From Social Justice To 'Taliban Jack'

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away ... okay, maybe not quite that long ago and not that far away ... I was a firm supporter of the NDP.

For my American friends, that's about as far left as the Canadian political spectrum goes. Although for the sake of clarity, I would have to say is not quite as far left as American Democrats go.

Anyway, as I was saying, I could pretty well be counted on to vote NDP. Because basically I believed in what they believed in. 'Social justice', I suppose I would label it, for lack of a better term. Sure, I foraged a little closer to the centre occasionally, with a few votes for the Liberals sprinkled here and there (which generally happened when I particularly liked the Liberal candidate in my riding), but for the most part, I sided with the NDP.

And although I remain a big NDP supporter provincially, it's more than a bit of a different story federally. I lost faith with the federal NDPs a long time ago. I can't say for sure exactly when but it was probably sometime around the end of Alexa McDonough's time as leader of the federal party.

Prior to Alexa taking over as leader of the federal party in 1995, she had been the leader of the Nova Scotia NDP party. I had really liked Alexa in her provincial stint, so I was pleased to see her take over leadership of the federal party. But it must have been sometime shortly before Alexa's retirement in 2003 that I felt my faith with the federal NDP start to wain.

Criticism. All criticism. All the time.

That they were good at. But at some point they seemed to start losing their ability to come up with constructive alternatives, constructive solutions. While in her stint as leader of the Nova Scotia NDP (where she was by the way the first woman in Canada elected to lead a major party in a provincial legislature) Alexa coined the phrase "shocked and appalled," which eventually became synonymous with her. And, when she moved on to the federal party, the phrase, at least in my mind, became synonymous with that party. Because it seemed like they were, you know, "shocked and appalled" by just about everything.

For part of her time in Nova Scotia, Alexa was the lone NDP member in the house, a one-man woman party, as it were. And in her own words:

"I was often pretty obnoxious in terms of flying by the seat of my pants and in some ways living up to the worst stereotype of kind of a holier-than-thou ‘I know what’s right here and what’s wrong with the rest of you.’ I can understand how that would happen, and somehow ‘shocked and appalled’ seemed to be the label they put on it."

Alexa was followed federally by Taliban Jack Jack Layton in 2003. He remains the leader of the federal party today and quite frankly, he has rubbed me the wrong way from the get-go. Initially it was the constant carping, the negativity, the apparent disagreeing just for the sake of disagreement and the nothing positive to offer in return posture. Later, it was often issue-based, as well. So, no, not a big fan.

And now, it looks like Layton is up to his usual shenanigans. Earlier this week, Layton (quite predictably) seized upon the comment of British Brig-Gen. Mark Carleton-Smith that "we're not going to win this war" in Afghanistan. He was also quite happy to tag team the General's comments advocating negotiations with the Taliban.

Did I ever mention how the Conservatives had given Layton the handle "Taliban Jack" a few years ago for his suggestion that all would be well if we would just sit down and "talk" with the Taliban? Yeah, my reaction exactly.

At any rate, I imagine we could have renamed Layton 'Happy Jack' earlier this week as it seems as if he has been spouting how horrid, wrong and immoral the actions of Canadian troops in Afghanistan have been for at least a couple of years now. And how they need to come home. Now. Did I mention how that better be right now?

Yes, once again, Layton acted in predictable style. In his own words:

"I'm heartened by the words of this senior military commander who is adding his voice to those many, many Canadians and others around the world who believe that the prosecution of the continued war effort has got to be changed,” Mr. Layton said.

“The New Democrats came out very early with this view and we've continued to argue respectfully with those who disagree that there's got to be a new path ... Let's hope that more and more people are reaching this conclusion.”

Well, Jack, you might want to check your facts a little more carefully before you try jumping on that particular bandwagon. Make sure there actually is a bandwagon, like, and who might actually be on it.

Apparently, what the senior British military commander actually said was that troop levels need to be sufficient to contain the insurgency to a level where it does not threaten the survival of the country's democratically elected government.

And by the by, Mr. Layton, just to be clear, the key to negotiating with any Afghan tribes which might be persuaded to switch sides, much like disgruntled Sunni tribes did in Iraq, is that any such negotiation must come from a position of strength.

As pointed out in an editorial in Wednesday's edition of the Chronicle Herald,

Ultimately, Mr. Layton’s policies would only weaken the Afghan government’s hand. If all NATO countries were to follow his lead – declare the war unwinnable, then pull out their contingents ASAP – what precisely would there be left to negotiate with the Taliban on the ground?

Surrender?

Damn. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Pull Up A Chair ... Or Maybe Not

What of it? Is it good strategy to 'break bread', so to speak, with the enemy?

First we heard that Canadian troops in Afghanistan were reaching out to low and mid-level insurgents, encouraging them through local villagers to sit down with Afghan authorities and perhaps even NATO forces. And that this was something that was strongly supported by the head of the Kandahar provincial council. But that was Thursday.

