outlet that even tries to provide unbiased coverage of the election campaign. Mr Robson writes:

"...thoughtful eloquence isn't as useless as most politicians seem to think. And too many journalists, including those who accept, as the price of admission to the campaign plane, that instead of pressing the candidates they will report their hideous verbiage as actual speech. They make themselves complicit. And for what?

Before insulting anyone else let me congratulate debate organizers for finally inviting Maxime Bernier. And not only because I think he's the only one even trying to talk sense, though I do.... Bernier's a serious presence, especially because on a remarkable number of issues he's on one side and the four "major" parties busy hacking one another to rhetorical shreds are grouped tightly together on the other. (Five if you count the Bloc [Québécois].)

If you doubt me, imagine what their leaders would mumble, if cornered, on the following questions that I'd insist on asking firmly and repeatedly with zero patience for evasions, bait-and-switch, impenetrable syntax or pre-chewed talking points:

• Is government in Canada too big? If so, what would you get rid of? If not, how would you pay for it?
• Why can't we do health care the way the French or Swedes do instead of the way Cuba does? (Anyone who drags in "American-style health care" immediately has their mic cut off.)
• Is China friend, foe or simply a foreign entity pursuing its own national interest?
• Does Canada need capable armed forces? If so, what do we need and how much are you ready to spend? If not, how do we deal with a dangerous world?
• Is the world dangerous? If not, how do you explain the entire course of human history? If so, why aren’t you more worried?
• Why do we deliberately raise the price of food for the poor through supply management? (Maxime Bernier can just sit and smirk during this one. Andrew Scheer can't.)
• Why is Canada the only democracy without any sort of abortion law (Vietnam also has none but even Cuba regulates late-term ones) when most Canadians want some restrictions?
• Does man-made climate change threaten civilization within the next decade or three? If so, how are we going to get rid of fossil fuels pronto and what will we replace them with? If not, why won’t you call global warming alarmism baloney?
• How should Canada's national interest factor into our immigration policies? Is there a level of immigration that you believe would be beyond our capability to absorb?
• Do you really think Canadian Indigenous bands are separate nations? If so, when will you explicitly legislate that Canadian law does not apply on their territories and open embassies? If not, why do you pretend to? Won’t they be annoyed when they realize you’re lying again?
• Where do you get your ideas of right and wrong? If "the Catholic church", why aren't your policies remotely consistent with Church doctrine? If  "from within", how do you know you're right? If "there’s no such thing as right and wrong," how can we trust you to do what’s right?
• How large, of all that human hearts endure, is that part that laws and governments can cure?

There. I wouldn't be the first person thrown off a campaign plane, possibly by other journalists. But with that list I can reasonably aspire to be the first to go out the door in mid-flight.

Bravo, Mr Robson. Bravo! Let's see how many (if any) of these questions are addressed seriously in the Leaders' Debates.

Footnote: For those who didn't buy the programme, the political leaders pictured are: Top row, L-R: Andrew Scheer (Conservative), Maxime Bernier (People's Party of Canada), Justin Trudeau (Liberal); bottom row, L-R: Yves-François Blanchet (Bloc Québécois, which runs candidates only in la Belle Province), Elizabeth May (Green) and Jagmeet Singh (NDP).

Back to the night club circuit for McChrystal

Erstwhile comedian Billy McChrystal, who clawed his way out of the entertainment gutter and rose to the lofty position of U.S. commander in Afghanistan, seems likely to be planning a return to the nightclub circuit following an evening of fun and frolic with freelance journalist Mike Hastings, who was doing a profile on the general for Rolling Stone.

McChrystal's commander-in-chief, the Rainbow President, has invited Billy to the Formerly White House for what is expected to be a severe bollocking. "I was just trying out some impressions", McChrystal said, "but I guess the prez wasn't amused. I hope he'll change his mind once he sees the polished version of my new act."

The material McChrystal referred to reportedly included Vice-President "Joe Bite Me", U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, and National Security Adviser James Earl Jones, who was depicted as a clown. "I rented a Krusty the Klown outfit for that one," McChrystal said. "I mean, I really put some effort into this, y'know?"

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said McChrystal's new routine was definitely a CLM, and hinted that McChrystal "will never work in this town again". Gibbs promised that in his meeting with McChrystal, President Barack would be "wide awake and fully engaged...not like last time."

The Americans are expected to follow the lead of the Canadian Armed Forces, who earlier this month assigned their former commander in Afghanistan, General Daniel Ménard, to head a crack team developing a new computerized personnel system. Given his background in entertainment, General McChrystal is tipped to be placed in charge of of bringing Bob Hope back from the dead to headline a new USO show to cheer up the boys in the Middle East.

