Liberals Roll Over: Afghanistan

Ever since Canada's combat role in Kandahar began, there's been a significant amount of public concern about the mission. But we've now reached the point where a majority of Canadians want our troops brought back home whether or not they're in a combat role - signalling that the public's concern about the mission has only grown with time.

Unfortunately, that concern has never been reflected in the government's actions. And ever since Stephen Harper took power, it's the Libs who have allowed and encouraged the Cons' desire to keep a combat mission going as long as possible to determine Canada's direction.

The first key Afghanistan vote after the Cons took power was of course on a 2006 motion to extend the mission until 2009. And the vote should have been a gimme for the Libs as an exercise in reining in a minority government testing just what kind of abuse its opponents would put up with.

Not only did the Cons choose not to make the Afghanistan vote a matter of confidence, but they also declared that they'd extend the mission by one more year regardless of the rseult of the vote. So even Libs who agreed with the combat mission in principle had reason to vote the motion down in response to the Cons' arrogance.

Needless to say, no such thing happened on the Libs' free vote on the motion. Most Libs voting did oppose the extension - but enough voted with the Cons to allow them to pass their motion by a slim four-vote margin. And the "yea" votes who had no problem with extending the mission even in the face of the Cons' overreach included both the Libs' then-interim leader Bill Graham, and current leader Michael Ignatieff - whose votes against along with the attendance of former PM Paul Martin would have been enough to defeat the motion.

Incidentally, while Stephane Dion voted against the motion, he had previously argued that the Cons shouldn't even allow the matter to be voted on in one of the Libs' more painful examples of defending executive power in the Cons' hands in hopes of wielding the same themselves. But after taking over the leadership, Dion at least put up a facade of wanting to avoid any further extensions. Which should have allowed the Libs to join forces with the NDP and Bloc to demand that the mission be ended in 2009.

In the spring of 2007, though, the Libs put forward a motion which coupled a 2009 end date with an endorsement of combat until that time - the latter of which served as a poison pill to prevent the NDP from offering its support. And as a result of that gamesmanship (which the NDP responded to by putting forward its own motion calling for an end to combat as soon as possible) there was never a united show of opposition to any extension in Parliament at that time.

Mind you, the Cons didn't figure to pay too much attention to a vote which wasn't held on their terms. But they didn't figure to have much choice but to face the issue in their fall throne speech, where another of Stephane Dion's demands was a 2009 end to the combat mission.

Needless to say, the Libs allowed the throne speech to pass despite its inclusion of a further extension and Harper's declaration that everything within it would be a confidence matter.

But the Cons apparently figured they still had room to embarrass the Libs further. Which they did by appointing John Manley to chair a panel of well-known hawks to rubber-stamp an extension for the combat mission.

There may have been an out for the Libs if they'd taken a strong line against the legitimacy of a panel which was obviously selected for the purpose of pushing through an extension which Dion had said would never be permitted. But instead, the Libs sat quietly, and by the time the report came back with (surprise, surprise!) a recommendation of an extension to 2011, there was little doubt that the Libs' rollover was all but complete.

Which isn't to say that the Libs couldn't find a few more ways to shoot themselves in the foot before backing down. Instead, they carried out a set of public negotations which allowed the Cons to threaten an election over the issue, while "winning" only a 2011 end date which is far too likely to be revisited under either of the main parties - along with "accountability" terms which provided for little more than glossy promotional brochures for the combat mission and have failed to stop the Cons from actually hiding more information as time goes on. And all this just months after a 2009 end to the mission was supposedly a condition for the Libs' willingness to keep the Cons in power.

Rather than seeing that result as the disaster that it was when he took over the Libs' leadership, Michael Ignatieff's reaction was to point to it as his template for dealings with the Harper government. Which should make it less than surprising that this year's confidence showdowns have similarly seen the Cons doing nothing more than promising to sing their own praises a bit more often.

So where do we now stand on Afghanistan, a year-plus after the first end date available if the Libs had voted down the Cons' first extension motion? In theory, the most recent motion calls for a 2011 end date for combat. But this year, there's been a noticeable push afoot to hint at an extension now that the U.S. has a more popular administration. And there can't be much doubt that if the Cons want to push through another extension, they can always find a Lib willing to push their own party into backing Harper (say, what's Bill Graham up to these days?) - or simply count on the Libs to roll over on another vote.

Lacking distinction

I noted yesterday that both Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff appear to have gone out of their way to emphasize bipartisanship in their meeting with Barack Obama. But let's look in a bit more detail at what Ignatieff had to say, and what it may say about the likelihood of the Libs reversing their current lack of effective opposition in the future:

Mr. Ignatieff spent a lot of time talking about the importance of bipartisanship in Canada on foreign policy and how they had made the decision to back the government on the deployment after the Manley Commission, and that they saw this as not a partisan issue; it was more important to get the country together on issues like the budget and on Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that this was a commitment that they were sharing across the parties, and that they wanted to work together with the United States.

