Tuesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous items of interest...

- A couple of pieces deserve attention on the Cons' declaration that they plan to leave up to 1,000 troops in Afghanistan after they'd agreed to remove them. First, here's pogge:

If you look down the left hand column at the main page of National Newswatch this morning you'll see quite a few of the pundits who normally appear there weighing in on the subject. That's the public debate. Or as close to it as we're going to get. If you want to get in on it, move quickly because it will be over soon. And it won't change a thing. It would appear that Harper took the public statements by Ignatieff and Rae as all the indication of support he really needed for an extended military mission "behind the wire." With the NATO Summit only two weeks away, he's allowed a revised mission profile that will make our allies ecstatic to be leaked to the media and now he's sitting back and letting everybody at home fume about it.
...
I haven't read all the material on this that I've bookmarked over the last few days but I'd like to note this Canadian Press piece. It describes a three month long "diplomatic charm offensive" by representatives from the U.S., Britain and NATO and quotes an unnamed diplomat:

"We recognize politically this is not the world's greatest vote winner," said the diplomat, adding the hope that "behind the scenes, the opposition and the government could work something out on this."

In other words, they know perfectly well that they're encouraging a government to act contrary to the wishes of its citizens. They don't particularly care as long they can work "behind the scenes" and get what they want.

We're staying in Afghanistan so we can help to bring them a democracy just like ours. Did you enjoy the debate?

- And Chris Selley laments the absurdity of the Cons' sudden decision to declare void all previous statements about bringing Canadian troops home:

Couple of problems, though. One, just because the government says it’s a training role doesn’t mean it’s true. (How can we train troops exclusively behind the wire?) Almost nothing Stephen Harper or his lickspittles-with-portfolio have said about the mission in recent months has been true. Indeed, as Martin notes, they went miles out of their way to convince Canadians there would be no military role in Afghanistan whatsoever after 2011 — and “nobody raised the bar on those expectations higher than [Mr. Harper], who was so adamant about unilaterally leaving the war zone by the end of 2011, he insisted in a National Post interview that the only remaining soldiers would be a few privates guarding the Canadian embassy.”

“It was never clear why the Conservatives perpetuated the misconception that [the government] was bound to remove every soldier from the country in 2011,” says the Globe. Yeah, golly, what a mystery. Please. What the Globe’s Lawrence Martin describes as political “ambidexterity” — i.e., guilefully stealing Michael Ignatieff’s plan for troops to stay on as trainers — is in fact just an example of the government’s golden rule. Its only rule, maybe: In every situation, without exception, do or say the thing that’s easiest to do or say, and let the communications guys figure out any ensuing contradictions. Or give them the night off. It’s not like anyone cares.

- Carl Mortished points out that the supposed purpose of workfare programs doesn't have much to do with the actual result:

We don’t know how many cheat the welfare system. I suspect the real cheats (rather than those who are chronically idle) are few in number but extremely clever. The British government reforms will not catch the big cheats who will delight in finding ways to continue claiming multiple benefits without picking up litter. Instead, it will employ contractors at large expense to drag up and down the street squads of depressed, irritable and resentful people clad in ill-fitting overalls.

Will “scroungers” acquire a work ethic picking up litter? They will acquire an urgent need to avoid loss of income but that is different to an ethic. Governments in Europe worry about a diminishing spirit of enterprise among the young. They think they see a work ethic in China but we know that many Chinese have family memories of gut-wrenching hardship. If Chinese work harder than British or Canadians, it is out of fear and the acquisitiveness of those desperate for a way out of poverty. The Chinese are not better people; they are just more desperate. If you don’t think that is true, ask yourself whether the employees who committed suicide at Foxconn’s Chinese factory lacked a work ethic or had just lost hope that their lives would get better.

We cannot change people’s attitudes to work by taking away benefits. A tougher regime that might turn us all into a “Chinese” work force is politically impossible. All we can do is tip the balance of fear and greed temporarily in favour of turning up for a day with the dust cart.

- Finally, the Tyee is doing yeoman's work in countering the apparent media effort to redefine Gordon Campbell after his resignation, with Will McMartin's piece doing a particularly good job comparing Campbell's promises to what he actually did.