Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Strategy and Pundits

I'm always fascinated by political pundits who strive to tell us what might be up in government. More and more, I read them and find myself smiling, because they appear to be pieces about, "how I'd like to see the world", rather than objective looks at the issues. This for instance is an example of everyone wanting their cake...

Norman Spector, a former diplomat and chief of staff to Brian Mulroney, said the political dynamic of the current minority Parliament doesn't favour a statesmanlike, non-partisan approach. He believes, however, that Harper has no choice but to strike a deal with at least one opposition party if he wants to preserve some semblance of his Afghan policy.

As if Harper would ever be non-partisan. That aside however the phrase, "some semblance of his Afghan policy", means what exactly? We have no clear articulation by this supposed "clear" PM of what his policy is. That is the problem. Aside from pumping money into the military mission, who has been clear about it? Do they want to stay the course, the military course, forever? A few years? What is the outcome they envisage? We know nothing about their plan, how on earth could they expect anyone to support it? Logical people need an end game laid out and the route to get there, before they can assess.

He also believes that, even if Harper can't cut a deal, he may decide to make continuation of the mission a confidence matter and dare the opposition to bring him down and force an election.
"When he says we don't cut and run, he means it. I think he will go quite far to keep us in Afghanistan."


Yeah, as if Harper would risk his precious majority on that, given the mood of the country. Good grief, to even type the words, "cut and run", screams US mimicry. Keep us in Afghanistan, for what?, is still missing.

Rob Huebert, a University of Calgary expert on defence policy, isn't so sure Harper would push the opposition to the wall. But he does think Harper is playing a political game with Dion and the Liberals as his chief targets.
The prime minister wins if Dion, whose party first sent troops to Afghanistan following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, relents in his current opposition and strikes a deal to keep them there.


That comment is so contrary to logic, it's difficult to dissect. The Lib's have always said, maintain out commitment to 2009, but then it's time for rotation, OUT of combat duty. We've worked our shift, period. Dion has been very clear on this and I'm baffled by how the media plays it a different way. Left wing media...what a joke.

If there's no deal, Harper's exit strategy is then to "wash his hands of the mission and blame the opposition," said Huebert.

Yeah that's the ticket, lol.

4 comments:

Steve V said...

"When he says we don't cut and run, he means it."

Until the polls turn, then he hides behind "consensus".

knb said...

Precisely Steve.

What a mug's game we're seeing in print now.

Jane Taber is considered serious...please. I'm not sure she could spell analysis. The right seems to think we respect these people. Funny that.

Mushroom said...

Harper also may try to provoke a split between Liberals who want to "cut and run" now.

knb said...

Not sure who they would be Mushroom, (who is that left in the party?)

In the end, I cannot see how Harper can divide the Lib's. Commuzzi gone, good, imo. I don't see others being lured. If there are others, I suspect they'll quit before endorsing Harper.