Globe Editorial: Another flip-flop from Harper

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Abeja:

As apposed to unconsciously? I just don't think this is a big media item. If the government had banned the media from covering the Afghan campaign, I would be concerned about censorship, but in fact, the government has imbedded reporters with the forces, where they're reporting the troops movements, both dead and alive, from the front lines. The media can also attend any memorials and funerals that the families want. As for the flag, it is no big deal for me; and for the majority of Canadians and the media who I believe continue their day on November 11th each year without much pause or reflection, this is more about finding something to complain about in a sea empty of adscams and loose lipped ministers. Tens of thousands of soldiers died in Canada's wars and never complained about such things. Lower the flag on rememberance day for all soldiers.

Does it occur to you that controlling access is one way of controlling information? And if as you say, the media have access to the grieving families in any event, why would the coffin landing in Trenton be particularly "private" in nature? Is there anything particularly private about dead soldiers, Canadian citizens, landing on Canadian soil in a military base that ultimately belongs to the Canadian people? If anything, funerals are private events, not the other way around.

As I recall, Canadian media has been rather careful in covering these events tastefully. And are you saying that, looking at the concerns raised by Canadian citizens, that this issue is illegitimate?

On the issue of the flag - why would the Conservatives, when in opposition, support a motion to lower the flag for every solider killed and when in power, decide no flag should be lowered save for Rememberance Day? Have it occured to you that in opposition, there is the need to appear patriotic and potentially embrass the ruling party and when in power, the reverse, particularly when the potential for further casualties is high, leading to a constant reminder?

How should I reply? What do you want? When Trudeau took office in 1968 Canada had a debt of $18 billion, when he left office in 1984, that debt stood at $200 billion - an increase of 1100%. Imagine if Mulroney had done the same 1100% spending spee; his inherited $200 billion debt from Trudeau would have been $2,200 billion. My intended point was that the Liberals established Canada on the road of longterm national debt. Mulroney continued this, and also had to go. I voted for Martin as PM in 2003 because I thought he'd fix this, but after Adscam, Gomery, Dilwahl and the rest, the whole Liberal crew had to be put in "time out". Once they've cleaned out the closet, and bring in some fiscally AND morally (no, not socons, just folks with integrity) responsible folks, I'll consider voting LPC again.

That's rather convenient - but anyone who know some math would tell you that if you have say one dollar of debt one day and 10 dollars the next, you'd end up with an increase of 1000% - it doesn't tell me anything about the size of the increase by percentage alone.

There is plenty of blame to go around on the issue of the debt, but to pin it on the Liberals and Trudeau only, which you did without telling us the whole story is pure spin.

For the record, who you voted for has absolutely no bearing on the integrity or the lackthereof in your arguments.

AoD

 

[andreapalladio]

As for the flag, it is no big deal for me;

People with short memories forget that people assumed flags were no big deal in London in September 1997. Turned out then that flags, where they flew and how high, nearly sparked a revolution.

Flags are national symbols, and they are important. And flag protocols can, should and must change to reflect the national mood.

 

[bizorky]

Embedding reporters was an idea developed by the US military to keep direct tabs on what journalists get to see and know. It was viewed as a better way to control messaging than to let reporters work on their own.

As for the debt issue, it was under the Trudeau government that large social programs such as medicare were brought into place. That is just one such program. Trudeau's government existed during difficult economic times, which might explain additional debt as well.

Imagine if Mulroney had done the same 1100% spending spee; his inherited $200 billion debt from Trudeau would have been $2,200 billion.

Only if he spent in terms of percentage, but that is not how government financing (or any other financing) operates. It goes by dollars spent, not by percentage of debt amplification.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

And from the Globe:

Harper's staff behind media ban, sources say

MICHAEL DEN TANDT

From Friday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — The Harper government's controversial decision to ban the Canadian news media from ceremonies honouring repatriated war dead originated in the Prime Minister's Office and was made primarily for political reasons, multiple sources close to the government said yesterday.

"It was not [Defence Minister] Gordon O'Connor's idea," one said. "Exactly whose idea it was is somewhere in the Langevin Block."

Several sources close to the Prime Minister's Office said the strategy originated with Sandra Buckler, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's new communications director. She then sold it to Mr. Harper, arguing it would generate only "a week of bad publicity," after which it would be accepted as a fait accompli, sources said.

Asked whether it was her idea, Ms. Buckler replied in an e-mail: "Not true." She declined to say whose idea it was.

Critics of the government say the move was an attempt to minimize upsetting images of returning Canadian war dead, for fear these might erode public support for the mission in Afghanistan.

"The issue is they don't want that kind of coverage and they want to shorten the ceremonies as much as possible," McGill military historian Desmond Morton said.

