Foreign Affairs

One of the Prime Minister's greatest strengths is his ability to control and define an issue. It's how he won the 2006 election, by defining a concise Tory platform, and controlling the news cycle. And it's how, most recently, he's hammered Dion, by defining him before Dion could define himself. Warren Kinsella is absolutely correct when he says that definition is everything in politics. Which moves on to foreign affairs, specifically Afghanistan, and how one of the Prime Minister's greatest weaknesses is his lack of definition on Afghanistan. Right now, to the general public, nobody know's what the hell is happening there. That's partly due to a senile Defence Minister, a Foreign Minister that most people consider a misogynistic joke, and the old lie of Canada being a neutral, "peacekeeping" nation. So one of the most pressing tasks for the PMO is to succinctly define Afghanistan in their terms, before the opposition does, and to define the foreign affairs position of the government. Ideally, I'd like to see a position based around these three elements:

-Accountable and empowering foreign aid. I believe foreign aid is a positive thing when used correctly. There's a large difference between funneling money into a kleptocrat's bank account, and using money to train administrators and bureaucrats in a democratic, growing nation. The main position for foreign aid has to the old adage, "teach a man to fish." Empower the nation's ability to govern itself, don't just throw money at things in an attempt at a band-aid soltuion.

-Standing up for human rights and equality everywhere. Note the more neutral terms used, instead of "freedom, liberty, democracy, etc," the more American terms that don't play well in Canada. Mainly because our national psyche consists of a massive inferiority complex to the States. This includes wielding a bigger influence in Darfur, through empowering the AU, standing up for human rights everywhere (even in opposition to China and the United States), standing up for democracies (here's looking at you, Israel), and generally what the PMO has already been doing. So he's got that one down.

-Arctic sovereignty. The most relevant Canadian problem. The Arctic contains most of the Earth's unexplored energy reserves and as it melts, it opens up these resources, and increased trans-Arctic trade with nations such as Russia. The PMO has been placing a focus on this since he was elected, as well, which is excellent. Canada needs to take a prominent role in our sovereign control over polar territory, for the betterment of the nation's future.

Along with two smaller and more concise, but still important, priorities: Improving relations with the rest of NAFTA, and expanding free trade zones around the globe.

Which moves me on to the problem of Afghanistan. My personal position is that great works are being done, you can't rebuild and aid Afghanis without security, and by definition, that security will result in violence and casualties. By playing such a prominent role within the NATO operation, it also increases Canada's influence and reputation among nations, as a strong country that can be relied on to do its share. However, the mission will fail if more money and troops arn't committed. As well, the open Pakistani border allows Taliban forces to rebuild year after year, making it a drawn out war. We also must not be afraid of violence, if it's in the name of doing great good. So, tactically, we must focus on:

-Winning the hearts and minds of the Afghani people. This means, buy their opium, don't destroy their crops. Build schools, bring medicine, train soldiers and police, bring electricity and modern amenities. Make life under the Kabul government and NATO better than life under the Taliban, and you undercut their support.
-Closing the Pakistani border. Cut off the logistical heart of the Taliban operation and you cripple their ability to wage a conflict. The territory's some of the worst in the world, though, so it's not easily done. This needs to be the major focus of increased operations.
-Increased money, troops, and support. From the American and British aspects of NATO, we're seeing more troops being sent, which is long overdue. However, the mission WILL fail if we don't support it enough. The only comparable situation we have is Bosnia, and we had far more money, more soldiers, and a smaller country, and it took more than a decade to do good works their.

Now, the PR battle over Afghanistan in Canada itself, the defining that the PMO MUST do. He has to take over the issue, because you can be damn sure the opposing parties will be doing their best to bring it down, and the media will be throwing a ridiculous shitstorm after Canadian soldiers, in combat, are hurt or killed. It sounds callous, and perhaps it is, but it's also reality. Soldiers get hurt in combat, if you don't like it, don't join the forces and take that risk. The MSM isn't helping things either by refusing to run types of stories such as "Eight new schools built in rural Afghanistan for boys and girls." But you can't help the media. So, to define Afghanistan, the PMO needs to:

-create an exit strategy. This already exists with the 2009/11 deadlines for re-upping the mission, however, with the clusterfuck in Iraq not helping anything, more needs to be done. A definitive "when x amount of territory is under Afghani security, when x amount of schools are built, when x amount of homes have access to basic medicine, electricity, food, water, etc, then we'll leave" plan needs to come about. Then there's something concrete to work towards, and increase support towards.

-Make it Canadian issue, not an American one. Don't use "war on terror, soft on terror, fight them their instead of here, etc." Stay away from Americanisms, and comparisons to Iraq, and make it an issue of Canadian pride. Hammer in the point that Canadians are doing great works, that they're making a difference, and that Afghanis DON'T want Taliban rule. Hammer in the point that we are fighting thugs, that feed off of poverty, ignorance, and dependancy on opium crops. Hammer in the point that Afghanis want Karzai and NATO, not an organization that enjoys stoning women, honour-killing women raped women, and beheading teachers that dare teach to girls. Hammer in the point that a Taliban government is a safe haven for people that want to blow up Parliament and behead the PM. Then hammer in the points that rebuilding and aid can't happen without security, and that our opposition wants to negotiate with these thugs. Be straightforward, concise, and strong, but also compassionate with a focus on women's rights.

Basically, you've got to redefine the silly Canadian consensus on 'peace-keeping.' Define the mission as one of rebuilding, but one that can't happen without security against those that would brutally halt the rebuilding.

Edit: As an addendum, I'd like to add to the strategies for Afghanistan a focus on borrowing tactics from the Northern Alliance mujahedeen, the masters of the Taliban-style bush war.

as well, a continuing definition of Canada's work in Afghanistan with a focus on rebuilding: Rebuilding Afghanistan as a safe and equitable nation, a haven for prosperity, respect, and human rights, and not one for drug-peddling, misogynistic thugs that train those that would harm us. You've gotta hammer home the drug-peddling, to play to the crime and safety base the CPC has, and the universal women's rights issue. Don't get dragged down with talking about terrorism. Basically, the PM needs to define Afghanistan ASAP, on his terms and on ones that resonate with Canadians and creates pride. Perhaps ads with soldiers talking about how it's a worthwhile endeavor, how women can vote and children ask for pencils so they can learn, instead of candy. When "we should negotiate or leave" comes up, hit the whiners hard and fast with the Taliban, ask them, "why do you support the return to power of a group that denies women their rights? Why do you support making our brave soldier's ultimate sacrifices end in vain?" etc