Bob Rae/Riggy, Price Leader for the Oligopoly

It may be redundant to write this, as those who read this blog probably already know it, but as always, I figure someone should say out loud what all the articles, columns, editorials and tweets hint at, regarding Harper's "odd" generosity in trying to spare the LPC from an open debate on Afghanistan.

All parties, most stupidly and shamefully the NDP, have the blood of wasted Canadian youth on their hands as regards Afghanistan. But for Harper and Rae-Iggy, or Riggy (an appropriate moniker for those who rig deals), the 2011 deadline was particularly difficult. As stupid as Harper had long been on Afghanistan, once Prime Minister, no PM with half a brain could avoid concluding that Canada's involvement in Afghanistan was a folly, given all the reports. Unfortunately, because of his foolishness, he had dug himself, the CPC and Canada into a hole as regards his cabinet, his caucus, his supporters, target voters, and "allies", more specifically, the USA. When one uses the kind of rhetoric he did, for as long as he did, and makes the sort of promises, not to say commitments, he did, it takes a very strong man, a very strong PM, to liberate himself, his party and his country from the quicksand he'd leapt into, having pulled everyone in with him. And Harper is no Chrétien, nor Trudeau. The problem with words and promises is that, *shocker*, an awful lot of people take them seriously. So target voters expect the party to respect them, the party members expect the same, the dimwitted backbenchers likewise, and even in cabinet, there are always a few dull fools. And of course, internationally, as in all public policy, it is usually possible to turn a "NO" into a "YES", but it's almost impossible to turn a "YES" into a "NO". Especially with the Americans (hypocrites).

So Harper wanted to get out. You may have heard. He was quite vocal about it, one or two Embassy guards and all that. But he had to deal with his cabinet, caucus, party, country and allies, the USA. These are not insuperable difficulties, if one really wanted to leave. But, again, Harper is no Chrétien, no Trudeau. Riding the tiger isn't as easy as it looks, as Martin found out. But Harper wanted (rather than needed) to bring cabinet, caucus, party, people and allies along with him, being good politics here and abroad. If the Opposition, mirroring the will of the people, was to be solidly against any fudge, he would have been in trouble. Harper was in a muddle.

But so was the supposed Official Opposition. The LPC had its own problems, given its leader's history on the Afghan and other files, and the party's history. For just as many in the CPC took words and promises seriously, so it was that the LPC was full of passion on the subject, some people still taking Canadian lives and leaders' words seriously enough to get quite angry and intransigent. And while a strong majority, 3/4 and more, of the LPC was against the mission in 2006, and has only grown more convinced of its foolishness, with every new report, the other 1/4 have also correspondingly stuck in their heels, psychologically blocked, unwilling to come to terms with what they have wrought, and so stuck in fantasies of a few more summers doing the trick.

What to do? I don't know if there were any meaningful backroom dealings, perhaps, but I doubt it. I think we are rather witnessing the conclusion of a process of oligopolistic price fixing. I would claim that Rae played the role of price leader, since his June statements made it clear a deal was doable, was on, and at what price, though Harper may have been the price leader, as his preceding statements made it clear he was open to an offer. So just as one of your local gas stations raises its price by one cent, and all follow, and all members of the local cartel comfortably reap the rewards of the inflated price, without anyone having to directly or explicitly communicate in order to fix the price (which would be dreadfully wrong, wouldn't it?), so I think the Harper & Riggy never had to explicitly communicate to reach a deal.

Why Harper? Why Rae? For the deal to work, it had to be managed most delicately. Harper had to bring his warmongers along with him, and since he'd built up some credibility as a warmonger himself, it was necessary for him to set out a position sufficiently extreme and at odds with prevailing sentiment within the CPC that anything more than "a couple of embassy guards" would be seen as a win by the warmongers. On the other side, Rae was thought of as being on the Left of the LPC, he had opposed the 2006 extension, he was foreign affairs critic, he was BOB RAE, fer gawds' sake! So who better to bring the left of the LPC along, than frigging BOB RAE? So we have been witness to a pincer action, not just within their parties, but also, they hope, within the country, Harper bringing the Right along, and Rae bringing the Left. Iggy obviously can't deliver the Left, given its suspicion of him, so it had to be his old roommate, who did him a solid. Who can now doubt Rae's loyalty to the LPC? He was willing to incoherently deny his own intelligence and renounce his supposed principles, Globe-style, to support Iggy, the roomie who cheated so as to block him out of the top job. Bob Rae, great Liberal, great Canadian.

Harper couldn't have done it without Riggy, and Riggy wanted to avoid any unhelpful division themselves, so Harper's end of the deal is to be "beau joueur", and save the LPC from suffering the division of an open debate and vote, so he says it's not a combat mission so no vote necessary, Riggy agree, and the media, who understand all this, and have their own responsibility, voire guilt, oil the wheels of the machine, permitting the deal.

It's true that sooner or later there will be an NDP or Bloc motion, but it won't get much coverage, as the issue will be judged old news, the decision having been taken, the two larger parties agreed, the media concurring. Only the Canadian people strenuously disagree. And who cares about them? Suckers.