Today word is that any members of the military who have been engaged in such meetings are "out of line". Even though Lt.-Col. Gordon Corbould, the new battle group commander, and Sgt. Tim Seeley, a civilian-military co-operation officer for Canada’s Provincial Reconstruction Team, were quoted as saying that channels were being opened to moderate Taliban and other officials in Kandahar appeared to back up the military’s strategy, calling it "creative thinking", they were apparently sternly corrected by Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

The idea that Canadian soldiers would be stepping up with Afghans to encourage militants in the war-ravaged province to lay down their weapons and talk has won high praise in Kandahar City.

Powerbrokers such as Ahmed Wali Karzai, the younger half brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, say it’s just the kind of push that’s need to stem the tide of violence. Tribal leaders in the hotly contested Panjwaii district, where much Canadian blood has been shed, are also happy with the thought.

But MacKay said reconciliation isn’t something that Canadians can make happen for the Afghans. It’s an "initiative that must be led by them" and that Ottawa is content to support Karzai’s peace overtures, but "at a distance."

Oh yeah, one more thing. Out of the NATO forces in southern Afghanistan, Canada and the United States are alone in their refusal to speak to militants. Um, officially that is, I suppose. Since there appears to be 'policy' (as in "The Department of National Defence 'doesn’t make policy', only the government does that") and ... reality, maybe?

Now personally, I'm not sure whether this 'talking with the Taliban' is a good idea or not. But the whole discussion does take me back a few years to when the federal New Democrats suggested that peace talks be initiated with the Taliban. Actually, as I recall, it was a little stronger than a "suggestion". More like Jack Layton was demanding peace talks. Which prompted the Conservatives to hang Layton with the handle of 'Taliban Jack' at the time. And which prompted me to consider him quite the idiot.

So I'm thinking this whole kerfuffle should have Layton smiling at least. In a couple of different ways.

Mulling this over today, another thought occurred to me. Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, seems unusually quiet at the moment, don't you think?

Troops sweep through the village of
Khenjakak, where Canadians are attempting
to broker a meeting with Afghan forces and local
Taliban. (Graeme Smith/ The Globe and Mail)

Lost in the Twilight Zone

Forgive me, please, but I am feeling like I am just a little bit lost in the twilight zone at the moment.

You might recall I've already confessed my past (and yes, even current) leanings towards the NDP. That's 'past' federally but still very current provincially. Yes, it's true. Provincially I remain an NDipper.

Federally, however, I had enough long ago. Definitely since the installation of Taliban Jack Layton as King of their castle.

Now, I am most definitely not a fan of our Conservative government either. And I've certainly had my issues with them when it comes to their support, or lack thereof, of our military. But when it comes to NDP federally, particularly on the issue of support for the military and their work in Afghanistan .... yeah, right.

Thus, the little bit of cognitive dissonance when I read this piece written by Peter Stoffer, one of the NDP MPs from Nova Scotia, in today's Chronicle Herald.

Mr. Stoffer notes that although we have seen improvements to a number of veterans’ benefits in recent years, including operational stress injury social support centres, wellness and transition programs under the new Veterans Charter, and assistance for Allied veterans now living in Canada, there is much more we can do to improve the lives of veterans and their families. Which, as he states it, is why New Democrats continue to press the Conservative government to implement key reforms for programs and services.

Some of these reforms include unfulfilled promises. The Harper Conservatives ommitted to resolving the clawback of Service Income Security Insurance Plan(SISIP) pensions for disabled veterans, extending the home care (VIP) program for all widows and veterans, as well as fully compensating all victims of Agent Orange and holding a public inquiry into its use. Despite promising significant reform, the Conservatives have not stopped the practice of appointing their friends to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

Unfortunately, the government’s lack of action on SISIP and full compensation for Agent Orange victims from 1950 to 1984 has led veterans to launch class-action lawsuits in hopes of forcing a government response.

Beyond its broken commitments, the government needs to improve the New Veterans Charter for modern-day veterans to better support those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, bring an end to the unjust clawback of CF and RCMP service and CPP disability pensions at age 65, increase the survivors’ pensions from 50 per cent to 66 per cent, and eliminate the gold-digger clause (marriage after 60) that prevents widows and widowers from receiving pension and health benefits.

New Democrats have also advocated for equal access to veterans’ hospitals and pavilions throughout the country. Currently, as some families have recently discovered, veterans are not eligible for a bed at the local veterans’ hospital or pavilion if they did not actively serve in the Second World War or Korea. In one case, a veteran was not eligible for admission because he did not serve in a "theatre of war" in one of those wars, even though he had a long and distinguished military career. In a similar story, a veteran was turned away because he served in Cyprus.

We argue that the federal government should make these services available for all veterans, open up discussions about the future of the facilities, and develop Health Care Centres of Excellence for modern-day veterans, RCMP and their families. These specialized centres could provide a unique model of care to better assist veterans with specific physical and psychological injuries and needs.

Veterans and their families deserve our deepest gratitude for their contributions to our country and for protecting the freedoms we hold so dear. For these brave men and women, Remembrance Day is every day. The least we can do is make sure they receive the support they have earned. Lest we forget.

It's awful hard to argue with now, isn't it?

Here's hoping we will be hearing more of the same from the NDP in the future. And that some of that patriotism and respect and gratitude for our military actually rubs off on Mr. Layton.

That would be a very good thing.