The Green Party's Radical Edge and Last Night's Paroxysm of Madness

So I went to an Elizabeth May event last night in Montreal to see how the Green Party would represent themselves. Personally, I think that no currently elected party is capable of making real progress on environmental policy change under present circumstances. I believe that everyone, Liberal and Conservative alike, has fumbled the ball on this policy issue. Before last night, I would not have minded at all if Elizabeth May had won a seat were she ran and gotten one or 2 seats for the Greens in the House of Commons. This would push the issue of environment even further and force real action on climate change and air pollution. Surely, however, having read their platform, they can be considered nothing but a one-issue party. Even before the experience I had last night, I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable knowing that the Greens had the swing votes in, say, a crucial foreign policy issue.

However, after last night's event, I have to say they've definitely scared me off. I'm not sure if the attendance last night was representative of Green party membership, but if it was, I can say with confidence that I would never vote for them. For one thing, they're ridiculously interventionist. Last night, Elizabeth May said that "economic growth must be limited to an environmentally sustainable level". What does this mean? Who knows. She then declared that "corporations had no rights" and that the "only circumstances under which [she] supported capital punishment is when corporations break the social contract". So much for the claim that the Greens aren't to the left, centre or to the right, but rather a party that is moving on forward. It also further debunks the myth that I had been hearing around town about the Greens being more classically liberal.

The panel in which E-May was speaking included a man named Dmitri. He was a ecologist, and a pessimistic one at that. He was under the impression that climate change was already irreversible and that our world was doomed. The man clearly was a lunatic and didn't know anything about what he was talking about. He said that he was engaged in local politics and is known in his circles as 'the great decentralizer'. He then encouraged us to "bang on the doors of the house of representatives and the senate to put pressure on our federalist system." And, I might add, he's from Montreal.

The eccentricities of the night did not stop there. It seemed to me that question period following the talk was a paroxysm of madness. "The end is nigh," declared an emotional teenager. Another woman stood up in the balcony and announced she was a Green party candidate running in rural Quebec. She stated that she believed that the world would be over by 2012 because of climate change. She asked Elizabeth May whether it would be politically harmful to her campaign if she told people this when canvassing.

A man stood up and mumbled incoherently for half an hour on Haiti without asking any sort of question. Another erroneously alluded to a biblical story (the one where Jesus knocks over the cages of the people trying to sell animals for sacrifice in front of the temple, while gauging the prices) and from this, extrapolated that anyone who supported capitalism was an 'anti-Christ'.

Oh no, it didn't end there. There was a woman that went to the front and declared that she assumed we were all in favour of the $10 minimum wage. "Well," she said, "since we're all in favour of a minimum wage, we might as well also have a maximum wage". Tax any wages over the maximum wage by 100%, she declared. This was not the most shocking thing. The most shocking thing was that she got a round of applause.

Finally, there was this man that declared his unwavering support for matriarchy. He went up to the front of the room and said in a soft voice that he was a Mohawk Indian. He said that we had been destroying mother earth. He further went on to say that the only way to rebalance the world was to kick all the men out of our "so-called democratic system" and replace them with women. Talk about misandry.

For me, the only thing that got me to hang onto any respect for May was that I would see her cringe when Dimitri tried to put his hand on her shoulder, or roll her eyes when there was a particularly ridiculous proposition. For the most part, she refused to respond to the more extreme comments. It was a fun night for me because I got to listen to the preposterous ideas being thrown up in the air, but if this was representative of Green party support, then the Greens are in a whole lot of trouble.

House of Commons Forecast: NDP Collaboration

And so it begins, the second year of Canada's New Government. With the defection of Khan and the resignation of Lapierre, the NDP now holds the balance of power when the Canadian House of Commons goes back into session next Monday, the 29th. What can we expect to see?

Well, we can expect to see three things: Conservative pre-Budget collaboration with the NDP, Conservative budget collaboration with the NDP, and Liberal criticism of the budget.

Since the NDP holds the balance of power, we can expect them to flex a little political muscle and push for a few minor concessions before the release of the budget. Even before the House of Commons comes back, we can see that there has been discussion and that there is a little wiggle room for the Conservatives and the NDP to work together on certain issues. Even if they disagree on certain issues, they can work together to make sure it gets the attention they seek. For example, Jim Flaherty and Jack Layton pulled ATM fees out of nowhere in the last couple of days. Flaherty mentioned that he wants banks to explain to their customers why the ATM fees are necessary, and Layton wants legislation to eliminate the fees altogether. Together, they're making a non-issue into an issue. Whether this is a sign of collaboration to come is up in the air.

