Modeling Journey

Bob Rae has formally announced the official reaction of the Liberal Party to the formation of the gerrymandered "non-partisan" Panel by Harper to review the role of Canada in Afghanistan.

Bob Rae's comments deserve careful scrutiny, as they form the basis for Liberal reaction to the Panel, and to actions to be taken in the next week and thereafter, by the Prime Minister.

Rae's comments on the Panel were not the open-ended "welcome" which some commentators have said they were, but rather a balanced and shrewd reaction.

He stressed two points, which the Liberals should hammer home every time they get a chance over the coming weeks and months:

One, IF (and this is a big IF, given Harper's attempt to limit the scope of the Panel's inquiry to only four half-baked options) the Panel leads to "open, public and thoughtful debate about the mission beyond 2009", then it is welcomed.

Note the use by Rae of the words "open", "public" and "thoughtful" as qualifiers. If the Panel simply veers off to closed hearings and a rightwing, foregone conclusion, then Rae's qualifications will not have been met, and the Liberals can reject the findings as biased and a sham. This will be an effective response to any attempt by Harper to pressurize the LPC into giving weight to the Panel's conclusions.

Two, Rae said nothing stops the parties in Parliament having an open debate about Afghanistan, despite the striking of the Panel, and this of course includes such a debate before the Panel delivers a report.

What this means, is that the Liberals have officially put Harper on notice that if he tries to deflect discussion of the Afghanistan issue in his Throne Speech or in an election, the Liberals, together with the Bloc and NDP, will exercise their parliamentary duty to debate the mission's course and future. So, the official stance of the Liberals is to reject Harper's attempt to bury the Afghanistan issue in the Panel.

Also, it is open to the three parties, in response to the Throne Speech, to call for a debate on Afghanistan, and to propose an amendment to the Throne Speech calling for a change in the Afghanistan mission, including a sunset date for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from that country, if certain agreed benchmarks are not met.

The benchmarks could include a proper review by NATO of the objectives of the West in Afghanistan. Rae called for this in his comments, as well.

It could also include a requirement that other NATO countries remove the restrictions they have placed on the use of their forces in Afghanistan, which restrictions have increased the risk that Canadian troops will die there.

Another benchmark might be for NATO troops to go into the region Canada is fighting in, to share some of the dangerous heavy lifting our troops are doing there. Note that Harper has tried to avoid this benchmark being discussed by the Panel, by limiting discussion to the 'replacement' of Canadian troops in that dangerous area, by other troops. This condition would, of course, limit the chances of this happening, and steer the Panel towards Harper's choice. However, a rotation of troops through all areas of Afghanistan, and mixed troops in all areas, are far more reasonable benchmarks, which Canada could legitimately require of NATO. Hopefully, Manley will act the maverick, and allow the Panel to 'openly, publicly and thoughtfully' discuss this option, rather than simply tucking their tails beneath their legs and only considering Harper's all-or-nothing option regarding where Canadian troops serve.

A further benchmark which MPs could lay down in a debate next week, would be a commitment by the USA of a much larger troop deployment in Afghanistan by the USA. A force some four to six times larger than the current US troops fighting there, would be my recommendation.

Finally, a benchmark could be the agreement to commit defined amounts, by the USA, Canada, and all NATO countries, ver the next 20 years, to the building of a decent society in Afghanistan.

Note that the MPs could add timelines for each benchmark, so that if they are not met by, say, June 30 2008, then Canada would be entitled to withdraw its troops or substantially reduce them, starting in late 2008.

The Bloc and the Liberals could cooperate on setting out such benchmarks, and invite the Prime Minister to join them. If Harper refuses, his bluff will be called, and his attempt to divert discussion to his loaded Panel will be seen as a pathetic gesture, too clever by half.

If Layton refuses to agree to the benchmarks, then he will have missed a chance to change substantially the role of Canada, and of NATO and the US, in that benighted country, and will be left uttering platitudes about immediate withdrawal, knowing that none of the other three parties are in agreement with him on that issue.

All told, Bob Rae's response to Harper is a well considered one, and allows the Bloc, NDP and Liberals to put their heads together this week, and introduce a debate in Parliament in response to the Throne Speech, and set out in amendments to the Throne Speech, and later in legislation, the benchmarks which must be met or else Canada will start withdrawing its troops.