All Parties Have Blood On Their Hands re. Afghanistan

Except, perhaps, the Bloc. Supported initial mission but also supported its end in 2009. Coherent all the way through - perhaps it shouldn't be surprising as Quebeckers, but when you think about it, Bloc followed a Chrétien line. As for the rest, as has been pointed out, the NDP guaranteed this foolish mission would continue by refusing to vote with the Liberals & Bloc in 2007. The NDP engaged in morally reprehensible knavery. But to be intellectually & morally coherent, one should also mention that 1/4 of Liberal MPs who voted with the Con Gov't in 2006 to prolong the mission to 2009. As Dion pointed out at time, this should not have been a free vote as it was not some question of very personal philosophical difference, like abortion or capital punishment, but an extremely crucial "normal" public policy vote. Again, as Dion said, a position should have been decided in caucus, one way or the other, and in extremis, those in disagreement should have been allowed to absent themselves or suffer the consequences of voting against the caucus' position. But as most know full well, because Graham, although just interim leader, was committed to the mission, and, more importantly, the then most prominent candidate in the leadership race, Michael Ignatieff, was famously and loudly in favour of the mission and had just enough MPs willing to follow him in the interest of riding his coattails to eventual prominence, our Liberal MPs decided on a free vote. In the end, the motion passed by FOUR (4) VOTES! Ignatieff + one of his supporters would have been enough to defeat it. Had we had even a 1-line or 2-line whipped vote, as Dion suggested, it would have been defeated.

Chrétien engaged in some canny realpolitik, refusing engagement in Iraq but sending us to Afghanistan for a limited period, in Kabul, the most secure area, where we suffered, while JC was in office, not a single casualty, while pleasing the USA by effectively subsidising their Afghan-Iraq mission by taking some of the load off their hands. We all know and understand this. Had Chrétien remained in office, who thinks he would have let us get drawn in further and who thinks he & Goldenberg would have got us out of there asap (perhaps subsidising the USA by doing more elsewhere, like Haiti, which is also good for direct Canadian interests)? Poser la question, c'est y répondre.

The NDP has as much blood on its hands as anyone. But there are some Liberals who are just as bad, as I noted a while back: "When the Afghanistan mission was extended in 2006, by four votes, with Ignatieff's support (had he opposed it, enough of his followers would have done likewise to defeat the motion), Nicola Goddard had just become the 17th Canadian casualty. By February 2007, when we would have normally withdrawn, 28 more Canadians were dead. Now, by February 2009, 111 Canadians have died, 66 more than if we had left in February 2007. Forget for a second the billions of dollars we could better use either in more worthwhile development elsewhere or at home. All those who voted for the extension, the Cons of course, but some of our own Liberals most shamefully, have the blood of at least 66 Canadians on their hands. Not to mention the inevitable coarsening of our military culture and consequent human rights abuses which accompany any occupation (it's not how we see it that counts, it's how the Pushtun perceive it that does - enough of them see it as an occupation to make an occupation)."