Flit

OKAY, THIS WAS FUNNY Received

OKAY, THIS WAS FUNNY

Received in an email today:

"You have just received the Amish Virus.
Since we do not have electricity nor computers, you are on the honor system.
Please delete all of your files.
>
Thank thee."

THE CANADIAN TROOP DILEMMA Can't

THE CANADIAN TROOP DILEMMA

Can't tell the players without a program, right? Okay, here it is. On the one side you have retired general Lew Mackenzie, and his hawkish claque of Canadian ex-generals, military contractors, etc. (and a ton of support from the average soldier). On the question about whether Canada should extend its support of the war on terrorism, they've been joined evidently, by some subtle U.S. pressure: as the New York Times revealed earlier this week, American defense officials are concerned their force in Afghanistan not look too uniformly American.

On the other side, you have the Prime Minister, who wants the freedom to use the military for national aggrandizement from time to time, his Cabinet, who are all fighting to keep the military budget flatlined so their own can keep growing, and most of the armed forces leadership, who are used to bizarre requests coming from Parliament Hill for military support of something or other, and want a ready reserve so they can be prepared.

As this site has been predicting for, well, months, the question of whether the Prime Minister's promise of a six-month Canadian war in Afghanistan hinged on who won out in the ensuing bunfight. Mackenzie sent the first hunk of banana loaf sailing over the government's head earlier this week in the National Post, urging them to call the newly appointed commander of Canada's war effort, Michel Gauthier, and ask whether his troops were coming home or not. After Gauthier said the obvious (he didn't know) the Post had its story, fleshed out with Mackenzie waxing poetic about the humiliation to Canada if the troops came home.

The open question I couldn't see the answer to was whether the accidental troop deaths in Afghanistan had weakened the Mackenzie side's case or not. I still can't. However it is certain that "helping the Americans out" no longer has the slightest weight in Ottawa, or among much of the Canadian public, thanks to one F-16 pilot's error. Not to mention that for Mackenzie to win would make the PM a liar twice... first on the six-month war and second on the availability of Canadian troops for West Bank peacekeeping duty. And Jean Chretien is not going to be seen to be changing Canadian foreign policy on the behest of the Americans if he can help it. The only chance, really, the Mackenzie lobby has now then is to somehow get Canadian public opinion on the side of sticking it out. The government, conversely, needs to know if that's a serious concern.

That's why you see a piece like today's front-pager in the Toronto Star (long the main source for major government trial balloons and inside scoops). It's the equivalent of the PM sticking a finger in the air to gauge the wind. If there's an outcry in the next couple days, the government may have to modify its anti-extension position (how, exactly, it's hard to say... you can't make soldiers magically appear). If not, then the troops come home, and America and Britain fight on in Kandahar alone.

The other piece in this is the preliminary report of the board of inquiry into the Afghan deaths, due this Friday. By putting those deaths in the public eye again, it would appear to be a strong argument on the government side. That should lead into an announcement next week that the troops are... pulling out? staying in? Still too early to say with certainty.

PS: Why does Mackenzie, the closest thing to a Macarthur figure this country has had in recent history, care so much? Well, first off, he's an aspiring Opposition politician, who hasn't ruled out another electoral run for a right-of-centre party. The possibility for embarrassing the current government, however this turns out, is significant. Second, I believe he passionately wants this government to take defence spending seriously, and mitigate the chronic underfunding of the Chretien years. Pointing out the self-evident shortfalls between the Prime Minister's diplomatic ambitions and the reality of what he's paying for is the strategy he's hit on for doing that.

CARDINAL FANG! FETCH THE ITALIAN

CARDINAL FANG! FETCH THE ITALIAN STUDY VISA!

There are two ways a foreigner can get to study for a few years in Italy, it seems. You can work like a lunatic, become one of the elite scholars of your institution, and be sent over to a centre like the one the University of Toronto has at Siena. Or you can shoot your way into an international landmark and hold a bunch of unarmed priests hostage, your pick:

In a novel example, exiled Palestinians would travel to Italy on study visas, and then be kept for three to five years under supervision and academic instruction, a negotiator said. Such an arrangement would allow Mr. Arafat to make a public case that the men had not been exiled, but, as he said in a meeting on Monday, were on scholarship.

--New York Times, today

I CAN'T REMEMBER, IS SHARON

I CAN'T REMEMBER, IS SHARON A MAN OF PEACE, OR NOT? "I DON'T KNOW, WHAT DAY IS IT?"

Prediction: at some point during the King of Jordan's visit today, President Bush will criticize something the Israelis are doing as "not helpful." This follows yesterday's characterization while the prime minister of Israel was visiting of their adversary Yasser Arafat as "not helpful." Tomorrow, when the girl scouts drop by the White House with cookies, Hostess Twinkies will be described as "not helpful." Face it, Yanks, you're flailing here. This is quite possibly the most incoherent foreign policy the world has ever seen...