If you read only one piece about Canada’s effort in Afghanistan this week, make it Michael Den Tandt’s article in the Owen Sound Sun Times:
I came back to Afghanistan to find answers to two questions. Is Canada’s deployment here still worthwhile, despite the rising toll in lives? And if it is, then why do so many people back home think it isn’t?
In the past week I’ve spoken to dozens of Canadian soldiers, non-governmental aid workers and Afghans, including some who are very critical of the U.S.-led international effort here and of the Karzai regime. Their message was unanimous: Please, Canada, don’t go.
It’s a ringing endorsement of the efforts of Canadians on the ground in Afghanistan, helping rebuild that country. It’s also a scathing indictment of our government’s communications strategy, and a fully merited one as I see it.
Read the whole thing.
My cousin has completed one tour in Afghanistan and is going back in January. When I ask him why he is going back, his reply is pretty much verbatim to this article.
I also asked him what he thought of Jack Layton, to which he replied “The man is an idiot!”
It amazes me that our government has not communicated why we went to Afganistan in a clear way. We are there because, first, over 30 Canadians were killed in 911 becasue terrorists were sent out of Bin Ladins training camps there and we had to see those camps shut down and never opened again.
Secondly, we are there under a united nations mandate and either we honor our votes there with action or else we need to learn to shut up.
Third, the Liberal government sent us there and Liberals need to learn to fish or cut bait instead of cutting and running.
Currently we only get the message that Canadians are dying in Afganistan. The opposition parties keep jumping up and down saying we need to bring our troups home. The same parties are suggesting they will bring the government down and force an election. I feel they believe that the Afganistan issue will improve their MP numbers. From my point of view they are wrong. When the writ is dropped the focus on Afganistan will bring to light all the good that is happening there and Canadian voters will suddenly realise just how wrong headed the opposition has been.
From the point of view of Mr. Harper it does make sense to hold back the good news so that the ranting and raving of the opposition will be viewed in the proper light when it will do the most damage to their election prospects.
While much blame is piled on Mr. Harper, the most blame should be dumped on the media for not doing what they constantly tell us is their job. Reporting the news is their job not making it up in order to make their story more entertaining.
Mark, people have been told over and over again, on this site and elsewhere, why we are in Afghanistan. Many, including our resident trolls refuse to listen and come up with various excuses why we should leave (Bush’s war, can’t win, Karzai not nice, Harper a bully, whatever), using their opinion as factual substantiation for their view (also known as begging the question).
It’s hard to communicate with people who won’t listen, either because they are apathetic or don’t believe, like Jack Layon, that military action is ever an option; and, of course, my personal favourite excuse “Islamophobia” where it’s our fault Bin Laden used his wealth (from oil) to attack us over and over again, until finally there was a response. Can’t we just get along, and sing Kumbaya together (sarc off).
October 11
They Used To Lie About Liberal Media Bias
It seems that your new post about media bias answers the question of who’s to blame for Canadian’s distain for our role in Afganistan.
The PM can only do so much, but the media dominates.
Fantastic article. The is probably the best single summary of both the state of affairs in Afghanistan and in its reporting here in Canada I have read.
Den Tandt’s recommendations for the government to improve its communications are right on the money. I will say though, that I think he has given their efforts to date short thrift. There has been no shortage of government information on the mission.
The problem has been that this information has been filtered through the media (i.e. ignored). Jack Layton posturing is centre stage. Stephane Dion’s comments about the evils of the “combat mission” are parroted. The activist media in this country has bought into the idea that the mission in Afghanistan is an extension of “George Bush’s” war in Iraq, and it is duly reported as such.
When Den Tandt says the Taliban are fighting a media war, designed to stimulate anguished coverage in Western capitals, which then creates political pressure for a pullout. and that Each cluster of front-page stories is, in effect, a tactical victory for the insurgents. he is right on the money.
This article is very negative towards Stephen Harper and the Conservative party. The reporter seems to be taking a great message and using it to criticize Stephen Harper. It is almost as if this guy is putting a Liberal spin on the information.
I mean don’t get me wrong, this is a good article. I got that heart swelling feeling reading about all the work that our soldiers are doing for the people of Afghanistan. I got the heart burn a little bit when I thought about how many tax dollars this is costing us, but if the money is going to be spent on foreign aid, Afghanistan is a good place for it.
Back to my point: This guy has included all of the most “current” anti-Harper slanders. Phrases such as ‘mania for control’, ‘they have been gagged by the Prime Minister’s Office’ are the Liberal buzz words for PM Harper that are in every anti-Conservative news article. Sure, he does implicate the media and the military for the poor communication strategy, but the overall tone of the article is laying it all at Harper’s feet, which is ridiculous. Harper needs to ungag… Harper should ensure Coderre… Harper should instruct them to speak out…
There is one reason why Harper detests the media and won’t talk to them: Most of the eastern media hate the very idea of a Conservative PM and will take anything that he says, twist it around, and use it in their next anti-Conservative rant. Most refuse to be balanced or open-minded about what he is saying and look only to hurt his reputation and standing with the people.
