Toronto's decision to remove the "Support Our Troops" ribbon from EMS vehicles actually clarifies something for me. Council is afraid that supporting our troops might be confused by the public with supporting the war in Afghanistan. Heaven forbid that someone get the idea that if you support the person performing a particular job, that you also support the job they're working at.
Often we'll hear people like Jack Layton and David Miller say that they support the troops, but not the war in Afghanistan as though the two ideas were not inconsistent. Maybe it's time we stop pretending to believe them. It's one thing to have questions about the mission and how it's progressing, its end date etc. but these are guys who are ALWAYS anti-war and have always been against any military action that was not exclusively a peace-keeping mission.
I'm sorry -- but I find it difficult to believe that you can 'support the troops' but not the war. It seems like one of those mantras people recite because they don't want to be seen as being as cruel as Americans were to their soldiers during Vietnam.
How can you support the troops if you don't support their work?
Can you support Wade Belak in a hockey fight if you are against hockey fights on principle?
Can you support the Pope if you are against Roman Catholicism and what it stands for?
Can you support abortionists if you are anti-abortion?
It doesn't mean to say that anyone wishes ill-will toward Belak, the Pope, abortionists, or the troops if they don't support their work, but it stands to reason you can't support the employee if you are morally opposed to his job. You might not want him to die, but that's not the same as 'supporting' him.
Say it Mr. Mayor, Mr. Layton and all of you who have pretended to support the troops -- you think war is wrong. And if this war is wrong, so are the people who are participating in it. Just own up.
As for me, I support our troops.
canadianna
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
A picture's worth . . . ?
Regardless of political affiliation, most people say they support our troops. Personal feelings about war in general and the war in Afghanistan in particular, don't seem to factor in.
Why is it then, that Liberals are still bent on portraying our military as ominous in an effort to malign the Conservatives?
Why is it then, that Liberals are still bent on portraying our military as ominous in an effort to malign the Conservatives?
A photograph of tanks at the ready, combined with the word 'Conservative' seems to be a favourite stunt of the Liberal Party's communications staff. This image of Light Armoured Vehicles from the Liberal website, is reminiscent of the Liberal television ad yanked during the election last year. Apparently they thought they'd dust off the idea and give it new life in a different format. With so many other aspects of the Afghan mission to choose from, they have chosen one that could be seen as the most menacing. No faces, just an overpowering machine. Subtlety is obviously not their forte.
The NDP doesn't like the Conservatives any more than the Liberals do, and they like the war in Afghanistan even less. Yet the NDP website doesn't misuse the military to make a point about Harper. Their criticism of Harper's Afghan vision and visit is linked to by a photo of soldiers on the ground, with Afghan children in the background. It appears unstaged and seems unthreatening -- no attempt to draw deleterious connections or conclusions.
Maybe I'm being fussy here, but photographs are used to evoke emotion. You'd think that the Liberals would have learned their lesson and if they want to assail Harper, they'd stop using our military as their weapon of choice.
*** I've edited this post because commenters corrected me (thanks) --The photo is not of tanks, but LAVs (Light Armoured Vehicles). The visual holds the same connotation IMO.
canadianna
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Conversion Tools
Who knew that kidnapping would become an instrument of religious conversion? Imagine if they could do this on a grand scale? Too bad they didn't discover this tactic before they got the taste for blood.
One wonders which side Ms Ridley is rooting for, and should the Taliban prevail, does she plan to move to Afghanistan don the burqua and shut up?
I don't ask this because I believe she should be quiet. The woman has the right to speak -- here. It's simply an observation about the 'courteous' society whose company she enjoyed well enough to keep.
Sometimes you just have to shake your head.
One wonders which side Ms Ridley is rooting for, and should the Taliban prevail, does she plan to move to Afghanistan don the burqua and shut up?
I don't ask this because I believe she should be quiet. The woman has the right to speak -- here. It's simply an observation about the 'courteous' society whose company she enjoyed well enough to keep.
Sometimes you just have to shake your head.
** Update -- Darcey's written on this today too.
canadianna
Monday, May 21, 2007
A matter of conscience
Via Red Tory, I came across this article by Scott Taylor about the war in Afghanistan. It wasn't the article that interested me really, it was RT's assessment of it. He quotes heavily from the column which describes unspeakable methods of murder and violence used by a former Afghan warlord who is working against the Taliban and who in doing so, is on the same 'side' as Canada.
