History could show that it was a vital and fortuitous turn of events.

Canada experienced years of Jean Chretien/Paul Martin Liberal rule, due in large part to the lack of coherent opposition. Conservatives were busy rebuilding, reforming into a single entity. That, combined with an effective program of personal attacks by the Liberals on both the party leader and the conservative party of the day, handed electoral majorities to a sometimes undeserving Liberal party.

Many figured Canada’s right would be forever lost in the wilderness, their Diefenbaker, Sir John A. MacDonald, Mulroney glory days committed to memory.

But the public began to question the spin. Stephen Harper’s ‘scary agenda’ image, painted with the leftovers used on Stockwell Day, began to melt away. The Tories eventually came to power in what could be seen as a probationary period as voters gave back-to-back minority terms as an opportunity to prove themselves.

Eventually the mission was complete and the doubters were silenced, and at a most opportune time.

Harper’s majority comes at a time when our American neighbors are in the midst of flux. Fulfilling his promise to ‘fundamentally transform’ the nation, President Barack Obama has engaged in a systematic dismantling of American rights, freedoms, and traditions.

I have spent enough time with Americans to know that they, like Albertans, do not take kindly to having ‘outsiders’ giving their uninvited opinion of their business. Maybe it’s the different perspective from outside the bubble, it could be my American blood, I don’t know.

But from afar we’ve witnessed your President commit your military to combat without your government’s consent. We’ve seen him assume powers as never before. We’ve seen him institute government buy-outs of private companies like a storyline from an Ayn Rand novel.

We have seen your President – this one is a favorite of ours – bow down before a Saudi King and tell Canadians our oil isn’t good enough.

We are concerned, with the White House undertaking a program of fundamental change to your country, when we see the current crop of GOP candidates.

Obama is swiftly morphing America into his ideal Alinsky utopia. A complicit media has sheltered the White House and has worked hard to keep the general public unaware. Your nation is in danger of falling past the point of no return, and these are the best your country has to offer?

One of these guys is going to save America?

You need to elect a president who will respect and honor your Constitution, because Cousin, your current one sure doesn’t.

With our largest trading partner and international ally in this situation, alternatively Canada finds itself with a government that has deftly navigated our economy thorough the choppy waters to the admiration of the global community.

The Harper government has moved to strengthen our military while Obama has moved to gut his. Canada’s Conservatives have gotten tough on illegal immigrants and crime, while Obama challenges States who implement laws designed to deal with the flow.

When Obama turned his nose up at the Keystone XL pipeline, thereby choosing Arab and Venezuelan oil over ethically-produced oil sands bitumen, it would have been a crisis for former Prime Ministers, but not Stephen Harper.

He returned the U.S. President’s middle-finger with a shoulder-shrug and a phone call to China. If Obama doesn’t want our oil, Asia will. A pipeline south to Texas or west to the Pacific coast, it doesn’t matter to us.

As opposed to previous Conservative P.M’s like Brian Mulroney, Harper manages to maintain a pro-American image while avoiding the label of ‘puppet’. Accusations of being too friendly to our Southern neighbors ring hollow, partially due to his actions and partially due to a President who is his ideological opposite.

He doesn’t look up to the American President, he looks across at him.

A higher than usual level of U.S. media attention has been focused on Canadian affairs the past few years, much of that to do with our increased presence on the international stage and our acquiring a stronger, more proactive reputation.

More than one American friend has wished someone like Harper was a GOP candidate.

The once milque-toast, negotiate and don’t get involved Canada is now the first delegation to lead a walk-out during a speech by Iran’s Ahmadinejad at the United Nations.

Israel, feeling a rift in their relationship with the current Obama administration to the point of abandonment, has seen their alliance and friendship with Canada grow stronger due to the efforts of a very pro-Israel Harper.

The leader of the free world is experiencing an internal test of those very freedoms. Canadians should feel fortunate to have a strong, stable conservative government in Ottawa.

The idea that Canada could have been led by a Stephane Dion or Michael Ignatieff Liberal government at a time when America is flirting with radical socialism is shudder-inducing.

Against stereotype, he isn’t a ‘blind right winger’ – as evidenced in his claim that he has voted for a Democrat for president “…several times when they were the best choice.”

“Truman, Ike, Kennedy, Reagan, they all had their good qualities and ideas. Even Clinton had a couple of good days,” he said with a chuckle. “Of course, there were the others. Like Carter.”