I'm not trying to be unfair to Harper or Riggy, they all think they are also doing the right thing policy-wise, as they feel that this the best they could have done, and while it might have been possible, technically, for Harper to have the courage to stand up to the Americans and elements of his party, and Riggy to do likewise, they all feel that there's possible, and then there's possible, and political bravery, for them, is abstract art - not their thing. And of course, all three are thoroughly colonised. Even Rae's original left-wingery found its roots far more in the American Left rather than the Canadian Left, a recurring and often ignored problem among the Canadian Left (see Rebick, Judy, and Klein, Naomi), who spend their time criticising the Canadian Right for being all American, one of life's sad, sweet, ironies.

However, there is one teensy tiny problem. The whole thing is sick and wrong.

We're a democracy, yeah? And a solid majority of Canadians, year after year, poll after poll, want us out, all out, of Afghanistan. What about that?

Our soldiers believe what they're told, and do what they're told. But we all know, and we have for some time, that they are dying and being wounded for a lost cause, perdue d'avance, from which we will withdraw, in a few years from now, and within a decade we will see almost all our gains in human development disappear in any subsequent "Taliban"-supporting region (quotes, because really just code for widespread noxious patriarchal behaviour, not necessarily "taliban" per se). The places we mostly weren't, the North & West, might fare better. Encouraged by the American special forces etc. who remain. Think of Kurdistan post-Iraq War I - it'll be something like that in North and West.

So the CPC, LPC, Canadian media and much of the elite, are all in on a massive stitch-up, which means no-one has to confront their guilt while letting even more of the best Canadians die and get crippled for nothing, a waste of lives and dollars, contrary to the wishes of the great majority of Canadians. Some principles. Some elites. But at least the chatterers get to feel clever as they allude to it without saying it. Aren't you all so very very clever?

Watching much of the coverage this week, with the BS on the ins and outs of the politics, was sickly. There was a particularly gruesome segment on CBC's Power and Politics when Rosemary Barton was brightly hosting Russo, Martin and Anderson and everyone was so pleased to talk about the faux politics, and avoid all meaningful discussion of the underlying issue, and the BS it's wrapped in, that they have helped wrap. Does it make sense? To what end? What is the endgame? For our soldiers, and our country (Canada, in case you'd forgotten), not political parties, or media, wondering how many stories they can pulp out of the issue, saving them more, deeper, work on harder questions.

I know about all this BS, and why, I always knew, I always know, but some issues are too important for gameplaying. Democracy. Human rights. Canadians' lives, especially those who obey our orders, and that "our" is Canadian democracy, it's all of us who order them.

I mostly only write when I feel I have to. I don't feel like any of these posts should be necessary. It always shocks me that they are. You can't claim to believe in x, y and z, and then not follow through. Sure, we all mess up in little ways, but in major questions of rights and democracy, of life and death? Can you not be true to what you claim are your selves, even then? Who are you? What has happened to you? What's it all for, otherwise? You all do know we are all going to die, sooner rather than later, all things considered, right? What do you want to leave behind? What do you want to be remembered for? Clever cynicism or simple idealism?

I want to help. And CTV, of all places, had some great reflection on the real issues this week, with interviews with Col. (retd) Drapeau, Scott Taylor and Sunil Ram, and some pointed questioning of the self-interested bumpf from the CDA, available here. Watch 'em and learn. And think.

"The Lady will defy" vs. G&M & Canadian Sell-Outs

"We believe in a Parliament that answers to the people, rather than executive power" - the Globe & Mail's grand relaunch vision statement editorial, October 1st, 2010, A new Globe, but timeless principles.

"The Canadian government has made the decision to extend this country’s mission in Afghanistan. Should it be put to Parliament to debate and vote on, as MP Paul Dewar, the New Democratic Party’s foreign affairs critic, says? No. Such a vote is not necessary or helpful." The Globe & Mail's Friday editorial, We don't need another Afghan resolution, its fourth editorial in six days, trying to justify the killing & crippling of idealistic working class and poor rural young men & women, and wasting billions of dollars, so as to please our perceived USA colonial overlords, prevent LPC divisions (& CPC, to a lesser extent) to avoid handing the next election to the CPC, and not admit the Globe's own guilt in this monstrous folly, not admit the knowing guilt of much of our supposed elite, and send Canadians to sleep with fairytales, and pretend to be a proper self-respecting country abroad. Shameful. Not so timeless, those principles, eh?

The only cost for maintaining this fraud is throwing away the lives & limbs of young working class & poor rural Canadians, and billions of dollars better used elsewhere, and our self-respect, and national sovereignty. Cheap at the price, for Rae, Harper, Iggy, the Globe & Co. I suppose. It's not like our soldiers are fully real human beings, like those divine spirits who populate the country's newsrooms, lobbies & backrooms, chattering, chattering, chattering. And they ARE volunteers, so we really have no responsibility to be as careful with their lives, as worthy of them, as they are worthy of us, as though they were conscripts, do we? They're supposed to do the fighting, standing up for Canada, and they count on us to do the thinking, and stand up for them, and Canada. Scratch that, that's passé. We stand up only for ourselves, and the glorious USA, nowadays, eh?