Neither the U.S. nor the Canadian Armed Forces have yet named new commanders for the Afghanistan police action. However, Walt can reveal the names of the leading candidates: Brig.-Gen. Stan Lee Laurel (Canada) and the first top-level female commander in U.S. history, Gen. Olive R. Hardy.

The Afghanistan peace mission

Sergeant Martin Goudreault -- see yesterday's post -- was not the only soldier to die in Afghanistan yesterday. Seven Americans were killed along with troops from two "other" countries for a total of ten. A bad day for the coalition.

Let's ask ourselves again: why are we there? If you can't come up with the politically correct answer, you have only to ask the Canadian government, the one headed by "Call me Steve" Harper. He'll tell you it's not war, stupid; it's development!

The Canadian Press has uncovered documents showing Harpoon's Tory toadies systematically drafted “Message Event Proposals” as part of a quiet campaign to persuade Canadians their country was primarily engaged in development work to rebuild a shattered nation.

In 2007-8, when the death toll of Canadian troops reached double digits, they used MEPs to literally script the utterances of top diplomats, aid workers and cabinet ministers. The purpose was of course to convince the Canadian public that we weren't hunting terrorists, but helping the poor and oppressed people of Afghanistan -- especially all those women who are being held in illiteracy and virtual bondage.

The MEPs are little gems of other direction. Obviously the goal was to keep the public from realizing that we were losng, by "refocusing...towards development, reconstruction and diplomatic efforts". That's a line from an MEP prepared by the Privy Council Office, the bureaucratic wing that serves the Prime Minister’s Office. It was to be spoken by
Arif Lalani, then the Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan, in a 2008 media tour.

The records also reveal how the government went so far as to write identical sets of quotes and talking points for two returning aid workers, who were supposed to be giving separate interviews on their "personal perspective" on "progress" in Afghanistan.

One of the MEPs is headed: “First-hand accounts by Canadians who have lived and worked in Afghanistan add credibility to Canada’s role,” states one MEP. Helene Kadi, in Kandahar from September 2006 to August 2007, was cleared to do several interviews. But Kadi’s MEP contained the same "key messages" -- word for word -- as one prepared for another CIDA employee, whose own "personal perspective and reflections" were scripted for him.

On Feb. 12, 2008, returning CIDA manager Kevin Rex gave an interview to the Airdrie Echo, an Alberta Weekly. Each of the separate MEPs for Kadi and Rex specified the same "key message": "As a returned CIDA field staff, I have seen and experienced first-hand the accomplishments and results achieved in Afghanistan, thanks to Canada’s role in that country." Other messages were repeated -- verbatim -- by both Rex and Kadi.

Why does the Canadian government keep pushing out this putried and patently dishonest propaganda? Because the notoriously controlling and stubborn Harpoon doesn't want to admit that he was wrong to extend the mission until 2011.

Why don't the Liberals call them on this? Because the Liberals got us into the mess in the first place, as a sop to the Americans for not joining in the aggression in Iraq. Besides, the left wing of the Liberal Party of Canada -- currently pulling very hard on the strings of County Iggy -- actually believes this "we're only there to help" guff!

And why do the mainstream media keep printing and airing this bullshit? Because they live in fear of the wrath of Harper and in the thrall of political correctness. They don't want to be seen as "unpatriotic" or "soft on terrorism". So they -- hello, Don Cherry! -- keep rabbiting on about how brave our troops are and what a great job they're doing making Afghanistan a better place.

Wake up, Canadians! You're being conned!

Worth reading: "The price we pay for a government of fear", by Jeffrey Simpson, in today's Globe and Mail.

146

Trooper Larry Rudd, RIP

Trooper Rudd, a member of the Royal Canadian Dragoons, today became the 146th Canadian fighter to die in Afghanistan...the fourth this month. He had been in Afghanistan for just two weeks.

145

Col. Geoff Parker, RIP

Colonel Geoff Parker today became the highest-ranking Canadian to die in Afghanistan. He was killed, along with five Americans and a number of civilians, when a Taliban suicide bomber did the deed in the middle of a busy street in Kabul, Afghanistan's capital.

As you know, I've been keeping track of the Canadians killed in Afghanistan, having been sent there on what many would call a fool's errand by their government. I salute their obedience and their courage.

I wouldn't want to be told that I was being sent to a hellhole on the other side of the world, with a good chance of coming home in a box. But these brave men and women did what they were told without cavil or question.

