- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
Travers - Too Many Assumptions & Too Much Bias
<http://crux-of-the-matter.com/?p=30>
In today's Toronto Star, James Travers has a column
<http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/211318> titled: "Restoring civilian control." The subtitle is: "It is not in our interest to allow the military to become synonymous with Canada." Those are impressive assumptions to say the least. Let us look at some of the statements in the column to analyze whether there is any blatant conservative and/or military bias.
* "Canada's new prisoner deal with Afghanistan makes commitments the military avoided in 2005 when Gen. Rick Hillier signed a now discredited accord ....Fearing that monitoring detainees would be a liability...."
The words "discredited" and "fearing that monitoring would be a liability" are highly charged words and are completely unnecessary. Now, remember this was an agreement signed under the former PM, Paul Martin's watch. It is my understanding that the agreement was negotiated by the Minister at the time (Bill Graham) and upper level diplomats - that Gen. Hillier simply signed what had already been decided. He did not sign it with the notion that monitoring detainees would be a liability. Remember, if anyone decided that, it was the politicians at the time - who were Liberal - yet Travers blames Hillier.
* "All have implications for a difficult mission that has taken 55 Canadian lives and continues to polarize this country."
The only reason this country is polarized is because the media keep saying that it is polarizing the country. I don't think so. If the media would give a balanced evaluation of the mission and what the troops are doing, perhaps people would be in a position to make a fair judgment about Canada's role. Journalists like Travers are making the news, not reporting it.
* "They raise questions about the military's appetite for safeguarding prisoners, political control over generals and Stephen Harper's willingness to impose holistic, all-of-government, discipline on a reconstruction effort now dominated by the military."
Now, just what is that supposed to mean? On what basis is the PM imposing holistic all-of-government discipline that former PM Paul Martin and Defence Minister Bill Graham didn't impose? This is just more conservative bashing. It is the military who is committed to doing reconstruction, which is difficult to do while simultaneously attempting to pacify the insurgency.
* "Sources directly involved in deliberations that shaped the 2005 agreement say the top brass considered prisoner monitoring a burden and legally unnecessary."
Which sources said that? Which top brass? And, as with a previous statement, why is Travers blaming the anonymous top brass and not the Liberals who were the government who set the policy for the Afghan mission? Obviously this is more anti-conservative bias.
* "Still, last week's new, vastly improved agreement borrowing heavily from British and Dutch experience, is the product of a revealing different process. Instead of military-to-military, it's between governments - and this time Hillier is an interested spectator, not the star player. That suggests Conservatives caught in the spotlight are applying more oversight than Liberals who gave Hillier enormous freedom back when almost no one was watching. An encouraging step forward, that still leaves uncertainty about the safety of the prisoners as well as lingering questions about the balance of a mission that is supposed to be about more than fighting."
There are amazing presuppositions, and almost racist disregard, in this statement that assumes the Afghans can't manage their own prisoners. NATO is in that country at the invitation of the Afghan government, and Canada is just one country in that overall mission. The truth of the matter is that our troops are not there to teach human rights but to expel the Taliban and to help in the rebuilding of the whole country. Once that is done, hopefully improved human rights would happen. However, if you read the entire section carefully, Travers is also suggesting that these latest changes were only made because the Conservatives were caught out. Either way its biased against the Canadian Conservative government, the Afghan government and the military.
* "Conservatives are now paying a high political price for that weak agreement struck while Liberals were in power as well as for their own inability to get the prisoner story straight. That leaves Harper's government with two challenges: It must make good on prisoner guarantees and claw back control of the mission from the military."
There you have it. The whole purpose of this article was to blame the Conservatives for whatever the MSM said about it all during this media and opposition-made "detainees" crisis. What Travers seems to be saying is that our military is running the Afghan mission - which is ridiculous. The government of the day sets the mission's goals and decides what can or cannot be done and the military carries it out. It was under the Liberals and Defense Minister Bill Graham that the policy in Afghanistan changed (moving the Canadian troops into a direct combat role) and when the first prisoner agreement was signed. This whole column is about bashing the military, from the title and subtitle to the final sentence. It is also bashing Conservatives because they "supposedly" didn't get the story straight. I would suggest that Travers isn't getting the story straight either. For example, he says: "As central as security is to the mission there, it's not in this country's interest to allow the military to become synonymous with Canada." Actually, in my opinion, the military should be synonymous with the "best" that is Canada - because it is for those ideals and principles that they serve.
