New Media

Because we let them.

A ship suspected of being connected to the Tamil Tigers and carrying as many as 300 migrants has weighed anchor and set a course for Canada, according to reports in the Sri Lankan media.

But why do they think they can come here and we’ll just let them in? The precedent couldn’t be clearer:

Last October, for instance, 76 Tamil refugees landed in British Columbia in another ship believed to be connected to the Tigers. The migrants have been freed while their claims are processed, which could take several years.

Hell, if I were in there position, I’d do the exact same thing. So long as this is how our border controls work, we can expect a continuing inflow of dead-enders, terrorists and assorted weirdos cutting in line ahead of legitimate immigrants and refugees.

Should the government be spending large amounts of tax dollars to protect diplomats from harassment or protect vulnerable civilians in a far-away land from murderous bandits? Actually, I think we can and should do both. I contrasted the recent security operation for the G20 in Toronto with operations in Afghanistan in The Mark.

An excerpt:

For the G20 conference in Toronto, we had 19,000 security personnel. Crusades have been launched with fewer boots on the ground. The centre of Canada’s most famous metropolis was turned into a passable imitation of the Green Zone of Iraq. The security price tag was around $1 billion for just a few days – and again, to secure only a tiny stretch of downtown.

These are certainly worthy objectives. How much is this worth? Again, I don’t know. Somewhere between $1 and $1 trillion, I suppose – probably closer to the higher figure.

The article elicited the following response from some guy named wsam:

I think it was Jack Layton who first suggested we talk with the Taliban. A suggestion for which renowned military expert Peter McKay and the Conservative caucus ridiculed him. Of course, anyone who has been following the debate in US strategic circles and who consequently understands COIN and the evolution of US strategy under Patreus and McCrystal understands US strategy is based on talking to the Taliban and has been for quite awhile. The problem right now is the Taliban consider themselves to be winning – so why would they need to make deals.

And my reply:

Wsam, it may very well have been Jack Layton who first suggested talking to the Taliban. It makes as little sense as it does now. The Taliban are not a popular resistance movement in Afghanistan. They are murdering thugs with no redeeming platform, except perhaps the part about dying for their cause, which I’m fully on board with.

Separatists in Quebec want potential traitors to Canada identified by CSIS toute suite. How about looking in a mirror, Maria from the Bloc? From Kelly McParland in the National Post:

The head of CSIS, the national spy agency, is being questioned about his contention that some Canadian politicians are under the influence of foreign governments, and who gets all hot under the collar about it? A Bloc MP, who wants the “traitors” identified.

“Who are the traitors in the current political class, Mr. Fadden?” demanded Maria Mourani of the Bloc Quebecois. Mr. Fadden described her words as totally inappropriate, saying there was no question of treason.

“You don’t use the word ‘traitor’ but I’ll say it…. I’m giving you a chance to tell us. Who are these ministers who are traitors to the nation?” Ms. Mourani fired back.

Um… yeah.

There’s Something Distinct About Quebec, Alright

I’ve often attempted to remind readers of the importance of holding the line in Afghanistan for progressive reasons and firm principles: support for the universality of human rights, defense of women and children targeted by the thugs in the Taliban, support for democracy, the institutions of modernity and a better life for people who deserve something more than tyranny.

I’ve noted that this mission is something both in the finer tradition of Canadian interventions on behalf of freedom abroad. It is also a shining example of a United Nations-supported mission that has brought together the brave soldiers, aid workers and resources of dozens of nations in the fight against fascism and darkness.

On this note, the signs coming from Canadian politicians like Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff as well as a growing number of Conservative politicians and commentators about a renewed role for Canada in Afghanistan are very encouraging. Their brave words calling for a public debate on this important issue ought to be heeded by the Prime Minister, and quickly.

But the confirmation of perhaps $1 trillion worth of mineral deposits in Afghanistan changes the equation for some people. With reptilian logic, they will point to a conspiracy of international neo-cons and their shadowy corporate masters being the real reason for international intervention — as though 9/11 never happened and Afghanistan had never served as a safe haven for some of the worst examples of thuggery and terror that this planet has to offer.

As any rational thinking person would, I dismiss these conspiracists out of hand. But their cynical response does certainly beg the question: what precisely is wrong about foreign mining companies making a decent profit and employing thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Afghans in good, high-paying jobs that don’t involve the heroin trade or freelance work for the insurgency? And if keeping the insurgency down permanently and avoiding a return of terror bases to Afghanistan also provides some insurance that our trade routes and economies will not be sabotaged into recession, resulting in more financial hardship for both Wall Street and Main Street, what’s wrong with that, either?

I explore these questions further in my latest Mark Op Ed, Self-Interest in Afghanistan:

Ever since the Taliban got turfed out of office by American daisy cutters from above and horseback-riding Northern Alliance fighters on the ground, Al Qaeda hasn’t been able to use Afghanistan as a base to attack our cities.

Critics will point out that the bad guys are still using places like Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and the odd apartment in Denver, Colorado.

But that isn’t an argument against finishing the job in Afghanistan. On the contrary, it’s an argument for building on our successes and taking down the rest of the terrorist enclaves in failed states, as well as those in middle-of-nowhere, USA.

Other critics will say that the cost of keeping the boys in the black turbans on the run just isn’t worth it. Way more people die from car accidents than terrorist bombs. Besides, if we stay out of their countries, won’t they just leave us alone?

Again, let’s look at it from the perspective of our pocketbook. We’ve just come through a bitch of an economic meltdown. Many of us are still hurting pretty bad. So how do you think it’s going to affect the world economy if the Taliban wins in Afghanistan and an endless stream of “martyrs” the world over are emboldened to carry out even more brazen terror attacks than they do now?

Killing the country’s future and dragging the country back into the past.

The Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee’s Terry Glavin talks with CTV news about the scourge of the Taliban and how Afghans know that their children will only have a promising future if these bastards and their nihilistic movement are buried.

Time to take action and start talking about what happens after 2011, my fellow Canucks.