Afghanistan

Thursday August 24, 2017

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday August 24, 2017

Canada won’t join U.S. missile defence, send troops to Afghanistan, Trudeau says

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has thrown cold water on suggestions the Liberal government wants to sign onto continental ballistic missile defence, or that it might send troops back into Afghanistan.

The question over whether Canada should be part of the U.S.’s continental missile-defence shield has been rekindled in recent days amid concerns about North Korea’s growing nuclear arsenal.

Canada opted out of ballistic missile defence in 2005 following a divisive national debate, but many defence experts and parliamentarians, including some Liberals, want the issue reopened.

Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan has also resurrected questions about whether Canada will be asked to follow suit.

Speaking in Montreal on Wednesday, however, Trudeau appeared to close the door on both ideas.

“On those cases, we will always take the decisions in terms of what is the best interests of Canadians,” Trudeau told reporters after a meeting with federal and provincial immigration officials.

“And our long-standing positions on those two issues are not going to be changed any time soon.”

The comments on ballistic missile defence were the strongest yet from the Liberal government, which had largely sidestepped questions about its intentions in recent weeks. (Source: Toronto Star) 

 

SaveSave

Friday, June 21, 2013

Friday, June 21, 2013By Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday, June 21, 2013

Afghan president has halted negotiations

Hopes dimmed for talks aimed at ending the Afghan war when an angry President Hamid Karzai on Wednesday suspended security negotiations with the U.S. and scuttled a peace delegation to the Taliban, sending American officials scrambling to preserve the possibility of dialogue with the militants.

What provoked the mercurial Karzai and infuriated many other Afghans was a move by the Taliban to cast their new office in the Gulf nation of Qatar as a rival embassy. The Taliban held a ribbon-cutting ceremony Tuesday in which they hoisted their flag and a banner with the name they used while in power more than a decade ago: “Political Office of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.”

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry spoke with Karzai on the phone, telling him that his concerns were justified and that he would work to resolve the issue.

An American official, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to disclose the information, said he still expects to have the first public meeting with Taliban representatives in the next few days in Qatar but that no exact meeting date has been set.

Nevertheless, the militants’ attempt at a publicity coup clearly played to Karzai’s longstanding distrust of both the Taliban and the United States, who had announced Tuesday that they would pursue negotiations in the Qatari capital of Doha — at least initially without the Afghan government.

It may have also given Karzai an excuse to try to head off the Doha talks, which he probably agreed to support only reluctantly and under U.S. pressure. Karzai has for years opposed talks outside Afghanistan and dominated or directed by the U.S. The Taliban, on the other hand, have never really wanted to negotiate with Karzai, preferring to talk directly with the U.S. (Source: CBC News)

February 7, 2008

A column written in today’s Toronto Star (of all papers) sums up my view of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. I cheered the columnist along to myself as I read it.

Canadian pettiness is showing
Feb 08, 2008
The Toronto Star – Rondi Adamson

The “deploy more NATO soldiers to Kandahar or we quit in 2009” threat contained in the Manley report strikes me as a sad reflection on current Canadian attitudes. It isn’t that more troops would not be desirable. But what if no NATO country sends us a military “partner”?

According to the report, in spite of the ongoing violence, the Afghan economy has been growing, millions of refugees have returned, more children (of both genders) are in school, child mortality rates are improving and infrastructure is being built.

Are we so small-time and penny ante in our world view as to dismiss the progress made? Do we tell the unprepared Afghan forces and population, “Sorry, you’re on your own”? Do we allow Afghanistan to again become a safe haven for Al Qaeda, again a threat to us and others?

I hope not, because another thing we would lose in the process is our reputation. I would argue that it has improved internationally due to our involvement in Afghanistan.

Far from the myth that most of the world used to view us as benign peacekeepers and now view us as pawns of the Great Satan, it is more likely that most of the world either never thought twice about us, or simply viewed us as an extension of the United States.

Now we are included in adult discussions and asked, in return, to behave like adults, responsibly and with integrity.

Instead we not our soldiers, but citizens and leaders behave like accountants with calculators in hand, tallying up every percentage, dollar, headline, slight or snub (real or imagined) and counting every sacrifice as a cause for indignation and (more) anti-Americanism, rather than as, well, a sacrifice.

Canadians like to believe they are broad-minded global citizens. But the pettiness on display when we complain about the “disproportionately” large load we are carrying in Afghanistan shows us to be self-absorbed, miserly and ignorant of history.

Venturing into the debate over “disproportionate” contributions is dangerous. A small number of countries (including Canada) carried a disproportionately great burden in defeating Nazism, fascism and the Soviet empire. Should those countries have not done so, crying foul instead?

Washington could point out that our military is disproportionately small, given our population and economy. In fact, for our military to be anywhere near proportionately the size of the U.S. military, we would have to double it.

