Posted on 03/22/2003 4:33:05 AM PST by knighthawk
Canadians can be forgiven for thinking Jean Chrétien sets his position on Iraq with a daily spin of a carnival wheel. After saying Monday that Canada "will not participate" in the current war because it is "not justified," the PM declared Thursday it is the Americans' "right" to invade Iraq -- and that Canadians "respect that." This latest quasi-reversal offered more proof the PM's shifting stance is based on political expedience -- not principle.
The flip-flops began last year. When asked in September what evidence might prompt Canada to join in the forcible ouster of Saddam, Mr. Chrétien replied famously, "a proof is a proof. What kind of proof? It's a proof ... and when you have good proof it's because it's proven." In mid-January, Mr. Chrétien publicly scolded his National Defence Minister for stating that Canada might join an invasion without UN authorization -- then turned around four days later and said the same thing himself. By late February, he was telling the Commons: "The policy of the government is very clear. If there has to be military activity in Iraq, we want it to be approved by the UN." At the same time, though, our ambassador to the UN was telling the Security Council it needed to impose an "early deadline" on inspections, because Saddam almost definitely possessed WMDs.
The most charitable explanation for this mishmash is that Mr. Chrétien sought to endear himself to both U.S.-led hawks and French-led doves in hopes of brokering a compromise. But the endless indecision -- combined with various Liberals' vulgar anti-American epithets -- merely alienated Washington. Whatever conciliatory words Mr. Chrétien issued Thursday, the fact is the British and Australians are fighting shoulder to shoulder with the United States, and we are not.
There are a variety of other explanations for Mr. Chrétien's anti-war position: He was responding to polling numbers. He sought to please his caucus. He was looking for votes in dovish Quebec. All of these rationales might be acceptable if the issue were, say, universal daycare or bilingualism. But the question of whether we would help free Iraq should have been decided on the basis of principle. Saddam Hussein stands at the intersection of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and rogue power. As such, he epitomizes the most important struggle facing the West. It was a mistake for Mr. Chrétien to deal with such an important file on the basis of political convenience.
Most Canadians oppose the war. But real leadership, of the type exhibited by Britain's Tony Blair and Australia's John Howard, sometimes demands bold positions at odds with public opinion. The public eventually comes around: Indeed, war support is rising daily in Britain. And by war's end, Mr. Blair will have retained both his principles and his popularity. When scenes of jubilation from a liberated Iraq fill our TV screens, and Canadians realize what a vital mission they abstained from, our PM, by contrast, will be lucky to keep one out of two.
QED
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.