- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
LFP,
Don't know where the line "And so it starts comes from"? If you read the article it points out that: "Costall is the 12th Canadian to die in Afghanistan since 2002 -- 11 soldiers and one Canadian diplomat, Glyn Berry."
It started in 2002 and sadly Pte Costall won't be the last. But when push comes to shove you have to look to the people who are putting their lives on the line for the cause and as Ellen Pinchuk reported: "all the soldiers that we've spoken to say this will not shake their resolve, they realise they are not just here for peace keeping."
The men and women on the front lines see what good they are doing and continue to feel the risk is worth the reward....and that is why we who are safe at home should continue to offer our best wishes and support. They honour us with their sacrifice.
You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. "Active combat" as referred to by Willi Nilly is what I firmly believe our Canadian military and Government should not be engaged in. History clearly shows us how Western countries so easily get bogged down, in for lack of better words third world countries, when we get involved in the gung ho battle mentality with a holier than thou justification of our so called noble motives. I believe that Canadians who are probably evenly split on this issue now will increasingly and more vocally question the loss of our sons and daughters in a remote country on the other side of the world. I for one don't agree with imposing our will and morals militarily and forcibly on another Country. This has rarely or ever been successful. Our Canadian Leaders will not win Nobel Peace Prizes like Pearson did for the Afghanistan WAR mission. Lets be frank this is a war. This has not been the Canadian way. This is not my Canada.
I agree wholeheartedly that each of us is entitled to an opinion and I hope I haven’t belittled yours in any way. While I hope I haven’t belittled your opinion I strongly disagree with it. You seem to imply that because Afghanistan is “a remote country on the other side of the world” that we shouldn’t be concerned. The problem is that the world is a much smaller place these days and there simply aren’t that many “remote countr[ies] on the other side of the world” that we can safely ignore. Afghanistan was the training ground and incubator for a group that had as its aim the destruction of the Western way of life and the resurgence of the Caliphate, it was one of the most oppressive regimes in the world even going so far as to ban girls from schooling and is the primary source of the heroin that is the scourge of our downtown east side. More Canadians have died from Afghan heroin than in combat over there and more Canadians died in the World Trade Center than have died in Afghanistan. The world was pretty much united in agreement that the Taliban had to be overthrown and now NATO and the UNITED NATIONS are trying to help build back the infrastructure (political, military and economic). Canada has decided that it has a moral duty to be part of that duty.
The problem with Afghanistan is that people want to lump it in with Iraq as “one of George Bush’s wars”. Well you know what, it is a just cause and one that we were right to go into when the Liberal government sent in our troops and right to stay with now that we have a Conservative government. I can understand your point of view if you say that Canada should not be involved in any Peacekeeping, that is a perfectly logical view of a pacifist. What I don’t understand is the view that Peacekeepers should only be sent to places that are safe and quiet.
As to this being a war, I am not sure where that is coming from. Certainly battles will be fought, but that is not unexpected in a peacekeeping mission and certainly doesn’t meet the definition of a war??? What confuses me is that I don’t remember this backlash when Canadian Peacemakers were fighting battles in Kosovo (you may want to look up Medak pocket). Canadians have been fighting and dying in Peacekeeping missions since their inception. We seem to forget that peacekeeping is done by warriors for a reason, because it is a dangerous thing!! Active combat has always been a consideration and often an integral part of Peacekeeping. The reason you arm Peacekeepers is so that they form a credible threat, and if you send armed men and women into a combat zone you have to be prepared for them to go into combat. If you are wondering check out http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/...es/
peacecas.htm for a list of casualties, you may be surprised at how many men didn’t come home from peacekeeping.
Finally you end with the point “This has not been the Canadian way. This is not my Canada”. While in your opinion this may not be your Canada, history has shown that it IS CERTAINLY the Canadian way. Canadians have been at the forefront of virtually every major battle to stop oppression since confederation. It has been argued that the Canadian identity was finally crystallized in the blood of Canadian soldiers at Vimy Ridge. That Canadians have fought and died in the cause of freedom is a fact. Historical myopia is a horrible disease that seems to afflict far too many in this modern age of 24 hour news cycles. We forget our history, our traditions and the sacrifices that were made to get us where we are today. While you may not like this current conflict, it is in keeping with a long, proud tradition of the strong protecting the weak for which Canadians should rightly be proud.
So, Blair provide a list of all oppressive countries in the world and lets take military action in all of them, or is Afghanistan the worst oppressive in your mind right now? You realize that the list would be extensive. Secondly are there non military options to reform oppressive states? Thirdly why is it suddenly in your opinion that we should be mirroring the American diplomacy..ergo none to little and military as best option.
