The war in Afghanistan at home
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.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:45 am
You’re absolutely right — apart from members of the Armed Forces and their loved ones, the Canadian people haven’t been asked to sacrifice, but you can be sure that if we were you would see a huge change in public opinion. It’s very easy for the Chicken-Hawks among us (and in our government) to support this “war” (and claim to be supporting the troops by doing so), because they have nothing to lose, and they lack the empathy to feel for those who do.
And it’s these people that give our so-called leaders the political backbone to act so spineless.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
This comment is not in relation to the subject post… its about your show this morning and the restaurant owner in Toronto being screwed over by that spiteful pot-smoking guy.
There is no way that his rights were being infringed upon by the owner requesting him to move away from the front of the restaurant. It’s not like the owner followed him home or to his car and kept him from smoking pot there. Common courtesy would dictate that you would move away from the door if someone asked you to. It’s not infringing upon his (the smokers) rights and I hope that once this case is settled in the restaurant owners favour, he counter sues the pot smoking fellow for all associated costs.
It’s disgusting that this would even go to court. Just becuase the pot smoking guy is trying to prove a point out of spite. It has nothing to do with his rights because they were not taken away. The more I type the angrier I get … so I’ll stop. You get my point.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Pot Smoker! I agree as well Andrew. Common courtesy and Common Sense would say to take your pot else where. As some of your callers mentioned today, Was it neccessary he had to smoke up at that presise moment.Come on! I can’t handle the smell of ANY ! smoke and I have a hard time breathing even the smell of it on someones clothes.
Now here is my rant! I listen to your show every day. I think it is Awesome. I love it especially when it is heated. Actually there are a few of us at my place of work that do. Then we continue the disgussion at our lunch break. Unfortunately we are unable to call in and give you our rants or opionions. Therefore we are not elligible to win the Coveted prizes ie: Richard Z’s weather book. (hint hint) Maybe you could offer something to your bloggers? That way you may even see an increase of rants and replies on your blog site. Just a suggestion!
February 10th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Hi Andrew,
It seems to me that what we are doing in there is like having a high balance on a credit card and making the minimum payment. It will never be paid off or mission completed!! It does, however, passify us that we are doing something with a lack of vision for any greater future planning. Whatever happened to having clear objectives and a clear exit strategy or the “Colin Powel Doctrine” Lets open our Eyes! This is a Country that has no idea what Democracy is. It will take many Generations to instill these ideals. Are we prepared to continue what we are doing for the next hundred years (watching bodies return home in body bags) or can we think outside of the box. Lets get rid of the “tunnel vision” and use our intellect. Afganistan needs a “Wise Uncle” lets wise up!!
February 10th, 2008 at 11:44 am
I like the fact you didn’t capitalize the word “war” in your title; as you stated war has never been declared.
In World War II my father and three uncles served in active duty abroad and my mother served in a domestic role with the RCAF. This was supposed to be the “War to End All Wars” and for many years my father marched in Remembrance Day Parades with the phrase “Lest We Forget” in mind. He never, ever spoke of his time in the War other than to say he did what he had to do. The look in his eyes when he said that has never left me.
On another topic:
How on earth are we ever going to convince people away from gas guzzling, fossil fueled SUVs and their like when suggesting a reduction in the use of plastic bags creates such an uproar with you and most of your callers?
You said there isn’t a person in the Maritimes that is not affected by the elimination of plastic grocery bags; well, you just found one. I have been using canvas bags for over 10 years and it’s only been in the past year or so I’ve convinced the check-out clerks not to put my items in plastic bags before they put them in my bags. Yes, they get dirty but sturdy canvas washes well – just throw them in with the towels.
On your show you suggested this issue could:
1) bring about the end of civilization as we know it
2) cause marriages to break up
As for the first, I think plastic bags are way down on the list when it comes to causes for our demise. Secondly, if ones marriage is in such a state that it would crumble over an argument about plastic bags it certainly isn’t on sturdy ground in the first place.