It makes one think on today's Globe front. Let's compare Aung San Suu Kyi to the Globe & co., shall we? On the one side, Aung San Suu Kyi, principled, unbending, victorious strategist. On the other, unprincipled, bent, petty tacticians. I think me & mine will stick with the Aung San Suu Kyis of this world, thank you very much. And we will win, for like all insurgents, everywhere, we have time on our side, and you know it. We don't give up, we don't give in, never have, never will. We're fighting for something, for the only thing, for the real thing. What are you fighting for? For shadows on a wall, for the right to claim you understand them best of all? For Nothing. You are nothing. You know the price of everything and the value of nothing; you have nothing. Empty, full of nothing, for nothing, going nowhere. You are nothing men, going nowhere. And you know it.

For those who would choose another path, to liberate themselves and climb out of the darkness of the cave into the bracing sunshine of truth and justice above, as today Aung San Suu Kyi left her chains and came to the world outside, I reproduce below the Guardians' account of her liberation. And I say to the Globe, to Harper, Rae, Ignatieff and others, to all: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Crowds push past the barricades as Aung San Suu Kyi is freed
Children danced, monks meditated and after sustained applause Aung San Suu Kyi spoke to supporters for the first time in years
Jack Davies in Rangoon
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 13 November 2010 18.13 GMT

As dusk gathered, the order came by mobile phone to take down the barricades. The roadblock that for years had blocked University Avenue, cutting Aung San Suu Kyi off from her people, was no more. As the police attempted to pull down the barbed wire, the crowd overwhelmed them; seven years of anger and generations of frustration forgotten in one joyous moment. The police, long feared as the front line of Burma's brutal security apparatus, tried to order the crowd back, but were helpless to do so.

In longyis and sandals, Aung San Suu Kyi's supporters ran the 400 yards to the front gate of her home. One woman, a portrait of "The Lady" pinned to her shirt, wept as she ran, calling out her name. They pushed against the ancient, sagging bamboo fence, singing and chanting, "long live Aung San Suu Kyi".

Despite years of house arrest, and the long hours yesterday waiting for the release order to finally come, inside her lakeside compound her inner circle were not prepared. They begged the crowd to sit and to be patient while they found something for their leader to stand on.

After 10 minutes, she appeared, in a lavender top, only her face and shoulders visible above the fence. The crowd roared. Here was the excitement, the enthusiasm of the Burmese people, so palpably missing from last week's election, embodied in a smiling 65-year-old woman, standing on a chair at her front gate, with flowers in her hair.

Over the noise of several thousand people pressing against the fence, Burma's most eloquent democracy campaigner could barely be heard. It was a full five minutes before the crowd allowed her even the chance to speak. Still, her words were lost to most.

Aung San Suu Kyi spoke only briefly, telling those gathered that she would offer more detail today at a press conference at the offices of her banned party, the National League for Democracy. "There is a time to be quiet and a time to talk. People must work in unison. Only then can we achieve our goal," she told the crowd to huge, sustained, applause.

This was a day that had begun with so much anticipation, but which threatened so much disappointment. For months, 13 November had been put forward as the date of her release, with increasing certainty. Even the junta, notoriously coy about its plans and barely believable anyway, had as much as confirmed she would be released then. "She will be released for sure as planned. We are just waiting for the time to release her," a military source had said.

Many thought she would be released early, so they came in the morning to wait. But as the long day progressed, and grew hotter, her supporters grew dispirited. They sought the shade on the edge of the road, and talked in tight groups, worried that they'd been deceived by the junta again. That she wasn't coming out. Not today. Not at all. In the early afternoon, two more platoons of police marched to the roadblock and took up positions behind the barbed wire. Dressed in riot gear and carrying shotguns, they were not taken as an encouraging sign. Other officers tightly bound the roadblock barricades with extra wire.

But by mid-afternoon, confidence had swelled again, spurred by rumours that her release was imminent. As word spread, the crowd of a bare few hundred swelled to several thousand, and began to push towards the barrier.

The order came, and the crowd pushed to Aung San Suu Kyi's house. "We are happy. She is free. The Lady is free," one man said. A taxi driver said all of Burma would celebrate. "For a long time I have supported Aung San Suu Kyi. Tomorrow, I won't drive. I'll go to hear her [speak at NLD headquarters]. She is good for Burma. She is our true leader. Not the government, Aung San Suu Kyi."

University Avenue, for so long a symbol of the junta's isolation and oppression, became the scene of a celebration, equal parts vigil and party, as thousands flocked to the democracy icon's gate.

Monks, the target of the military regime's last violent crackdown in 2007, cheered and clapped, while others wept or meditated. In the city, streets were filled with cars beeping horns. On one street corner, two children danced, singing Aung San Suu Kyi's name.

This day was momentous for Burma, but it is what happens next that is important. For all of her personal following, after seven years of isolation Aung San Suu Kyi faces a different political landscape. The country has just completed an election she was not a part of. With her National League for Democracy party banned, she is no longer the head of a recognised political organisation.