RT is shocked:
It would seem to me that we're tolerating those monsters in order to fight on behalf of a beleaguered and oppressed civilian population.
Red Tory goes on to say:
The trouble with articles like this, and more so the interpretations of people like Red Tory, is the not-so-subtle suggestion that Canadian troops are complicit in torture. They make the black and white connection between our guys handing over detainees and allegations of torture by detainees -- as though the allegations are fact, and as though abuse of detainees captured by anyone other than Canadians is simply hunky-dory. The premature and selective outrage is mind-boggling.
The 'guilt by association' nonsense denigrates our soldiers, which is a concern I've written about before. But beyond that, it pointedly excuses and ignores Western indifference during the years when the Taliban perpetrated all manner of abuse on its own dissenting citizens and particularly its systemic victimization of women, all of which took place long before this war. It also ignores the potential for a return to this regime should we pull out before stability is firmly established.
In the minds of our liberal elites, maybe that torture was okay. It wasn't our people. We knew, yet did nothing to intervene, but because we weren't there -- our hands are clean. Despite news reports coming out of Afghanistan during that time period -- we could turn a blind eye, but have a clear conscience because it wasn't our country and it wasn't our women and it had nothing to do with us.
No, I know. Human rights abuses by the Taliban are not why we went there, but now that we are there, isn't it fortunate for all those women who would otherwise be assassinated in soccer stadiums for simple indiscretions? Isn't it fortunate for all those little girls getting an education for the first time?
The holocaust is not why we entered WWII. Had it remained an internal German problem -- had there been extermination of just Germany's Jews -- we would have allowed it. We would have said that it was not our place to intervene in the domestic affairs of an autonomous country. Had Germany never crossed its own borders, WWII wouldn't have happened. The Allies could stayed at home, witnessed the barbarity and had a clear conscience because we wouldn't have been complicit in the deaths of Jews. That's obscene, but it's the logic of the Canadian left on this one.
Over at RT's they're questioning the financial cost of staying in Afghanistan, and yet they pretend that humanity is the exclusive domain of the left. Humanity is demanding that we stay and finish the job and that the preventing the suffering of civilians, and elevating their potential for a renewed society is our primary concern. It might not be why we went, but it's why we should stay.
We could leave Afghanistan now and watch from a safe distance, and we might even allow ourselves to believe that our hands remain pristine. We could smugly shrug as innocent people are tortured and murdered by their countrymen, while we stay safe in our liberal dreamworld where we'd be comforted by the 'quaint notion' that at least we aren't violating the human rights of captured Taliban fighters.
We can't solve all the world's ills or rescue all of its vulnerable people, but if we were to abandon Afghanistan now, there is no question that we would be complicit in the return to disorder which allowed the Taliban to victimize its most defenseless citizens.
canadianna
RT is shocked:
And those are the “good guys” on whose behalf we are fighting!Is that what liberals really think? That we're fighting on 'behalf' of those monsters? Linear thinking, indeed. I rather doubt that's how our soldiers see it, but then they aren't limited by piety and an insular reality.
It would seem to me that we're tolerating those monsters in order to fight on behalf of a beleaguered and oppressed civilian population.
Red Tory goes on to say:
Quaint notions of “peacekeeping” in such an environment are clearly misplaced.We were never in Afghanistan to 'peace keep'. This is a war. It was never sold as a peacekeeping mission, even by the Liberals. This 'quaint notion' is only held by those who don't keep up on current events. That any of this would come as a shock, is what's shocking.
The trouble with articles like this, and more so the interpretations of people like Red Tory, is the not-so-subtle suggestion that Canadian troops are complicit in torture. They make the black and white connection between our guys handing over detainees and allegations of torture by detainees -- as though the allegations are fact, and as though abuse of detainees captured by anyone other than Canadians is simply hunky-dory. The premature and selective outrage is mind-boggling.
The 'guilt by association' nonsense denigrates our soldiers, which is a concern I've written about before. But beyond that, it pointedly excuses and ignores Western indifference during the years when the Taliban perpetrated all manner of abuse on its own dissenting citizens and particularly its systemic victimization of women, all of which took place long before this war. It also ignores the potential for a return to this regime should we pull out before stability is firmly established.