LFP,
To take your question in order:
1) What a crass response, are you suggesting that we should either solve all problems or none? At the time Afghanistan was the one that posed the biggest threat to world peace and stability and had the benefit of being doable. To follow your logic maybe we should shut down all the cancer clinics because we can’t cure all cancer, or close the soup kitchens because we can’t feed every hungry person. It has been said that “we do what we can, and we do what we must”. As for your rather specious question if I were dictator of the world for a day, well then Darfur, the Congo and North Korea would be on the top of my list. For we little guys with smaller militaries I’d also throw in Haiti.
2) Non-military responses are possible but have shown themselves to be limited. They worked in South Africa (but took years) but in other places they have been a spectacular failure, look how effectively the UN oil-for-palaces program worked to keep Saddaam Hussein down, and all that isolation in North Korea has done is to starve a generation of children and allow an absolute dictator to turn himself into a demigod at his people’s expense. Essentially non-military responses only work in societies that are sufficiently free to allow dissent to spread and in which the political/ruling class (elite/clique) cares somewhat about the common man. In countries where the leaders see the populace as simply fodder economic sanctions have virtually no effect. Especially since it has been demonstrated to be virtually impossible to get uniform compliance with the sanctions (i.e the oil-for-brand new Russian guns and out-of date French medicine program in Iraq).
3) I’m not sure what your first sentence in this last question means, I’m assuming there is a typo or missed word in there. To answer what I think is your question, Canada is not suddenly mirroring US policy in Afghanistan because Afghanistan is not US policy it is NATO policy. Canada has worked with the US (and Germany and Great Britain and...) through NATO for the last 50 years!!! The NATO alliance worked against the Soviet Union, and more recently against UN advice it sent jets and then troops to the Balkans, the result was the cessation of an attempted genocide and the workings toward peace. In 2002, following the September 11 attacks NATO decided to send troops to Afghanistan. This is not some Johnny-come-lately thing. It has been the Canadian policy to work with our NATO partners for the last HALF-CENTURY. As I wrote before, “THIS IS NOT GEORGE BUSH”S WAR”!!! Afghanistan is a NATO-sponsored activity. Germany, who argued against Iraq almost as loudly as France, has 3000 troops in Afghanistan. If memory serves Canadians took over some of their positions from the Dutch. In my view it is purely a lazy intellectual exercise to link Iraq and Afghanistan. Just because two countries are next to each other doesn’t mean that they are the same case!!!
1) I am suggesting Canada use peacefull methods first and always if possible in keeping with or worldwide reputation. Period. Your cancer and soup kitchen references are way out of line, irrelevant and absurb. Warfare, bullets and deaths by violence are totally different.
2) Military responses have a far worse track record of success.
3) We are becoming a reflection of the US Bush foreign policy. I remind you Harper once said that we should have been standing shoulder to shoulder with the US in Iraq.
End of Discussion..we agree to disagree.
LFP,
In the web site you indicate that it is time for a debate and I take you at your word. I have attempted to answer each of your questions and in doing so have reaffirmed some of my beliefs and had to re-think others. I'd like to turn the tables around a bit and ask you a couple questions.
1) Regarding your statement "first and always if possible"?? Please expand on this since the statement is not internally consistent. Either it is the first response or always a response (first, second and third response) and what defines whether it is possible? I'm sorry if my soup kitchen note seemed over the top, but the tone of your question appeared specious and I was attempting to demonstrate why.
2) Your comment regarding the military response is too broad and unsupported, please demonstrate with at least one example. My history prof would suggest that military responses have the benefit of being direct and have observable outcomes. I can think of more than a few cases where the military approach was both the most direct and the only solution. One of the most effective would be to compare Chamberlain and Churchill's approach to the rise of the National Socialist German Workers Party. More recently military action and threat of military action freed Kuwait, stopped the Croats and Serb from murdering each other and the Bosnians, convinced Quadaffi to stop trying to build nuclear arms, held the North Koreans at the 38th parallel and allowed for the growth of a free South Korea, finally stopped the killings in Rwanda (when neighbours threatened to invade)....
3) Please explain how we are making this new change because while Harper is trying to mend fences he has done very little differently than Chretien (admittedly he has been a pleasant change from Martin who poked the US in the eye every chance he got). In my opinion every now and again even George Bush gets it right, Afghanistan is one such case. Frankly, Canada has opposed Bush on almost every major foreign and bilateral policy front in the last decade (Climate Change, World Court, Land Mine Treaty, International Trade policy, Agricultural subsidies, Iraq, Cuba, Central American integration, Arctic sovereignty, missile defense....) to suggest because we don't like him that we can't agree on one front seems petulant.
Regards
Honor and respect to a fallen soldier may he rest in peace
Commenting by HaloScan