A big date that we should look for is March 20th, 2007, when the Conservatives tentatively plan to table their budget. We can expect significant NDP collaboration on this budget in order to keep the Conservatives in the House, especially in the realm of addressing energy costs and the environment. Themes for this budget will likely be: equalization payments and addressing the 'fiscal imbalance', addressing rising energy costs, the environment and the economy. Though not in the budget, we should expect something to be tabled for more bite-sized Senate reform.

The Liberals will keep on doing what they should be doing, criticizing the government left, right, and centre, but will be stewing a little bit inside for being marginalized and deemed irrelevant in this next budget if a compromise with the NDP can be worked out by the Conservatives. Frankly, I'm not sure I care very much what the Liberals think on the next budget - more than likely it will pass with or without them. And if it will pass without them, then the Liberals would more likely than not want to vote against the budget just to save face, condemning the 'right-wing' extreme "neo-conservative ideology" of the Conservative government that is 'so out of touch with the wishes of ordinary Canadians' while continuing to harp on ad nauseum about social justice, environmental sustainability and economic prosperity/development (he does interchange between prosperity and develop once in a while, I'll give him that).

Without a major crisis or scandal, expect to see the Conservatives stay in office through the spring. They're not going anywhere.

Why We're Not Racist

We've "shatter[ed] the myth of Canada as a colour blind nation," the London Free Press declares. "Canadians admit racist tendencies," asserts the Calgary Sun. It's "un sondage sans précédent," quips le Journal de Montreal. "59% of Quebecers say they're racist: Poll," reads the title of a CBC news story. You know, these polls are actually really starting to bother me. They distort public perceptions of reality and cause a sensation to sell stories, but they're just plain untruths! At the very least, they're half-truths - poorly conducted surveys masquerading somehow as facts. In what can only be described as an example of the Jon-Stewart-coined "Scare Font", Leger Marketing reported through its "representative" internet survey that 59% of Quebecers say they're racist, while 47% of Canadians overall say they're racist.

I don't know where to begin ripping into this poll. How about here: the question respondents were asked is as follows: "Personally, to what extent do you consider yourself as someone who is racist?" The answers were: 'Not at all racist', 'slightly racist', 'moderately racist', and 'strongly racist'. Obviously, this is some half-hearted attempt at a likert scale. The problem is this: it's assymetrical. Three categories of answers have people in some way labelling themselves racist. Of course you're going to force bias into these questions if the categories of answers aren't symmetrical!

The sampling in this poll is a joke. The report claims that it is a "representative" poll. That leaves out one crucial point - it's an internet survey. What does this mean? It means that the respondents are going to be disproportionately those WHO HAVE INTERNET ACCESS. This means that the respondents will tend to be urban, upper-middle class, well educated people who read the news and would spend their time on an internet marketing survey. Combined with the assymetrical categories, this creates a fundamental problem. The people who the poll will tend to sample from will be well-educated. A well-educated or better-educated person may attempt to look further into the question than the marketing firm would like. For example:

"I mean, platonically, on some grander scale, we're all racist in some way, right? I notice the race of my taxi driver. I see skin colour. I guess that means I'm slighty racist. If I'm not a 'Stephen-Colbert-I-don't-see-race' type then I should answer in the slightly racist category."
I assure you that's what a huge number of people who took this poll thought. And that's why we're supposedly all so racist - because we gave too much thought to a question.

What is racism? Can this one question be a valid indicator of racism? No! In fact, there are tons of statistics from the same survey that the news networks neglected to pick up that indicate how Canadians are tolerant. Other statistics include:

• 68% of Canadians believe all races are created equal. 11% answered 'don't know'.
• 92% don't care what race their cab driver is. 90% don't care what race their boss, neighbour or doctor is. Almost 70% don't care what race their child's spouse would be.
  
• 70% of Canadians believe racism is decreasing as a problem. 13% answered 'don't know'.

Canadians overwhelmingly think racism is declining. 90% don't care what prominent people in their lives are, whether it be a co-worker, someone who is serving you, someone who is caring for you, whatever. A large majority of Canadians believe that all races are equal.

