jmt18325 said:
Are civilians not being murdered at an alarming rate in Africa? Often because of religion?
And elsewhere. But let's pick somewhere arbitrarily, rather than assess greatest need, reasonable chance of success, acceptable risk and cost and ability to support, though, because it's whatever year it is.
jmt18325 said:
Do you not understand how the very fact that we choose to ally ourselves with the US, and responded in the way we did to September 11, 2001, is just as political as any move we might make into Africa?
Support to allies, and responding to clear threats, is rather a different level of political than votes and vanity above all else.
jmt18325 said:
Could it not be argued that we're supporting our allies by fighting Islamic terror in Africa, taking on a UN mission there?
Yes, but ... Have we been asked? Is the government looking for/willing to accept a fight against terrorism, or a mythical blue-beret mission so that it can make another silly claim that "Canada is back"?
jmt18325 said:
Do you have it from anyone that this is being done simply to win a UNSC seat?
Beyond campaign promises and statements?
There are legitimate reasons to become involved in many places in the world. Many of us would support involvement in every one of those, if we had the capability and improvement was likely. No reasonable person likes to see people suffer, especially when something can be done to help.
Sadly, we cannot do that.
We should, however, do what we can.
What irks me, though, is the poor process that is driving this.
The current government made some rather outlandish campaign promises, which is easy to do when one does not expect to ever have to follow up on them. These include, but are not limited to:
- Holding an "open competition" (still undefined by anyone) to select a fighter replacement - but NOT including F35.
- Rushing in 25000 Syrian refugees because of a photograph of a drowned boy on a beach that generated mass sympathy and therefore votes. The number was a rectal extraction. No thought was given to our ability to successfully integrate and support that many in that period of time, or to any security issues, which were a perfectly valid concern. Regarding the number, perhaps we can actually absorb more without difficulty in a short period - but that is not the point. Nobody in government, or in NGOs that support refugees, thought that rushing was a good thing to do, other than those running the Liberal Party election machine. No other refugees were "worthy" of consideration either. Syrians had suddenly become fashionable. I had been involved in a private sponsorship of a Burundian refugee family prior to that. They had been hopelessly trapped in a refugee camp for twelve years, the father severely injured and almost killed in an attack while there, and there are many thousands of Burundians still stuck in that "life" style. What about Middle-Eastern Christians and Yazidis, who have been brutally slaughtered and abused in a variety of ways? What about the Afghan interpreters and their families who we left behind? What about ... and ... and ...? Are Liberals unaware that these people exist? Or do they simply not care? The APPEARANCE is that the Syrians were merely backdrop for photo ops. And, by the way, I have a Syrian refugee family as neighbours (again, privately sponsored, with the process started long before the last election even though they arrived afterwards), and they are great people, working hard to integrate, the father and two oldest boys are employed, and I am happy that they are here and safe. It would have looked better, however, if a few equally-deserving members of other ethnic groups had been included in the 25000, or if measures were being taken to bring some in later/now - but the election's over, media coverage was great, and we can all get back to really important things like the Kardashians.
- Finding a "traditional" and safe UN Peacekeeping mission, despite significant changes in the world since those days (and significant differences between myth and reality even back then). It's got to be a UN mission, though. Those are the only ones "good enough". Stuff that we've done elsewhere - like Afghanistan - under other mandates, doesn't count.
- Reeling in that UN Security Council seat.
Had we received an invitation to help out somewhere, and had this government conducted an honest appraisal of the potential benefit to those in need, the risks to our troops and other supporters, our ability to support without bending/straining/breaking the organization again, and the cost, then I could back it. There is NO indication that this is the case, and plenty to the contrary.
I will freely admit that I neither like nor trust the current prime minister, nor any members of his party, nor his party in general, based upon considerable history. I was also less than impressed, and increasingly critical of, their predecessors. I will give both credit and blame where and when due, freely, to anyone, regardless of party, however.
We have put people into unacceptable situations - futile, risky, and lacking adequate support - before. I was aware enough of those then, but am more aware today. I have been to too many ramp ceremonies, repatriations, funerals, and memorials. Real need and real chance of success, providing that real support is given to those deploying, are acceptable. Personal vanity of the God-Emperor and votes are not.
And it certainly appears that vanity and votes are the critical factors.
.