Now, the first obvious point is that in emphasizing "bipartisanship", Ignatieff looks to have cut off a substantial portion of Canada's political spectrum for the purposes of his own analysis. In the U.S., the term can relatively plausibly be seen as encompassing the field of political debate (give or take a Bernie Sanders). But it would seem to me a clear misstatement to suggest that two-party agreement in Canada can be equated with the same type of across-the-spectrum consensus-building which would be associated with the term in the U.S. - much as Ignatieff and Harper may both wish it were so.

But then, it's true that a Con/Lib team effort can functionally impose its will on the country. And that's where it's interesting to note how Ignatieff described his party's actions and positions to Obama.

I've pointed out before that Harper's ability to strongarm the Libs into the most recent Afghanistan extension should be seen as a cautionary tale in which the Libs traded their support for nothing of substance. But apparently Ignatieff's view is just the opposite, as he both actively trumpeted the previous vote, and appears to see the issue as one where the importance of keeping the unwashed masses in line outweighs the need to actually act as an opposition party.

Perhaps even more significantly, Ignatieff appears to have looked at the budget vote as a similar type of result: rather than describing any need to put Harper on probation, he apparently described the Libs' support for the Cons' budget as being based on a similar desire to "get the country together" behind Harper's preferred course of action.

Of course, that runs contrary to the Libs' public message at home, which has involved putting as brave a face as they can muster on their lack of sufficient backbone to topple the Harper government. Which means that it's worth asking just who Ignatieff is trying to kid: Obama, the Canadian public, or maybe both.

Moreover, to the extent Ignatieff has signaled a continued intention to place bipartisanship and elite consensus at the top of his priority list, it's hard to see how he could justify taking any more of a stand in the future - meaning that we're all the more likely to be in for another series of Lib capitulations on the confidence votes they've put in place.

In sum, rather than using his time with Obama to lay the groundwork for any future improvement on Harper's vision of Canada/U.S. relations, Ignatieff has instead done little but to highlight the similarities between himself and Deceivin' Stephen. And Ignatieff's choice of message about himself and his party to our most important international partner should serve as a warning signal to voters at home.

Update: Impolitical challenges a few of the points made above. My quick responses:
- On the question of where the term "bipartisan" comes from, there would be a more plausible case to suggest it might be a matter of Obama's handlers' interpretation if it was a single reference rather than something which Ignatieff is described as spending "a lot of time" discussing. And it's hard to see what the term or anything like it could be referring to other than the Con/Lib team effort, since on both issues mentioned the NDP and the Bloc disagreed with the outcome.
- As for the rest of the post, Impolitical seems to nicely describe the Libs' current framing: that under Ignatieff they're basically just like the Cons, only with a less toxic leader, a bit more seriousness and a bit less tolerance for Bushco's worst abuses. It'll be for Canada's voters to decide whether that's what they're after, or whether they prefer a genuine change in outlook - but from my standpoint at least the Cons' actions in office cry out for far more change than that.

Juxtaposition

Barack Obama's revelation about the problem with fetishizing bipartisanship:

White House aides say they have concluded that Obama too frequently lost control of the debate and his own image during the stimulus battle. By this reckoning, the story became too much about failed efforts at bipartisanship and Washington deal-making, and not enough about the president’s public salesmanship...

Reflecting as “somebody who has been in this town,” he observed that “there’s an insatiable appetite for the notion of bipartisanship here and we allowed that to get ahead of ourselves.”

But Emanuel said that they recognized they had overdone their initial outreach to Republicans and had offered "a sharp message for the last week."

Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff, as observed by Barack Obama and his advisers yesterday:

There was a further discussion (between Obama and Harper) about Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Prime Minister talked about how they had developed this bipartisan approach to their own deployment through the Manley Commission, which had developed a road map for the Canadian involvement and led to the Canadian decision to deploy the troops until 2011.
...
Mr. Ignatieff spent a lot of time talking about the importance of bipartisanship in Canada on foreign policy and how they had made the decision to back the government on the deployment after the Manley Commission, and that they saw this as not a partisan issue; it was more important to get the country together on issues like the budget and on Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that this was a commitment that they were sharing across the parties, and that they wanted to work together with the United States.

And to conclude, John Cole, just in case anybody has missed it elsewhere:

I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane. Imagine trying to negotiate an agreement on dinner plans with your date, and you suggest Italian and she states her preference would be a meal of tire rims and anthrax. If you can figure out a way to split the difference there and find a meal you will both enjoy, you can probably figure out how bipartisanship is going to work the next few years.