The message that we should take from this man’s article is that the Canadian involvement in Afghanistan (military and development) is worth while and admirable and should be continued. Ignore his pointless criticism of Stephen Harper. Realize that if the Liberal government had one the election instead of the Conservative party, we would have 700 casualties right now instead of 71 and, from what we are hearing directly from the mouths of most (all?) prominent Liberals and NDP, our military would have been forced to abandon the mission and the people in Afghanistan. Remember the lack of desert fatigues? Remember the inability of our military to air-lift equipment to Afghanistan? Remember the Iltis Jeeps? Remember the ‘decade of darkness’ our military faced under Liberal mismanagement.
It is good to hear such truthful information about our mission in Afghanistan, but it isn’t true to say that I didn’t know this stuff. I did know it because I read more than the anti-Conservative drivel that is served up by our media. Let’s allow our efforts in Afghanistan to be completed and let the benefits flow to that part of the world. Keep supporting the Conservative party and they will keep supporting our military and the people of Afghanistan. Or vote Liberal and the money saved on the mission in Afghanistan can be divvied up amongst the Liberal party supporters, misplaced, lost, stolen, spent on advertising, or some sort of new registry. Your choice.
That is an excellent article. Just imagine what we could achieve with more effective publicity and the massive infusion of manpower and development resources advocated by the RAND Corporation:
Afghanistan on the Edge
http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2007/afghan1.html
Ignore his pointless criticism of Stephen Harper.
Bob, it’s not just Den Tandt saying this. If you read the article again, you’ll note that he didn’t make this up: it was folks on the ground who told him. That sentiment is being expressed privately by a lot of people I know as well – the politicians and their staffs aren’t letting those who know the situation best actually talk about it.
I know some fans of the Harper government who are in a position to know, and are shaking their heads at the level of centralized control that is being exerted over the Afghan messaging by the PMO.
I understand the idea behind managing the message from the centre, but in this case, it’s just not working. And much as I’m a Harper supporter, his government is crippling the messaging with the level of control they exert over it.
Two problems with loosening media reins by PMO. First, Liberal apologists in media will seize on only negative comments, with Afghanistan as case in point, where hypocritical idiots like Arthur Kent (heard him on Adler, what a negative loser, thought it was lberia on radio), spinning negative, misrepresenting what is being said, then accusing others of misinformation. Second, there are just enough loose cannons with Tories to say something stupid that will be attrributed to government. Harper is using situational leadership, where task complexity and group maturity are critereon for level of supervision. Many in government still relatively new to media game (low group maturity) and governing is complex task. When you have low group maturity with complex task, you must supervise closely; that’s what Harper is doing. Witness the Liberals now and Tories in past for what happens when close supervision of message is not exercised with media unsavvy group.
When you have low group maturity with complex task, you must supervise closely; that’s what Harper is doing.
Except that it’s not working: the Cdn public isn’t getting the story. So his “close supervision” is yielding poor results. Which says to me that it’s long past time to try a new approach: trust the folks on the ground. They’re not only smart and competent, but they’re believable since they’re the ones doing the actual grunt work.
As someone who tries to publish good news with the bad, it’s tougher than you think to get the people with the information to talk, since it all has to get cleared up the line – much of the time, right to the Minister’s office or the PMO.
Like I said, the current communications strategy isn’t working.
Damian – Like I said, the current communications strategy isn’t working.
Very true. The muzzle has been on CF members since the Somalia fiasco. Time to remove it.
I can’t really understand starting a job and then not finishing it. Why start if you know you’ll never finish – denies reason.
Belisarius, believe it or not, it’s even worse in some ways for gov’t workers outside the CF.
If you’re a PPCLI private, third man through the door in your stack, and a reporter asks you what it’s like in Afghanistan, you’re allowed to tell her what it’s like being third man in the stack…as long as that’s as far as you go. The overriding principle for CF personnel dealing with media is that it’s OK to talk, as long as you “stay in your lane.” Start talking about geopolitics or second-guessing situations outside your expertise, and someone in the chain of command is going to have a very loud one-way discussion with you, while you stand at rigid attention.
But if you’re a front-line CIDA worker at the KPRT, distributing a few million bucks in Canadian aid dollars a year to the local Afghan reconstruction effort, you’re not allowed to say squat without higher permission.
It’s ridiculous.
That is ridiculous. Den Tandt made some great recommendations for improving communications. Hopefully the government will pay attention. Sometimes soldiers or government workers will say stupid things, but more often they come across as passionate and articulate about what they are trying to achieve.
Sometimes soldiers or government workers will say stupid things, but more often they come across as passionate and articulate about what they are trying to achieve.
Bingo. And the funny thing is, I’ve found that even when they say stupid things, the public gives them the benefit of the doubt precisely because they’re so obviously passionate about what they’re trying to achieve.
Given the direction the polls have been heading on this issue for the past year or so, I’m wondering what the gov’t thinks they have to lose by taking the muzzles off their people…
Let’s hope they wake up and recognize the powerful communications resource right under their nose.
Great blog, by the way. Keep up the outstanding work!