What role does she wish to play in Burma's future? And what role will she be allowed? Since she was first arrested in June 1989, her brief spells of freedom have been marred by rigid restrictions on her movement and her right to associate. She has railed against them in the past, without success. In 2000, she spent six days in her car at a military roadblock after being stopped from leaving Rangoon, the standoff only ending when she was put back under house arrest.

Since being "freed" yesterday, Aung San Suu Kyii has still not left her house. No indication has been given yet as to what conditions the military have imposed upon her liberty, and whether she will accept them.

Through lawyer U Nyan Win, she has indicated she is not interested in compromise, or accommodating the wishes of a military regime which jailed her three times and still holds more than 2,100 political prisoners. "The Lady will defy," he told the Observer. "She will not accept conditions from the regime. She must see her people, she is a politician, the people love to see her free, and she wants to meet with her people."

That her first move today will be to speak to the press and the public suggests she wants a role, formal or not, in her country's politics. That she is doing it from the offices of her now-banned party suggests she is still unafraid.

1988 Leaves husband and two sons in Oxford and travels to Rangoon to care for her critically ill mother.

8 August Series of marches protesting against the ruling Burma Socialist Programme party, known as the 8888 uprisings.

26 August Makes a speech in Rangoon saying she "could not, as my father's daughter, remain indifferent to all that was going on". Travels the country calling for peaceful democratic reforms.

18 September Demonstrations are brutally suppressed as the army seize power.

1989 Placed under house arrest as the junta declares martial law.

1990 National League for Democracy wins national elections, despite the fact thatAung San Suu Kyi is disqualified from standing. Military disregards the result.

1991 Awarded the Nobel peace prize.

1995 Released from house arrest but her movements are restricted.

2000-02 House arrest imposed again after she tries to travel to a rally in Mandalay.

May 2003 Just over a year since her "unconditional release", she is imprisoned after clashes between NLD and junta forces.

September 2003 Following medical treatment she is allowed home from prison under effective house arrest.

September 2007 Greets protesting Buddhist monks in her first public appearance since 2003.

May 2008 House arrest extended for another year.

May 2009 Charged with breaking detention rules after an American swims to her compound.

August 2009 Sentenced to 18 months further house arrest.

13 November 2010 Released from house arrest.

À Lire: Council On Foreign Relations: Reason (AMERICAN Reason, for the Colonised)

And remember, all this is from an American realist perspective, so it goes 1000 times more for Canada. Stop the March of Folly!

Influential panel says U.S. should cut troops in Afghanistan if no progress seen: "But the task force, led by former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage and former national security adviser Samuel Berger, implicitly argued against extending the withdrawal deadline. WE HAD THE KIND OF DEBATE AMONG OURSELVES THAT THE CONGRESS HOUSE OF COMMONS SHOULD HAVE, THE AMERICAN CANADIAN PUBLIC SHOULD HAVE ON A MATTER THAT'S SO IMPORTANT, AS IT INVOLVES THE LIVES OF OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN SERVICE, AND CIVILIAN ORGANIZATIONS" (EFL bold & edits)

Washington doit envisager un rapatriement rapide des troupes : « Mais si la stratégie de l'administration Obama ne réussit pas, Washington devra songer à un retrait plus important et beaucoup plus rapide de ses troupes. Plutôt que de vaincre les talibans, les Américains devront se contenter de combattre le terrorisme en Afghanistan, croit les experts du CFR. »

Rethinking an Afghanistan Exit Strategy: "we ought to not wait until July 2011 to change directions...Given that we have a weak partner in the Karzai government and only a partial partner in Pakistan, we can't keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome...after 2005, the ISI came to the conclusion that maybe the coalition wouldn't prevail, and if that was the case, they were going to make sure they had a seat at the Pashtun table in the south and the east in Afghanistan. So that's kind of where we are."

Independent Task Force Conditionally Supports U.S. Policy in Pakistan, Afghanistan, but Argues for Changing Strategy Absent Progress: December 2010 review should be “a clear-eyed assessment of whether there is sufficient overall progress to conclude that the strategy is working.” If not, the report argues that “a more significant drawdown to a narrower military mission would be warranted.”

U.S. Strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan: Afghanistan faces the challenges of “pervasive corruption that breeds the insurgency; weak governance that creates a vacuum; Taliban resilience that feeds an atmosphere of intimidation; and an erratic leader whose agenda may not be the same as that of the United States.”

"Canadians on Afghanistan: Turns out they may have been right all along" O'Malley, 21-09-09

I've mentioned O'Malley's Canadians on Afghanistan: Turns out they may have been right all along from September 2009 once or twice before, but I feel it's worth reproducing in full, and highlighting her final comment, from the article's comment thread, which might be missed otherwise: "As far as I'm concerned, no party is without blame. The Canadian public, on the other hand, can at least comfort themselves on their collective common sense, although it's not like anyone listened to them."