"They [the Harper government] are very aware of the American right's view of what went wrong in Vietnam, which was too much attention to body bags coming home."

Six Canadians have died while serving in Afghanistan so far this year, including five soldiers and one senior diplomat.

On Wednesday, Prof. Morton delivered a speech at Canadian Forces Base Trenton, where the repatriation ceremonies take place. He said that he spoke to many servicemen and servicewomen about the matter, and that members of the military are adamant about the need to protect the privacy of the grieving families, should they request it.

But beyond that, "most of them felt the [media] attention was long overdue and important, just to remind Canadians that the Canadian Forces are doing something," he said.

Mr. O'Connor, a former general, is also sensitive to the need to protect the privacy rights of military families, but beyond that has no strong views on whether there should or should not be a blanket ban on media coverage, said a source familiar with the Defence Minister's views.

Étienne Allard, Mr. O'Connor's communications director, declined to comment on the origin of the decision to ban media coverage of repatriation ceremonies.

During the debate in recent days, the government has insisted the ban was imposed only out of deference to the privacy needs of families of deceased soldiers. Mr. O'Connor repeated this again in Question Period yesterday. The government's position, he said, is that there can be media coverage of ceremonies for war dead in Afghanistan, and that families can allow media to attend private funerals if they choose.

Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh has hammered the government daily on the issue, saying the ban on military ceremonies on the tarmac in Trenton, Ont., and a similarly controversial decision not to lower the Peace Tower flag to half-mast when a soldier is killed overseas, do a disservice to the military.

"If we are to keep Canadians with us with respect to this mission, then we need to keep Canadians with us throughout the journey of our soldiers," including those killed in combat, Mr. Dosanjh said in an interview.

However, within military circles the flag debate is somewhat less controversial. Many retired officers have pointed out that the Defence Department has an extensive flag protocol for paying respects to fallen soldiers, which includes:

Half-masting all flags in the theatre of operations, in this case Afghanistan, between the day of death and sunset on the day of the funeral;

Half-masting all flags at the Canadian home base of the serviceman or servicewoman;

Half-masting flags at National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa;

Half-masting all flags in the respective service branch (army, navy, air force) on the day of the funeral.

The policy of lowering the Peace Tower Flag to half-mast to honour war dead came into place by royal decree in 1919, in reaction to public dismay and shock over First World War casualties -- 67,000 Canadians were killed and 173,000 wounded.

The practice of repatriating bodies of slain soldiers began in 1970, after unification of the three branches of the military. Before that, Canadian soldiers were "buried where they fell," said John Knoll, a spokesman for the Defence Department.

Repatriating large numbers of dead such as occurred in both world wars and the Korean War was logistically impossible, he said. But in the early 1970s there was a view that "we were not likely to see mass casualties like in the Second World War . . . making it more feasible to repatriate remains."

According to protocols maintained by the Heritage Department, the Prime Minister retains broad discretion to order the lowering of the Peace Tower flag as he sees fit.

Liberal prime ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin exercised that right with increasing frequency in the latter years of the Liberal government.

The recent practice of lowering the flag whenever a Canadian soldier dies overseas began in 2002, after the killing of four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan by friendly fire.

AoD

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

But the flag wasn't lowered in November 2005, when a Canadian private was killed near Kandahar. In the end, I'm a big supporter of choosing the government policy and then sticking to it. So, let's ask the Legions, veterans and serving soldiers what they want, and let's do that, and stick to it. This issue has taking our attention away from the important issue, that of supporting our soldiers.

 

[spmarshall]

This issue has taking our attention away from the important issue, that of supporting our soldiers.

There's one way of resolving this issue of lowing the flags when soldiers die in combat.

Support our troops. Bring 'em home.

 

[afransen TO]

I actually support the mission in Afghanistan. People who sign up for the military do so with the understanding that it is a career that involves some managed risk. We do not have extremely pushy recruiting like in the US.

The mission in Afghanistan seems like good work, to me. Without it, Afghanistan will continue to be a basket case for generations. It isn't perfect, but it will require an incremental approach. The main thing I disagree with is Harper's cheap attempts to reduce the awareness and recognition of the sacrifice of these soldiers for mere political expediency. It is a worthwhile national endeavour, but we cannot allow ourselves to too easily forget the cost in blood and tears.

 

[spmarshall]

I just wanted to make a bit of a smart ass remark in response to Admiral Beez with what I said above, though I wonder if we really can do much in such a basketcase country with so little - as the goal of wiping out the Taliban is not been successful at all, and outside certain parts of the country, little changed.

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

Support our troops. Bring 'em home.

I agree. However we can't do this overnight. The new federal government inherited the mission and the troop deployment from the last government. I think we're doing good work in Afghanistan, and once the Canadians rotate out, another nation will take our place and continue the work.

