Free Fire Zone

Today's treeware column on the media KandaHarperama is getting so much email reaction, good, bad and ugly, I figured why not give you all a shot at it?

Gone was the policy wonk who once ill-advisedly donned cowboy leathers and a too-clingy polo shirt. Here was a leader appearing as macho as any smooth-fingered, pale-faced sedentary former lobbyist geek could look in a pair of khaki civvies with one-too-many-campaign-stop meals and Timbits under his belt.

Thank goodness he didn't do the flight suit thing.

The whole event was so brilliantly stage-managed I kept expecting him to trot out the turkey, plastic trimmings and all, the way U.S. President George W. Bush did in Iraq at Thanksgiving 2003.

But Harper didn't need to do that.

The only turkeys were the ones in the media that Harper's communications gang plucked with this brilliant tactic. Like birds to a slaughter, rounded up and sent winging to the other side of the world on a few hours' notice.

And so, over the past couple of days, news viewers have seen Harper giving that rousing we don't "cut and run" and "God bless Canada" speech uninterrupted for four minutes or so, over and over again.

By the time the pundits weigh in later this week, clucking over it all and pecking at the media strategy, Canadians will be as interested in it as they are in turkey leftovers on Jan. 3.

A couple of post-deadline notes:

1. I wrote that, by 6 p.m. or so, a CTV online poll on whether our troops should be in Afghanistan was running four-to-one or so pro-military intervention. A reader wrote to tell me that, at the same time, a Citytv poll was three-to-one against. Both were obviously unscientific -- and, in my opinion, clearly a reflection of the demographics of their respective audiences. My guess? CTV's website attracts a wider cross section of Canadians from coast-to-coast, who are probably older and much more conservative than the more multiculti urban users of the City site.

2. CBC-TV's The National last night had an interesting history of how we got into Afghanistan, in terms of a little attended and unnoticed parliamentary debate. It's here.

3. The National Post today did a side-by-side comparison (sub. req'd.) of Bush's Iraq visit with Harper's tour of the Kandahar. Very funny.

4. Regular reader Mendelson Joe called to discuss the column. (His postcards decorate my home office!) He said I missed a major point: that the trip was an attempt to ''change the channel'' away from the David Emerson and Michel Fortier scandals. I am not that cynical. But whatever works, I guess, for the Harper spinners.

And now, bombs away ...

Comments

[Tim]

It's interesting that after the media blitz, public opinion polls showed the Canadians' opinion on the Afghanistan deployment was much more positive. I don't think there have been Harper numbers produced yet, but I am willing to bet he got a bounce from it too.

*sigh* We like to think we are made of sterner stuff, Antonia, but I don't know sometimes...

Anyway, your point is dead on. The media played this for all it was worth (and then some). I think they like to have a war story to report on as much as right wing bloggers do. So heroic, so poignant, so black-and-white.

I do some rambling on this topic here:
http://www.pogge.ca/archives/001028.shtml

[Greg]

Antonia, if you go to cbc.ca/politics and click on last night's show, you will see the tory spinner cynically laughing about the timing of the trip (sorry I don't have the time reference of the exchange between he and Don Newman but it was during the political panel at the end of the show).

[Antonia]

Thanks Greg! I musta had my head in my computer racing toward deadline by then.

Here's the link y'all.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/

The panel is at the 38 minute mark but I don't see Geoff Norquay laughing.

[Greg]

Hi again, the exchange takes place just after 47:54. Newman: If Mr. Harper had not gone to Afghanistan,...

[Kevin]

You make some great points, Antonia, but don't you find Harper's adoption of Bushite language interesting, as well as his team's use of White House-style PR tools?
I make some points about this at hackistan.blogspot.com

[Classic]

_Maybe the "wider cross section of Canadians from coast-to-coast" is, in some selective ways, more multi-opinion than the "[in race/sex only] multiculti urban users of the [single] City"? At least, where our nation's military fits in.
_Re: your A&E located column, I would vote for considering 'all of the above & plus'.

[Bill-Muskoka]

Regardless, Harper still looks far more a real leader than Dubya! We are going to see some very interesting contrasts I think!