History repeating

In the wake of David Emerson's declaration that the Cons plan to increase the size of Canada's combat contingent in Afghanistan by another 200 troops, let's note is that this isn't the first time the exact sequence of events has played out. Indeed, the first extension to 2009 similarly involved no mention of increased troop levels, but was followed quickly by an announcement that more Canadians would be sent into combat.

Now, if the Libs wanted to, they could point out that the motion they agreed to also suggested that development work should be proportionally increased to change the balance of the mission. But it seems far too likely that they'll let the whole matter slide to avoid any reminder of just how irresponsible the Libs were to put their desire to be seen as "bipartisan" ahead of any effort to extricate Canada from Afghanistan combat.

As an aside, a quick trip in the wayback machine turns up this from the time of the first extension:

There have been suggestions Canada might play a role in an eventual international effort in the Darfur region of Sudan, but O'Connor says the military already has its hands full with Afghanistan.

He told a Senate committee that the Afghanistan operation can essentially be maintained at the present level (then 2300 troops) forever, but there's nothing to spare for any other deployments.

Does anybody else find it interesting how the Cons have stuck to the position that Canada's can't spare military resources for any other international mission, but apparently haven't had any trouble rounding up enough additional troops to expand combat operations in Afghanistan by nearly 20% in the meantime?

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Unity North

Following up on last night's post, it's worth noting that while the Dithers wing obviously remains in charge of the Libs, the Lieberman faction looks to be filling in part of the party's message in the absence of any decisions from the top. From the CP's article:

Toronto-area MP Maurizio Bevilacqua agrees economic uncertainty has raised the stakes on the budget vote.

"If the budget is like so far out, if the budget is in no way a reflection of Canadians' priorities, then we have no choice but to pull the plug," he says.

Nevertheless, he would ideally like to see the Liberals try to work in a spirit of "bipartisanship" with the Tories to produce a budget that meets the economic challenges ahead. If Prime Minister Stephen Harper would go along with the idea, Bevilacqua says Dion could promise no election until 2009, giving the country "a sense of stability."

Note that Bevilacqua doesn't seem to have much idea what kind of measures actually would "meet the economic challenges ahead". Instead, one of the Libs' recent leadership contenders seems to be of the view that bipartisanship is an end goal in and of itself, even if the result is to leave the Harper patronage machine in power longer than can be avoided. (And Bevilacqua's apparent theory that the Libs could then draw a contrast between "Lib times" and "Tory times" after fully supporting the latter only makes the whole idea seem all the more sad.)

Of course, it's doubtful that the Cons would have any interest in going along with Bevilacqua's suggestion. Instead, they'd be more likely to use the Libs' stated points of agreement to try to pressure Dion into backing an even more right-wing budget than they might have presented otherwise. And there's little indication that the Libs have thought through their own strategy well enough to counter that kind of move other than by giving in yet again.

It remains to be seen whether the Libs' musings about finding ways to keep propping up Harper are only trial balloons. But the Libs' obvious reluctance to present any meaningful resistance to the Cons' hard-right agenda has to raise serious questions about them even if they finally are pushed to start opposing again.

Throne away

A first reaction to the Cons' throne speech: so much for my theory that the Liebermanley Group was actually intended to buy the Cons time and deniability on Afghanistan. Instead, by calling for a two-year extension of the current mission without bothering to hear from a panel which he himself appointed last week, Harper himself has made it absolutely clear that he couldn't care less what it has to say.

As a result, it seems that the sole purposes of last week's announcement of the panel were to put temporary pressure on the Libs, and to win a modicum of public perception of having John Manley on the Cons' side. Which in turn adds yet another in the column of misusing public resources for partisan gain.

On group dynamics

The Star has filled in some details on the Liebermanley Group through a series of reports this morning. And it seems that the Libs themselves were well aware that their spin on the situation had absolutely no basis in reality.

Let's start by noting that while Dion's public message tried to downplay the danger of John Manley's involvement by suggesting that his presence might moderate both the final report and Harper's actual position, Manley himself has an entirely different target in mind:

Manley, who has twice visited Afghanistan, said he's been deeply touched by the humanitarian needs there and suggested Canada should not withdraw prematurely.

"Afghanistan represents an enormous opportunity for Canada to play a meaningful role in a globally significant arena. But it also represents an enormous challenge to our resources and our capabilities," he said. "And Canadians rightfully ask whether our sacrifices are making a lasting difference."

Manley said yesterday that he hopes Dion is open to hearing the panel's advice on an "appropriate role" for Canada in Afghanistan.