In the minds of our liberal elites, maybe that torture was okay. It wasn't our people. We knew, yet did nothing to intervene, but because we weren't there -- our hands are clean. Despite news reports coming out of Afghanistan during that time period -- we could turn a blind eye, but have a clear conscience because it wasn't our country and it wasn't our women and it had nothing to do with us.
No, I know. Human rights abuses by the Taliban are not why we went there, but now that we are there, isn't it fortunate for all those women who would otherwise be assassinated in soccer stadiums for simple indiscretions? Isn't it fortunate for all those little girls getting an education for the first time?
The holocaust is not why we entered WWII. Had it remained an internal German problem -- had there been extermination of just Germany's Jews -- we would have allowed it. We would have said that it was not our place to intervene in the domestic affairs of an autonomous country. Had Germany never crossed its own borders, WWII wouldn't have happened. The Allies could stayed at home, witnessed the barbarity and had a clear conscience because we wouldn't have been complicit in the deaths of Jews. That's obscene, but it's the logic of the Canadian left on this one.
Over at RT's they're questioning the financial cost of staying in Afghanistan, and yet they pretend that humanity is the exclusive domain of the left. Humanity is demanding that we stay and finish the job and that the preventing the suffering of civilians, and elevating their potential for a renewed society is our primary concern. It might not be why we went, but it's why we should stay.
We could leave Afghanistan now and watch from a safe distance, and we might even allow ourselves to believe that our hands remain pristine. We could smugly shrug as innocent people are tortured and murdered by their countrymen, while we stay safe in our liberal dreamworld where we'd be comforted by the 'quaint notion' that at least we aren't violating the human rights of captured Taliban fighters.
We can't solve all the world's ills or rescue all of its vulnerable people, but if we were to abandon Afghanistan now, there is no question that we would be complicit in the return to disorder which allowed the Taliban to victimize its most defenseless citizens.
canadianna
Friday, May 18, 2007
What we have here
is a failure to communicate.
The shocking news isn't that the Conservatives have strategies to get their way or to manipulate committees -- it's that they would write a playbook -- and then allow it to become public. That's careless and stupid.
The methods described by Don Martin in today's National Post are nothing new, nor or they exclusive to the Conservatives. They've been employed to great effect by other parties when the opportunity or need arose. The difference is this time is there is a blueprint, so it looks calculating and manipulative.
Ordinary citizens are led to believe that we can expect our politicians to be 'above partisan politics'. We are duped into thinking that they should be above partisanship -- but the fact is, politics is an adversarial business. Each party has priorities and plans, and much as we'd like to believe otherwise, consensus is not always possible.
The Shane Doan incident, the stalled committees and the Kyoto implementation plan are excellent examples. There should have been no concensus about calling on Hockey Canada, and there can be no consensus on the Afghan detainee issue, the Court Challenges Program or Kyoto. The other parties are fairly solid in their positions on these and so long as the Conservatives have a minority in the House and on committees, it stands to reason that government is going to try to block ideas and issues that potentially go against national security, against their principles and against all reason. While compromise is often necessary, conversion would be required to support the opposition ideas in these areas.
Of course you can't govern like a majority when you're in a minority parliament. The Conservatives had to expect the Opposition would oppose -- that's their job. At least some of the obstacles to success on committees have nothing to do with the opposition working against the government and everything to do with the government's lack of success selling its position to the public.
Take the Shane Doan/Official Languages Committee fiasco.
The Conservatives had a minority on the committee. The motion to call Hockey Canada in front of the committee would have passed without their support. Chong's lame explanation that they were 'giving Hockey Canada a chance to tell their side.' is just asinine. If Hockey Canada doesn't need to justify to parliament its choice of Captain-- why would the Conservatives vote for the motion, when a 'yes' vote gives credence to the notion that parliament has a right to challenge the decisions of Hockey Canada?
I have no doubt that the Conservatives were not in favour of recalling Shane Doan or of hauling Rob Nicholson in for grilling -- but rather than bravely voting against the motion, or even meekly abstaining, they voted in favour of the farce and allowed themselves to be painted with the same brush as the other committee members who were pushing for Doan's ouster and disparaging his character.
That is bad strategy.
