Once more - why are we there?

What’s been missing from the discussions about our post-2011 role is the reality that not only will Canada be training an army under the command of one of the most corrupt governments on the planet, but also that it is a government ridden with warlords and held together only by military support and money from the West. This is not a government with independent staying power.

In all likelihood, the exit of Western troops in 2014 will precipitate a countrywide civil war that will see the Afghan army fractured into militias controlled by warlords battling for roads, opium fields, mineral resources and cities, while the Taliban attempt to take over the country or disintegrate into violent, squabbling factions.

The United States and NATO have been providing the Afghan army with world-class weaponry: assault rifles, grenade launchers, machine-guns and armoured vehicles. With the weapons, and tactical training to date by Canadians and other NATO troops, the national army is an increasingly formidable force, though plagued by desertion, poor discipline and drug abuse.

Canada’s future training of these well-armed Afghan troops will ratchet up the torque on a war machine that appears destined to blow apart.

If we were actually doing something to help establish a government chosen by the people of Afghanistan for the people of Afghanistan and offering aid which would directly encourage the establishment and maintenance of a society concerned about human rights and a fair system for all, that would justify some Canadian presence there, but training troops to fight under a corrupt government that will fragment into a bunch of corrupt groups further ripping the country apart and killing civilians in their bid for power...what the hell are we doing that for? We can't afford the dollar cost of this war, and the cost in lives is beyond measure, certainly not justified.

This is not a criticism of our troops, but of our own corrupt, dishonest government and its utter disregard for the lives of its own soldiers.

harper  and BFF

Flip and flop onto your lying faces, bastards

In 2007 ther Liberals put through a motion calling “upon the government to (inform) NATO "immediately" that Canada's current military commitment to Afghanistan will end in February 2009.”

Now the Liberals say no debate is needed to extend the mission once more. Saying it is not really a military one is more than deceptive since they well know that training Afghan soldiers will place them in the line of fire and that any military presence in Afghanistan draws fire.

Prior to that 2007 motion, “O'Connor and Prime Minister Stephen Harper have repeatedly said the troops are only committed until 2009. Harper also said MPs would be informed of any changes to the length of the deployment. "If the government wants to extend it further, it will seek the approval of Parliament to do that," he said.

Today Harper tells us he’s the Big Boss of everything and doesn’t have to debate this new extension, “that he had changed his mind and had reluctantly decided to deploy trainers because he doesn't want the past "sacrifices" of Canadian soldiers to be in vain.”

Oh. I see. If more soldiers die, the sacrifices were worth it? Because seriously, as Harper himself said in 2009 when he wanted to extend the mission and include training, 6 years is long enough, and if the Afghans haven’t learned from our troops by 2011, they aren’t going to.  So it's all about having more soldiers die to justify the death of the ones who have already died?

But did any of us really believe he’d stick to the 2011 deadline? I sure as hell didn’t.

"My position is that if you're going to put troops into combat, into a war situation, I do think for the sake of legitimacy, I do think the government does require the support of Parliament," said Harper.

Typical Harper not to get it because he just doesn’t see the soldiers as human beings. “For the sake of legitimacy,” he says, failing to understand that debate is necessary not to cover his precious ass, but to make sure that our precious soldiers are not placed in harm’s way unless every other option has been exercised.

Mr. Megalomaniac sociopath goes on -

"But when we're talking simply about technical or training missions, I think that is something the executive can do on its own."

On paper, maybe. But we’re not sending paper over there to face spitballs. So legitimacy aside, serious debate must take place when deciding on any mission that risks flesh and blood.

And the Liberals don’t think we need such a debate. No doubt they would like to avoid facing questions from the Bloc and NDP in the House since they’ve already decided it’s just perfectly fine to send more Canadians to Afghanistan to face death and maiming. What’s the value of debating the lives of our soldiers compared to the embarrassment the Liberal party might suffer, eh?

The prime minister said he believes that a smaller mission that just involves training will present "minimal risks for Canada."

Well, steve, you tell that to families of dead soldiers in 2014, ok? You go visit the new vets in the hospital, maybe drive them to their therapy sessions (if you haven’t cut off funding for that by then).  Talk to them then about "minimal risks."

And you Liberals who won’t even insist on a debate over this, you had better stand beside harper in 2014 and face those affected by this endless war because any blood spilled after the original 2011 pull-out of troops will be on your hands as well.

I’ve had it with the lot of you inhuman bastards.

"You must glorify war in order to get the public to accept the fact that your going to send their sons and daughters to die."

Or to be maimed, broken, and traumatized.

It is a real condemnation of our society that our government knows we are less likely to oppose military missions if all we are exposed to are flag draped coffins and death notices showing a photo of the soldiers looking fresh and proud in uniform before their service ripped them and their families to shreds.

It is disgusting and a betrayal of our troops on the part of a government to play down and even hide the ravages of war away from sight like a dirty secret.  Yet, this is what our government does so that it can continue to glorify war and minimize some of the resulting costs.  War makes money...for some well situated suppliers.  It provides a constant distraction for governments who want to appeal to blind patriotism as a means of diverting attention from their own screw-ups and violations of the trust given them through the vote.  It offers great photo ops for those man’s-men who want to wear the sacrifices and courage of others as though they themselves embody such qualities.

But wounded soldiers...dead bodies...hell no!  Let’s talk about sacrifice but never, ever look too closely at the raw nature of those sacrifices because citizens may decide they are too much to ask of our troops, and we may pressure our government to actually take care of those who return needing support after having voluntarily placed themselves in harm’s way for others.