Canadians as a whole are quite tolerant, but the sensationalist media decided on a whim to take a horribly misguided poll, misanalyze it, and report it to the masses. It's another sad day for the media in Canada.

-Tim Mak

Afghanistan: The Road Ahead (Pt. 5)

This is part five of a five-part mini series on Afghanistan. Today: A Strategic Framework Forward

Now that it has been established what we have been accomplishing and why we should continue to accomplish our goals in Afghanistan, it is important to plan ahead and look towards future goals. It is clear that the mission in Afghanistan has not been without problems. Rising poppy production revenues are being used to recruit and pay insurgent fighters who earn more than they would in the police or the Afghan army. Efforts to eradicate poppy growth threaten the livelihood of Afghani famers and shift allegiances towards the neo-Taliban movement. At best, Pakistan has been half-hearted in its efforts to fight Islamic extremism and tighten its borders against foreign jihadis flowing into Afghanistan. At worst, it is aiding them. Corruption and a judicial system that views cronyism and bribery as higher than the law further push ordinary Afghanis towards extremism. Afghans trust the law, they just don’t trust those who implement it. What can be done to address these threats to Afghan stability?

Firstly, it must be made clear that our long term goal is to focus on aiding governance, humanitarian efforts, and reconstruction, and that eventually our mission will need to hand over the responsibility for security to local police forces and the Afghan National Army. It is also quite clear that the mission is not a lost cause, and hopefully, in time, we can look upon Afghanistan in the same way that we look at Japan, Germany and Korea now – with pride. To achieve this longer term goal, there are five major things that need to be accomplished: increased international aid, expansion and acceleration of Afghan National Army training, the purging of corruption within local police forces and the judiciary, a shift from the prohibition of the poppy trade to regulation, and increased international pressure on Pakistan to control their porous borders.

Increased International Aid

In addition to the security that the international community is providing, Canada and other countries need to step up and increase international aid to Afghanistan. On a per capita basis, Afghanistan receives less aid than many other post-war countries in recent years, such as Rwanda, Bosnia, and East Timor. On top of this, only about $7.3 billion of the $20 billion pledged for Afghanistan has actually been disbursed by the international community. In order to accomplish any of the other suggestions that will be made henceforth, the international community will have to dole out the dough and not only keep its commitments, but keep on committing. International aid, and lots of it, is necessary to build roads, bridges and highways, provide power and electricity, dig wells, regulate narcotics, train and pay the Afghan National Army, and establish good governance and a reputable justice system. Simply put, it would be extremely hard to implement any of the other following suggestions without more international aid.

Expansion and Acceleration of Army Training

The Afghan army now numbers about 30,000 troops, near halfway to the figure targeted for 2009. However, even with these 30,000 troops and the 42,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan already, we can see that there continues to be violence and instability. We need to double the current targets to about 140,000 troops by the time foreign troops start to pull out. Indeed, Afghanistan’s defence minister asserts that 150,000 soldiers are needed to secure the country without foreign forces. We need to create an expanded plan that immediately sets targets for this number of troops, accelerate army training in order to meet these targets (because it simply will not be acceptable to double the time frame along with the targets) and follow up by further assisting the training of the army and police forces by sending increased numbers of military advisors and instructors, as well as police instructors.

Purging of Corruption

In order to establish stability in the country, an ordinary Afghan must be able to trust public institutions to be effective and fair. If they do not, they may be persuaded to subscribe to the neo-Taliban’s brand of swift and decisive (in)justice. Funding must be provided to civil society groups in order to inform citizens of their rights, defend them against corruption in the government, and socialize individuals against bribery and corruption. Councils must be set up in order to monitor the actions of public officials, much like that Auditor General does in Canada, and most importantly, the wages for public officials need to be increased so that bribery isn’t a necessary part of life, that officials don’t need to ask for bribes in order to provide for their families. Finally, qualified people must be appointed to public positions such as the judiciary, as opposed to the trend of cronyism that is sweeping the country. Principled government needs to take the place of the current patronage government.

