Maybe this is the year Federer wins the French.....

And on the quote from The Economist, I would suggest a slight amendment: "Respected for his SLY competence...."

As a person that has spent one on one time with John, I can honestly say he has tempered some of my views through his subtle yet to the point logic. I worked on his leadership bid during the Martin coup and I would do so again. We'd still have a majority had he not been scuttled by you know who. I am nothing but impressed with the Afghanistan report.

CAn I be cheeky?
Welcome to Korea. Meaning that Afghanistan is Canada's Korean War. A war that had to be fought but the public never really understood why(What's the Truman doctrine got to do with it? Does it really matter if we let the DPRK have the country? Korea's a nothing country, why shoud we care?)

Al, as an American who's spent time studying the politics surrounding the Korean war, let me say this: no answer is good enough. None. You lived thru the Cold War and saw how, with major arguments expended on why it needed to be fought, we always teetered on simply giving up on it. It needs to be done and a major section of the pop of Canada, like a major section of the pop of the US, will ever accept that Afghanistan needed and needs to be done.

Which is why an all-volunteer military is something most theorists have pushed for. Wars of policy like this aer something you can only attain with Legionaires and not citizen-soldiers.

Now, can I have a donut?

Hi ry. If you do a little more digging you will note that the Korean War was Canada's Korean War.

I don't think anyone is advocating for citizen soldiers so can you elaborate?

Hrmm.. I seem to remember as well that Canada fought in Korea and that we have an all volunteer army. Ry is confusing me.

Canada made it most of the way through WWI and halfway through WWII with all-volunteer military establishments... beats both Britain and the United States.

There you go.

I can, a little.

I said it in the second para. No answer will ever be good enough.

Canada may have fought in Korea but it did not go thru the major soul searching over the issue the US did there(and later Vietnam). No answer short of 'we're stopping a Hitler,a global threat' will ever suffice(even if said 'Hitler' wasn't a global threat--perceptions matter). That's not an excuse not to try to explain it, but a good reason not to dwell on explaining it. make your good faith attempt and call it a day.

Also, isn't this also in the realm of media responsibility? They're the shapers of opinion and all. Obtaining and explaining said rationale is their job. They claimed it.

It's doubly tough for gov't since, given media's self appointed role, everything will be hyper scrutinized looking for spin(and, like McCarthy looking for communists under every leaf, it'll be found regardless of whether it really is there). Again, not an excuse not to try at all. But a good reason to make one good faith attempt and call it a day since protracted efforts just get you in deeper. When hitting bottom one should stop diggin, yes?

All volunteer forces. Actually, there are things afoot in both the Great White North(at least East Lakia) and the Lower 48 to move away from an all volunteer force, spured by involvement in Afghanistan. It is said loud and often. Typically with 'why do they always send the poor' sentiments included.

The two actually tie together. THe 'stopping a Hitler' fights can really only be achieved from full mobilization of the country to war. A draft. Fights of policy are never won using conscripts, and really don't merit the use of conscription for the goal desired(My Lai came about because of soldiery who weren't sufficiently integrated into THe Colo(u)rs, as is a lot of 'bad behavio(u)r' on the battlefields of the 20th century. Since policy wars have typically been counter-insurgency type things, where image matters almost more than substance, conscripts are the last thing you want). Therefore, based on the 'send the poor' drivel, policy wars are never defensible to large numbers of the electorate---even if, in fact, said wars are absolutely necessary--- in both countries. If it isn't big enough to require everyone to go it isn't important enough to go at all(unless it's Darfur, of course. I never said these people were consistent.)

So, going on and on about it, with people who will never accept anything, even if gov't was 100% honest about it, and do their utmost to warp and twist what's said is actually a losing strategy that really does more to confuse than illuminate. Make your case, 1x, and go on about it. It isn't satisfying, but that's how it is.