As for the Afghan detainee thing --- why try to hide mistakes? When you own up, people respect you. When you obfuscate, they know. Where is the upside in lying? Canadians can understand that it takes time to rectify some problems, but they don't understand why it's so hard to admit to errors and to the lag-time in correcting your errors. If you're up front about your mistakes head on, the issue dies. If you try to deny, you'll be caught and that becomes the story.
Bad strategy.
With the Court Challenges Program --- there is reasonable justification for shutting this program down, but what about a grandfathering clause, allowing cases already in the system to proceed? Or actually explaining (without a sneer that says anyone who doesn't agree is an idiot) why the program isn't necessary.
And the Kyoto Implementation bill -- Given the circumstances around the time this was first presented, they could have fought an election on that issue and won. They missed a golden window of opportunity they won't get back.
That's bad strategy.
If the Conservatives are losing ground, it's because they are losing touch with the people. Not just their 'base', but the people.
We don't care about committee procedures or who's the Chair -- we just want to know that our government is doing the right thing and when they don't, that they've got the fortitude to admit it and take the heat.
You've still got time before the session ends. Show some character.
canadianna
The shocking news isn't that the Conservatives have strategies to get their way or to manipulate committees -- it's that they would write a playbook -- and then allow it to become public. That's careless and stupid.
The methods described by Don Martin in today's National Post are nothing new, nor or they exclusive to the Conservatives. They've been employed to great effect by other parties when the opportunity or need arose. The difference is this time is there is a blueprint, so it looks calculating and manipulative.
Ordinary citizens are led to believe that we can expect our politicians to be 'above partisan politics'. We are duped into thinking that they should be above partisanship -- but the fact is, politics is an adversarial business. Each party has priorities and plans, and much as we'd like to believe otherwise, consensus is not always possible.
The Shane Doan incident, the stalled committees and the Kyoto implementation plan are excellent examples. There should have been no concensus about calling on Hockey Canada, and there can be no consensus on the Afghan detainee issue, the Court Challenges Program or Kyoto. The other parties are fairly solid in their positions on these and so long as the Conservatives have a minority in the House and on committees, it stands to reason that government is going to try to block ideas and issues that potentially go against national security, against their principles and against all reason. While compromise is often necessary, conversion would be required to support the opposition ideas in these areas.
Of course you can't govern like a majority when you're in a minority parliament. The Conservatives had to expect the Opposition would oppose -- that's their job. At least some of the obstacles to success on committees have nothing to do with the opposition working against the government and everything to do with the government's lack of success selling its position to the public.
Take the Shane Doan/Official Languages Committee fiasco.
The Conservatives had a minority on the committee. The motion to call Hockey Canada in front of the committee would have passed without their support. Chong's lame explanation that they were 'giving Hockey Canada a chance to tell their side.' is just asinine. If Hockey Canada doesn't need to justify to parliament its choice of Captain-- why would the Conservatives vote for the motion, when a 'yes' vote gives credence to the notion that parliament has a right to challenge the decisions of Hockey Canada?
I have no doubt that the Conservatives were not in favour of recalling Shane Doan or of hauling Rob Nicholson in for grilling -- but rather than bravely voting against the motion, or even meekly abstaining, they voted in favour of the farce and allowed themselves to be painted with the same brush as the other committee members who were pushing for Doan's ouster and disparaging his character.
That is bad strategy.
As for the Afghan detainee thing --- why try to hide mistakes? When you own up, people respect you. When you obfuscate, they know. Where is the upside in lying? Canadians can understand that it takes time to rectify some problems, but they don't understand why it's so hard to admit to errors and to the lag-time in correcting your errors. If you're up front about your mistakes head on, the issue dies. If you try to deny, you'll be caught and that becomes the story.
Bad strategy.
With the Court Challenges Program --- there is reasonable justification for shutting this program down, but what about a grandfathering clause, allowing cases already in the system to proceed? Or actually explaining (without a sneer that says anyone who doesn't agree is an idiot) why the program isn't necessary.
And the Kyoto Implementation bill -- Given the circumstances around the time this was first presented, they could have fought an election on that issue and won. They missed a golden window of opportunity they won't get back.
That's bad strategy.
If the Conservatives are losing ground, it's because they are losing touch with the people. Not just their 'base', but the people.