I know I’m paying for the plastic bags in the cost of my groceries but I can feel I’m not contributing to a landfill with something I used for about 45 minutes.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Afghanistan and Vietnam are not comparable.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Well, to be honest about the situation, it’s turned from a peacekeeping mission into a “let’s go over there and see what we can control.” We are there to back the Americans, and if we back out, all the Americans will say is we are unpatriotic to our cause and pro-terrorism. You can’t go into a country, help them out, leave them to fend for themselves, being there only makes it worse.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:03 am
This was never a peacekeeping mission Edward. It was a war mission to drive the Taliban and al-Qaeda out initially. Now it is a mission to maintain security, train the ANA and ANP and conduct some aid such as reconstruction, clean water, medical facilities etc. We have already saved the lives of thousands of children simply by providing them with vaccinations.
February 13th, 2008 at 8:28 am
As a soldier, having recently returned from seven months in Afghanistan, I am amazed at the widespread misconception that some/many/most Canadians have about the mission. Some of the comments here (including your own, Mr. Krystal) underline these misconceptions. To wit:
- “front line” - The ENTIRE COUNTRY is the “front line”. We DO NOT do the ‘training’ and ‘development’ portion in a ’safe’ rear area; these things happen on the SAME ground where insurgents operate. The Canadian Battle Group (about 1000 sharp-end troops) – responsible for the ‘combat mission’ (about which there is SO much hand-wrining) – provides the security for our ‘trainers’ and ‘developers’ to do their job. The risk, as I see it, is who will provide this security once the the Canadian Battle Group leaves? An end to the security portion will NOT mean an end to casualties. In fact, our ‘trainers’ and ‘development’ folks will be at GREATER RISK without the Canadian Battle Group.
- “NATO” - This is an ISAF mission. ISAF is the convenient ‘umbrella’ underwhich we place both NATO and non-NATO countries. Many ISAF soldiers are JUNK.
- “we have done enough” - For nearly 50 YEARS, NATO criticised Canada for not carrying much of the load in Western Europe. We have only been in Khandahar Province (full-time) for TWO YEARS.
- “Hillier” - The Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) does not tell the MND or the PM what to do. The CDS advises the the MND and PM and they decide.
- “reconstruction” - Some of the damage in Khandahar Province dates back to Ghengis Khan. There is little to reconstruct. We have about 50 (not a typo) people in the PRT to do construction … in a city of 1.2 million, most without electricity or running water.
- “gung ho” - We weed out the ‘gung ho’ in a BIG hurry. We cannot afford to have ‘thrill-seekers’ in a theatre of war.
- “peacekeeping” - Simply stated, WE ARE AT A WAR. Canadians, who patted themselves on the back and grew comfortable with the idea that we are ‘peacekeepers’, need to understand that our soldiers MUST train for war. Canadians soldiers have been peaceMAKING/war fighting for nearly 80 of the last 108 years; ‘peacekeeping’ was a nice idea that was in vogue for about the other 30 years (1957 to 1990).
The Canadian military is suffering from myopic decisions dating back 40 years (or perhaps longer). Certainly decisions in the 1990s have created chronic problems today, but these decisions were made according to the fickle whim of the populace. It was not ‘popular’ to be in uniform in the 90s (little wonder that 2005 was the Year of the Veteran – the 60th anniversary of VE Day – vice the more logical 1995 – the 50th). Today, the breeze of the national worry seems to blow in the direction of ‘bring our troops home’. I believe we will look back on this with the same derision we visit upon decisions made in the 90s.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Andrew K:
I think the “battle” between Hillary and Obama is a staged media distraction so that McCain can be installed into the White House by the same financial/military powers that installed Bush II.
McCain will be the President only because he is the only candidate likely to support the ongoing war-stance of the American empire — remember, there has NEVER been an American President not in a war.
Hillary and Obama are just there to make it look like a real contest, and keep the focus off the real story — which should have been “What went on at the White House today Mar 5 when McCain was invited there by Bush II?”
It doesn’t MATTER whether it’s McCain vs. Obama or McCain vs. Hillary — it will be McCain anyway.
Love your show.
Neil