International issues dominate the all-too-rare occasions when the two of us get a chance to chat. Whenever something that transcends the border hits the headlines I know there will be a no-holds barred conversation coming.

Today was no different. The Alberta/Iowa connection sizzled today over President Obama’s decision not to make a decision on the Keystone pipeline. The project, which would double the amount of oil shipped from Alberta’s ethically-produced oil sands to Texas, has long been the target of radical environmentalists and D-list celebrities trying to get their face in the paper (see: Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Daryl Hannah, etc.).

Their fears, however unfounded, became a rallying cry in the media. Protests and arrests of ‘famous’ people at anti-Keystone rallies made headlines, proving how slow news days can really be.

Those who live in the real world have tried to get the truth out to the public. Groups such as Ethical Oil (http://www.ethicaloil.org/) have sprung up with valid arguments not only in favor of the proposed pipeline, but in defense of the oil sands industry.

I asked the Colonel about Obama’s hesitation to take a stand.

“First of all, it should come as a shock to no one that he won’t make the call. That’s his M.O. He’s the vote ‘present’ president. “

He continued: “Here you’ve got record unemployment and the Keystone would create thousands of jobs both in Canada and the U.S. Then you have the environmentalists raising hell using fear of hypothetical damage.”

“Obama’s base, his two main segments of support, is left-wing tree huggers and unions. This issue has pitted each side against the other. If he says yes, the unions are happy but he loses the environuts. If he says no, he’s a friend of the Earth but loses the unions. So, in typical Barack Obama fashion, he says nothing. He turtles.”

Holding off on the Keystone pipeline by calling for another ‘study’ and possible moving of the planned route runs the risk of stepping on the toes of unions, but the Colonel figures the Obama administration can appease organized labor with other goodies.

“You can promise unions a whole list of things. Environmentalists have a pretty narrow scope.”

We then discussed the options for Canada. The oil sands aren’t going away, and will continue to grow into one of the top global producers. I told the Colonel that many of us are of the opinion that if the U.S. doesn’t want our oil, there is a lengthy list of countries that do.

After all, building a pipeline west to the Pacific Ocean is just as possible as building one south to Texas.

“That’s the real potential problem here,” he said. “The longer this drags out, the more oil Americans will use from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela instead of increasing the amount of oil we get from a safe and democratic ally in Canada. If you folks decide to sell your petroleum to China or Russia instead – all because of environmental hysteria and a spineless, Carter-like president…well, who can blame you?”

“We’d have no one to blame but ourselves.”

Born out of the ashes of World War II and the failed pre-war League of Nations, the U.N. started off with an admirable goal: to give the nations of the world an avenue to air their differences, form resolutions, and most importantly avoid the risk of the world being thrown into another large-scale multi-national war.

Almost from the beginning, the authority of the international body has been on display. Whether holding rogue nations to account through the oft-used process of sanctions, bringing to light some unknown suffering parts of the world, or negotiating treaties to sidestep conflict, the United Nations has proven beneficial on many fronts.

But the organization has changed over time to the point that even some of its most ardent supporters have begun to question its direction and its effectiveness.

And this comes at a unique time in geopolitics.

Traditionally, Canada has been one of the most vocal nations of the world in proclaiming its support for the U.N. Canadians have long seen the United Nations has a valuable asset, and have in the past demanded the U.N.’s okay before allowing Canada to enter situations such as a military conflict.

To the people of Canada, the United Nations could have been considered a sacred cow. But after years of watching the U.N. morph into something unintended, minds are changing.



Canadian P.M. Stephen Harper
addresses the United Nations

We have witnessed the organization become more than a meeting place for negotiation and social programs. It has now moved dangerously close to becoming a global government while increasingly pushing its own agenda.

The U.N. demands obedience to their strict ideas on the environment and social justice, of which a quick study reveals emanation from the political left.

They even have assumed control of their own armed forces. NATO, which was always meant to be a separate body, has become the U.N. de-facto military arm. From Bosnia to Libya, the pattern has emerged: the Security Council authorizes action, and NATO carries it out.

We hear, years after the fact, that much of the information used to justify entering the Bosnian war was false. Many reports of mass-murder turned out to be fiction. The public relations spin that sold the idea of protecting vulnerable Muslims who were facing those two most horrible words – ethnic cleansing – has been found to be lacking in credibility after the fact.