["...given media's self appointed role..."<p>What?<p>Canada's constitution:<blockquote class="smalltext">Fundamental Freedoms<p>2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:<blockquote>(a) freedom of conscience and religion<br>(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including <b>freedom of the press</b> and other means of communication.<br>(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and<br>(d) freedom of association.</blockquote></blockquote>The U.S. constitution:<blockquote class="smalltext">Amendment I<p><b>Congress shall make no law</b> respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or <b>abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press</b>; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. </blockquote>Of all the things that people claim are in the constitutions of our countries, one of the things that actually is is the recognition of over the role of news media in a free and democratic state. But I suppose if you have issues with free and democratic states that is a tough thing to deal with.]

Anyway, I have no idea what all that means. I tihnk you are saying there are two sorts of wars, the small unliked ones and the big we-better-win-or-we-are-screwed ones. I think that is too simplistic. Canadians at 50-50% have an inordinate level of support for this war given the circumstances of distance and poor government advocacy for the cause. Canadians were very supportive of the Gulf War and the war in the former Yugoslavia, neither of which were matters of our impending doom but each of which were far better explained to the population. Remember, in this country, the government has decided not to be the leader in the effort to explain the future of the war, passing the matter to an all-party committee and making a political hot potato of it before Parliament.

re: "..Actually, there are things afoot in both the Great White North(at least East Lakia) and the Lower 48 to move away from an all volunteer force, ..."

Excuse me? I mean EXCUSE ME? I have yet to hear anyone, anyone, in any circles within which I circumnavigate, ever to bring forth the concept of conscription in Canada or enforced military servitude. How about a few links or examples ry because methinks you are mayhap quoting someone you read at Small Dead Animals and not a run of the mill (read: normal) Canadian.

Al, geez. Isn't there a huge gap between 'gov't shall not regulate the press' in both Constitutions and the press taking on the role of 'truth detectors and those who feret out gov't spin'? Particularly given the 24 hour news cycle, sensationalism, and the McCarthy-esque hunts? I think so.(And it's rather odd, given your distaste for people who cloak themselves in any nations COnstitution, for you to say, 'How dare you, it's in the Constitution!' Yeah, so, what has that got to do with the media being an anti-gov't hitsquad that has done much to erode confidence in many institutions inappropriately? Oh, but it's in the Con, so it must be okay then.)

Al, didn't you notice that I said that it isn't consistent? Simply put, I think, if you can get the gliterrati and the big media(established magazines and newspapers) to be sympathetic to your cause certain people will fall all over themselves pushing for military intervention: Yugoslavia, Rawanda, and Darfur being three examples of policy wars people push because celebutaunts say we should care.

I mean, good God, Al, what more needs to be said about Afghanistan? 1)NATO alliance requirement. 2)Reconstruction of a country after fulfillment of NATO alliance requirement--in line with Geneva Con. If that isn't blatantly obvious, which it is, or good enough an explanation for why Canada is in Afghanistan no argument or explanation is going to satisfy. I mean, is that so hard for the run of the mill Canuck to get? Really? Harper needs to read the big hard words for them? Or is it that someone has implanted the idea that there must be more to justify it? I wonder who that might be?

Al, maybe the people weren't as silly back in 1991. The Gulf War wasn't that hard a sell. It was obvious to most people that war of aggression had taken place. That's against most int'l standards, no? How much of a sell does it take? Again, how much does Afghanistan need to be sold? State sponsor of terrorism which attacked the US, a NATO ally, and, in line with GenCon, requires Canada to stay to rebuild the country Canada invaded and broke(alongside the US). How much more needs to be said than that? Really?

Wars that cost no lives on our side are always so much easier for the public to stomach, Al. GW1 and Yugo were 'all airpower all the time' affairs with little to no White Hat casualties. Of course it is easy to sell those. The rationales are no different really.

