Maritime Morning - Andrew Krystal

Here’s the simple test: would you sacrifice your own son or daughter in
Afghanistan?

Don’t say, that you would send the army and, after all, they are all volunteers. Volunteers don’t want to die anymore than you do. Yes, there are some in the forces that like “the action” but most are just doing a job. They want to go home to their kids, wives/husbands, homes, and pensions. I would even venture to say that after the first taste of combat, or a close call, most soldiers are scared and/or deeply anxiety filled. The thrill of battle wears off quickly — even with the most gung-ho.

Ideas (including the idea of combat) often seem sexier in the abstract than when you really do it – something about that thing called reality: reality sweats, bleeds, cries and feels pain. Flesh and blood, and ideas, abstract notions/fantasies, often clash. Reality has other eyes — real eyes —  looking at you in the face and judging you.

On the battlefield even the dead look back at you.

The entire debate regarding Canada’s role in Afghanistan, and whether to extend it or not past our NATO 2009 commitment is predicated on the idea of sacrificing others — dying in the abstract. Only when it is your loved one whose life is on the line does it become personal; only when it is personal does it count, does it cost you. Afghanistan doesn’t cost either Stephen Harper, or former Deputy PM John Manley, or even Defense Chief Hillier, a thing.

Former U.S. Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell was always war-averse (the same with former Vietnam vet and current Republican front-runner John McCain) because these people knew, and know, war. They do not want to be involved in counter-insurgency or what is called “asymmetrical” warfare because it is not what we do best. Moreover, the “Powell Doctrine” espoused the doctrine of overwhelming force in the application of “Air land battle” as a means of reducing casualties. War would be short, brief, brutal – not a Vietnam.

George W. Bush, who ran away during the Vietnam era and hid behind Daddy, thinks nothing of throwing the dice with other people’s sons. Stephen Harper, and former Liberal Deputy PM John Manley, and even, I would argue, Defense Chief Hillier, like the bloodless idea of keeping us fighting in Afghanistan past our 2009 expiry date.

What I find unusual and callous in the case of Hillier is that he is supposed to be a soldier, not what is referred to as a “candy-ass civvie”–  he is supposed to be one of them, but he maintains civilian instincts. Hillier is, and has become, far less a General and more of a military/political operative who shines in the limelight, who seeks the stage in the manner of a narcissist, a Prima Donna, a “dandy” who loves the attention and power. 

Let us remember that Afhganistan is not WW2. If Afghanistan is such a vital threat let us declare war then and have conscription. Otherwise, we have done enough dirty work and we have lived up to our NATO obligations.

For God’s sake, why continue in a combat role after 2009? Will our 2,000 troops really  make the difference in the reformation of Afghanistan? What nonsense. Is keeping them there longer going to make it all better in Afghanistan? No. The Taliban are stronger now than they were 5 years ago. But no one will tell you that. 

The truth hurts. Reality hurts. But not for Hillier, and Harper, and Manley.

And Hillier loves to talk tough — especially on base with a coffee or on patrol in Ottawa.

Just like those candy-ass Civvies.