Canadians watch as the U.N. and N.A.T.O. rush in to do the honorable thing and help the rebels rising up against their long-time oppressor Qaddafi in Libya. We initially support our government’s involvement in backing the Arab Spring movement, then question the action when rumors abound that many of the rebels are current and former al Qaeda fighters.

Have we become allies with terrorists through the platform of the United Nations?

The re-examining of the Canadian attitude towards the United Nations comes at a most interesting time. While the United States finds itself being led by a president busy expunging American tradition and implanting his far-left, contrite-to-the-enemy agenda, Canada has just embarked on its first era of majority Conservative government since the early 1990’s.



Canadian delegation boycotts
Ahmadinejad speech

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government has not been shy about voicing displeasure at the U.N. Back in September 2009 the Canadian delegation make international headlines by walking out of a droning, psychotic speech given Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The fact that it was the easy-going Canadians who correctly anticipated an offensive, anti-Semitic rant from Ahmadinejad and chose to walk out was unprecedented. The fact that it was the Canadians who walked out first, followed afterwards by the United States and other Western nations, was momentous.

Just a few weeks ago it was Canada again standing up and taking the lead when it was announced that North Korea would be – get this – the chair of the U.N.’s Conference on Disarmament, where U.N. members negotiate disarmament and other arms control agreements. Calling the North Korean regime “a major proliferator of nuclear weapons” and “not credible”, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird announced a Canadian boycott of the conference until the chair is replaced.

Again, it was an unprecedented move by Canada. Again, Obama’s America lagged behind. While not choosing to follow suit with a boycott of their own, U.S. delegates downplayed the significance of having a nation known for having an illegal nuclear weapons program chair a conference on nuclear disarmament.

Canadians have grown more than suspicious that the United Nations has lost its way. Common sense dictates that when we hear of more than 20 discussion papers and resolutions condemning alleged ‘apartheid’ crimes by Israel are introduced in less than one year (the misuse of that memorable term is an insult to the Black population of South Africa, btw.), compared to a single resolution condemning terrorist acts by Palestinians against Israelis, questions are bound to arise.

Even some Americans have noticed the shift in position between their country and Canada, stating their wish that the American leader would stand up and show some fortitude like Canada’s Harper.

It would be hard to imagine Stephen Harper embarking on the apology-style world tour Obama took soon after taking office, bowing before those who would do us harm.

While it would be easy to bask in the glory of Canada’s newfound voice on the international stage, the truth is we can only do so much. American influence is a necessity, for without it nothing can get done.

That is why, more than in other years leading up to an American presidential election, Canadians are tuning in and keeping an eye on the GOP contenders. In the fight against the growing world-wide viruses of Islamisation, anti-Semitism, the politically correct policies of open borders and lax immigration, and a global economic meltdown, Canada could sure use an ally in the United States.

Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s minority Conservative government, Canada’s economy has endured the global economic crash with less damage and is recovering faster than any other G8/G20 nation.

But all of that could be for naught depending on the election outcome.

In a minority situation, the opposition parties have a larger number of combined seats than the sitting government, which makes it a tenuous situation. Harper deserves credit for keeping his party in power as long as he did – longer than any minority government in our nation’s history – given the fact the other three national parties are all on the political left.

So far, the campaign has been the usual list of promises and soundbites. Promises of more jobs, a stable economy, more money to health care and education fill the platforms of all parties involved.

There is one policy put forth by the left wing parties, however, that could potentially devastate the Canadian economy. It’s repercussions would spill over the border and leave it’s mark on our neighbor to the south.

I’m sure Americans are familiar with the concept of Cap and Trade. Both the small ‘l’ Liberals and the far-left socialist New Democrats have versions of it in their respective platforms.

Basically, it amounts to more and higher taxes on our energy sector by having the federal government assume greater control. It would directly impact the jewel of Canada’s oil industry: the Alberta oil sands.

At a time when the United States is looking for reliable sources of oil and natural gas that don’t involve dealing with terror-sponsoring nations, the enviroNazi-vilified oil sands is a sound and ethical source of black gold from America’s closest ally and neighbor.

When you cut through the Greenpeace hysteria and lies you will find the most safe, secure and abundant source of crude.

If Canadians decide to lean to the left, that well could dry up quickly. Not only would that put the U.S. in a position of having to continue its dealings with unsavory nations, but the economic ramifications of such a mistake would surely impact the entire North American economy.

