's headline is calling this article
a flip-flop on Stephen Harper's part. I don't see how.
Harper has previously stated that sending Canadian troops to Iraq would have been the right thing to do. I don't see that being taken back here, just an acknowledgment that a) doing the right thing is now likely to be immensely unpopular with voters weaned on anti-American isolationism
, and b) Canada doesn't actually have any spare forces left, after committing handfuls of troops
to existing UN and NATO missions. I mean, literally, handfuls; when the Department of National Defense has to brag about the five peacekeepers in Sierra Leone or the two in Haiti, it becomes painfully obvious what kind of small scale Canada's military has been reduced to. We couldn't have helped in any meaningful way even if Chretien hadn't been such an America-hating jackass. But is it too much to suggest that there's a right and a wrong side of things, and siding with the genocidal dictator was to Canada's eternal shame
, and Bourque