Pashtun Awakening: Defeat the Taliban by Changing the Narrative

Vildechaye:If there is one thing that approaches a sort of cossennus, right across the political spectrum (including Tories) about all this it is that Harper has fumbled the Afghan file in a way that is usually put this way: He has "failed to explain the mission" to Canadians, or words to that effect. Harper is also a control freak: He has gone out of his way to prevent everyone else in his government (CIDA, line agencies, etc.) from adequately explaining what they're doing in Afghanistan.The Canadian Forces has been most open with the news media, right up to Rick Hillier, without whom the cause would have had no effective champion at all. Getting information from Ottawa about all the massive efforts Canada is making in Afghanistan is like pulling teeth. You'd be lucky to get a returned call. Harper has also tended to "explain" or defend the mission in the most narrow, realpolitik terms - it's about the War on Terror, it's all about ensuring that terrorists who might attack Canada have no safe haven in Afghanistan, and that kind of thing. This doesn't exactly resonate with ordinary Canadians, who tend to have a generous and liberal outlook on world affairs and humanitarian engagement. Even worse, Harper does tend to interpret the Afghan cause solely through the prism of his own allegiances with the Bush White House, and in so doing has fed the hippie hysteria and the dumbed down Linda McQuaig version of geopolitics.This further clouds the public's understanding of what's really going on here - this is a UN mission, we're fighting under ISAF's banner, and our marching orders come from the Bonn Agreement and the Afghanistan Compact, which the US was involved in articulating , yes - but so was Iran, Turkey, and about a dozen other Muslim-majority countries.If Canada was in Afghanistan only to serve American interests, I would be one of the loudest, fiercest and most unforgiving "troops out" voices in this country.Further - and this isn't meant as a criticism of Harper per se, because, to be fair, he is not a liberal, and not a "progressive" as such - he fact remains that because he is mainly paleoconservative on these questions, he is incapable of defending the mission in the internationalist, liberal and progressive language Canadians use when we're addressing these issues. Harper just doesn't speak that language. He doesn't know how, and when he tries, it's unconvincing. It was no mistake that he had to turn to a Pearsonian Liberal (John Manley) to get the Afghan file back on track last year.Ultimately, I don't think Harper really believes in the Afghan cause any more than Jack Layton does.If the "America-first" faction persists and prevails in the White House, the cause may be lost. I don't trust Biden, but I see he has used the term "Marshall Plan" to describe what Afghanistan needs, and you know where I first heard that term used in the Afghan context? It was during a private gathering with Stephane Dion last year. Dion used the term. So maybe there's hope. But I don't trust the Americans to see this thing through.Maybe with Bush gone, Canada's Liberals will grow and spine on this issue, and become an effective force - either in Opposition or in government - for progress in Afghanistan. I don't know. But the NDP has been utterly useless, and the Liberals have been all over the map, and that hasn't helped make Harper any more effective on the Afghan front, either.