The truth is, Canada has tried this before. In the late 1970′s, quasi-communist P.M. Pierre Trudeau believe the best way to deal with a floundering economy was to nationalize our oil industry with something called the National Energy Program. In reality, it was nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt by Ottawa to raid Alberta’s economy. It was a program of wealth distribution, plain and simple.

Not only did the NEP turn out to be the expected failure, it destroyed the Albertan economy to the point that it took the oil-producing province more than a decade of tough cuts and rollbacks to recover. The negative impact hit other regions of Canada as well, as most of the nation’s revered social programs were funded by Western Canada’s oil revenues.

Fast forward to today, and we see the Liberals have not learned from their past mistakes and are proposing what amounts to be the NEP II. This time the left’s favorite excuse for everything they do, the environment, is the explanation.

May 2nd is election day. The failure of Canadians to return Stephen Harper’s Conservatives to power with a majority could very well signal the beginning of another disastrous attack on Alberta.
With the economies of our two nations so deeply intertwined, the shock-waves would reach all the way to Washington D.C.

www.themoderateseparatist.com

Time is a factor, as the initial sting has subsided. A lack of any major follow-up on American soil has contributed to a dangerously false sense of security mixed with declining interest. Homeland Security and the other agencies are doing their job, so we don’t have to worry.

Watching a president refusing to even acknowledge the existence of the war, while simultaneously apologize to some of the very people we are at war with didn’t help, either.

Some analysts have said recently that the likelihood of an imminent terrorist attack on North American soil had decreased due to the revolutions sweeping the Middle East and North Africa. They believe radical Islamic groups are too busy with their involvement in that situation to undertake another meaningful strike across the ocean.

This doesn’t take into account the very real and growing threat of home-grown attacks by cells already located here. On any given day one can look at the back pages of their newspaper for the undersized, three line blurb about another traffic stop that yielded a surprise cache of chemicals or other various bomb-related items.

If there were to be a strike, wouldn’t it make sense that it happen when the targets least expect?

That would seem logical. Also logical would be to assume that al Qaeda has continued to evolve and use ‘outside the box’ thinking. They know that while all of the changes in security policies and procedures implemented since 9/11 haven’t been perfect (TSA), it has become increasingly difficult to execute a large-scale attack.

With the price of oil certain to rise and the global economic situation as volatile as ever, one could expect our energy infrastructure to be a prime target. That kind of blow to the economy could be devastating.

So, how could terrorists launch an attack that would inflict damage on the American economy without having to worry about heightened U.S. security? Hello, Canada.

It has been much discussed by Canadian security experts and political pundits that there are two main areas we have to pay attention to: Alberta and Quebec.

An attack in Alberta, with its oil sands, refineries, pipelines, etc., would immediately impact that U.S. economy. Their most reliable source of foreign oil would be hampered.

In Quebec, a hit to their massive hydro system would also create major problems for both countries, affecting millions.

Ultimately, terrorists could attack and cripple the American economy without even having to set foot on U.S. soil.

So the question becomes, how secure are facilities in these provinces? We can assume our national security agency CSIS is taking care of things. But when you have been witness to this, you don’t maintain complete confidence.

Hopefully it won’t take something as horrible as another attack for people to realise nothing has changed. We are still vulnerable, the threat remains as it has for a decade.

As one security expert said recently: “Canadians are blissfully naive about the likelihood of a terror attack on their soil, and the cataclysmic repercussions which would result.”

“It truly is a question of when, not if.”

I am all for the concept of an open and safe border between the world’s two most peaceful allies, and have long been in favor of the implementation of any strategy that will make our homeland safer.

There are other policies that would need to be in place alongside in order for this to be effective, such as an overhaul of Canada’s immigration and refugee laws. That in itself would be a tough sell.



Obama and Harper

But the main reason Canada should hold off for a while has less to do with domestic issues and more to do with our neighbors to the south.



The problem right now is timing.


The fact is, many Canadians have joined others from the free world in losing a little confidence in our American friends.

The slip in faith isn’t in the American people, but in its current administration.

We watched as President Obama apologized to the enemy. We have witnessed his attempt to whitewash history and blur accuracy, refusing to call the enemy the enemy. We have seen Obama’s America turn terrorists into mere criminals.

He even defended the 9/11 victory mosque on Ground Zero.

The once unthinkable has indeed happened as the U.S. has loosened its traditionally strong ties with Israel, to the point where the world now sees Stephen Harper’s Canada as the Jewish state’s best friend and defender in the West.