And they were not alone. I have been counting the Canadian casualties because I think the Canadians are doing more than their share of the heavy lifting in Afghanistan. But they have been joined in death by hundreds of Americans, Britons, Dutch and others. May they all rest in peace.

142

Private Tyler William Todd, RIP

Pte. Todd was killed today in Afghanistan. He stepped on an IED. He was 26.

Last week, Canadian Defence Minister Peter Mackay pledged to send another 90 soldiers to Aghanistan, bringing the number of Canadians serving there to nearly 3000. How many of them will never come back?

His Master's Voice

Further to yesterday's post on the waste of lives and money in Afghanistan...

When Hillary Clinton visited Canada just before Easter, she asked Canada to extend its commitment to the war in Afghanistan beyond the 2011 exit date set by the Harper government. Perhaps Canada wouldn't have to do so much of the heavy lifting in future, she said. Steve said no way, come 2011 Canuck troops are out of there.

Then came Afghan President Krazee's "unhelpful" remarks, as reported this week and summarized here yesterday. And there was Steve on the TV yesterday saying Canada was definitely pulling out on time, just like the CPR.

Today Defence Minister Peter MacHackey has announced that Canada will send 90 more soldiers to Afghanistan next month. Their assignment will be to train the Afghan National Army to be more adept at killing at other Afghans. Big Mac did not say how long these fresh troops would stay.

Watching Canadian reaction to "suggestions" by the U.S.A. always reminds me of the old RCA Victor record labels. (That's HMV, for British readers.) Do you remember those? The picture of the old wind-up gramophone with the little white and black dog sitting with its ear cocked to the sound trumpet? The dog was named Little Nipper. (You can look it up.) And what was Little Nipper listening to? "His Master's Voice".

Footnote: With the addition of the 90, the number of Canadian troops in Afghanistan will be almost 3000, the highest yet.

Suspicions confirmed

Yesterday Walt asked, in all innocence, if the Canadian Ministry of "National Defence" had stopped publishing news of casualties, short of death, of the Afghan war. Today Canadian Press reports that, indeed, had quietly ceased releasing such statistics a few months ago.

The official excuse is not that knowing the extent of our losses would alarm and inflame voters, but that the military commanders don't want the Taliban to know how effective their attacks are...or are not. We're not going to help them keep score, you see.

Who do you suppose gave the order to keep this information under the collective beret? My guess it's none other than the feckless Minister, Peter MacHackey. I also guess we'll never know for sure. Such is the cloak of control and secrecy that shrouds Ottawa under the Harper regime.

141

This is Corporal Darren James Fitzpatrick, RIP. He died yesterday of wounds inflicted by an IED while on patrol in Afghanistan.

Cpl. Fitpatrick is the 141st member of the Canadian Armed Forces to die for... for what? He was only 21.

What bothers me about Cpl. Fitzpatrick's death is that the public wasn't told of the incident until yesterday, although it happened on March 6th. Is it possible that casualties of our troops are so commonplace that the Department of National Defence (sic) doesn't even bother to tell us any more?

And...innocent question for the Prime Minister...what does "National Defence" have to do with our being in Afghanistan?

140

Cpl. Joshua Caleb Baker, RIP

Corporal Joshua Caleb Baker, a reservist with the Loyal Edmonton Regiment, died in an explosion during a training exercise near Kandahar, Afghanistan, yesterday.

He was only 24 years of age.

139

Sgt. John Faught, RIP

Sergeant John Faught, of the Princess Pats, this weekend became the 139th Canadian soldier to be killed in Afghanistan.

Canada is scheduled to (ahem) withdraw from Afghanistan in just over a year. How many Canadians will have died there before the troops come home? Walt is hoping it won't be more than 144. That's gross.

135, 136, 137, 138

We have no names or pictures yet of the four Canadian soldiers who were killed in Afghanistan yesterday. They were lost to an IED, traversing a chunk of parched and worthless ground that has been fought over again and again and again. Why???

Also killed was a Canadian journalist, a young woman who worked for the Calgary Herald. She was engaged to be married in July. There will be no wedding for her, no new year at all.

Canadians were not the only ones to have "a bad day" in Afghanistan yesterday. The Americans lost eight "civilians" (CIA operatives, actually), killed in a fortified base in the north-east of that miserable country, near the border with almost-as-miserable Pakistan.

Will there be any questions asked in the Canadian parliament? Will there be a debate on why we are in Afghanistan and how much longer we're going to stay there? Noooooo, because Smarmy Steve Harper, who has offered his "sincere condolences" to the families of those killed, has quietly asked [you mean "told", ed.] the Governor-General to progrogue (suspend) Parliament until March so he won't have to answer any questions about anything.