It could also be pointed out that we have given disproportionately little in previous decades, in terms of NATO commitments and international conflicts. During the years leading up to 9/11, our armed forces were effectively defanged, making us unable to contribute proportionately to just about anything.

One of Jack Layton’s wishes is that we abandon Afghanistan in favour of “saving Darfur,” which, if it could be done, would necessitate doing things (invading, killing, getting killed) Layton objects to when done in Afghanistan. That aside, if we had a military proportionate to our size, we could contribute to both wars.

Many Canadians seem to have forgotten two things about Afghanistan. The first is that the 9/11 attacks were attacks on the West. Osama bin Laden himself said as much. This is our battle.

The second is that our military presence in Afghanistan has been authorized under international laws we purport to respect. The Manley report reminds us of this. It also offers a realistic assessment of what it calls a noble mission. Not rosy, not hopeless, but one that requires our continued and valuable (be it disproportionate or not) presence. Rondi Adamson is a Toronto writer.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, Editorial Cartoonist, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Afghanistan deaths hang over Vimy commemoration

A day in Ottawa and France to mark sacrifices by Canadian soldiers 90 years ago at Vimy Ridge was overshadowed by the deaths of six soldiers in Afghanistan.

“We’re celebrating a victory of 90 years ago, but we also remember the six soldiers who continued to serve our country,” said Gen. Rick Hillier, Canada’s top soldier, in France on Monday.

“We also remember their peers and colleagues, who are still on that mission and do the great work we ask of them.”

The Easter Sunday blast in the western part of Kandahar province caused the worst single-day loss of life for Canadian soldiers in more than 50 years.

Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean said Monday at the National War Memorial in Ottawa that she was in Afghanistan just a few months ago.

“I was with them and I’m terribly sad, saddened by the news and I’ll be with the families,” said the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

“My heart breaks. I cry every time a soldier goes. I think it’s hard for any mother to lose a child,” said Wilhelmina Beerenfenger-Kohler, this year’s Silver Cross mother. (Source: CTV News)

 

February 26, 2007

A chorus of opinion writers emerged over the weekend to celebrate the Supreme Court of Canada in its decision to declare government issued security certificates against suspected terrorists as unconstitutional. Now some rather local activist minded folk irritated by my cartoon are checking in to tell me how much of a fascist monster I am to swim against the river of support for the Supreme Court’s decision.

To them I let it be known that that’s supposed to be the job of the editorial cartoonist — to go against the conventional wisdom of the eggheads in country, whether they’re politicians or supreme court judges. This cartoon is to remind the reader that while it may be by all appearances an indictment against government curtailing the rights of a few dubious individuals for the safety of the majority there remains a threat that at anytime in the future this country will endure the horror of a terrorist act. We are, afterall, fighting them with bullets half a world away in Afghanistan.

But then the accusation is made that the depiction of these terrorists using the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a plaything paints me, the cartoonist, as a racist, implying that all Muslims are terrorists. It reminds me of the time I drew Martha Stewart being harassed at the US/Canadian border as terrorists were breezing in without difficulty. Same accusation was made in letters posted alongside the Martha Stewart cartoon.

Should the terrorists be shown wearing suits, or baseball caps on backwards? Everybody knows what the stereotypical terrorist in 2007 looks like, and they resemble the very people you see in today’s cartoon.

* * * * * * * * * *
And here’s a perfect example:

Mr. Mackay:

So Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols build a terrorist bomb carrying vehicle, blow up a large building in a downtown American City, kill 165 people including men, women and children and as full scale professional terroists, get a full trial, full access to the US Bill of Rights, benefit of the doubt, aggressive lawyers, full disclosure of the government’s case, as does every IRA terrorist that tried to kill people in downtown London and every Basque separatist that blows up trains. These are all nice white people, McVeigh a veteran of the US armed forces, they do not wear beards or funny hats. It is obvious that in your world, the absence of beards and non-european headwear makes the big difference for the white folks who, with no real public complaint get full protection when the state takes after them. Even when the white guy without the beard and head gear is a pig farmer who is charged with killing bunches of females and feeding them to pigs, we still make sure he has the benefit of the doubt and disclosure and a lawyer and a fair trial. But the Mackay message is that Beards and Headgear and Mulsim identity get you ridiculed and we are urged by you to think those bearded, headgeared, muslims should not get the benefit of our Charter of Rights, and by inference that the Charter of Rights is something to joke about.

Its hard to imagine a more racist, destructive, mean spirited message than that in your comment on the Supreme Court of Canada decision.

But instead of my words about why you should be really proud to be part of a country that treats its most despicable, feared or evil people with a guaranteed set of rules of fairness and honesty developed over 800 years, I hope you will consider for a moment what an experienced US soldier, Lt. Cmdr Charles Swift, has to say about dispensing with the rules.