Immediate Cessation in the Eradication of Poppy Growth

The current Afghan eradication program is self-defeating and is utterly damaging to the image of the central government. You cannot expect people whose livelihoods are ruined through the purposive destruction of their crops to continue to be friendly to those who carried it out. Poppy production is a necessary evil in Afghanistan, and supports the lives of many of its citizens. A much better solution to this problem is to lightly regulate the poppy trade by establishing a registration system for farmers and aiding farmers with alternate means of livelihood. In addition, since there is a world shortage for opium-based medicines, Afghan opium could be used to produce beneficial drugs if the international community decides to cooperate on this issue. There may very well be a day that Afghanistan can restrict the growing of opium – but that day is not now, and it is certainly not soon, as far too many people’s lives depend on it for support.

Pressuring Pakistan
One of the Taliban’s greatest assets is the porous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The state of the border allows for cross-border raids and easy training and planning for Islamic extremists. Pakistan is not especially co-operative when it comes to this situation, and some suggest that the intelligence community in Pakistan is even aiding the Taliban, as it did in the 1990s. Some suggest that this would be in order to combat increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan as the result of their deployment of peacekeepers. In general, the Pakistani population is quite supportive of Islamic extremism – 38% of respondents in a Pew Global Attitudes Survey indicated they had some or a lot of confidence in Osama Bin Laden. Pakistan must immediately be pressured to put more controls on its borders and, if it is doing so, stop supporting Islamic militants. Canada must take a much harsher stance against Pakistan – Pakistan’s actions, or inaction, is indirectly related to the deaths of Canadian soldiers. Canada must use all diplomatic means at its disposal to pressure Pakistan into being as cooperative as possible with the Afghan government, and pressure the international community to do the same.

Taking Bad Reporting on Statistics to a New Level

CTV News ran an article today entitled: "Most Drivers Not Willing to Give Up Cell Phones"

"[A survey] found that 89 per cent of Canadians believe too many drivers are distracted behind the wheel, but only 60 per cent are willing to stop using cellphones when driving."

Wow.

Minister O'Connor's Speech in Montreal

Seeing as though it is relevent, I'm going to take a one day break from my five-part series on Afghanistan (which is nearing its final part, which will be on the direction Canadian Forces need to take from here) to post audio clips of Minister Gordon O'Connor's speech in Montreal at the Mount Stephen Club.

Part I Here
Part II Here

My thoughts on Minister O'Connor:
The man is charismatic when speaking in English, and is a very nice person to talk to. He is inspiring and confident in speech, while not appearing out of touch with the average person. With that said, he is a military man, not a politician. During question period he was noticably upset when someone vocally and vehemently protested Canada's Afghanistan policy. Another strike against him would be that his French is quite poor. While he can comprehend French when someone else speaks it, his accent is quite strong, and his pronounciation weak.

However, it must be said that he is a great person for the portfolio. He is knowledgeable and reacts quickly and with vigor when challenged, and I have no doubt he will continue to lead Canadian Forces honourably and to the best of his ability.

Afghanistan: Why the Public Should Support the Mission (Pt. 4)

This is part four of a five-part mini-series on Afghanistan. Today: Why the Public Should Support the Mission

The first thing that must be mentioned is that Afghanistan, as the Prime Minister asserted recently, is not Iraq. There is no sectarian violence or ‘civil war’ and the country is relatively safer. Indeed, it has a much brighter future than Iraq – as I’ve mentioned earlier, things are getting accomplished and democratic progress is being accomplished as steps are being made to ensure that security and reconstruction goes hand in hand. Another popular misconception about Canada’s role in Afghanistan is the nature of its mandate. Despite the more unilateral approach of the United States in Iraq, Canada’s involvement holds a mandate from the UN Security Council, and is participating as part of the UN Mission in Afghanistan. Furthermore, there is overwhelming international support for the mission in Afghanistan from democratic states.

What many people need to realize about Afghanistan is the nature of the threat and how it affects them personally. Extremist Islam, manifested in Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, is wholly incompatible with Canadian and democratic values. While I hesitate to use the age-old WWII comparison, burying our heads in the sand in the style of WWII American isolationism will not solve any problems. It surprises me how each generation never fails to contain a group that continues to bear an isolationist mindset despite historical evidence to the contrary. The extremist Islamic ‘totalitarian ideology’ that was allowed to fester in Afghanistan in the 1990s is a dangerous one, one that is being fought in Afghanistan this time, as opposed to on the English Channel or while facing the Iron Curtain. Afghanistan is part of a wider war, this time against the proliferation of an inflexible and undemocratic brand of extremist Islam and fought to counter it before it spreads any further than it already extends to.