Needless to say, when Manley himself figures the Libs should alter their stance to match the group rather than the other way around, there's absolutely no reason to think Manley will offer any moderating presence on the panel. And that goes doubly given his tendency to let the U.S. dictate Canadian actions as pointed out by Lawrence Martin.

But then, it appears Dion himself knew perfectly well just how problematic the appointment was, even as he tried to spin in the opposite direction for the cameras:

As has happened in the past, Manley's move had Liberals shaking their heads. This was a man, after all, who chose to return to private law practice rather than accept former prime minister Paul Martin's offer of the coveted post of Canadian ambassador to Washington.

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion publicly welcomed Manley's attempt to contribute to the divisive Afghanistan debate, but was privately fuming over what many Liberals saw as a betrayal that would help Harper build a case for prolonging the Afghan military mission contrary to the wishes of all three opposition parties.

Which means that Dion himself seems to have recognized the most important problem with the group's appointment - but decided to say otherwise publicly in order to appease the Manley wing of the party. Which can only make it likely that he'll end up giving Manley his wish at the end of the process as well, in the form of yet another combat extension.

It's hard to imagine a much more vivid example of how quickly any trace of principle has been wrung out of Dion over the course of less than a year at the helm of the Libs. But with Dion now publicly taking the Cons' side on another of the major issues facing the country (even while he grumbles about doing so in private), the time has never been better for former Lib voters to turn to a more progressive choice.

Weakening

The Libs have given another couple of hints as to how they're planning to cave to Stephen Harper going forward. And there's all the more reason to doubt that Stephane Dion's party is even remotely interested in presenting an effective opposition.

First, rather than recognizing Deceivin' Stephen's Afghanistan delay tactic for what it is, Dion's response suggests that he's under the delusion that Harper is even remotely interested in hearing and being convinced by opposing views:

Manley said he called Liberal Leader Stephane Dion on Thursday night to inform him of his decision. Dion praised the appointment and expressed hope that Manley might get the prime minister to modify his Afghan position.

Needless to say, there's no explanation as to how someone who apparently shares Harper's desire for long-term combat would even be arguing for a modified position, let alone succeed in winning it on a Con-stacked panel advising a prime minister who's notorious for listening to nobody but himself. And Dion's bizarre willingness to overlook reality effectively ensures that the united opposition response which would be needed to undercut Harper's ploy won't materialize.

Meanwhile, the Libs' environment critic has announced that he doesn't think his party will even consider voting down the Cons' throne speech no matter what it contains on Kyoto:

Liberals won't bring down the Harper government over next week's throne speech, even if it effectively abandons the Kyoto climate-change pact, the party's environment critic says.

"The Liberal Party of Canada isn't going to be goaded into the boxing ring with Stephen Harper," David McGuinty said Friday. "We're not that gullible or foolish."

With the Kyoto announcement having failed to provoke any semblance of a spine from a party which is supposedly dedicated to making the environment one of its top three issues, it's hard to see what the Cons couldn't slip into the throne speech while still be able to count on the Libs propping them up. Though they may well be tempted to toss in the occasional "Librano organized crime ring" just to confirm that the Libs will put up with absolutely anything to avoid a trip to the polls.

Toss in the Libs' call for corporations to be put ahead of the general public yet again, and there's no reason at all for Canadians to think either that the Libs genuinely hold even faintly progressive values, or that they'd stand up to Harper to defend them if they did. Which means that anybody hoping for effective opposition (and an alternative to continued Harper government) is long overdue to start looking elsewhere.

On delay tactics

While a few bloggers have commented on the Cons' plan to appoint an -I-r-a-q- Afghanistan study group (cue breathless media fawning: "with a special bipartisan guest appearance by John Liebermanley!"), the talk so far has mostly assumed that Harper's primary motivation is to eliminate Afghanistan as an election issue this fall. But from what I can tell, the move is aimed primarily at the possibility that the current Parliament might continue.

As I've discussed before, the main question on Afghanistan in the current Parliament always figured to be when the issue would be put up for a vote. And there's little reason to think the result of a vote this fall - which the opposition could raise of its own motion at any time - would be anything but a firm opposition vote against an extension.

As a result, the Cons have been desperately trying to avoid any action this fall, trying to push the vote to somewhere between early 2008 and whenever they'll be sure of the result they want. And having obviously failed to convince the public that their entitlement to set the timing for a vote should stand on its own merits, they're now looking to buy themselves a few months with a cherry-picked "bipartisan" study group.

Now, I'm not sure that Canadian voters would ultimately buy the excuse that the Cons should be able to delay the vote any more this way than through their previous edicts. But the appointment offers at least one new fig leaf for a clearly-frightened Harper to hide behind - at least until the opposition responds with a clear statement that it doesn't see the group as a legitimate means of delaying an Afghanistan vote this fall.