If you really believe that our Charter should be mocked in the fashion of your cartoon, there are wonderful countries in this world without a charter and without an independent supreme court. I would be happy to give you a list of places you might consider that would be more in harmony with your views. Given the power of the internet you could easily continue you work by email, so the move could be done with no loss of income. And often the cost of living might be less than here. Although I really doubt you would move to any such place.

Herman Turkstra

* * * * * * * * * *
Dear Mr. Turkstra,

Thank you for your thoughts. Fortunately, we Canadians are free to express our opinions and I know we won’t see eye to eye on this matter.

I just don’t agree that the Supreme Court did any good to protect the collective interest of Canadians in its decision to protect the rights of a few dubious characters. I also don’t agree with Parliament’s rejection of extending the anti-terrorism provisions. Especially… and this is what so many naive Canadians and Liberals are casually ignoring… when we happen to be at war with terrorists half a world away in Afghanistan. To not have these safeguards in place at such a potentially dangerous time is reckless. If it doesn’t raise the possibility of enduring a Madrid, London, or Bali styled attack, we’ll just become more of a safehouse for terrorist cells planning its assaults on our allies. If you think having to get a passport is such a huge inconvenience for getting into the U.S. now, imagine how inconvenient it’s going to become as we laugh off America’s post 9-11 paranoia with flimsy anti-terrorism laws.

As for the cartoon, the terrorists we’re fighting don’t happen to be nice white guys with Irish or midwestern American accents, but guys wearing turbans and army fatigues. So, if you want to call me racist for drawing the terrorists the way I did you might as well call all the soldiers fighting the Taliban and Al Qaida racists as well. How you conclude that I’ve painted all Muslims as terrorists is groundless and unfair. But it’s not like I’ve heard that one before.

While I appreciate getting your feedback on cartoons I think you could be getting much wider coverage by sending it on to the letters editor. Put it on the record, because the moment a bomb goes off in downtown Toronto or Montreal in the name of Islamic extremism I assure you, you’ll be eating your words.

Sincerely,

Graeme MacKay

* * * * * * * * * *
In dedication to Mr. Turkstra and his ilk, I thought I’d draw another cartoon on the issue. See a related blog entry on ad parodies, otherwise known as wackys, which inspired this cartoon.

OUTRAGE IN THE BLOGOSPHERE

Someone who runs the Dymaxion World blog writes a lengthy analysis piece critiquing my terrorists bouncing on the Charter of Rights cartoon filled with “racism and authoritarianism”. He thinks I’m a right wing propagandist and he uses the same argument Herman makes by suggesting I’m racist for portraying all terrorists as bearded guys with turbans. He adds the FLQ to the list of white guy terror groups which is a nice bit of trivia, but really doesn’t apply to things going on in 2007 despite how lengthy he rambles on about it.

He demands to know why another blogger dared to post my offensive cartoon. In defence he writes:

The Cartoon represents the opinions of many Canadians (that our security is being neglected for the sake of “rights”). Sure, it could be seen as propaganda, or it can be seen as a reflection of some individuals opinions. Whether we agree or not does not change the fact that such a sentiment exists.

If someone wants to ascribe an opinion to me based on a cartoon expressing the artist’s opinion (which isn’t supported in any way by my opinion written below), they can feel free.

FEEDBACK

Hi Graeme: This showed up quite unexpectedly on my screen today and I couldn`t resist a comment. Since then we`ve learned particularly in the last year that the terrorists look exactly like us, a lesson we should have learned when the graduates of Waterloo University blew up power lines in British Columbia two decades ago. And one can argue that Henry Kissinger in Cambodia or Cheney in Iraq or the President of Israel in Gaza were terrorists who looked remarkably like you and me. So I wondered if you still think that terrorists all have turbans? OK OK, I understand you have to deal in stereo types, but my ilk keep battling those stereotypes because they generally lead us down the wrong path, IMHO.

Hope all is well with you.

Herman Turkstra (January 18, 2010)

—–

Things haven’t changed much in my mind since the above cartoons were drawn. I’m certainly disappointed with how events have transpired in Afghanistan since early 2007 – the failure to effectively root out the Taliban from keys areas, the failure to advance democracy in Afghanistan with legitimate elections, and a willingness to accept bribes from insurgents and warlords to enable mobility. Sure, you can call the white guys that ran the U.S. during the Vietnam war, or Cheney during the Iraq war are terrorists as much as you can call Barack Obama a black guy who is arguably a terrorist. I guess there’s different degrees of terrorists. A white guy that blows up power lines in B.C. is a bit different than people convicted of successfully/planning on blowing up and killing random innocent people. There are really only one kind of people who are carrying out those acts in this day and age in the post 911 era, and they all happen to be doing their killing in the name of one certain religion, and one certain god.

Graeme MacKay (January 19, 2010)