To put it directly, we don’t trust the current president to act sincerely and with honest motivation when it comes to the security of our continent.

One only need look at America’s southern border and how Obama has fumbled and bumbled along. He seemed to spend more time and put more effort into fighting Arizona’s laws than protecting Americans who live near the Mexican line.

As a free-trader, I believe our two nations should continue to work together to improve and increase safe trade avenues.

But until the United States has a president who is a little more convincing to America’s allies, and a little less contrite to our enemies, we’ll take a rain check.

You created me as a straight-talking free thinker, and it is in this manner that I pray.

As mankind marks another solemn anniversary of that dark day, I find myself an observer to troubling circumstances which I fear will continue the current dangerous path Your creation has chosen.

I pray that those who are fortunate enough to live in the free nations of the world, yet have allowed themselves to be swayed into the belief of appeasement and the blinds of denial, come to understand the truth. The enemy has long maintained that the United States would be destroyed ‘from the inside’, not necessarily through violence but through naivety and gullibility.

Today we see millions of Americans who have purposely blinded themselves to the reality of the current danger to our way of life. Political correctness, leaders who choose to promote trendy concepts and flavor-of-the-month public opinions, the naïve culture of unquestioned acceptance, the loss of morality – all have resulted in a complacent and endangered Free World.

Lord, I pray that next year there are more documentaries about the truth of radical Islam and the events of 9/11, and fewer ‘documentaries’ which create mind-poisoning conspiracy theories and untruths for entertainment. It is the ultimate insult to the survivors and to the families of the victims of that day.

I pray for the millions of Muslims who now find themselves in a divided religion; those of strong faith and do not support the ones who perpetrate acts of mass murder in the name of Allah. They know the terrorists are not true Muslims; they know that those who dare to proclaim the killing of innocent men, women, and children as a ‘Holy act’ are liars.

May they find the strength and the courage to overcome their understandable fear of reprisal and rise up against those who continue to desecrate their religion.

Lord, I pray for those followers of Islam who have been duped into believing lies. I pray for those who would commit acts of terror; those who have been convinced of the false belief that a true God would ask His children to devalue their lives so as to see their bodies as nothing more than vessels to be destroyed in the hopes of ending the lives of others.

“Convert or die” is their mantra. How deliciously ironic it would be for Your love to find its way into their hearts.

I ask that your Hand be upon those who continue to defend us from the threat. I pray for the safety of the many men and women from Canada, the United States, and the other nations of the Coalition in places like Afghanistan. Please watch over these brave soldiers as they continue to fight a war which has the possibility, thanks in part to the mistakes, selfishness, and ill-conceived decisions by our leaders, of lasting far longer and causing a much larger loss of live than absolutely necessary.

Finally, my Lord, I pray for the souls of those who came home on September 11, 2001: The innocent civilians in the Twin Towers; the emergency responders who courageously ran towards the danger and sacrificed their lives in the attempt of saving others; the passengers on the planes that were morphed into flying missiles; the heroes of Flight 93 who thwarted the plans of the terrorist hijackers. May their sacrifice be remembered.

After nine years may we finally learn the lesson of 9/11.

Amen.

The ruling Conservatives – yes, contrary to popular belief, rightwing governments do get elected in Canada from time to time – are celebrating their fourth year of minority rule. Some of our finest past and present Members of Parliament on the government side are celebrating more *sniff* than others, it *sniff* would seem…

We are also getting close to our self-imposed Afghanistan withdrawal date of 2011, which I am more than sad to say is supported by a majority of my fellow citizens, according to some polls. I know what you’re thinking: who puts a time-limit on a war? Who gives the enemy such a free slice of inspiration?

What country would send its troops (an ongoing debate, given how we have painted ourselves as ‘peace-keepers, not warriors’ over the past half-century) to a foreign land and take on the new global threat on the front lines, only to call ‘time’s up’?

What nation would allow its military men and women – one of the highest per-capita as far as Allied nations participating in the War on Terror goes – to die in the name of fighting terror and saving the future of a foreign culture, only to have their sacrifice ultimately mean nothing after a certain day?

Oh, right. Iraq. Sorry.

Still on Afghanistan, a story that really isn’t is playing out. The government has refused to release classified documents regarding the possibility that some prisoners who were transferred from Canadian to Afghani custody were tortured, and allegations that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Tory government were aware, to members of the opposition parties.