Hmmmmmmmm, Harper for U.S. President in 2008 perhaps?

[Bill-Muskoka]

Antonia,

One of my favorite sayings: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

Another is "If one sits on the bank of the river long enough they will see the body of their enemy floating by!" Something I have seen repeatedly in my life.

The situation in Afghanistan is well stated in Mitch's column. The humourous side is 'forget fish because mountain desert dwellers seldom connect to such a concept.

The problems Afghanistan face are as monumental as the re-building of New Orleans.

The difference is they neither have the desire for a major lifestyle change, nor the means of achieving it without external aide and internal guidance.

The Afgans defeated the Russians (the U.S.S.R.'s own Viet Nam) which gave rise to the power of the gangbangers, aka, Taliban.

Applying western values to life there is like taking someone from T.O. and plopping them down in the middle of Northern Ontario, or more poignant, on Baffin Island!

Reality Check! They do not have the survival skills to function to our way of thinking. Solution: Learn how they envision life, teach them how, and more importantly, WHY, they need to modify their thingking away from what they have tolerated. That seems to be the idea our fine CF personell have?

Where is Ghandi when such a great need exists?

[Stephen Reevess]

Well he is Prime Minister, Canada has troups in Afghanistan, so I presume this would lead all the news stories on Monday.
What headlines would you have rather seen on Monday " the Danforth goes through another weekend without a parade"
And what does Bush and turkeys have to do with anything. Does everthing we do in Canada have to be compared to the Americans??
(Oh right, I forgot the mythic plastic turkey).

[Fred F]

I read your column, A White House visit by way of Kandahar, and it seems to me that you're under-estimating Prime Minister Harper and the Conservatives. They don't play politics the way Martin and Chretien did. Unlike the the crass, phony politics of phony promises practiced by the past Liberal government, the Conservatives have said what they'd do, they're doing it, and they're sticking by what they've done or say they'll do--in spite of the polling numbers. They're displaying leadership while Martin waited for the polling numbers before deciding not to do anything about a situation because it would be unpopular.

Although not all Canadians may agree with what the present government may do, they find it very refreshing to have a leader who leads, whose answers to questions make sense and are easily understood. Unlike Martin, by the time Harper answers a question everyone still remembers what the question was. It's obvious to most Canadians that there is no hidden agenda. Perhaps the Liberals would use the the trip to Afganistan as a photo op, Harper comes across as sincerely believing what he practices and when he acts he stands by his decisions. If photo ops were the driving force behind his political agenda he would have abandoned Emerson a long, LONG time ago. I believe he still believes adding Emerson to the cabinet was the right decision and intends to allow time, and not the media, decide if he is right--and so it should be decided.

I believe the Toronto media are under estimating and selling Harper and the Conservatives short. Why is that? People and governments aren't always as manipulative, dumb, foolish, and useless as the media would like the world to think. Not always. Some people and governments (even those outside of Toronto) are sincere and sincerely practice what they believe.

[Carla]

The photo on the cover of the Globe today has our newly minted PM looking like the guy who, after a lifetime of dreaming, is finally in his army fatigues. Too bad he can't stay past the photo op to see what life is like for a real soldier. I think it's interesting that some of the talk is how we have moved from peacekeeping to active fighting. Check our role in Haiti for the past couple of years and you'll see the peacekeeping facade was lifted a long time ago.

[Adam in Whitby]

It's remarkable how concerned some Canadians are about our involvment in Afghanistan now that a Tory government is in power.

Where were the outraged calls for debate when a Liberal government first committed them to the campaign?

As for the treeware column, some good points, Antonia, but a couple quibbles:

It isn't contradictory to say we're in Afghanistan to help "rebuild" it by destroying the Taliban. It's a central part of the strategy, and just good common sense. Perhaps the PM could explain this better, but surely it isn't too hard to figure out.

So too with the connection he made between our mission in Afghanistan and the attacks on 9/11. Of course the events are connected. The Taliban allowed al-Qaeda to plan those attacks on their soil; attacks against a close ally, and in which our own citizens were killed; we are in Afghanistan to try and stop those attackers from doing further damage to us and our allies.

