PM won't be swayed on mission -- Harper prepared to be defeated on Afghanistan if necessary

CanWest News Service via National Post ^ | 2006-12-21 | Mark Kennedy

[Clive]

OTTAWA - Stephen Harper says he could not live with himself if he reduced Canada's military mission in Afghanistan to further his own political self-interest and that he is prepared to lose the next election if it means standing by the military.

The Prime Minister's remarks, which came yesterday as Canadian troops led an assault on a Taliban position to begin a new offensive in southern Afghanistan, stand out as his strongest defence of his Conservative government's military policy since he came to office nearly a year ago.

Dozens of soldiers have died in combat in Afghanistan, and the opposition parties have insisted the government put less emphasis on the military's combat mission in that country -- with the Bloc Quebecois hinting it might try to topple the government over the issue in Parliament this winter.

But Mr. Harper told CanWest News Service in an interview such political pressure will have no influence on his decisions.

"I don't feel pressure by threats from the Liberals or NDP or Bloc to bring me down [on Afghanistan]," he said.

"If ultimately I were brought down on that, and even defeated on that, I can live with myself. I could not live with myself making a decision on Canada's role in the world and our strategic and defence interests if I knew I had done that for political reasons that were the wrong reasons. That I could not live with."

Mr. Harper said what does influence him is the notion the Canadian soldiers who have lost their lives in Afghanistan should not have died in vain.

"The most difficult part of the job I have is phoning every single Canadian family when there is a loss and talking to them," the Prime Minister said.

"And I have to tell you that what they ask of me, in almost every case, is their assurance that the government will not, because of political pressure, abandon a mission that their sons and daughters believed in and were prepared to give their lives for."

Thoughts of Canadians giving their lives were underscored yesterday by renewed attacks in the Panjwaii district of Afghanistan, with reports of a major artillery barrage preceding a NATO advance from a forward operating base where Canadian troops have spent the past several days preparing for Operation Falcon's Summit.

Military leaders have said the offensive aims to roust Taliban fighters from embedded positions, and it is expected to be similar in scope to the heavy fighting of Operation Medusa in September, in which five Canadians were killed.

The Prime Minister said yesterday the Canadian soldiers who have gone to Afghanistan are "absolutely committed" to what they are doing.

He said they understand that they are involved in a dangerous mission, but that it is a worthy effort that will assist the international community and the Afghan people, and that it is also in Canada's long-term strategic interest to fight the global war on terrorism.

"And that's why we're there, that's why they went. They understood going there that not all of them would return."

In recent months, public opinion polls have shown Canadians are divided over whether this country's soldiers should be in Afghanistan, where our troops are set to serve until February, 2009.

Some critics have said Canada is not doing enough to assist the Afghan people through humanitarian programs and development assistance, and that instead, this country's approach has become too warlike and is not following decades of work as international peacekeepers.

But the Prime Minister rejected that analysis, saying Canada has an "aggressive military history" in two world wars.

"But Afghanistan is a unique mission. It's neither war nor peace-keeping. It's a security operation that involves pretty direct combat with the enemy."

Mr. Harper said he understands the New Democrat Party's position -- that Canada should not have sent its troops to Afghanistan and should withdraw now -- better than any of his political opponents because at least this party has been consistent. But he suggested he has less time for the two other parties.

"The Liberals and the Bloc tell me: rebalance the mission. What does that mean? I mean, what the hell does that mean?"

"We've got guys there, they're in the most dangerous province in the country. Yes, we're trying to do development and humanitarian assistance and we're doing that. But the fact of the matter is that they've got guys shooting at them. And they've got the most concentrated group of enemy combatants right there. It isn't an option to cut down the military side of the operation. They have to do what is necessary to protect the local people and protect themselves. And nothing less."

Mr. Harper said it would be "completely irresponsible" to reduce Canada's military mission in Afghanistan.

"If other parties want to go to the people and take that position -- 'We'd leave them there but we'd tell them not to defend themselves' -- let them explain that to the Canadian people."

[Clive]

-

[mkjessup]

A real shame that Stephen Harper isn't eligible to be elected President of the United States.

I could certainly live with that!

A man of conviction and purpose, that's called leadership.

[fanfan]

Canada ping.

Please send me a FReepmail to get on or off this Canada ping list.