CANADA'S VERY OWN BEST AND BRIGHTEST HAWK: CHRIS ALEXANDER

I happened to watch a CBC interview last night with Chris Alexander. In case any of you don’t know who he is, he was Canada’s first ambassador to Afghanistan appointed after the fall of the Taliban government. Alexander took the job in August 2003 at the tender age of 35 and held it until October 2005. Doing the math, I presume he was born around 1968 (I’m not exactly sure of the date as he has not been around long enough to have his vital statistics posted on Wikipedia).

In any event, 1968 is the same year that Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated, that Pierre Trudeau became Prime Minister, that Lyndon Johnson stepped down as President, and that Richard Nixon was elected President. The Viet Nam war which began in 1959 - a full 9 years before Alexander was born - was in full throttle in 1968 and would continue for another seven years until 1975. The American administration was up to its neck in the war as it blindly embraced the now-debunked domino theory as the basis of its policy of containment against the spread of communism. The American people finally turned against the war prompting Congress to stop direct U.S. military involvement by August 1973. By the time the war was over in 1975 – former Ambassador Alexander was 7 at the time - it is estimated that between three and four million Vietnamese had perished in the conflict, as well as 1.5 to 2 million Laotians and Cambodians and almost 60,000 Americans.

I was reminded of Viet Nam as I watched the Alexander interview. I also reflected on David Halberstam’s outstanding chronicle of the war and the mistakes that led to it and prolonged it - The Best and the Brightest. Halberstam painted a picture of how bold, intelligent, and youthful men of brilliant academic achievement and with careers marked by success after success could be so blinded to the real world that they could lead their great nation and together with several others into an tragic international catastrophe causing the deaths of millions, and in the end to have accomplished nothing.

Surely, ex-Ambassador Alexander is one of our best and brightest. Consider this: he has a BA in history and politics from McGill, and an MA in philosophy, politics and economics from Balliol College at Oxford. In 2005 he was chosen as a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. He joined the Canadian foreign service back in 1991 and has done two three-year stints at the Canadian Embassy in Moscow, one as Second Secretary and another as Minister Counsellor. Back in Ottawa he was Deputy Director in the foreign affairs department responsible for bilateral relations with Russia, as well as an Assistant to the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. After his time was up as Ambassador he became Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary General in Afghanistan, a post he held from December 2005 to May 2009. Yes, Alexander is one of Canada's best and brightest.

Like the young men Halberstam wrote about in his book, on his war in Afghanistan Alexander is a hawk. He wants more international troops on the ground and he wants to attack militant targets in Pakistan. He believes that even though the situation is getting more unstable the problems are not insurmountable and that more troops are part of the solution. He believes that NATO troops should be present everywhere that the enemy wants to be present and that progress must be made on the military front or development goals will continue to slip. As Halberstam described bright older figures seeking the counsel of the bright young men that he wrote about, so do bright older figures like Richard Holbrooke U.S. Special envoy to the region and Kai Eide the top UN official in Afghanistan regularly seek Alexander’s advice. Alexander also believes that although there was voter fraud in the recent election, it did not affect the result.

Sound familiar? It does to me. It is the Best and the Brightest all over again. After 8 years of war and the sacrifice of lives and treasure, the show must go on. The historian does not mention history. He does not mention our sacrifice. He does not mention the defeats of the forces of the British Empire. He does not mention the Russian nightmare. Like the best and the brightest of Halberstam’s world, Alexander believes that all we have to do is more and just let he and his brainy pals do the planning.

One further thing about Alexander. While he served as Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary General in Afghanistan, he was responsible for political affairs, including international support for political outreach, elections, disarmament, governance, regional cooperation, the rule of law and police reform as well as cooperation with the International Security Force. In fact, on Alexander's watch the political situation has deteriorated, international support is feeble, disarmament but a pipe dream, governance is corrupt and invisible, regional cooperation a concept known only to the war lords, and the rule of law and police reform being reflected by the heroin crop and torture. Alas, this Canadian wunderkind’s report card is not impressive.

Alexander has just announced his candidacy for the Conservative nomination for the riding of Ajax-Pickering for the next federal election.

HILLARY CLINTON AND THE CRAZY AUNT IN THE ATTIC

I only know Hillary Clinton as a politician. I like her. I respect her fighting spirit and loyalty. I share her values that focus on concern for the underdog and the poor. Although some male neanderthals find her shrill, I love her feisty and articulate presentation. She is honest and - a rarity among politicians - outspoken. And she is smart. She would make a great President of the United States.

As I see it, all of her many qualities converged during this year's exciting Democratic Primary campaign season. But it has been a tough campaign. With Barack Obama, she is up against an equally smart and articulate younger man. He has the added advantage of not having to carry the usual baggage accumulated by politicians who have been around for awhile.

Obama is the new kid on the block. Hillary is the battle scarred veteran that people have been watching on the tube for years. After almost eight years of the worst Presidency in the history of the United States, the American people are yearning for change. There is a sense that Obama will more likely be the agent of change. And so, despite her skills and drive, Hillary is in trouble.

Indeed, according to the delegate count, Obama has already won the nomination. The talking heads, two-bit pundits, and party hacks are demanding - in the interests of party unity - that Hillary toss in the towel and publicly concede defeat. They warn that if she stays in the race and fights down to the wire towards the August Democratic convention, the Party may split into hostile factions, making it easier for the Republicans to retain the White House.

Ah, but she battles on. Speeches, debates, perpetual travel, massive campaign expenses and debt - nothing deters her. It is an altogether heroic performance.

Why does she continue in the face of now almost impossible odds? Because she knows - as every American in their heart knows - that anything can happen in a U.S. Presdential campaign. Indeed, anything can happen in the U.S. political process which can immediately, violently and permanently change the course of history. To any observer of the passing political parade in the United States, that is the crazy aunt in the attic, the elephant in the room, the sum of all fears.

The very tough Clinton and Obama campaigns have reminded all but the densest of human beings of the dark moments of recent American political history when shadowy and violent madmen or conspirators have dramatically changed or tried to change the course of events with the gentle squeeze of a trigger. The dangers are compounded during times of emotion-charged political upheavels, when charismatic men and women fight to lead the masses, each enlisting millions to fight on opposite sides in the conflict. Indeed, anything can happen. And we've seen it.

On May 23 during a meeting with the editorial board of the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader, during a discussion as to why she should stay in the race, Clinton said, "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somehere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California, I don't understand it."

You can see the video here:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/23/clinton-kennedy-assassina_n_103319.html

She has faced a volley of criticism for her remarks. She has issued an apology

Clearly her words were impolitic and probably damaging to her. But consistent with her political record, they were honest. The words that slipped from her mouth have been on the minds of every political observer of this election. Yes, assassination is clearly not outside of the realm of possibility in a contest that features a charismatic black man against a charismatic white woman both of whom are obvious agents of real change and either of whom is likely to be elected the next President of the United States. With the exception of some of the events of the sixties, I can't think of an American political situation in the last fifty years that is more explosive and conducive to the incitement of crazies or conspirators to do bad things.

Yes, it is true, between now and August, anything can happen. And people should not be too critical that Hillary had the guts to say so.