"I was told by a senior Treasury Board analyst, who shall remain nameless, that it is in the government’s best interest to have soldiers killed overseas rather than wounded because the liability is shorter term," (Stogran) told a marathon Ottawa news conference.       

So we allow our government to shove the wounded and damaged soldiers out of sight and deny them benefits and essential care.  We let the government get away with saying that’s what the soldiers and their families want - privacy in their grief.

Bull-shit.  They have been making their wishes abundantly clear this week.

"We mention those who gave their lives ... but there are many more with both visible and invisible wounds," said organizer Mike Blais, who served in the Royal Canadian Regiment for 17 years. "These wounds tear families and lives apart."

These visible and invisible wounds need to be publicly acknowledged, and those affected must receive the care and benefits we like to believe, in our sanitized view of war, they are receiving.

I despise the Harper government for feeding of the image of our troops while hiding them away when it could embarrass them, cost them money, or affect public opinion.  But if we turn our eyes and ears away from the accounts of torn flesh and spirit because it makes us too uncomfortable or guilt stricken to look at without a happy lens, then we allow these bastards to treat our soldiers like commodities - to flaunt them when they look good, and tuck them away in some dark, smelly basement when they tweak our conscience.

Support our troops.  Look at the cost they pay.  Really look at it.  Then make sure our government supports them after they come home.  And make sure you understand the nature of a mission they are being sent on and tell your government you don’t want the troops you so strongly support being ravaged or killed on missions that are not absolutely critical to saving lives and actively promoting the overall betterment of our species. 

What Canadians want

While it’s nice to see the CONs have post their brief lead  - if it was real at all - I wish the drop had been attributed to something other than the Guergis-Jaffer story.  While it does have to be pursued because corruption, influence peddling, and political interference are serious issues, I would much rather Canadians had been reacting to the two other big stories: the government’s cover-up and manipulation of information, and the torture of detainees.

I doubt even the Guergis-Jaffer thing would be getting much attention if sex and drugs weren’t mentioned.

This does not reflect well on our media, nor on the public.

Murder, war crimes, contracting out torture linked to our military?  The government taking measures so outrageous to cover this up and prevent witnesses from talking that the approach has been called Kafkaesque?

There was a time I would have thought - no way!  Not in my Canada!

But it is happening, here in this country we have been so proud of because Canadians, so it goes, just don’t tolerate that crap.

Well, we are tolerating it, and it isn’t crap.  Through our apathy, through our weakness for flashy headlines screaming of sex and drugs, and the private and public lives of public figures, we fail to support the demand for serious, thorough, independent investigation into the allegations of murder, torture and cover-up.

Without the public’s pressure demanding the truth come out without interference, the government will keep hiding any wrongdoing on their part, and the abuses will continue.

If they are allowed to get away with it in this very serious, international issue, we are truly screwed.  The public will show government that it need not be held accountable, that the public does not have the right to be informed.

What follows is a snowball effect.  We get used to less and less info and become more apathetic.  Government becomes more confident that it can violate the will of the people by deceiving them and counting on that apathy, and it becomes more corrupt.  A handful of special interest groups with lots of money hold the real power because they are the only ones lobbying, and they push for legislation that favours them, while the rest of us are no more than cattle - low wage earners and mindless consumers.

If we start to get fed up, we’ll just be tossed another Guergis-Jaffer story to distract us, or we’ll be shown infomercials to stir up blind patriotism, or we’ll be told of how severe measures are necessary because the world is a scary place full of criminals and terrorists who are out to get us and destroy our democracy.

Meanwhile, our democracy is being destroyed by three things: the very government we elected to protect it, the powerful, wealthy self-interest groups pulling the government’s reins, and out our pathetic apathy.

Yes, let us demand answers to the Guergis-Jaffer thing, but only as it relates to wrongdoing that affects our country.  Any corruption needs to be addressed and stopped.  But we cannot pick and choose what we will take interest in based on its entertainment value.  Keep the government’s heels to the flame on accountability, openness, and the respect of all laws - international as well as domestic.

Canadians should care about whether or not our military and government is complicit in murder, torture, and cover-ups.  Isn’t that what we so proudly say we oppose?

Condolences to friends and family

Sgt. George Miok

Cpl. Zachery McCormack

Sgt. Kirk Taylor

Pte. Garrett Chidley

 

Michelle Lang, Journalist

Our hearts are heavy.

Right-wing fantasy come true?

The slavering, blood-thirsty KKKate Mcmillan followers must be celebrating tonight.

(Dec. 22, 2009)
I wish I'd bought the T-shirt:  "Journalist. Rope. Tree. Some assembly required." - Jim

Well darn. I thought I was linking to a story about something bad happening.
What's that old saying..I'd rather have a mother as a whore then a journalist? - Justthinkin

I've said for years the only way to save the US is to hang all of the media first. Looks like my views aren't so out of the main stream. - paulcr49

You bastards wished for this. 

Five Canadians were killed in Afghanistan on Wednesday — four soldiers and a Calgary reporter.  The journalist was identified as Michelle Lang, who worked for the Calgary Herald.

Lang, who was 34, grew up in Vancouver and was a well-respected health reporter for the Herald, winning a National Newspaper Award in 2008 for best beat reporting. She had also worked in Regina and Moose Jaw.

Condolences to Ms. Lang's family and friends, and those of the as yet unnamed soldiers.