Only one road to Afghan answer

Stephen Harper never ceases to amaze.

His move on the Afghan mission is pure art: there is something in it for everyone. He struck a blue-ribbon panel of national worthies to come up with recommendations on the mission. Former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley heads the group, which also includes broadcaster and Canadian consul general to New York Pam Wallin, former Tory cabinet minister Jake Epp, former ambassador Derek Burney and former Privy Council clerk and corporate CEO Paul Tellier. They’ll look at a number of options, from current circumstance to immediate withdrawal.

It will take some heat off the Tories - but it also take a heap of heat off the Liberals, believe it or not. Even the NDP gets something out of it: their policy of withdrawal is to be considered (though we know how long that will be pondered...).

Nothing progressive is going to happen in Afghanistan without military action providing security. It’s not about how many little girls go to school or how many women set up businesses; it’s about security – local and international, including ours - and, with that, will come progress for Afghan society.

As for the Canadian mission, the current term to early 2009 is still lengthy, particularly in a war. Things changes in months, weeks, days or even hours.

Don’t think for a minute the Americans necessarily want Canadians - and others - to stay in the south. Without Canadians, British and Dutch troops there, the Americans will be able to do things their way: with heavy fire power. It’ll be the Morice Line in Algeria all over, only far better: no other NATO troops – or their media – to consider.

And just because Hillary Clinton is likely to be the U.S. president she’s going to go soft. She’ll probably abandon Iraq, but all the more will go into Afghanistan. Recent female world leaders have a history of not just beating their foes: they demolish and humiliate them – Israeli prime minister Golda Meir and the Arabs in 1973, Indian prime minister Indira Ghandi and the Pakistanis in 1971, British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and the Argentines in 1982.

As a young Van Doos company commander noted on a recent CBC documentary by the two Radio-Canada journalists injured in Afghanistan last summer, if he were an American, he could just call in air support and blast a target village. Canadians have to do it by hand – the dangerous way.

All over the map...

I can’t for the life of me understand why some folks – apparently from the left of the political spectrum – are so hot to get Canadians involved in the hell of Darfur.

With Sen. Romeo Dallaire, it’s his experience in Rwanda. Canadians already have had experience in Sudan and its environs. Hundreds of Canadian boatmen were in on the attempt to relieve Maj. Gen. Charles Gordon, killed by the Mahdist movement in 1885. That wasn’t brought under control until 1897, when British forces - which included Lt. Winston Spencer Churchill - defeated it at Omdurman.

Darfur could well be worse than Afghanistan, with less of a pay off.

At the same time, Harper has been busy getting onto his primary defense priority: staking out and defending Canadian sovereignty in the north.