"I have yet to hear anyone, anyone, in any circles within which I circumnavigate"
Right, so ROnald Reagan really wasn't voted president because nobody at the NYT knew anyone who voted for him. I don't even know what Small Dead Animals is. I take it that it's a blog, from north of the parallel. Fine. I don't read it. If I remember correctly East Lakia contained upper NY state. I know that sentiment exists there---one only needs to read the work of people at the NYT and others (like Armchair Generalist) to find the sentiment. ANd I throw the bullshit flag. You've never heard anyone say:"Well why doesn't Bush/hated political figure send their children to war then?" Balls. I've got Canadian students down here who say that. Typically they're the pro-canabis types, but it is out there and not only from the fringe types.

Then stop writing things like:<blockquote class="smalltext">...with people who will never accept anything...</blockquote>It is simply untrue and it is a basic premise you are working with. It is just not true and the requires you to rework the rest.

Al, do you remember Ms. Thang from when i started hanging out at the Castle? She's exactly what I'm talking about. Anti-corpratist, if it comes from gov't it must be a lie, I-can-be-offensive-but-you-can't-you-patriarchial-oppresionist type person. Never believes anything that gov't says, well, almost nothing. If it's a pet project of hers she supports and believes, but the rest are all lies. Loves Keith Olberman. And she's a Ph.D. student. She is not rare. She'd probably call you a sell out, living in the 'burbs and all. There name is legion, Al. That wasn't hyperbole. You guys just have to get out more. Hell, all I have to do is point at Berkeley to prove my point! That's 100k people, right there. Next time i go to Washington state I'll get some video of Vancouver-ites who have the same sentiments.

Also, are the people who fawn over celebutaunt's and follow their approval as the professional gov't haters? No. Different groups,Al. Certain people will care. Ms. Thang won't. She uses Darfur like a club, like she did Iran pre-Iraq invasion, but now that it actually looked like Iran might actually be on the menu she's changed her mind. in '04 she was certain that Iran had nucs and that's why we weren't invading. now it's 08 and she's sure they don't and Bush is doing it because he's crazy and it helps his oil buddies. In the 90s she probably would've said CLinton went to Yugoslavia to cement the NWO.

These people aren't hard to find.

"FLAG loosen" -- LOL.

Every couple of years, people muse about bringing back the draft in the USA, and it gets shot down right quick. (Generally is brought up by left-wingers who don't like little wars, be they Yugoslavia, Af'stan or Iraq, and think that this would prevent it. The Pentagon hates the idea of a draft.)

Canadians have a very different attitude towards the draft than Americans do -- it's historically been a question of national unity. Quebec is pacifist -- the Quebecois didn't even want to fight in the Second World War. And Anglo Canadians were a very belligerent sort before the cultural changes of the Trudeau era. (Changes also the fault of American draft dodgers who came north and filled all sorts of positions in the intelligentsia -- journalism, academia, etc.)

Canada didn't send anyone outside of the Western Hemisphere in WWII who didn't volunteer for it, and the Canadian Army (and the navy and air force) made a huge contribution. (Those were the days when Canada punched above its weight and didn't whine.)

That said, I agree with Ry that there is a proportion of the population who just will never agree, no matter what you do. It's somewhere around 15-20%, and they're disproportionately noisy.

Journalists are jerks, and so when we're in a real (big) war, we impose temporary censorship regulations. We just haven't been in a real war since WWII. At other times, their jerkiness is good for our society and political life.

<i>"...And Anglo Canadians were a very belligerent sort before the cultural changes of the Trudeau era. (Changes also the fault of American draft dodgers who came north and filled all sorts of positions in the intelligentsia -- journalism, academia, etc.)...</i>

LOL!!! {When I use three exclamation points it is exceptionally shaming.)

Again with the been-too-long-in-the-905 thinking! I could as easily blame suburban planning or consumer materialism. Having a pal who is planning to trade his best shotgun for a decent banjo I have no such delusions about the current day Canadian. Wool plaid shirts are causal wear for dress down Fridays where I come from, for God's sake. All we suffer from these days is dense fearful political leadership.

I am scared of tasers and bears. I like the scottish "thing" in Canada similar to the South Island of New Zealand around Dunedin. Beware the sassenachs to the south and support Stenhousemuir.

Stenhousemuir!?!? They're like two leagues below Morton.