Canadians on Afghanistan: Turns out they may have been right all along.
by Kady O'Malley on Monday, September 21, 2009 11:28am - 54 Comments
When, in the course of her usual morning newsblitz, ITQ finds herself confronted with headlines like this, and this, and this — and especially this (that last one, the latest dispatch from Esprit de Corps’ Scott Taylor, provides a must-read counterpoint to the nearly universally fawning coverage of a certain Conservative star candidate in waiting that surfaced last week) — she can’t help but recall that April 2007 day that the NDP teamed up with the Conservatives to defeat a Liberal motion — introduced by Denis Coderre, and seconded by one Michael Ignatieff —  that would have seen Canada’s military role end, as originally scheduled, in February 2009.

At the time, the NDP argued that two more years was too years too long — a position that was, to be fair, consistent with the party’s longstanding position on Afghanistan. But how, one can’t help but wonder, might subsequent events have unfolded had they decided to vote with the other opposition parties, and the motion was passed by the House?

Would the prime minister still have set up an independent panel on the future of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan later that year? What would its terms of reference have been, and would the eventual findings have been different? Would the Conservatives and the Liberals have been able to agree on a compromise motion that would extend the mission for an additional two years?

She also can’t help but think of what that panel  heard from Canadians two years ago, when it invited them to share their thoughts on Canada’s current and future role in Afghanistan — not, that is, much of what they told him made it into the final report, of course, as ITQ pointed out at the time.

The full collection of submissions to the panel is no longer available online — the official panel website has long since been lost to domain squatters. But rereading even the excerpts that appeared in ITQ’s original summary brings on a haunting sense of — not quite deja vu, and pretty much the exact opposite of 20/20 hindsight.  Whether writing from the perspective of the retired military officer, the peace activist or even just as a concerned Canadian, nearly all those who took part in the process seemed to have a more realistic grasp of what was at stake in Afghanistan, what the cost might be — and, most significantly, the likelihood that the then (and, for the most part, still) current strategy would eventually lead to success.

Maybe, just maybe, there’s something to the idea of the metawisdom of crowds after all.

Tags: A Different Kind Of Elitism, Afghanistan, Francis Galt Would Be Proud, Jellybean Wisdom, Manley Report, Sometimes The Experts Get It Wrong

Comments (55)

Greg · 59 weeks ago
Kady, try to be a little fair. The NDP wanted to bring the troops back immediately, not in 2009.

Standing By replies · active 59 weeks ago
What Jack and the NDP geniuses wanted was to deprive the Liberals of anything resembling a Parliamentary victory, which resulted in them refusing to support a Liberal motion that -- with their support -- would have required the Government to end our combat mission in February 2009. The NDP gave partisan considerations more weight than their antiwar stance.

KadyITQ 86p · 59 weeks ago
I believe that's what I wrote, and I think I am being entirely fair.

Jim · 59 weeks ago
The NDP put up a motion the next week on withdrawl that the Liberals voted against. Then, the Spring after an amendment to the government motion on bringing the troops home, which the Libs voted against.

Then the Liberals voted with Harper one extending the mission.

Sure thing Kady, it was all the NDP's fault...

KadyITQ 86p · 59 weeks ago
As far as I'm concerned, no party is without blame. The Canadian public, on the other hand, can at least comfort themselves on their collective common sense, although it's not like anyone listened to them.

Pro-War Pundits: Completely Incoherent, Completely Absurd

I'll tell you what's absurd about pro-war pundits, it's pretending to be a grown-up by admitting the facts are the facts, that yes, the Taliban are far stronger than they have been since 2001, that yes sooner or later they will have power again over Pushtun areas favourable to them, that yes, WE FINANCE 90% of AFGHAN GOVT & ARMY - buying little or no loyalty (but better than none?) AND WITHOUT US THE POTEMKIN INSTITUTIONS WOULD COLLAPSE, that yes, the place is irredemably corrupt, THAT WITHOUT OUR PRESENCE KARAZI & Co. WOULD DE DEAD, GONE, OR BECOME OUTRIGHT INTEREST-BROKERING DICTATORS, that yes, yes, yes, the place was, is and always will be a mess...but perhaps by next summer all will be well?! Or maybe the next summer? Or the summer after that? I mean, it's only been ten years, and look at all the progress we've made. Luckily, none of the allies is suffering from crises in their public finances, that means further war would bankrupt us...

OUR LOYALTY AND DUTY IS TO CANADA FIRST AND FOREMOST. AFGHANISTAN IS NOT SIMPLY OF NO NATIONAL INTEREST, IT IS NEGATIVE TO THE NATIONAL INTEREST - IT PUTS US IN THE RED. Literally. Not just money. The red blood shed, not for nothing, not less than nothing, but for a cause negative to the national interest.

Listen to yourselves. Think about what you're saying. It's complete double-think. One the one hand you say it's worse than ever, no prospect of any fundamental shift, you admit the Taliban will retake power in parts of the country, eventually, inevitably, etc. etc.. In summary, looked at coldly, that it is hopeless. AND THEN YOU TURN AROUND AND SAY WE SHOULD STAY LONGER! SHED MORE LIVES, LIMBS & DOLLARS...for what? For what? Answer me, for what? You admit it's hopeless...but we should continue to live in hope? And sacrifice here and abroad on that basis?

