Life-and-death decision “I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm’s way. I won’t risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary.” U.S. President Barack Obama, who is evaluating whether to alter the U.S. strategy in the war in Afghanistan, visits a naval air station in FloridaKEVIN LAMARQUE
President Obama will have a health reform act, this much seems apparent. Merits and costs will be debated loud and long, but health reform will soon leave centre stage.
For the President with a record number of "good news, bad news" mornings, the bad news in his health win, is that it renews a focus on his need to address one of the ugliest foreign policy issues in a long time: what to do about Afghanistan.
Public opinion in the U.S. reveals a nasty tangle.
People don't like the cost of the war, have dwindling confidence that it can be won, but hate the feeling that they may quit a battlefield before the job is done.
Being in Phoenix on Veteran's Day this week gave me many striking reminders of just how connected the average American feels to the sacrifice of its military personnel and the importance of its military role in the world.
Core Democrats will want an exit strategy and a focus on diplomacy, and may view a renewed or increased commitment as more evidence that he's not the man they hoped he was.
Republicans will be suspicious that if their President moves towards the exit, he lacks the innards to be leader of the free world.
As if that isn't enough to furrow a brow, add the billions in cost at a time when the economy is hurting and there are unprecedented fears that America is spending well beyond its means. Finally, the tragic murders at Fort Hood and the trial that will come will serve as a constant reminder of the need to respect the human commitment that is on the line each and every day.
Here in Canada, the mood is comparatively placid.
Canadians don't much like this war, but can live with staying a bit longer.
For the most part, people in Canada have been only moderate consumers of the facts and details of our involvement, and the costs we are bearing. We experience the pain of loss when our troops take casualties, and worry that there never seems to be any positive news out of Afghanistan. But, even if we wish it were otherwise, the war is not central to our national psyche.
There was a collective sigh of relief when President Obama replaced President Bush. Doubts about Mr. Bush's military policies were, to say the least, profound.
But any day now, Afghanistan will become Obama's war. His popularity in Canada will mean that many Canadians will be at least a little more open to revisiting our planned withdrawal, if he makes a concerted pitch for our continued participation. Is this good news or bad news for Mr. Harper?
For the moment, the federal government can defer the hypothetical "what if" questions as the world awaits the President's signal.
While he is paying no evident price in the polls, Mr. Harper's current approach may not meet everyone's expectations of leadership. He has not really talked to the nation about what business we may leave unfinished, and what that says about the costs we have borne, or will yet.
His biggest test may well lie ahead, though.
When President Obama sets out his approach, unless it is in perfect harmony with Canada's path towards withdrawal, which seems unlikely, Mr. Harper will experience a test that his predecessors Martin, Chretien, Mulroney and Trudeau all had to wrestle with: squaring a desire for close cooperation in matters economic and trade, with the pursuit of an independent policy on the central military choices of our time.
The Prime Minister's mind has, I am sure, already long since turned to this challenge. How he deals with it will be the next defining step in fleshing out for Canadians the kind of leader he is. Voters will be hoping that he considers our choices with great care, and as little partisanship as possible. If they sense he has, this may be the moment that he crosses the invisible line between politician and statesman.
Bruce Anderson