And from Ralph's old drinking buddy:
Harper plays solo on the war drums
Don Martin
National Post
Thursday, March 20, 2003
OTTAWA - In a Parliament filled with cooing Canadian doves, he circles alone as the hawk.
Stephen Harper marks the first anniversary of his Canadian Alliance leadership victory today as the only party leader standing firmly on an American war footing.
With the Iraqi invasion beginning and public opinion set to fluctuate wildly based on the success or stumbles of a U.S.-led blitzkrieg to oust Saddam Hussein, Harper faces the greatest risk of becoming Canadian collateral damage.
Tax cuts, the environment, immigration, health care -- stark policy differences by the five official parties are, at best, a blur on the public's radar screen between elections.
But with the most divisive story of the decade unfolding today, as our traditional allies rush to crush an Iraqi regime under extreme military duress, Harper's taken a defining pro-war position he admits runs counter to majority public opinion.
Harper believes Canada should march to war under America's military shield. He insists Saddam must go before Iraq will disarm. And he doesn't know whether to laugh or cry at the Prime Minister's theory that keeping troops perched on the border will force the Iraqi dictator into good behaviour.
On all of the above positions, the Alliance sits isolated in the House of Commons.
The Liberals, with few MP exceptions, are firmly united behind Jean Chrétien's no-way policy on assisting the invasion. Paul Martin, the next prime minister, refuses to allow any daylight between his view and the government's military neutrality.
The New Democrats, Bloc Québécois and, with some caveats, the Conservatives endorse the stay-at-home stance, arguing only that all Canada's ships and military personnel be swept from the Persian Gulf theatre of war lest they inadvertently assist the Iraq attack.
Frankly, given the two extreme war scenarios, the odds favour Chrétien scoring a political victory without firing a single shot.
In the event of a quick and clean triumph causing minimal civilian casualties, it's unlikely a victorious United States would hold a serious trading grudge against their northern pacifist as it tries to whip the economy back into shape to prevent another one-term George Bush wonder. Thus, Chrétien wins.
If the war is butt ugly and bloody long, flashing real-life reruns of the Black Hawk Down horror movie into living rooms as troops duke it out on the doorsteps of Baghdad, Chrétien's neutrality will also look mighty appealing in the long run.
"A lot of public reaction will depend on how the war goes," Harper acknowledged in an interview this week. "I'm not convinced the war will be as bloody and destructive as some suggest. I could be wrong. Maybe we'll have some explaining to do, maybe we won't."
The best scenario to save the Alliance from needing an explanation is the worst case for Canada.
For Harper to justify a Canadian military role, the economic penalty for our refusal to play American war games would have to be very steep, manifested through clogged border crossings, bitter backlashes against Canadian tourists and protracted trade disputes. Sadly, that all may yet come to pass.
Finding himself in war-torn isolation on the debate was not what Harper had foreseen until this week.
Harper had predicted Canada would ultimately bite the bullet and side with the Americans, with or without the United Nations' blessing. "It will not join as a leader, but unnoticed at the back of the parade," he said in January.
Guilty as charged, grins Harper, arguing he couldn't fathom a Prime Minister he describes as "gutless, embarrassing and cowardly" actually taking an unequivocal stand on the war. "I'm always surprised when the Prime Minister appears to take a position on anything."
And so, Harper enters his second year as Alliance leader playing solo on the war drums and hoping the noise doesn't scare off Ontario voters he'll need to grow in electoral strength.
Despite polls which are stubbornly resistant to any improvement for Harper, it must be said the Calgary MP has done well, quietly working to pay off the party's debt and nurturing the grassroots for an election expected in 2004.
That's when he'll face his mother of all battles with the daunting challenge of taking out a new prime minister named Paul Martin, who now surfaces only periodically as a backbencher -- to Harper's extreme frustration.
"As leader of the Opposition, I have to go after the Prime Minister. I don't have a special pedestal to go after a guy I can't see or hear," he shrugs. "Paul Martin is a formidable guy. But his record will be as a Liberal leader."
Unfortunately, in a perverted way, Stephen Harper probably shares Saddam Hussein's plight. He'll never see the enemy until it's too late. And he's fighting a war he cannot win.
nationalpost.com |