By now the buzz is such that if Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff does get to see them behind closed doors, he must claim some sort of malfeasance on the part of the Tories, or he will go down in our political history as the Former Harvard Professor Who Cried Wolf.

By the way, after he loses the next election, feel free to take Ignatieff back.

Anyway, even with all of this going on, some of us have been watching your scene with interest.

So, how’s that Change thing going for you? Jeez, we can only imagine the odd sound when millions of Americans slapped foreheads in a collective ‘whoops!’

Look, we dig the whole ‘first’ this and ‘first’ that. You folks thought it would be cool to have a Black president. We’ve had a woman P.M. (Don’t ask how that went.)

But has America become so politically polarized since 2000 that quality as a requirement has been lost on both sides of the fence? It seems to be but one of the many divisive issues down there.

I see the after-effects of the Slick Willie years are there for all to see. Clinton’s ability to strip the Oval Office of morals, his success in lowering the bar of standards you (and the world) forever see in the Office of the President of the United States of America was on display with Obama’s flippant ‘tea-baggers’ comment.

To see a president of your country so openly and willingly turn up his nose at millions of his own citizens is quite unique. What’s more, for that group of people to consist not of radicals or overtly subversive anti-American elements but of your senior citizens, clergy, youth, small business owners, and other so-called ‘average Americans’ whose message is nothing more outrageous than your own Constitution, well…that does make some of us wonder what is going on.

Regarding your government’s new habit of becoming business owners, it makes some of us wonder if the warnings that we have been shouting for decades were all for naught.
Canadians have a long history of being owners of our own television station, rail lines, etc. So-called federal government-owned Crown Corporations have been the high-tax wolf in ‘it’s our culture’ clothing for a long time, and no good has come from it.

I don’t want to tell you folks how to live, and I never thought that I, a Canadian, would have to inform America of this, but: SOCIALISM DOES NOT WORK. Stop what you’re doing. Don’t do it. Halt!

Take it from someone who knows: once you go down that path, the best you can hope for is a Conservative/Republican government that must rule from the left just to stay in power.

And that ain’t pretty, my friends.

http://www.themoderateseparatist.com/

I should note: I have had to take some meds and have a little nap after realizing that I agreed with Hillary on something. Between that and finding one common-ground issue with Obama – Afghanistan – perhaps it’s time to call my therapist…

Leading a precarious second minority government, Harper has seen support for the role of our military in the war-torn nation fall steadily. Pressured by opposition parties and the public, the Conservative government made the flawed decision to announce the end of Canada’s military participation in 2011.

The work of our Armed Forces in Afghanistan – including taking the lead role in battling the Taliban and al-Qaeda when American focus was primarily on Iraq – has given our nation a sense of public pride for our military not felt in years.

Now that the U.S. is ending it’s time in Iraq (in such a way as to ensure mass chaos) and zeroing in on Afghanistan, the Canadian P.M. must feel stuck. Viewed as fairly pro-American (as all right-wingers are painted in Canada) and pro-War on Terror, Harper doesn’t want to lose his (final?) chance at achieving the first Conservative majority government since the Brian Mulroney 1980’s.

I would guess he would love nothing more than to keep Canadian troops front and center past the 2011 deadline. Harper understands the sacrifice the nation has made, and he also understands that the fight against terrorism can’t be won by gun alone.

But there is a vital military component the path to victory in Afghanistan, one that Canada has excelled in since our Joint Task Force 2 Special Forces Unit arrived right after 9/11, followed in 2002 by our first of many thousands of troops on the ground, a battle group from 3rd battalion PPCLI.

Canadian forces have focused on more than just fighting the Taliban. Our troops have worked tirelessly at the reconstruction side. Infrastructure of all kinds have been built – then destroyed – then rebuilt, sometimes over and over.

The absence of Canadian troops will be noticed. Imperative work that has begun will not be finished. We will be leaving before the job is done.

To the terrorists, we will have been defeated. They may even feel embolden to attack us on our own soil.

So there is Stephen Harper’s quandary: keep to the 2011 deadline – and live the next year fighting an enemy who knows you are running away – and be safe in his job, or do what is fundamentally right – and put his neck on the line and his political future in jeopardy – by abandoning the defective ‘war with a time limit’ concept and renewing our commitment to NATO and to the War on Terror.

Perhaps his answer is in the words of Winston Churchill:

“It’s not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what’s required.”