Over the past decade the political left has had a lot of trouble with the issue of terrorism. Bush’s seemingly unthinking and ideological response to Islamic fundamentalist antagonism confirmed for many on the left that the modern version of world terrorism is in fact nothing more than a reaction to the persistence of American imperialism. Imperialism in its modern form is integral to globalization and capitalist expansionism. The US and western focus on Islamic terrorism is thus credibly perceived as a continuing thread in the long history of conquest and colonialism in the Arab and South Asia regions. So the left easily falls into a set of beliefs that see colonialism, imperialism, capitalism and US hegemony as part and parcel of a quilt that explains the root causes of terrorism as we know it today. This makes terrorism in some sense excusable, but also questionnable as a real threat to peace and safety of working people.

These left views are typically informed by high level and ideological thinking. As is too often the case with ideology, the facts get short shrift in such thinking. This too often leads to a fatal flaw – the denial of facts which challenge the world view as set out by the ideology. Of course it is not just the left that is guilty of this kind of thinking. One only need to look at the economics profession and its inability to look at economic facts of late as a measure of how smart people an get captured by ideology.

However, this is not an excuse. The belief that anyone who seriously worries about the dangers of Islamic inspired terrorism is simply a tool of imperialism is a serious analytical flaw. It is fine to be skeptical of equally unbalanced ideological driven claims such as those made by Bush and his acolytes about Iraq, or those made by economists about the infallibility of markets and globalization. But to deny the reality of the al Qaeda network and its intentions is not excusable simply because others are guilty of the failures of ideology thinking. Left politics defined by a denial of the reality of terrorism is doomed.

The danger that the left cannot see and understand this is high-lighted by the apparent disappointment in Obama on this issue. Obama has always been sensitive to the fact that many of his supporters on the left hated Bush’s self declared war on terrorism. He has tried to be moderate and conciliatory. In many ways this has served him well. Relations with the Arab and Muslim world have improved. Suspicion of the US has moderated. These are good things and cannot help but to reduce tension and hostility between nations.

However, it is pretty clear that al Qaeda and its affiliates have not let up. Their belief in a war on the west has not moderated or subsided. Obama has had to make it clear that US resolve has not faltered. Over the last few days he sounds in many ways like Bush on this topic.

This is not because Obama has changed. It is because the facts tell a story of continuing al Qaeda threats. He has before him detailed and unimpeachable intelligence that tells an alarming story. Obama has no choice but to respond. To do otherwise would send the wrong message to al Qaeda, and would be a failure in carrying out his duties to safeguard American people. All pedestrian stuff to ideologues, but part of the reality of real world life and government. The left has no choice but to track and support Obama on this one. To deny the reality of al Qaeda is to deny reality. Obama must act. It will not often be pretty. More attacks will take place and more lives will be lost. Sobering but true.

The blow-up in Parliament over the testimony of a former Canadian intelligence agent in Afghanistan is fraught with errors and missed opportunities. The agent, Richard Colvin, testified that from May 2006 through to the end of 2007 he frequently informed officials and politicians that Taliban prisoners transferred by Canadian forces to Afghani jails were being tortured by their Afghan jailers. While politically dangerous for the government if not handled well, few people were particularly surprised by the testimony.

What has been surprising is the way the government and many of its critics have responded. The government appears to have been overtaken by hysteria immediately upon hearing the reports of what Colvin said. In a classic case of ill-considered political management, Ministers shrilly denounced Colvin, making him out to be an unreliable fool and liar. His character has been trashed, his motives questioned and his competence denounced. As to the substance of the charge, the strategy has been simple – deny, deny, deny. Nothing was done wrong, brave soldiers just did their jobs and it is unpatriotic to raise any questions of this sort. Even the senior military officers and the Prime Minister have leaped into the fray.

The result has been a disaster for the government. Why has the government responded the way it has? Anyone with any skill in managing difficult political issues could have see immediately that this is a losing strategy. The government should have immediately done a few basic things. First it should have given the appearance of listening to what was said and of examining the situation seriously. Second, it should have set out its narrative about the challenges of taking Taliban prisoners and jailing them in a country where the government and the justice system are fragile and underdeveloped. Third, it should never have attacked Colvin’s character and believability. No-one will side with the government in that kind of attack. Fourth, it should have left room for the fact that mistakes and screw-ups could well have occurred over that time, but that the system has been fixed and can now be relied upon. As for response style, it should be cool, not red hot; considered, not fight or flight. And the Prime Minister should never become an attack-dog in these kinds of situations. Leave that to Ministers. And they should only engage in attacks on politicians, and then only when it is credible to do so.