His regime has shown tremendous fear of criticism and has done everything it can to avoid having its policies and actions examined by representatives of the people. Perhaps Mr. Harpoon is taking lessons from the "government" of Afghanistan.

Canada's top brass confirms Afghan torture

The story so far:

Canadian dip Richard Colvin says he reported to dozens of superiors in the Department of Foreign Affairs as well as the Department of Defence that Afghan prisoners of Canadian troops were almost certainly being tortured, even executed, on being handed over to Afghan authorities. He says officials in the two departments didn't want to know, and that he was told by Prime Minister Harper's office (no less) to shut up about it.

Scene two. Harpoon clams up, refuses to take, let alone answer questions from the press on his return to Canada from a junket through Asia. (There was no time in Steve's busy schedule to look in on the grunts in the `Stan. Some of `em will be dead before the next election anyway.) Tory attack dogs John Boor and Peter MacHackey call Colvin's allegations unbelievable. They described Colvin's allegations as "hearsay", "unsubstantiated" and "simply not credible.

Retired General Rick Hillier, M.A. (Master of Arslikhan) supports the government, says Afghanistan is not like Somalia. But now we hear from the present Canadian Chief of Staff, General Walt Natynczyk. [Gezundheit! ed.] To MacLie's annoyance, Natynczyk confirmed our army stopped transferring prisoners to Afghan authorities on more than one occasion because of concerns about abuse. Until he dropped that little bombshell, the government position had been that the issue had come up only once.

Yesterday an Afghan rights agency, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, weighed in with its latest report. It says it has documented nearly 400 cases of torture from across the war-ravaged country.

On Saturday I wrote that torture of prisoners of war is forbidden under the Geneva Convention. It is also contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada, and violators can now face trial in Canada for war crimes committed outside of the country. Ah, but...some would say...our troops did not actually torture anyone. Walt's legal advisor (Agent 3) says that if Mr. Colvin's allegations are true, Canadian troops could be found guilty of aiding and abetting the torturers by handing the prisoners over. Even if they didn't intend for the prisoners to be tortured by their compatriots, they are at least guilty of criminal negligence in handing them over, knowing that they might well be tortured or worse.

Who knew what? Who did what? Who did nothing? Let's have a public enquiry, starting later today if possible! A parliamentary committee is already asking questions, but -- remember the Schreiber enquiry -- parliamentary committees are by definition more concerned with politics than human rights abuses. Let's get a judge, someone like Louise Arbour, on this.

133

Sapper Steven Marshall, RIP.

Sapper Marshall was killed yseterday near one of the "model villages" which are a key part of Canada's new counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan. He was only 24, the second Canadian to die in three days, and the 133rd since Canada joined the American invasion of Afghanistan.

"Afghanistan sacrifices may have been in vain" is the title of Thomas Walkom's thoughtful column in today's Toronto Star. Read it and think how many more lives will be lost while we try to save face.

The last line from Walkom's column: The war we never should have waged is effectively lost. We have only to admit it.

132

Lt. Justin Garrett Boyes of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry yesterday became the 132nd Canadian to die in Afghanistan. RIP.

The media are telling us Lt. Boyes is "the first in over a month" to die, as if that's supposed to make his family or us feel better. The tide of the war has not changed. It is against us.

Meanwhile, the focus of the "war on terror" seems to be shifting northeastward, to some more "stans"...Waziristan, which is a province of Pakistan. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have killed hundreds in the "stans" this week alone. The armed forces of Pakistan, America, Canada and the rest do not seem to be making any headway in containing, let alone eliminating them.

Those who have eyes to see, let them see.

The great service of General Hillier

General Rick Hillier (ret'd) is an ambiable Newfoundlander who for some time was chief of Canada's defence staff. According to Gen. Hillier, defending Canada included joining in the American war on Afghanistan. In fact, Hillier was a most effective promoter of Canada's military mission in Kandahar.

Some of us questioned whether Hillier was genuinely in agreement with the mission's policy rationale. It was suggested that perhaps he was just doing his master's bidding -- his master being "Call me Steve" Harper -- and parroting his master's hawkish rhetoric.

Sometime in 2008, Gen. Hillier appeared on CBC Radio's Cross-Country Checkup to defend our military presence in Afghanistan, and make us feel better about the mounting toll in lives and treasure. Agent 3 asked him if he and his political masters were truly singing from the same hymn-sheet, or whether he had any disagreements with the Conservatives' Afghanistan policy.

