Much ink and many pixels are being spilt over this Iraq announcement yesterday, and I’m not a foreign affairs person, so I’ll leave most of that analysis to people who are. Harper has announced that we’ll be sending six CF-18s, one refuelling jet, two Aurora surveillance aircraft, and that the up-to-69 special forces military advisors will remain on the ground for another six months, and that they are not to engage in combat operations. The air strikes would only be in Iraqi territory unless the Syrian government authorized strikes in their territory as well, which is unlikely (and who wants to be seen to be supporting the Assad regime?) He also worded his motion that he’s presented to the House in such a way that it’s not authorizing the deployment, but that it support the decision to send those forces. (This part is important because it’s less of a trap when it comes to accountability). In response, Thomas Mulcair gave a categorical no, while the Liberals said they can’t support this motion – key distinction there – but they don’t think that the PM has made the proper case for why air strikes are the best tool when we could probably contribute more in other areas, and while Harper says that it’s not an either/or proposition, it could easily be pointed out that the government really lowballed the figures for the Libya mission until the final totals came in, and that those other areas would suffer if we put more eggs into the air strikes basket. Calling our CF-18s aging and casting doubt on their capabilities probably wasn’t the smartest move, however, and insisting that we can do more in a non-combat role does give the impression that the Liberals are becoming pacifistic and shirkers of the heavy lifting that needs to be done. Elizabeth May also made some good points about the road to hell being paved with good intentions, which we have in spades in this situation. David Pugliese gives a Q&A on what the proposed mission entails. Robert Fisher talks about the positive response from the region. Steve Saideman parses the politics of it all, reminding us that this is the land of lousy policy alternatives.
Tag Archives: Keith Ashfield
Roundup: On being anti-trade and avoiding another round of austerity
Economist Stephen Gordon has taken a second look at the budget, and declares that with higher tariffs on more countries, and tighter restrictions on foreign investment in Canada, the government is really more anti-trade than it lets on. He also calls out the logic about how the “preferential tariff” was some kind of a subsidy if its elimination means Canadian taxpayers end up paying more. Over in Hong Kong, Jim Flaherty says that the issue of the increased tariffs have not yet been raised, but closer to home, his plan to return to the issue of a single national securities regulator is still not getting a lot of traction from the more recalcitrant provinces. The NDP, meanwhile, have decided to call in the RCMP about the budget “leaks” that appeared in the media in the lead-up as part of the government communications strategy.