Many Canadians see the violence in Afghanistan as a sign that Afghans don’t want us there, but we have to realize that the overwhelming number of jihadis in Afghanistan are foreign fighters. Afghanistan has become a regional arena in the battle for and against Islamic extremism, and now Canada must step up, as we had done in WWII. There is no possibility of negotiation with Al-Qaeda or other extremist groups that stand in direct opposition to our values – we have to challenge and confront them aggressively, which is what we’re doing in Afghanistan with our combat-oriented mission. The failure of our mission in Afghanistan and the re-establishment of a centre for international terrorism could very well be costly to the security of Canadians in the near future.

Canada has long been an advocate of human rights and democracy, whether it be through opposition to Apartheid in South Africa or the joining of the OAS in 1990 to promote the spread of democracy in Central and Southern America. We must continue the tradition here, fighting against an extreme Islamic vision that chokes the individual rights of each Afghan citizen and threatens to choke ours. We must assert the necessity of equal rights for women and work to prevent human rights abuses where we see them. Furthermore, Canadians must stand up together for the reduction of poverty in Afghanistan, to usher in a new era in which Afghans can hold a decent standard of living, something that is extremely hard to accomplish under the stranglehold of a Taliban regime.

Canada is slowly regaining the place in the world we lost under huge budget cuts in the 1990s that prevented the projection of an effective Canadian foreign policy. Today, we must stand firm amongst the international community and assert our presence, declaring through action that Canada is, once again, to be a valuable partner in the proliferation of democracy and liberty in the world. Our first step in that mission starts in Afghanistan.

No one likes to see ramp ceremonies, but it is important to realize that there is a wider objective that Canadian forces are bravely and courageously attempting to complete in South Asia, and that is to prevent the spread of a dangerous ideology that, left unchecked, poses a danger to Canadians abroad and at home. The sacrifice of Canadian forces is one that should be looked upon with the utmost respect and admiration, and this sacrifice is one that these forces take on with perseverance, confidence and the understanding that what they do is necessary for the sake and protection of Afghans, Canadians and the international community.

Afghanistan: Why Reconstruction Is Not Enough (Pt.3)

This is part three of a five part mini-series on Afghanistan. Today: Why Reconstruction Is Not Enough

Certainly, Stéphane Dion’s recent declaration of the necessity of a ‘Marshall Plan’ for Afghanistan sounds all well and good to Canadians, but he needs to get informed. In post-WWII Europe, countries still had the capacity, through civilian infrastructures and organizations, to plan for and distribute the aid given to them. In Afghanistan, this infrastructure still doesn’t exist, and where it does, the effectiveness of this infrastructure is hampered by violence. Secondly, there already is an aid and reconstruction plan in place. We’re already doing reconstruction in Afghanistan, building roads and transportation routes, schools and health care facilities, wells and housing. As of now, $20 billion in aid has been pledged for development in Afghanistan.

Also unlike post-WWII Europe, there continues to be violence. Terrorism and insurgency stall the distribution of aid. According to UNICEF, in the first nine months of 2006 alone, more than 60 schools burned down. There is instability and danger in Afghanistan – the fact of the matter is that we can’t just keep rebuilding schools. A country cannot and will not rebuild until conditions are secure enough to do so. Canadian Forces in Afghanistan are key in establishing safer conditions, so that the reconstruction and aid distribution can occur. Reconstruction independent of security is futile, and Canadians cannot pass the buck to other countries involved in the UN Mission in Afghanistan. We must support our reconstruction with efforts to establish security and faith in the stability in the region. Otherwise, there will be no long-term growth, no long-term reconstruction, and no long-term success in Afghanistan.

Critics of the Afghanistan mission that push for shift from a combat-orientation to a solely reconstruction-orientation miss an important point – reconstruction is not especially safer than the current combat-oriented mission that the Canadian forces are undertaking. Of the 45 Canadian soldiers that have fallen in Afghanistan, six died in friendly fire accidents, four in accidents, twelve in combat, and twenty-three were killed by terrorists when “on patrols providing security in support of reconstruction efforts”. In other words, only 27% of Canadian fatalities during the mission is the result of combat with insurgents. Canadians need to support an aggressive combat mission against the Taliban, because the Taliban will never be defeated by complacent reconstruction. This stance on reconstruction dooms international efforts in southern Afghanistan to failure.

