Archives

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Does John Manley have buyer’s remorse?

I’m referring to whether Mr. Manley might now regret accepting Harper’s request to do a “non-partisan” panel report on Afghanistan.  My asking that question stems from reading in  Haroon Siddiqui’s Sunday column in the Star where he refers to the Afghanistan mission still being as clear as mud. Look what Mr. Manley has had to say recently about the Conservatives efforts to implement his report:

Amid all the Tory self-congratulation, there’s nary a mention of the civilian measures called for by both the John Manley panel and the House of Commons resolution extending the mission to 2011. Whatever happened to the idea of Harper heading an interdepartmental group to get development and reconstruction efforts back on track? Or engaging regional powers, such as Pakistan, to find a political settlement? Or leaning on Hamid Karzai to seriously tackle corruption and nepotism and wean the Afghan economy off the opium trade? ,,, “Insurgencies are rarely, if ever, resolved by military means,” wrote Manley recently. “So, Canada should encourage political reconciliation” and minimize the factors that fuel the insurgency. He was bemoaning that his report “has been reduced to the simple proposition that Canada should stay in Afghanistan if NATO provides an additional 1,000 troops. “If that’s the only aspect that receives attention, our panel’s efforts will have been in vain.”

Many in the progressive blogosphere felt that this panel of Manley’s was chosen  to ensure it would give a report supportive of keeping Canadian troops in Afghanistan. Manley appeared happy to comply, though it now appears he thought he could convince the Conservatives to look at other aspects of the mission besides military means and troops. I’m not sure why he is surprised that those aspects of the report are being ignored and/or shunned.  This was a panel designed for political points, not real reform. I think anyone who was looking at this from afar knew the Cons. were going to handpick what they liked (get a minimum # of foriegn troops to say to Canadians we’re getting help, and to stay in Afghanistan) and ignore what took them to task.

Mr. Manley should have been/should be smart enough to realize that.  If he really feels strongly about this ignoring of most of his report, what he needs to do is go on the media circuit like he was doing after his report was released and emphasize to Canadians what the Cons. are not doing.

1 comment to Does John Manley have buyer’s remorse?

  • Whooee! Manley shoulda been readin’ my blog two months ago:
    Manley-minus: Cherry-picking the Manley Report.

    This is the sorta stuff Dion shoulda made conditional on his support of the extension. It’s a little late for Manley, Dion or Pamela Wallin to start complaining, now. If they wanted to make aid, reconstruction and hearts&minds a priority, they could have applied a bit of pressure instead of settling for an expanded military mission and a 1000 troops and a couple helicopters.

    If Manley didn’t see this comin’, he’s even stoopider than I thought. Anyone who’s payin’ attention could see this happenin’ way back.

    JB

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.