Wednesday, September 6, 2006 — Harper’s Betrayal of Canada’s Soldiers

Anoth­er “friend­ly fire” inci­dent occurred in Afghanistan, where two US A‑10 Thun­der­bolts straffed a Cana­di­an Forces base camp. Five Cana­di­an sol­diers were severe­ly wound­ed, and one killed. The dead sol­dier, Mark Gra­ham, was a wide­ly liked Olympic track star. This fol­lowed close­ly on four Cana­di­an com­bat deaths over the week­end. Com­bat deaths are to be expect­ed, but yet anoth­er “friend­ly fire” deba­cle involv­ing poor­ly-com­mand­ed Amer­i­can forces killing Cana­di­an troops is re-enforc­ing doubts the Cana­di­an pub­lic has about our “mis­sion” in Afghanistan. All the more because Stephen Harper’s Con­ser­v­a­tive gov­ern­ment has made it obvi­ous that Cana­di­an forces are increas­ing­ly deployed as mere mer­ce­nary forces for George W. Bush. As far as Harp­er is con­cerned, there is no Cana­di­an for­eign pol­i­cy. There is only George W. Bush’s pol­i­cy. How­ev­er, the Cana­di­an peo­ple seem to have anoth­er notion, that the Cana­di­an mil­i­tary is intend­ed to defend Cana­da and the inter­ests of the Cana­di­an peo­ple, and to engage in com­bat on for­eign soil only when the moral issues are clear and unequivocal.

This comes from a long expe­ri­ence of for­eign wars. Dur­ing WW I, being used as canon-fod­der under British offi­cers cre­at­ed, in Cana­di­ans, a con­sid­er­able touch­i­ness about the issue of sub­mit­ting to for­eign com­mand. Cana­di­an par­tic­i­pa­tion in World War II was premised on avoid­ing this. Sub­se­quent­ly, Cana­da refused to par­tic­i­pate in some wars that it was urged to by allies, when moral issues, strat­e­gy, or the valid­i­ty of Cana­di­an inter­ests where ques­tion­able. Thus, Cana­da entered the Kore­an War, refused to back Britain when it want­ed to invade Egypt, flat­ly refused to par­tic­i­pate in the Viet­nam War, joined in the war to oust the Tal­iban, and flat­ly refused to par­tic­i­pate in the inva­sion of Iraq. His­to­ry has shown these to have been pret­ty much the right choic­es. The quag­mire of fail­ure and dis­hon­our in Iraq has already val­i­dat­ed judge­ment in that instance.

Fight­ing the Tal­iban and pur­su­ing Al-Kai­da were wide­ly sup­port­ed by Cana­di­ans. The moral issues seemed to be clear. But George W. Bush’s sub­se­quent swin­dle, where these aims were under­mined, per­vert­ed, and betrayed to divert resources to the per­son­al schemes of a gang of trai­tors, were not and nev­er have been sup­port­ed by most Cana­di­ans. This con­trast is made all the more clear, today, by Bush’s boast­ful rev­e­la­tion of oper­at­ing the secret prison camps that he and his mob had pre­vi­ous­ly denied existed.

The small coterie of quis­lings around Prime Min­is­ter Stephen Harp­er has been try­ing to use the same tac­tics that their mas­ters in Wash­ing­ton have suc­cess­ful­ly employed. They keep claim­ing that any think­ing, dis­cus­sion, or con­cern about the Cana­di­an pres­ence in Afghanistan is some­how under­min­ing and betray­ing our sol­diers. I am hap­py to say that few of my coun­try­men respond to this kind of dis­gust­ing, manip­u­la­tive flum­mery with any­thing but con­tempt. What­ev­er slimy tac­tics Harp­er uses, the Cana­di­an pub­lic will not be fooled. They will exam­ine our pres­ence in Afghanistan, judge our pres­ence in Afghanistan, and decide if our sol­diers are risk­ing their lives for a legit­i­mate and moral cause. That is our right, that is our duty, and that is our pow­er. Cana­da is a par­lia­men­tary democ­ra­cy, not a pres­i­den­tial monar­chy. We decide. Not Stephen Harp­er. And not George W. Bush.

I would not be sur­prised if this is the issue that brings down the Con­ser­v­a­tive gov­ern­ment, which got into pow­er by hid­ing its agen­da. The soon­er that hap­pens, the bet­ter. It is clear to me that if any­one is to be just­ly accused of betray­ing and under­min­ing our sol­diers, it is Stephen Harper’s gov­ern­ment, which sees them as dis­pos­able hunks of sala­mi, sold to for­eign pow­ers by the kilo.

Leave a Comment