Plain and simple, reconstruction cannot make any progress if we do not combat forces that threaten the stability and security of the region. Not only do we have to provide direct security for reconstruction efforts, we have to continue to maintain our combat-oriented approach in order to aggressively root out those that actively seek to disrupt and damage Canadian reconstruction efforts. Without Canadian offensive action, Islamic extremists have to time to strategize, plan and implement attacks that will certainly lead to far more damage to Afghanistan.

Afghanistan: What We're Accomplishing (Pt. 2)

This is part 2 of a five part mini-series on Afghanistan. Today: What we're actually accomplishing

Far too often, we hear only bad news about Canadian casualties and Taliban strongholds. Here are a few accomplishments of the UN Mission in Afghanistan, of which Canada is a part of:

• 2005 Parliamentary and Presidential elections, a force for democracy in the country and an example for the region
• The election of a President, Hamid Karzai, that the international community has faith in, which is crucially important considering the importance of the international community in Afghanistan.
• A push for gender equality – women consist of 25% of the legislature (more than Canada, who can only claim 20%). This is incredible, considering the status of women under the Taliban regime.
• Schools reopened for 5 million boys and girls and new ones constructed (In particular, the renovation of a school in Panjwaii district by Canadian forces, with plans for the renovations of more schools).
• Since 2002, the economy has grown by 17%, even excluding the poppy trade.
• Refugees are returning home, allowing much-needed professionals to fill a weak labour market.
• The employment of locals to build local infrastructure, like roads and irrigation projects, and the establishment of cash-for-work programs.
• Funding for development initiatives that will see new homes and hospitals built in Kandahar.
• Much more access to basic health care, including vaccines – more than 2,000 Afghans in the remotest areas of Kandahar province have received basic medical care because of Village Medical Outreach (VMO) visits. In addition, the VMOs also gave out medication, tools, school supplies, food, blankets, toys, carpets, and radios.
• Training of the Afghan army is going according to plan – 30,000 strong, nearly halfway to the target of 70,000 by 2009. In addition, Canadian forces are equipping local police forces with uniforms and body armour, equipment that is necessary to perform their day to day tasks.

These are just a few of the major achievements in Afghanistan made possible by the contributions of Canadian forces. It is imperative to realize that Canadians accomplish these things by maintaining the security of the region and actively combating terrorists. An aggressive combat role is necessary to fight an enemy that is trying to destabilize the region and hamper efforts to improve the living conditions of Afghanis, hoping that out of desperation, the Afghan people will turn to the Taliban once again for a measure of security. Canadians are also doing a lot of things on a local level that, while rarely reported in Canadian media, mean a lot to the Afghan people. Examples include the provision of a water-distribution system, computers and an electric generator to the University of Kandahar, and the donation of 100 bicycles to the Ministry of Education to reward students at the end of the school year.

Canada and Afghanistan - A Multi-Part Series (Pt. 1)

By: Tim Mak
This is part of The Value of Time's five-part series on Canada's role in Afghanistan. Today, in part one: An Introduction to the Series

After 9/11, Canada reacted with the world to condemn Afghanistan’s Taliban regime and acted with force, sending Special Forces units to fight alongside the Americans in order to topple the Islamist regime. Regular forces followed suit, arriving on the ground early in 2002 to join the Kabul-based International Security Assistance Force. In May 2005, the Paul Martin administration agreed to take responsibility for the volatile Kandahar region in the south of Afghanistan. As of 2007, there are approximately 2,500 Canadian troops in the country, with a majority of them in Kandahar. As Canadian Forces in the United Nations Mission in Afghanistan stepped up to take responsibility for a dangerous region that had been the centre of the Taliban movement that battered the country in the 1990s, the media began to cover the Canadian Forces more. New terms like ‘ramp ceremony’ began to become commonplace. The deaths of our brave and courageous soldiers need to be recognized, of course, but is the media taking a representative image of what is going on in Afghanistan? Are the stories we’re shown indicative of all we’re doing? Why should we support the mission in the face of Canadian deaths? What should we be doing from here on in? In five sections over the next week, this blog intends to fill in some of the blanks. This series will discuss what we’re achieving in Afghanistan, why reconstruction on its own is not enough, why we should be supporting the mission, and what Canada needs to do from here.