If we manage to help "rebuild" Afghanistan, that will be a nice outcome too. But first and foremost, we're there to kill those who killed us. The attacks of 9/11 weren't a "tragedy." They were an attack. This is the response.

[nps]

Well… I thought Mr. bin Ladin’s poster is still out as “wanted dead or alive”, and after 5 years that hasn’t happened and that, in my view say’s it all about Afghanistan . No foreign power will ever control that place, never did, not now and never will, especially predominately white and for the most part Christian invaders. If the Afghan tribes are not fighting the infidels, they are fighting each other for control of the heroin trade. Is it worth young Canadian lives should be the question of the day, week, month so much so that it may get Harper thinking ” if I lost Antonia and the Star, I lost Middle-Canada”……………….

The twentyish age group are gonna take a pass on this (enlist) as a 10 yr commitment is being bandied about by Harper and the Minister of D. notwithstanding the fact there are better opportunities now available in terms of pay, job satisfaction and mobility(keeping your life intact) than what DND has to offer. I have two in that age group (and their friends) who are not interested in any way, shape or form and thank Christ for that!!!

[Moni]

I feel a little bad (at least I think I should) that through all the press coverage all I could think of was "Boy does Harper have a gut on him."
Is that ok? Am I forgiven?

[Mark-Alan Whittle]

As a taxpayer I'm glad Prime Minister Stephen Harper supports our fighting men and women of the Armed Forces and saw fit to visit them personally and at great risk to his person. What I'm not glad about is NDP leader Jack Layton undermining Canada's support by questioning our role, our troops are fighting in a foreign land for freedom and democracy. A government decision to support the war on terror and send troops over there should have the support of all members of parliament until such time as our help is not needed and the Taliban insurgency has been eliminated.

[Loretta]

Was anyone else appalled to see the National Post run military handouts as their front-page photos two days in a row?

This from a so-called national newspaper? A national newspaper apparently too cheap to send a photographer to the biggest PM overseas visit in recent memory? Imagine if the New York Times or the Washington Post had ever pulled such a stunt? There would be an uproar!

Great job, Gord Fisher. That's quite a paper you've got there.

[Antonia]

Some replies:

Greg, thanks again! You're right. Geoff Norquay does laugh when Don Newman suggests that the Afghanistan trip took the spotlight off the ethics discussion. "Funny how that happens,'' he guffaws.
Here's that link for Monday's edition of CBC Newsworld's Politics again:
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/
FF to the 47:54 mark.

Thanks Kevin for pointing out the similarities between Bush and Harper talk. If you read my column in its entirety, you will see I do the same thing. Love the name of your blog!
http://hackistan.blogspot.com/

[Dean]

Blah, blah, blah. Usual partisan hackery. Conservatives acting like this is the second coming, conveniently forgetting that Chretien visted the troops there a few years ago. And constantly slagging ex G-G Adrienne Clarkson despite her visit there and general support for the troops (apparently reciprocated). Liberals (as pointed out earlier) suddenly expressing concern about a deployment that they initiated - including the recent change to a more aggressive mission and posture.

I'm not a Harper fan, but good for him on visiting the troops. And they're trying to score political points with it - big deal. Anyone would have done that in the same situation. At the same time, I don't see the problem with a debate in the House on the matter. And I don't like this emerging idea that debating or questioning the mission is somehow unpatriotic. Obviously our home-grown Conservatives look with envy at the demonisation of those who question war efforts south of the border and want to see it they can replicate it here.

Finally - today's Globe poll shows some support, although there seems to be confusion about the mission. And it was a conventional phone poll, not an online poll (which are worse than useless, IMHO). See:
http://www.thestrategiccounsel.com/our_news/polls/2006-03-13%20GMCTV%20Mar9-12%20(Mar13)%20Afghanistan%20-%20Rev.pdf
and
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060314.HARPERPOLL14/TPStory/

[D.J. Allen]

The photo-op left me with questions and I have to add my voice saying my eyes were really taken by the size of Harper's tummy too and wonder just how overweight is he? It doesn't look to healthy to me. Why haven't the media shown this before? Maybe getting out of the office now and then to hang with the guys will be good. They are good role models. Maybe his asthma keeps him pretty sedentary? What do you think? I'll be watching ...