The problem is, as Usbek said, that everyone has been colonised. But those who were cheerleaders from the beginning suffer the condition most, because to recognise what a folly it is, to act logically on the facts as they admit them, would mean, in effect, repudiating a decade of their foolishness, that aided and abetted the deaths, injuries and wasted treasure (which means greater death and injury here at home as well, if you think it through - there's only one dollar).

You are all now suffering, and have been for a while, from what pro-Soviet Western Communists suffered after Stalin's crimes could no longer be denied, or what Iggy was forced to confront on Iraq. You were so very very wrong. Blood is on your hands. And naturally, you are having trouble coming to terms with it. And you can never make up for it. So you are retreating into fantasies, naturally enough. Psychologically understandable. But given your share of responsibility for the shambles, utter cowardice. Senator Colin Kenny is one of the very few to have had the guts and integrity and intellectual and moral honesty to face up to it. The rest of you? A shower, a complete shower.

The Women? It sucks. But that's Afghanistan. It's not great even now. And you admit the Taliban will retake power. So what will happen to the women then? It sucks. But we didn't make it that way, and we are the boys with our thumbs in the dyke, holding back the flood. But it's coming, you admit it's coming, sooner or later, so how many CANADIAN dead, wounded and dollars should we spend, for how long, to hold back the water? The Sea always finds its natural level, sooner or later. That's nature, that's the world. It sucks. But if the Afghan Government, its institutions, are completely dependent on us, and there is no real prospect of that changing for the forseeable future, than is that an argument for staying forever, or leaving immediately?

Well guess what, there are other women, in other places, we can help, whose societies offer some realistic possibility of permanent, structural progress. We can reduce misery and improve women's rights without getting our kids killed, and maimed, and with an immeasurably higher ratio of benefit to cost. We can help WAY MORE WOMEN if we leave Afghanistan and focus our energies elsewhere.

In effect, by staying in Afghanistan, the utopians would have us hold on to the most unproductive aid enterprise imaginable, rather than investing in much more productive, high-growth opportunities, on the "open market" of needy countries.

National security considerations? For Canada, a joke, from the beginning. Only the USA & UK might have some logic there. And even then, the Biden plan is much more efficient and rational.

You cannot pretend te be rational, admit the facts, admit it's hopeless, and say we should stay. You cannot. Not unless it's a matter of faith or madness. Utopianism is both.

Anyway, if you are fanatical or mad, none of this will matter, or convince you. Otherwise, you could also read Hillier & Haiti & Other Thoughts if you wanted more perspective on everything, and how things are interconnected. Every dollar spent in Afghanistan is a dollar not spent elsewhere. Every life. Every limb.

There is one rational possibility I haven't addressed. I work on the assumption that for all my criticism, Canada remains a sovereign state. That may be my own blind spot, my own faith interfering. Perhaps the media cheerleaders are not the fools they seem, but rather even harder, colder, more cynical, more realpolitik men and women than me. Perhaps they take it for granted that we are a colony of the USA. That we must stay as long as the USA needs us to stay. Why? Because we are their colony and must please our master, or else! That is not my view. But I may be naive and wrong. And so the media's apparent mad incoherence is actually completely coherent, intelligent and sensible. They know we ARE going to stay, like it or not. So they view their job as to make the decision as little humiliating as possible, as enjoyable as possible. At least Canadians can be made to feel they made their own sovereign decision to stay, the polls notwithstanding, year after year. The cheerleader media are perhaps trying to do their fellow citizens a service, to make things as palatable as possible. They sacrifice themselves for us.

I sometimes think that Harper's education as PM has led him to rethink many things. I sometimes think that he discovered he was far more typically Canadian in his views than he even thought he was himself, before. I sometimes think that he was upset to discover that he might have less freedom for action than he thought he did, that given his psychology, he instinctively pushes back against imposition from above - he was always happy to be pro-American before, but he'd thought it was his choice, his personal rejection of Trudeau. I sometimes think he now perceives he has no choice, and that rankles him. I sometimes think that might explain his behaviour on this issue. It's not that he was lying, it's that he didn't want to admit to the country and himself that he was just a puppet, and so typically, he pouted and shouted, and pretended and hoped it would go away, and tried to ignore it, and still does. Because once in power he's enough of an economist at heart to do the cost-benefit and want to leave Afghanistan...if the premise is that Canada is an independent country. But what if that premise is wrong? And that would explain the media's incoherence, and their scapegoating of Harper over process issues to do with Afghanistan, since he is them and they are him, psychologically, on this, and so they can work out their issues, their self-hatred, through him. They all know we are a colony, with a colony's fate, but only Harper has to wear it, they just have to talk, write and promote the rationale that lets Canadians sleep at night.

Those are not my views or premises. Maybe more fool me. But I still think of Canada as a proud independent country, master of itself, if it so wishes. But I could be wrong.