<http://crux-of-the-matter.com/?p=30>
In today's Toronto Star, James Travers has a column
<http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/211318> titled: "Restoring civilian control." The subtitle is: "It is not in our interest to allow the military to become synonymous with Canada." Those are impressive assumptions to say the least. Let us look at some of the statements in the column to analyze whether there is any blatant conservative and/or military bias.
* "Canada's new prisoner deal with Afghanistan makes commitments the military avoided in 2005 when Gen. Rick Hillier signed a now discredited accord ....Fearing that monitoring detainees would be a liability...."
The words "discredited" and "fearing that monitoring would be a liability" are highly charged words and are completely unnecessary. Now, remember this was an agreement signed under the former PM, Paul Martin's watch. It is my understanding that the agreement was negotiated by the Minister at the time (Bill Graham) and upper level diplomats - that Gen. Hillier simply signed what had already been decided. He did not sign it with the notion that monitoring detainees would be a liability. Remember, if anyone decided that, it was the politicians at the time - who were Liberal - yet Travers blames Hillier.
* "All have implications for a difficult mission that has taken 55 Canadian lives and continues to polarize this country."
The only reason this country is polarized is because the media keep saying that it is polarizing the country. I don't think so. If the media would give a balanced evaluation of the mission and what the troops are doing, perhaps people would be in a position to make a fair judgment about Canada's role. Journalists like Travers are making the news, not reporting it.
* "They raise questions about the military's appetite for safeguarding prisoners, political control over generals and Stephen Harper's willingness to impose holistic, all-of-government, discipline on a reconstruction effort now dominated by the military."
Now, just what is that supposed to mean? On what basis is the PM imposing holistic all-of-government discipline that former PM Paul Martin and Defence Minister Bill Graham didn't impose? This is just more conservative bashing. It is the military who is committed to doing reconstruction, which is difficult to do while simultaneously attempting to pacify the insurgency.
* "Sources directly involved in deliberations that shaped the 2005 agreement say the top brass considered prisoner monitoring a burden and legally unnecessary."
Which sources said that? Which top brass? And, as with a previous statement, why is Travers blaming the anonymous top brass and not the Liberals who were the government who set the policy for the Afghan mission? Obviously this is more anti-conservative bias.
* "Still, last week's new, vastly improved agreement borrowing heavily from British and Dutch experience, is the product of a revealing different process. Instead of military-to-military, it's between governments - and this time Hillier is an interested spectator, not the star player. That suggests Conservatives caught in the spotlight are applying more oversight than Liberals who gave Hillier enormous freedom back when almost no one was watching. An encouraging step forward, that still leaves uncertainty about the safety of the prisoners as well as lingering questions about the balance of a mission that is supposed to be about more than fighting."
There are amazing presuppositions, and almost racist disregard, in this statement that assumes the Afghans can't manage their own prisoners. NATO is in that country at the invitation of the Afghan government, and Canada is just one country in that overall mission. The truth of the matter is that our troops are not there to teach human rights but to expel the Taliban and to help in the rebuilding of the whole country. Once that is done, hopefully improved human rights would happen. However, if you read the entire section carefully, Travers is also suggesting that these latest changes were only made because the Conservatives were caught out. Either way its biased against the Canadian Conservative government, the Afghan government and the military.
* "Conservatives are now paying a high political price for that weak agreement struck while Liberals were in power as well as for their own inability to get the prisoner story straight. That leaves Harper's government with two challenges: It must make good on prisoner guarantees and claw back control of the mission from the military."
There you have it. The whole purpose of this article was to blame the Conservatives for whatever the MSM said about it all during this media and opposition-made "detainees" crisis. What Travers seems to be saying is that our military is running the Afghan mission - which is ridiculous. The government of the day sets the mission's goals and decides what can or cannot be done and the military carries it out. It was under the Liberals and Defense Minister Bill Graham that the policy in Afghanistan changed (moving the Canadian troops into a direct combat role) and when the first prisoner agreement was signed. This whole column is about bashing the military, from the title and subtitle to the final sentence. It is also bashing Conservatives because they "supposedly" didn't get the story straight. I would suggest that Travers isn't getting the story straight either. For example, he says: "As central as security is to the mission there, it's not in this country's interest to allow the military to become synonymous with Canada." Actually, in my opinion, the military should be synonymous with the "best" that is Canada - because it is for those ideals and principles that they serve.
