90 Seconds on Afghanistan

Nothing like a flag-draped coffin to remind one of the futility of war. And so it was this past week as Canada’s first female soldier died during battle in Afghanistan. Ironically, it was on the same day as our MPs were discussing the merits of keeping soldiers there for another couple of years.

Stephen “Hard-Ass” Harper enforced the debate with the caveat that he would call an election if he didn’t get his way. This agressive move, full of political expediancy, scared the heck out of the Bloc Quebecois, a party not prepared to return to the polls after January’s slap in the face. Debate, if you want to call it that, was limited to 6 hours in the House of Commons. That’s about 90 seconds per MP. [only 294 voted] It was merely lip service of the very worst kind and not a very democratic way of having an intelligent discussion about Canada’s committment in a foreign land. The carrot was the offer of leading the NATO mission in 2008.

Quite frankly this move was merely a power-play by the Prime Minister to shrink the process and therefore restrict any serious debate. What can one say on an important issue in less than 90 seconds? Well, considering the notion of sound bites, you could do pretty well, but end up saying nothing. Another approach: stand in the House and say nothing for 90 seconds. Perhaps hold a peace sign over your head or tell the story of one of our fallen soldiers.

Canada does not need to be in Afghanistan. And while we get positive information about our mission there and the many people that have been helped, it’s basically a battle of diminishing returns. The tribal network that is Afghanistan isn’t going to change for anybody, no matter how often we use the word “democracy” as a way of life.

It is truly a waste of time, money and effort.

I think my 90 seconds is up.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.