PS. I just realised that I forgot to address the rhetorical trick of saying the troops want us to stay, probably because it's hardly worth mentioning, without being insulting to media who engage in shitty emotional blackmail. Anyway, for the very dim, do we let police officers decide justice policy by themselves? Teachers education policy? Etc.etc.. C'mon. Public policy is about the public interest. Public to MPs to representative democracy in the Burkean sense, remember? Stop the nonsense.

Xanadu & Absurdistan: le colonisateur colonisé

A grim fairytale, as recounted to me by Usbek, of his homeland, Xanadu, and its colonisation of Absurdistan. I simply reproduce and Second his wisdom.

Usbek writes:

I was going to speak of this during the summer, after many scribes, having experienced an eclipse, had the time on their hands to pursue worthy projects, and I thought this tale might inspire them to pursue further independent projects. It is such a long tale, and so sad, that I put it off. I, Usbek, only know part of the story, and it really needs many storytellers, to collectively weave the tapestry, in all its breadth and detail. But I do know the essential theme: my Xanadu, with the best intentions in the world, thought itself the noble coloniser of backward Absurdistan. But over time, "le colonisateur est devenu le colonisé", it was actually Aburdistan that colonised Xanadu, Top to Bottom, Left to Right, East to West, North to South, politically, economically, culturally, socially. And not a single Xanadian seems realise it. And Xanadu is suffering under the grip of this Absurdity, yet as few even know they are Absurdity's subjects, it sometimes seems as though we will remain under this Absurd yoke forever, unless something is done, soon, NOW, something "dramatique". Every day we are less Xanadian, and more Absurd. Soon we will be completely Absurd, and no longer Xanadian, at all.

From the very beginning, our noble venture to liberate Absurdistan from its Absurdity was doomed, for Absurdistan puts the absurd into Absurd: why does the scorpion bite the frog? Because that is its nature. Why is Absurdistan incorrigible? Because it is absurd.

Within the Government of Xanadu (GoX), once the venture was decided upon, given its absurdity, there was a problem. GoX had many experienced experts on Absurdistan and the entire Absurd Region. Given their aged wisdom, they were well-aware of the absurdity of the venture. So whenever the mission was discussed, these types kept providing incovenient context and asking inconvenient questions, which is obviously no way to rally the troops and keep everyone on message. So these croakers were shortly promoted or transferred to other areas where their skills could be put to best use, that is, as far away from their areas of expertise as possible, as is traditional in GoX.

Unfortunately, many others had been infected by the croakers' croaking, and had also become quite inconvenient. As a result, in an effort to make sure the mission was an enthusiastic success, GoX demonstrated its habitual wisdom, and employed a cadre of fresh-faced credulous youths to lead it (some, most unfairly, would later call them "The Worst and the Dimmest"). It was win-win all round. The youths were able to leap up the career ladder as they were the only ones whose enthusiasm matched that of their masters, and their masters could now count on blind devotion from the W&D, who had never been posted abroad, knew nothing, saw nothing, heard nothing, and said nothing that would contradict the matchless wisdom of their reigning philosopher kings, whatever the colour of their ermine. Some poor fools couldn't help sparing a thought for the soldiers dying and being wounded in the noble enterprise, and the treasure wasted, and the apparent impossibility of the effort, but these unconverted heathen were easily dismissed in GoX's brave new world.

What those outside the GoX never understood, as indeed most within GoX didn't, for the longest time, was that invading, occupying and liberating the Absurds from their inherent Absurdity, was not a simple, stand-alone project, like many before and since. It was RAW, and RAW is an all-encompassing project. From the beginning, the entire GoX was colonised by RAW needs, and every project, EVERYTHING, consciously or not, was built around the RAW effort. Xanadu had not known such a RAW situation in so very long, and not only was its government overwhelmed, but within its government, the sort of critical thinking that occurs in more RAWlike lands, as a consequence of bitter experience(s), was missing.

All this is a sad beginning. But I fear I have worse news still. Not only was Xanadu's government overwhelmed, so was its entire society. Just like its government, Xanadu's watchdogs and thinkers, its opposition, media, academics, civil society, artists, and EVERYONE, were unused to RAWness, having not known it for generations, Xanadu being traditionally, as the name implies, a peaceable kingdom. And so, the course having been set by its philospher kings, implemented by the W&D, Xanadian society as a whole was incapable of the desperately needed critical thinking, so so desperately needed, all trace having been excised from GoX.

As a result, the unconscious colonisers soon became the unconscious colonised, as Absurdistan's harsh society seeped into Xanadu's. The generous, liberal, humanistic values that had always underpinned Xanadu society, Life, Liberty, Peace, Equality, Solidarity, Order, Good Government and the Pursuit of Happiness were replaced by Absurd devaluing of human life, of human rights, and on and on, making Xanadu ever harsher, carried along by the underlying theocratical transference, "l'esprit du djihadisme" that was to be uprooted, far from losing grip, gained strength in Absurdistan and infected Xanadu, making Xanadians into jihadists for utopia. Just as the Absurd jihadists sought an impossible heaven on Earth, according to their mad values, so was it that GoX, the Xanadian media, and many Xanadians sought to create utopia in Absurdistan. These utopians deny they are utopians, but when you look at what they seek, and the conditions they say must be reached in Absurdistan before Xanadu can withdraw from what they view as a sacred mission, it is clear, to any clearminded man, looking clearly at Absurdistan, that these are impossible, unattainable conditions, and to commit to them would mean committing to Absurdistan forever. Absurd. As stated, it turns the mind. There are no utopias. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and sadly, there is not even any good to be had in Absurdistan, for Xanadians. It is in the Absurd nature that any good works are doomed to disappear, when the Xanadian season is done, like the flies of summer.

