Terry Glavin and distinguished others will be on the radio…

…netwise that is. US National Public Radio, Tuesday, March 3 at 7:30 p.m. EST:

Q&A: Canada’s role in the war in Afghanistan

Here’s an earlier post by Damian on Prime Minister Harper and Afghanistan (further links in “Comments”):

Lowering expectations on Afghanistan

Mark C.
Update: Here’s the page to listen to the webcast, and here’s Mr Glavin’s own post on how the program went.

One thought on “Terry Glavin and distinguished others will be on the radio…

  1. Gabby in QC says:

    I would have posted this on a “Politics with Don Newman” website or in an email to him, except he requires commenters’ phone numbers to “verify” comments.
    Considering Don Newman’s questions to Rick Anderson (Mar. 3, 2009), suggesting PM Harper has changed his position on Afghanistan, or flip-flopped as journalists like to phrase it, obviously Mr. Newman and other Harper critics have not read the motion adopted by the House 198-77 in a vote on March 13, 2008.
    “ … this House takes note that it has long been a guiding principle of Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan that all three components of a comprehensive government strategy – defence, diplomacy and development – must reinforce each other and that the government must strike a balance between these components to be most effective;
    this House takes note that the ultimate aim of Canadian policy is to leave Afghanistan to Afghans, in a country that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure and to create the necessary space and conditions to allow the Afghans themselves to achieve a political solution to the conflict; and
    this House takes note that in order to achieve that aim, it is essential to assist the people of Afghanistan to have properly trained, equipped and paid members of the four pillars of their security apparatus: the army, the police, the judicial system and the corrections system; …”
    I do not believe PM Harper’s statement to Fareed Zakaria contradicts that motion, nor stray from the stated objectives of the mission.
    PM Harper is not a silver-tongued orator like some other politicians; he is a plain-spoken person who doesn’t wax lyrical when addressing issues.
    But I believe his critics are wrong when they say he has changed his position on Afghanistan. He has stayed within the mandate of the Afghanistan mission as voted on by the House on two different occasions.
    And in any event, has he not stated plainly what others have been saying?
    “Afghanistan’s Local Insurgency
    By Seth G. Jones
    This commentary appeared in International Herald Tribune on January 31, 2007.
    The rising violence and the near certainty of a Taliban spring offensive have triggered calls for an increase in U.S. military forces in Afghanistan. But a military strategy is not likely to succeed. Counterinsurgencies are almost always won by establishing a viable and legitimate government at the local level that can win popular support. …”
    “David Miliband: The army alone cannot defeat this Taliban insurgency
    We need to co-opt those ready to give up violence and renounce al-Qa’ida
    Wednesday, 25 February 2009
    … But as we have long argued, there is no purely military solution to the insurgency. Unless it is aligned with a clear political and economic strategy, military might will only force the Taliban further underground, or encourage them to play a waiting game. …”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s