Oh no, replied the general, Mr. Harper and I see eye-to-eye, absolutely and completely. Anyway, my job is not to question the commander-in-chief's orders, but to execute them. (Did he really say "execute"? ed.)

Apparently General Hillier dissembled. ("Dissemble - v. intr. - To disguise or conceal one's real nature, motives, or feelings behind a false appearance." American Heritage Dictionary)

In his just-released autobiographical book, Hillier contradicts the impression that he was the main architect of the mission. He says that his strategy was to concentrate Canadian efforts in Kabul, rather than take on the more dangerous Kandahar assignment, which had little chance of success.

Hillier goes on to say that our military effort was hampered by timorous and quarrelling civilian and political partners in the Afghan capital. The multi-national endeavour was doomed from the start, he argues.

Hillier is highly critical of NATO, painting the alliance as bereft of ideas or strategies for the Afghan mission. But he cuts closer to the bone in attacking political operators in PM Harpoon's office, along with the pin-striped dips in the Department of Foreign affairs, for undermining the mission and misrepresenting it to the Canadian people.

General Hillier has thus kissed goodbye to any chances he might have had of becoming a Tory candidate in the next election. Could we have had a Minister of Defence who actually knew something about waging war? We'll never know.

We should be grateful to General Rick though for telling the truth, at last. By so doing, he has, perhaps unwittingly, done a great service to Canada and particularly the Canadian troops who might be asked to remain in the hell of Afghanistan for years to come.

Hillier's admissions and attacks have pretty well scuppered any chance of the military mission being extended past the present 2011 end date. The Americans want us to reconsider that deadline. The spineless Peter McHack was already sending up trial balloons to the effect that we might have to stay a little longer and shed a little more blood.

Hillier's book makes it less likely than ever that the tide of Canadian public opinion, running strongly against the Afghan war, can be reversed, even by a majority Tory government.

Afghanistan -- Year 8 begins

Today is the 8th anniversary of the beginning of the American war against Afghanistan. The point must be made that this is an American war, begun to serve American interests. It was Bush II's response to 9/11. That's the long and the short of it.

Canada had no quarrel with Afghanistan. Jean Chrétien's Liberal government committed Canadian forces simply to appease the Americans, who were miffed that we had stayed out of Iraq, the other war the Americans were waging at the same time and in the same part of the world.

Indeed, a hundred or two hundred years from now -- if there are still human beings on the face of the earth -- history may record Iraq and Afghanistan as "The American Middle-Eastern War" or something of the sort. And the role played by Canadians -- 131 dead, and counting -- will be just a footnote. WHY?

Afghanistan: Obama's Vietnam? Harper's too?

Every day, Afghanistan looks like becoming another Vietnam for the Americans. Their chief of operations, General McChrystal, says the war is being lost, and cannot be won without a significant increase in the number of boots on the ground and a change in strategy.

They need to win the hearts and minds of the people, he says. Hearts and minds...where have we heard that before?

President Obama is showing signs of terminal indecisiveness. He obviously doesn't want am embarrassing withdrawal (surrender, surely? ed.) to happen on his watch. But, with his approval ratings already tanking, he doesn't want to pay the political price for committing the additional "resources" (read money and blood) McChrystal has called for.

So Obrama is dithering. And he's not alone. Lost in the fog of comment on the disarray in the Liberal Party was news of Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay's suggestion that it might be necessary for Canadian forces to remain in Afghanistan after Steve Harper's promised 2011 withdrawal deadline.

Mr. Harpoon hasn't had to take a whole lot of flak for the waste of 131 Canadian lives and billions of Canadian dollarsa in a hopeless cause. He can point the finger of scorn at the Liberals for having entered the fray in the first place. And the Liberals voted with the Harper government to accept the recommendation of the commission led by Liberal John Manley that we "stay the course" until 2011.

But Steve must face the political consequences of changing his mind now. At the very least, voters will start asking why he would do so. Could the answer have anything to do with appeasing, once again, his new-found vizmin buddy in the White House? Where is the benefit for Canada? What will we get in return for the enormous price we are being asked to pay?

The NDP went on record in the vote on the Manley Commission report as being opposed to any extension of the Afghanistan commission. They say what a majority of Canadians believe, that we should bring our troops home now. In Quebec public opinion is even more heavily against the war than it is in TROC. The Bloc won't vote against the wishes of its people.

That leaves the Liberals to prop up the Harper government, should they renege on their promises. (What a surprise that would be! ed) But the Liberals are, publicly at least, looking for a pretext to defeat the Tory government, so to force an election which they are confident, publicly at least, they can win. The Afghanistan war might just turn out to be the big election issue they need. Stay tuned!