We don't care about committee procedures or who's the Chair -- we just want to know that our government is doing the right thing and when they don't, that they've got the fortitude to admit it and take the heat.
You've still got time before the session ends. Show some character.
canadianna
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
A Veteran's trust
Our soldiers have to know that even long after they've finished their duties abroad, they and their families will be well served by our government. They put their lives on the line, and they hope that the people back home will support them --- not just their missions, but them. They need to be certain that the government will not turn its back on them or their families should they be disabled or should they die. It's a matter of trust.
Due to a clerical error at the Department of Veteran's Affairs, Annie MacKenzie didn't receive her husband's disability pension after he died in 1968. The Department insisted Melvin MacKenzie was not disabled, despite having in its possession, information that he was. Unfortunately, that information was ignored and then never transferred to computer. Mrs. MacKenzie was left to raise their six children on her own, without the financial assistance to which she was entitled.
The government doesn't dispute that they got it wrong for nearly 40 years, but Federal laws governing the Pension Act only allow for retroactive payments going back five years. The family is appealing to today's government to hand over the full amount to which Annie MacKenzie and her family were entitled.
It's shameful that governments can erase errors and ignore commitments, simply by legislating a time-limit clause. Mrs. MacKenzie and her family have been fighting for this pension since 1968. It isn't as though the family just discovered it was owing and are hoping for a windfall. These payments were due, and despite years of attempting to get Veteran's Affairs to rectify their error, nothing was done. No fault lies with the family, so why should they be penalized for a governmental failure?
How this case is handled will serve to show today's soldiers what they can expect from Veteran's Affairs in the future. If we want our troops serving in Afghanistan and elsewhere to have confidence that we support them, and will continue to support them when they come back home, showing respect for our WWII & Korea Vets and their widows would be a positive indicator.
Harper should step in and right this wrong, making the payout retroactive to when the mistake occurred.
canadianna
Due to a clerical error at the Department of Veteran's Affairs, Annie MacKenzie didn't receive her husband's disability pension after he died in 1968. The Department insisted Melvin MacKenzie was not disabled, despite having in its possession, information that he was. Unfortunately, that information was ignored and then never transferred to computer. Mrs. MacKenzie was left to raise their six children on her own, without the financial assistance to which she was entitled.
The government doesn't dispute that they got it wrong for nearly 40 years, but Federal laws governing the Pension Act only allow for retroactive payments going back five years. The family is appealing to today's government to hand over the full amount to which Annie MacKenzie and her family were entitled.
It's shameful that governments can erase errors and ignore commitments, simply by legislating a time-limit clause. Mrs. MacKenzie and her family have been fighting for this pension since 1968. It isn't as though the family just discovered it was owing and are hoping for a windfall. These payments were due, and despite years of attempting to get Veteran's Affairs to rectify their error, nothing was done. No fault lies with the family, so why should they be penalized for a governmental failure?
How this case is handled will serve to show today's soldiers what they can expect from Veteran's Affairs in the future. If we want our troops serving in Afghanistan and elsewhere to have confidence that we support them, and will continue to support them when they come back home, showing respect for our WWII & Korea Vets and their widows would be a positive indicator.
Harper should step in and right this wrong, making the payout retroactive to when the mistake occurred.
canadianna
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Rules of war
Perhaps the Taliban detainees should sue Canada. They were captured by Canadians, taken to a Canadian base for interrogation and then transferred to their torturers by Canadians. Surely they should be compensated by Canadians for their suffering.
Not to minimize the egregious wrongs committed by the Afghan police/military against their own countrymen in their own country -- but why are we supposed to care?
I suppose I'm at the limits of my compassion here. These detainees are the same people responsible for the caskets draped with Canadian flags. It isn't a tea party; it's war. I don't want Canadian soldiers participating in torture, but neither do I expect them to lose sleep about it if the prisoners they hand over are subjected to it.
The Opposition parties and other bloggers are citing Article 12 of the 3rd Geneva Convention which states:
Okay, so if Article 12 applies, then does Article 17?
How ridiculous it is to apply old fashioned ideas about rules of war -- y'all think old fashioned ideas about marriage and family can be pitched out the window because times have changed, perceptions have changed, the reality and understanding of right and wrong has changed. Why are you so wedded to the Geneva Conventions and their constraints, when as much as any social institutions have changed with time, so has war.
Does the Geneva Convention even apply here -- with Canada not being an invading belligerent force, but in effect an associate force in what is almost a civil war? Can Canada expect to dictate the terms on which it gives over captured insurgents to the host power? What does the Convention say about a country's treatment of its own.
As a nation, we ignored the former Taliban government when they beat and execute women in soccer stadiums. We continue to quietly watch the annihilation of entire ethnic groups in the Sudan and the rape and murder of the civilian refugees in Kenyan camps. But when it comes to they guys caught trying to blow up our troops or destroy Afghan villages -- those guys are worthy of our particular attention. G-d forbid a Taliban insurgent in a war zone might be mistreated by his own countrymen -- if he was first captured by a Canadian.
Such a principled stand. Don't you just feel so smug and superior?
Just wait until this new generation of Canadian warriors gets their write up in the Canadian War Museum. Our Veterans from Bomber Command haven't fared well with the keepers of our military history. Those who do the judging are unwilling to look at the big picture while they luxuriate in that soft, self-indulgent, peacetime, pedagogic castigation of conflict.
The Geneva Conventions were written during times of conventional warfare. They assumed all parties would play by the rules, and would accept the consequences if they didn't. There can be no assumptions about the enemy in Afghanistan, and yet our soldiers still live by the Conventions. The shrill, hypocritical cry of 'humanity' from the sidelines underscores the deep disaffect between our sensibilities and the real world.
In a perfect world, the Geneva Conventions would be a quaint remnant of history, but in our world they are antiquated handcuffs that no longer apply. But rather than face modern reality, we smear our soldiers. In an attempt to scandalize a sitting government, we are demoralizing our troops.
canadianna
Not to minimize the egregious wrongs committed by the Afghan police/military against their own countrymen in their own country -- but why are we supposed to care?
I suppose I'm at the limits of my compassion here. These detainees are the same people responsible for the caskets draped with Canadian flags. It isn't a tea party; it's war. I don't want Canadian soldiers participating in torture, but neither do I expect them to lose sleep about it if the prisoners they hand over are subjected to it.
The Opposition parties and other bloggers are citing Article 12 of the 3rd Geneva Convention which states:
Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention (. . . ) if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.The upshot being that the Afghans haven't signed on to the Geneva Convention, so the detainees should never have been transferred in the first place, but since they were, Canada bears the responsibility for their alleged abuse and must request that the detainees be returned to Canadian custody if they can't assure 'humane' treatment.
Okay, so if Article 12 applies, then does Article 17?
Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.If these detainees are not card-carrying soldiers, should Canadian soldiers even be allowed to capture them? After all, they might be using the weapons of war, but they aren't soldiers if they haven't got those cards, right? They're just armed civilians. Prove they're not. They'll tell you -- they're just poor fellas . . . minding their own business . . . the guns and bombs are for protection.
How ridiculous it is to apply old fashioned ideas about rules of war -- y'all think old fashioned ideas about marriage and family can be pitched out the window because times have changed, perceptions have changed, the reality and understanding of right and wrong has changed. Why are you so wedded to the Geneva Conventions and their constraints, when as much as any social institutions have changed with time, so has war.
Does the Geneva Convention even apply here -- with Canada not being an invading belligerent force, but in effect an associate force in what is almost a civil war? Can Canada expect to dictate the terms on which it gives over captured insurgents to the host power? What does the Convention say about a country's treatment of its own.
As a nation, we ignored the former Taliban government when they beat and execute women in soccer stadiums. We continue to quietly watch the annihilation of entire ethnic groups in the Sudan and the rape and murder of the civilian refugees in Kenyan camps. But when it comes to they guys caught trying to blow up our troops or destroy Afghan villages -- those guys are worthy of our particular attention. G-d forbid a Taliban insurgent in a war zone might be mistreated by his own countrymen -- if he was first captured by a Canadian.
Such a principled stand. Don't you just feel so smug and superior?
Just wait until this new generation of Canadian warriors gets their write up in the Canadian War Museum. Our Veterans from Bomber Command haven't fared well with the keepers of our military history. Those who do the judging are unwilling to look at the big picture while they luxuriate in that soft, self-indulgent, peacetime, pedagogic castigation of conflict.