Many seek utopia, unconsciously. But if one wakes up, and realises one is seeking utopia, then I ask, when should one stop seeking after the impossible? How many more days, how many more dead, how many more wounded, how many more billions, until we declare the defeat of our eschatological vision? Why one day more? What makes six months more, or six years more, or sixty years more, better than today? If not now, then when?

I have worse news yet. The GoX's W&D, who performed so remarkably in Absurdistan, true believers, as there was a perfect coherence between their self-interest, their callow need to espouse a grand cause, their inexperience ennabling their belief, and stated GoXian policy, having flown up the ladder, were able to leap on the next great opportunity for advancement, the need to help Xanadu's cherished, thunderstruck cousin, Pearl Island (PI).

Given the links between PI and Xanadu, it seems obvious that Xanadu should play the leading role in helping PI in the years to come. Given that the people of PI almost uniformly welcome Xanadian assistance, no sensible man could compare Xanadian efforts in welcoming progressive PI with those attempted in regressive rejectionist Absurdistan. Only someone completely infected by the Absurd virus could do so (a worryingly large number of Xanadians suffer from such Aburdity, as noted).

Unfortunately, the same people responsible for Xanadu's Absurd adventure are now in charge of the Pearl effort. Since they were blissfully ignorant before their Absurd involvement, and that was the defining experience of their young lives, they naturally bring the same approach to all matters. It is refreshing to see how they are not discouraged by past mistakes. Was language a problem in Absurdistan? Since, from their point of view, that went well, all the more reason not to worry about language questions v.-à-v. Pearl. Who needs to speak Pearlese, or its more international linguistic cousin, Hexagonese, when one can count on all interactions and meetings running in the world's lingua franca of Limeish? What use is it to be able to understand or speak the local lingo? It never stopped anyone from getting things done in Absurdistan, did it? That reminds me of the anecdote about one of the more illustrious W&D, our former envoy, the tall, thin, very muslim masculinist male we sent to deal with the intensely jewish feminist female leaders of matriarchal fundamentalist Absurdistan. An astonishingly brilliant bit of counter-casting, since the Absurd retrograde matriarchs rejected dealing with him, and he wasn't able to participate in their communal "sagrij", freeing up his time for much more useful endeavours. Everyone knows of the extreme cultural sensitivity shown by this tall muslim masculinist when not just in conversation but in email, he referred to our partners as operating on "inshallah time" and other such comments, doubtless his arabic translation of the original Absurdi Hebrew. So, so, clever, on so many levels. Luckily, this brilliance has been rewarded and our tall muslim masculinist is now playing a crucial role in our Pearl effort, running things in Limeish most effectively. But he is just one of many "old" Absurd hands who are now in charge of our Pearl efforts.

I, Usbek, have no personal stake in our Pearl effort. However, simpleton that I am, I would think it would be best to have people with experience in comparable efforts, and with the necessary language skills, and connections to Pearl and to la Bella, Xanadu's most Pearl-influenced province, running things. Little though I know, I have heard tell that there are only three Pearlese speakers in the relevant GoX department, one who was recently sent to the Far East, one, inexperienced, who was just hired, and one, from blueberry country in la Bella, hired from the Community of States a couple of years ago, who has previously run all sorts of comparable things all around the world, has lived in Pearl, speaks Pearlish, and has every qualification a simpleton like myself woukd judge necessary. As an A. Side, the fellow's name escapes me for the moment, though I seem to recall he is already involved in the Pearl effort, at the long-term planning section. Being an unreconstructed old-fashioned simpleton, I remain foolish enough to think the right guy for running the Pearl effort would be someone with such a CV, rather than the Absurd folk, but that is just an A. Side. I truly, honestly, have no skin in the game, just an old-fashioned, démodé baseless conviction that Xanadu could use the most qualified person, the right person, for the job. But I was all wrong on Absurdistan, so what do I know? And given politics, such a thing is probably impossible. Still, if someone or other was to write a story or two about this fellow planning Xanadu's role in Pearl, his blueberry-farmer roots, etc., then, as an A. Side, who knows, we might eventually end up with the right guy in the right job. But so speaks an ignorant, unreconstructed, old-fashioned buffer, dépassé par le nouveau monde, and best ignored. Things are going great as things stand.

Here, I, Usbek, end my tale. I am sorry if some find it sad and infuriating. But remember, Xanadu is a small country, very far away. I am sure, dear listeners, that nothing like this could ever happen in your large, sophisticated homelands.