[steve in bc]

I think we should cut and run.

This is a big mistake.

[Ti-Guy]

It's remarkable how some people, Conservatives obviously, are puzzled by the fact that, long after any good-will associated with 9/11 has disappeared, after three years of a failed "war on terror" and after a change to a more hawkish government, Canadians might naturally have reason to re-visit our military's participation in Afghanistan, since it doesn't feel like the same deal we originally thought we were signing up for (whether we were made aware of that at the time or not.)

Oh well...I'm sure additional jingoism and scolding will soon take care of that annoying dissent.

[mike]

A couple of comments:
(a) regardless of one's political stripes, good for the Prime Minister for going and visiting the troops. We at home don't need the moral boost, they do (full disclosure - I voted for Layton)
(b) when I heard the news of Harper's 'surprise' visit, I immediately began to wonder (perhaps too cynically)if this was one part of a multi-part media strategy. Look, who popped up there just a few days before? Christie Blatchford. Hey, I really like Christie, but after spending two weeks or so in Turin, she then hops on another plane? I wonder, again cynically and not with ill-respect intended towards Christie, that with her general pro-armed forces past her visit was, perhaps, facilitated by the PMO or the DND? Just a thought.
(c) yep - the gut. That was the first thing I saw as well. Thinking aloud here, me thinks that that was the first thing in the past number of years that the tightly-controlled Harper really let hang out.

[Jay Currie]

First time I've actually thought "Prime Minister Harper".

Kicking the Hell out of the Taliban is a grand use of Canada's military. After years of the Axworthian pretense of "peacekeeping" people are actually going to use their training and their courage.

Harper is smart to be there and smart to point out that this is where Caanda asserts its leadership role. LaLaLloyd will be disappointed; but Mike Pearson would be proud.

As am I.

[mike]

Hey Antonia,

I just made a comment, and I note it was just posted (almost like an instant letter-to-the-editor). But that also means that you must have just reviewed and approved it.

Geez, what kinda killer hours are you keeping with this blog thing?

That's the trouble with this 24/7 (I wish there was a better term for that, I am really getting sick of it), technology driven media. You could literally work 24/7. Maybe you do (at least I hope you tell your editors that!)

Maybe you should do a tree-ware column on the joys(?) and realities(!) of blogging.

Keep up the good work, yours is the one blog I check daily. Fair. Balanced. Self-correcting (if required). thanks

Mike

[blobby]

Can anyone really say they know just what happened on 9/11?

I wonder a lot about this, especially when I hear people talk about the reasons for Canada's military involvement in American wars.

Maybe you've heard the "9/11 Commission" did a report on the collapse of the World Trade Centre's twin towers, but there was another building that collapsed in New York that day: WTC Building 7. Forty-seven storeys tall. Had a fire on the seventh floor and one on the twelfth. At around 4:30 pm on Sept. 11 2001, some seven hours after the twin towers collapsed, Building 7 slumped to the ground like the famous Pruit-Igoe project in St. Louis (a controlled demolition, that).

The 9/11 Commission didn't even consider what caused Building 7's collapse.

But then, the Commission's budget was just $600,000.

Sounds like a lot, right? Sounds like they might have had enough to hire someone to 'splain how a 47-storey building slumps to concrete dust after catching fire in two locations.

But $600,000 isn't a lot. Now $40,000,000, that's a lot. That's the amount the Republicans spent investigating whether Bill Clinton had sex with his intern.

It says a lot about the rush to war that we don't have answers to fundamental questions about 9/11, but I urge people to take a "sober second look" at what evidence we do have. A well-written analysis of this evidence, and of the repercussions of our inattention to it--can be found at the American Urban Planner's website, "Planetizen:" see http://www.planetizen.com/node/18931/ .

Interestingly, Antonia, the editorial on this website is written by a Canadian, Michael Dudley, an instructor in the city planning program at the University of Manitoba's school of architecture.