RE: [Futurework] Borrrrring!!!

[Cordell, Arthur: ECOM]

THE GREAT AFGHAN DEBATE The Post and the Citizen front, while CTV News, The National, the Star, the Globe and La Presse go inside with the parliamentary “take note debate” on Canada’s military involvement in Afghanistan, which unfolded yesterday evening in the House of Commons. The non-binding discussion, which had all parties supporting the deployment and did not involve a vote, was also poorly attended despite weeks of rankling by opposition members. As Robert Fife of CTV News reported, only 89 of 308 MPs showed up, with the number dwindling to 35 later in the evening. Fife speculated that the low turnout was a result of the impending Easter break, but suggested that it would be a good question for Canadians to ask their representatives in Ottawa. Both The Post and the Citizen highlight Defense Minister Gordon O’Connor’s assertion that “Canada is in Afghanistan because it is in our national interest.” The Globe, however, focuses on NDP Leader Jack Layton’s flurry of questions that lead O’Connor to call Layton’s party “anti-military.” The only significant outcome of the day’s jockeying were indications from Prime Minister Harper that Canadian troops would remain in Afghanistan for “the long term”, well after the 2007 expiration date of the current mission. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Cordell, Arthur: ECOM Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 12:32 PM To: Ed Weick; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Futurework Subject: RE: [Futurework] Borrrrring!!! I also watched.  I also came away with the same set of feelings.   Arthur -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Ed Weick Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Futurework Subject: [Futurework] Borrrrring!!! I watched our federal parliamentarians debate on the Canadian military presence in Afghanistan last night, expecting some enlightenment on why our soldiers are there. I got nothing out of it and had to conclude that most members of Parliament, at least those that spoke, didn’t really know what they were talking about. It all seemed to boil down to the question of whether individuals supported our troops or not. Not to support them would prove unpatriotic and no MP would want to be labelled as that. What bothered me most about the debate is that it didn’t even come close to asking the real questions such as why, when we went in under NATO have we become part of the American’s Operation Enduring Freedom or what the strategic implications of trying to pacify Afghanistan were (see my posting of March 26,  http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636/newblog.htm). Some of the discussion sounded very American – like if we don’t fight terrorism over there we’ll have to fight it over here – suggesting a very wrong understanding of terrorism. It’s as though terrorism was a country like prewar Iraq complete with a hostile dictator. I think we should have learned enough to know that it isn’t really like that at all. It’s a whole bunch of little groups or cells in many parts of the world, many connected but others not, each with their own grievances arising out of interactions between rich countries and poor countries, exploiting people and exploited peoples, and those who gain and those who have little left to lose. Of course, fundamentalist religion plays a role in it, supporting and providing a moral armament to those who believe they must destroy the infidel.  There are also those who, like the "black widows" of Chechnya, having lost everything and in deep grief, feel that their only remaining recourse is to undertake terrorist acts. But none of this was mentioned in the debate last night. It was like you gotta put your hand on your heart and support whatever it is we’re doing over their or you’re not a patriotic Canadian. So that’s what the MPs, hands on hearts, did. Ed

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework