… but of course the mostly unidentified commentariat – even at the Star – are willing to say basically that.
Still, Chantal Hébert reminds us of part of the complexion of majority governments in this country:
Under a majority Conservative government, former diplomat Richard Colvin’s assertion that Canada knowingly allowed scores of Afghan civilian detainees to fall into the hands of torturers would likely have remained the stuff of informed behind-the-scenes speculation.
I’m reminded a lot these days of “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister.” There’s a lot of people in more than one sector who are forced into an MO of waiting out their taskmasters who rule under fixed or variable but inevitably limited terms. I myself am, to my surprise, bearing witness to this these days, and am reminded that it’s the other longtimers who really need watching. Qualified always by the Kissinger wisdom that ‘University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.”
I’d absolutely love to know what Colvin’s REAL game is. But I’m content with things as they appear, and the conclusion that reasonable people have to draw: the mission in Afghanistan has nothing to do with the rights, values or hopes we might want to share with the people of Central Asia. Alarming to me is the fact that, Canadian public opinion – gleaned as it is from several anecdotal sources – reacts vociferously to the idea that we just might be Abu Ghraibing by proxy in Afghanistan.