Monday, February 11, 2008

Rosie DiManno misrepresents Liberal position and Afghan mission

Egotistical, hothead Toronto Star columnist Rosie DiManno rarely lets the facts get in the way of her self-righteous indignation.

But this is pure balderdash.

DiManno attacks the federal Liberal position on the Afghanistan mission by misrepresenting both. She uses the same flawed logic as Michael Den Tandt in a Sun Media column last month: that roadside bombs or improvised explosive devices (IEDs) are causing the most deaths for Canadian soldiers, not combat fighting. If we stop hunting down and killing the Taliban in Kandahar region, we'll be sitting ducks and will die even more, she claims.

Can the stupid war apologists stop using this pathetic analysis, please?

The Taliban are using IEDs or roadside bombs to target Canadian forces in Kandahar because we are there to hunt them down and kill them. Our mission is to seek them out and destroy them - so should we be surprised they are using IEDs to target us and kill us back? The huge spike in Canadian casualties in Afghanistan took place after our mission changed to become one of hunting down the Taliban in the Kandahar region. Seventy of our 79 deaths have taken place since the Canadians were rotated into a combat role in Kandahar in early 2006.

I guess DiManno (like other war apologists) assumes if the Liberal position is implemented and our forces focus more on providing security for development and re-construction, no other NATO forces will be rotated into Kandahar to replace Canadian combat efforts.

Now it's true that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's long reluctance (until recently) to engage our NATO allies into supporting or replacing Canadian efforts has made finding replacements on the Kandahar rotation very difficult.

But to assume that no other NATO forces would replace Canada taking on the combat role in Kandahar is pure folly. This is DiManno's argument: without Canada playing the combat role, the Taliban will run rampant and overwhelm Canadian forces unable to shoot back. If this were true, it would be a truly deplorable policy. But this isn't the Liberal position.

Of course that doesn't stop DiManno from suggesting otherwise and writing a big column designed to misinform Canadians about this complicated issue. Of course, we shouldn't be surprised. This is the Toronto Star after all.

You can't persuade other NATO countries to step up to the plate when your commitment to remain in a combat role in Kandahar is indefinite, or seems to be.

We were rotated into Kandahar, but now it seems, thanks to Stephen Harper's mishandling, that the wheels on the NATO rotation machine have broken off and we're stuck there indefinitely. I've said it before and I'll repeat it: this suits many neo-cons just fine.

Tell that to your sons and daughters, Rosie!

No comments: