With respect to the Hon. Mr. Manley

If 1,000 troops is the dividing line between victory and defeat, then I suggest it is incumbent upon Canada to ante up the remainder and see the job completed. 

A former President of our southern neighbour once exhorted his countrymen to pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.  The Canadian version would be to pay any price, bear any burden and meet any hardship—as long as we’re not paying greater prices, burdens and hardships than anyone else.  If the ROI isn’t measurable in political capital during the current mandate of Her Majesty’s Dominion Government, then forget it.  Better to pump that money into a national childcare scheme or a make-work project.

To be blunt, we are answering our treaty obligations incurred when the transatlantic organisation invoked Article V following September 11, 2001.  If certain allies-in-name-only decide that their contribution can only ever be half-hearted, there is precious little we can do to make them see otherwise.

It is rather disgraceful to whine about everyone else not pitching in, and then threaten to take our ball and go home when our nagging fails to produce results.  If NATO cannot rely on its members to contribute military aid for the purposes of Article V, then the treaty has no meaning whatsoever and we may as well abandon it.  When your friends flip you the bird and abandon you in your hour of need, further haranguing is not going to yield the results you seek.  At that point, you’re on your own, and you had better dig deep because no one else is coming to rescue you.  No one.

You can take your ball and go home, but at the end of the day, you’ve still failed your mission.  I will admit that every child in Afghanistan may grow up a sworn jihadi, and every female within its borders may never enjoy equal rights, and neither of these things will affect one’s quality of life in Etobicoke, nor will it solve the problems of urban poverty and decay.  One thing it will do is prove that Canada can not keep her word, that she is faithless and feckless, and cannot be trusted with difficult tasks requiring perseverance and longsuffering.

Unless we’re prepared to say our mission and our men were sent in vain, now is the time to dig deep and put up results.  Our word still means something—even if our allies devalue theirs.

RELATED:  The Tiger also has some salient thoughts.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
6 Responses
  1. The Monarchist says:

    Nice. looking. blog. The Monarchist is very impressed.

  2. Chris Taylor says:

    Thank you! The sidebars are still screwed up when viewed in IE6, but I’m hoping everyone migrates off that platform before I have to get serious about fixing it. =)

  3. Alan says:

    Well put! And furthermore, to maintain the talk of Canada as being “back on the map” while threatening to run away with one’s ball is jerking the military around for political purposes, making it seem like the OldNuGov is taking a new road while they are only playing out the Liberal party’s decision to put the boot in as far as they did.
    And if there is any fiscal question related to this, issue war bonds.

  4. Flea says:

    You do have the finest sidebar in the business.

  5. Chris Taylor says:

    I like the war bonds idea… but they were primarily an anti-inflationary measure (due to the exponentially increased wartime money supply). I’m not sure the amount of bills circulating has actually increased to the point where that would be a necessary step.

  6. Alan says:

    There is another role – teaching people that they are being asked to support. If course, this would also have to come with an explanation as to why the government is not able to provide the support needed at this time and I don’t expect the people to support a cause that the leadership in government is not as committed to as it could be (or even says it is).