Every so often, a publication will produce an article that is far more interesting for its online comments than for the article itself.
A recent blogpost on the Macleans Magazine website by Aaron Wherry is an interesting case of this.
In the blogpost, Wherry notes that Defense Minister Peter MacKay has declared that the government is examining all the options in terms of a possible extension of Canada's mission in Afghanistan beyond 2011. Wherry asks a simple question "what options?"
Your not-so-humble scribe decided it would be best to explain the best rationale for extending Canada's presence in Afghanistan beyond 2011 -- especially if Canadian aid workers will remain in Afghanistan beyond that date. A Canadian military presence would be necessary to protect Canadian aid workers.
The response, in terms of comment voting, is rather puzzling:
By the time the denizens of the denizens of the Macleans comment forums are finished with it, one only knows where it will wind up.
Which brings one to a startling conclusion: either the far-left denizens of the Macleans comment forums are voting down comments from individuals they judge to be too conservative, or they actually oppose the idea of Canadian troops being used to protect Canadian aid workers in a combat zone.
Neither choice seems particularly flattering. Whether the response of Macleans commenters to this notion is born of knee-jerk anti-conservatism or irresponsible foreign policy views is nearly anyone's guess.