The Geneva Conventions were written during times of conventional warfare. They assumed all parties would play by the rules, and would accept the consequences if they didn't. There can be no assumptions about the enemy in Afghanistan, and yet our soldiers still live by the Conventions. The shrill, hypocritical cry of 'humanity' from the sidelines underscores the deep disaffect between our sensibilities and the real world.
In a perfect world, the Geneva Conventions would be a quaint remnant of history, but in our world they are antiquated handcuffs that no longer apply. But rather than face modern reality, we smear our soldiers. In an attempt to scandalize a sitting government, we are demoralizing our troops.
canadianna
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Paying our troops lip service
"Support our Troops"
It slides easily off the lips, even of those whose support is more show than substance. The lips keep moving, mouthing 'support' but when it's politically expedient and might damage the Conservative government, support turns to implied accusation. Of course we support our troops although we are standing up in the House demanding action on their complicity in the torture of Afghan detainees. Of course, it isn't our soldiers we blame -- it's the government.
The pleas across the House of Commons for relief for the detainees must burn the ears of our soldiers. They bind their wounds, send home their fallen friends in boxes, and then listen to the opposition parties preach about right and wrong in a part of the world where friend and enemy wear the same clothes and trust leads to death, but you trust anyway.
Our troops hear evangelizing about 'human rights' in a country where the detainees in question would ensure 'human rights' never exist. Still these soldiers treat the detainees -- murderers and maimers of friends and comrades -- they treat them with kindness and dignity.
Stephane Dion s
The laugh of it is that the people who play by no rules, are dictating them.
It's right to take stock of our mission. It's right to carry the values of our nation into warzones. But is it necessary to accept responsibility for the treatment of detainees, in their own country, at the hands of their own countrymen?
It slides easily off the lips, even of those whose support is more show than substance. The lips keep moving, mouthing 'support' but when it's politically expedient and might damage the Conservative government, support turns to implied accusation. Of course we support our troops although we are standing up in the House demanding action on their complicity in the torture of Afghan detainees. Of course, it isn't our soldiers we blame -- it's the government.
The pleas across the House of Commons for relief for the detainees must burn the ears of our soldiers. They bind their wounds, send home their fallen friends in boxes, and then listen to the opposition parties preach about right and wrong in a part of the world where friend and enemy wear the same clothes and trust leads to death, but you trust anyway.
Our troops hear evangelizing about 'human rights' in a country where the detainees in question would ensure 'human rights' never exist. Still these soldiers treat the detainees -- murderers and maimers of friends and comrades -- they treat them with kindness and dignity.
Stephane Dion s
The laugh of it is that the people who play by no rules, are dictating them.
It's right to take stock of our mission. It's right to carry the values of our nation into warzones. But is it necessary to accept responsibility for the treatment of detainees, in their own country, at the hands of their own countrymen?
Opposition MPs, most of whom have never served, prattle on about the Geneva Conventions and warn of our troops participating in 'war crimes' because of treaties signed in the wake of wars fought by more modern nations than this one where our troops serve. Those nations attempted to give war the artifice of refinement by imposing 'rules'. These were grown up countries making an effort to police themselves in the dirty, but seemingly inevitable business of war.
Our soldiers must shake their heads. It isn't enough to do their own jobs well; they are being expected to impose the ideals of developed nations, like prisoners' rights, honour and justice, in a country that barely meets the definition of civilization.
Torture is wrong. But unlike the countries that signed on to the Geneva Conventions, Afghanistan is a fledgling nation with no history in recognizing human rights let alone prisoner rights. Though it might be difficult for our elites to stomach, imposing our value system on them from outside is not going to change their worldview. It won't stop the torture and it won't stop the insurgents. Afghanistan must develop a social conscience from within the way Western nations have. A forced social conscience is an illusion. It might make us feel better, but it won't allow for real change and real stability will never happen.
Canadian soldiers set an example in both strength and compassion every day. In time, hopefully, the Afghanis will choose to follow that example, or be forced to change by a population ready adopt more Western-friendly values. In the meantime, blame and accusations are unhelpful. It ignores the realities on the ground.
Is it wrong to condone torture or to turn a blind eye? The simple answer is yes, but there are no simple answers. Not when your friends are going home in boxes and the enemy doesn't abide by conventions.
canadianna
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)