This government looked until this week as if it has gained some maturity and skill in handling hard political issues. All of that has been undermined in less than a week. It is amazing to watch a government make so many huge missteps in a weeks time. One wonders who is responsible for this strategy. Are there no senior people who have the power and smarts to prevent these kinds of things from happening? Is there no adult supervision in the Cabinet Office?

Meanwhile on the other side there has been a unseemly number of people lighting their hair on fire with claims that war crime charges will, or should be, proceeded with immediately. They may be right. But for the moment they way overshoot the mark with this claim. The extremity of the claim, with so little evidence yet available, is almost as off-putting as the defenses of the government. It has undermined their credibility almost as much as the government has undermined its own credibility. I have no doubt that prisoners were tortured. But we know next to nothing about the circumstances. There are any number of extenuating circumstances that make charges unlikely – the fact that these are actions of a democratic nation, the circumstances of the transfers, the environment within which they took place, are all factors . There is considerable discretion for prosecutors in such case. It is very unlikely that any Canadian is going to stand trial on this matter whatever the evidence. They may have screwed up, but it is not credible that a federal minister or Canadian General deliberately subjected prisoners to torture as a strategy. But torture is wrong. We live in a democracy that officially proscribes it. The issue must be addressed by Canadians holding the government politically accountable. Answers must be provided and if anyone is fount guilty of wrong-doing they must be dealt with through exposure and dismissal.

It is time for cooler heads to prevail. The committee should continue its work. MP’s and Cabinet, including the Prime Minister should keep cool. They should answer questions. They should avoid extreme opinions. They should not attack public officials like Mr. Colvin. He is more believable to the public than they are right now, which is always the case in these kinds of situations. They will lose that fight politically. Someone needs to tell Mr. Harper and MacKay this, since they seem not to get it themselves.

And they should prepare to open the lid on what has been happening in Afghanistan with prisoner exchanges. They should explain the challenges and difficulties. And they should be open to admitting that things have not and perhaps could not be perfect. They need to stop attacking and begin to look reasonable and responsible. Above all they need to bring the temperature a way down. When in trouble a little humility can go a long way.

A just released report from the excellent International Crisis Group (ICC) looks at the disastrous Afghanistan Presidential election and concludes that the election “delivered a critical blow to the legitimacy of both the government and the international community”. The ICC says:

“Karzai’s retaining power under these circumstances has bolstered the impression that the international community is disinterested in or incapable of checking corruption. It handed the Taliban a huge public relations victory”.

It adds that “to stem the decline in public confidence, the international community, particularly the US and the UN, must urgently put in place and vigorously support a number of key measures, including:

• restrictions on the size of the cabinet, and more importantly barring nominees with demonstrated links to armed groups or criminal activities from joining government;
• the formation of an impartial commission of inquiry to conduct a thorough public review of the 20 August 2009 elections; the National Assembly’s use of its full sanctioning powers against those suspected of abusing their offices to influence the polls; and vigorous pursuit by the attorney general and courts of criminal prosecutions of those involved in flagrant violations of the law;
• consultations among relevant Afghan and international actors to achieve consensus on immediate steps to strengthen the machinery for the 2010 elections;
• convocation of a loya jirga to undertake constitutional reform, including consultations on the role of the Supreme Court; enhancing the independence of the judiciary and legislature; and meaningfully devolving authority and resources to provincial and district levels; and
• resignation of UN Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) chief and UN Special Representative of Secretary-General Kai Eide, since he has lost the faith of many on his staff and the necessary trust of many parts of the Afghan polity, accompanied by a thorough re-evaluation of the advisory role of UNAMA’s Enhancing Legal and Electoral Capacity for Tomorrow (ELECT) program view to rebuild public support for Afghanistan’s electoral institutions and processes”.

These are absolutely essential matters for the west to respond to. Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and the US Secretary of State attended Karzai’s swearing in, in an apparent show of support for Karzai. That was disturbing because it seems to put the stamp of approval on Karzai’s election. Now President Obama is about to announce the US plan for Afghanistan going forward. It is critical that the matters raised by the Crisis Group be part of that plan.

Afghanistan is at a tipping point. A large scale expansion of military forces will not save it from disaster. Governance and development are the important things. If Karzai is permitted to continue his embrace of the criminal warlords and drug dealers, including appointing three of the most notorious warlords to his cabinet as he indicated he will do two months ago, there is no point in continuing the western presence there. If the failure to develop services, infrastructure, housing and jobs continues, the people there will see no point in maintaining the existing western supported regime. Canada has sacrificed the lives of well over a hundred smart, tough young soldiers who have served well beyond what should be expected of anyone, much less the young, with a great future ahead. It will be criminal if the ICC’s proposals are not accepted as a minimum part of the plan going forward. Stephen Harper needs to make that case with vigour, as he is entitled to do as a result of the incredible contribution of Canada over the past few years.