 

[Brighter Hell]

i've become pessimistic about this mission. from what i've read about the taliban, they'll never be defeated. they're everywhere, in every town and village. they don't attack and disappear among the locals, they are the locals. most of them aren't what you'd call terrorists, they just shopkeepers and farmers who've fought every foreign army that's come their way for centuries. the ones who don't actually fight support the ones who do. basically we have two choices - stick around and keep losing soldiers indefinitely, or leave. either way the mission is a failure.

 

[bizorky]

It is an interesting dilemma. Among many Canadians there is an ideal that speaks to the need to help people in other parts of the world, people who may be suffering from oppression or from the lack of necessary resources as a result of conflict. What usually follows is a debate over what can or can't be done for these people. In some cases, as this debate takes place, violence or even genocide can come to pass, and the debate in our part of the world becomes more agonized or polarized over our lack of action (or about what we could have done, should have done, or didn't do). If we decide to act (as a nation), there typically emerges an argument that we should not get involved in other people's conflicts, or the results of those conflicts. We didn't start them and so we should not be there, so the agrument goes. A contrary point of view holds that we are human beings and morally have a responsibility to help those people caught in those conflicts when we can, particularly those individuals who have no role in the conflict, and are simply caught in the middle with no resources ar ability to escape.

I think we find ourselves in this type of position in Afghanistan. Even if we (as a nation) had not sent troops in, there would have been a debate over why we failed to help. Now that we have military people there, we wonder how they will succeed in the face of aggression that is not reasonable. If the Canadian military is pulled out, the Taliban et al. will have won an important step forward in oppressing the people of Afghanistan, many of whom want absolutely nothing to do with the Talliban, its beliefs or its oppressive actions. Other people around the world may come to look upon Canada as a nation where high ideals are spoken of, but not acted upon. And we, ourselves, will be expending considerable breath when providing caveats to all our actions or innactions when it comes to our participation (or non-participation) in conflicts and humanitarian disasters around the world.

It is never as easy as just putting the military into a conflict, and it is never as easy as just pulling them out.

 

[afransen TO]

What I would like to see done is, in conjunction with our military role in Afghanistan, to direct a significant amount of our foreign aid (through CIDA) to Afghanistan. It has the dual role of improving the lives of desperately poor people, and increasing the goodwill towards our troops in the region. As it is, the military is trying to do what it can in terms of providing thigns like blankets, food, and supplies to villages but it doesn't have the resources to do this effectively, consistently and on a larger scale. Once the Afghan people come to trust and appreciate the presence of troops, they will become more cooperative in apprehending and eliminating Taliban cells. It's a slow process, but it is an attainable goal.

 

[bizorky]

^I agree with your statement. I am never thrilled with the idea of putting military people in harms way, but there is a point where something needs to be done in order to prevent nightmares from happening. Avoidance and indecision allows more recent events like the Cambodian and Rawndan genocides to happen. It is extremely difficult to figure out what to do properly in order to stop them from happening, and it is difficult to account for why they were allowed to happen afterwards.

Canadian troops have a good reputation in their international roles. The difficulty in Afghanistan is that the Taliban/insurgents understand enough about politics in Canada to know that if they kill enough Canadian soldiers, there is good chance that these troops could actually be pulled out. As much as Canadian military people may want to carry out their humanitarian goals, they must first establish security in the region. This will mean fighting and dealing with the dangers posed by the Taliban/insurgent groups. This will mean Canadians being killed in a far away country. But there must be security in order for rebuilding to ever take place. In many parts of the world, there have been many cases of sending in humanitarian supplies without security that has resulted in the theft of those supplies.

The whole situation must be accepted as being a double edged-sword. Yes, we want to do the right thing for the Afghan people (by helping them), but some of those people don't want that kind of help. In order to provide for the needs of those who want help, one will have to deal with those who don't. That means Canadians being killed, and killing those who want to bring outside intervention to the people of that nation.

 

[Abeja de Almirante]

If I can make one last comment on the flag matter, my feeling is that we should decide on a policy, whatever that may be, and stick with it. The last government decided to lower the flag for four dead soldiers, but not for one several months later from the same campaign. Before this, 25 soldiers, IIRC, died in the Balkans, and the flag was not lowered.

If the public, current soldiers and the veterans can accept to lower the flag every time a soldier falls then that's fine, but let's do it everytime, not just when the soldiers are in the media spotlight.

 

[bizorky]

It would appear that the Energuide program is dead, along with the One Ton Challenge. Add to that, over $500 million is off the table for Ontario to reduce greenhouse gas emitting electricity sources.

If I remember correctly, Harper showed up at the bash celebrating Mulrooney as (supposedly) the most "green" prime minister. It would appear that Harper will not follow that example. Could this be construed as an historical Conservative flip-flop on the environment?