If you read a bit further, however, Harper manages to "soften" while still blaming the Liberals for a potential pull out.
I don't want to send people on a mission if the opposition is going to, at home, undercut the dangerous work they're doing in the field.
So Canada won't leave Afghanistan because that's what most Canadians want, and it won't leave Afghanistan because it has no business being there. And it certainly won't leave because the Tories needs votes in Quebec, where polls show a whopping 70% opposition to the war. Certainly not. Canada will leave because the Liberals are undercutting the mission. Uh huh.
But politics aside, the main thing is that the debate is out there, that the discussion is moving forward. That gives us hope for Canada to do the right thing.
18 comments:
This isn't directly related to your post, but it is directly related to a pet peeve of mine (*grin*). The word "opposition" doesn't mean "Liberals." There are three opposition parties, all of have pretty substantial caucuses these days. So when Harper is slamming "the opposition," he's actually slamming the vast majority of Parliament, not just the Liberals.
I don't want to send people on a mission if the opposition is going to, at home, undercut the dangerous work they're doing in the field.
Then don't send them.
What Harper -- and the warmongers to the south who repeat the same words -- is really saying here is:
"It doesn't matter what the troops are doing over there. As long as they have begun doing it, we can't have them stop."
Has anyone asked the troops what they think?
Has anyone asked the troops what they think?
The media asks them constantly. It's something that drives me nuts. I was going to blog about this soon.
It doesn't matter what the troops think, any more than what any other Canadian thinks. Asking the troops, in my opinion, is disingenuous, a false way to bolster support for a war.
One, they may not feel free to answer truthfully.
Two, it's not up to troops to decide if any mission is in Canada's best interests or the best interests of the country in which they are serving. If they volunteer, they are expected to go where they are deployed.
Three, many troops may be predisposed to think what they're doing is worthwhile. Most of us want to believe our work is worthwhile, and most people don't want to believe their work is hurting anyone. Troops may need to put a positive spin on their deployment for their own peace of mind.
The only thing I hate worse than the media asking individual soldiers for their opinion is when they ask RICK HILLIER. Like he's every going to say anything but stay the course!
Also, asking "the troops" comes down to asking one or two people to represent a large number of people, when their opinion may or may not be representative.
The person whose quote is chosen for the newspaper or the TV news is only speaking for him- or herself.
In my opinion, there's no meaningful way to "ask the troops," other than to ask all Canadians.
Hey, M@ may have something interesting to add to this thread.
Has anyone asked the troops what they think?
I think this is a dangerous question for a free society to ask. It's not the same as asking what the CN signalmen think, or what the doctors think, or what the mailmen think. It's asking the people who, ultimately, have the power to force their views if they decide they don't like having their opinions overlooked -- particularly if they are made aware of their own solidarity by the question being asked and answered. After all, mailmen didn't overthrow Allende. Signalmen and doctors didn't unmake the Roman Republic.
There's a difference between the military having an advisory role on policies that have been decided by our representatives and the military having a role in setting policy in the first place... it's a narrow one, but it's real, and I think it's risky to blur that line or step across it. The troops have their right to express their opinion in the ballot box. Beyond that, they have their instructions from the civil authority.
The troops have their right to express their opinion in the ballot box. Beyond that, they have their instructions from the civil authority.
Ah, thank you! A nice, concise reinforcement. I'll be using it in the future.
The troops have their right to express their opinion in the ballot box. Beyond that, they have their instructions from the civil authority.
Even if what they are being instructed to do violates Canadian and international law?
Granted, that probably applies more to US troops, but Canada's troops are occupying a foreign country, holding hostages without due process, and fighting and killing the citizens of that unfortunate country who want the invaders the hell out, etc.
... Or at the very least, they are giving their tacit support to all of these things, which the US is taking the lead in doing.
It's all completely illegal and the truly lawful thing for the troops to do would be to resist and stop taking these orders from insane, blood-thirsty criminals.
It's all completely illegal and the truly lawful thing for the troops to do would be to resist and stop taking these orders from insane, blood-thirsty criminals.
You're right, but it's unfair and unrealistic to expect mass resistance from a volunteer army.
Canada has to do the right thing at the top. We can't expect the people carrying out the orders to do the hard work of ending the war.
Even if what they are being instructed to do violates Canadian and international law?
Well, you're asking a very different question from the one IS asked. Hers hinged on taking military opinions into account in formulating policy (as opposed to informing the means of its execution). You're asking about disobeying illegal orders. That's a different question, and a harder one, too. On the one hand, you can say that if our soldiers (or Germany's, or Japan's) had said, "No, this is an invasion, we're not doing it" — as, in fact, some New York and Pennsylvania militia men actually did in the War of 1812 in refusing to cross the border into Canada, drawing a sharp and praiseworthy distinction between defending their homes and invading someone else's — we would have been spared the war, and more importantly, so would the people of Afghanistan. On the other hand, what if the troops had said, "No, Mister President, you're violating the rights of the states to set their own domestic policies" and refused to follow orders in Little Rock? It's a tough call. Some things are obviously monstrous and you'd hope the average person would balk... though WWII, sadly, has probably disabused us of that notion. But then you get to moral questions, and that varies from person to person. Where's the line between standing up for what you believe and betraying the greater good?
Canada has to do the right thing at the top. We can't expect the people carrying out the orders to do the hard work of ending the war.
I agree. It's rough, but we have to face it. In a free country, the military MUST be completely subordinate and responsive to the orders of civil authority; nothing less. But that places the moral onus all the more on the shoulders of the governors. And since they, in turn, are steered — however much like a cow — by the people, we have to be stern, clear, and vocal in our opposition. Ultimately, the burden is ours. Spain's people spoke, and their troops came home from Iraq. They have set the example, and we, too, must speak.
Lone Primate, I agree with you completely. I just want to offer one correction, which is based on a very common misconception.
On the other hand, what if the troops had said, "No, Mister President, you're violating the rights of the states to set their own domestic policies" and refused to follow orders in Little Rock?
The law in question already had been ruled unconstitutional. No US state can claim a "right of the states to set their own domestic policies" when it is in violation of the constitution. There is no such right.
The federal government was not overstepping its boundaries, and there was no violation of states rights, in this example.
Thank you and carry on. :)
The law in question already had been ruled unconstitutional. No US state can claim a "right of the states to set their own domestic policies" when it is in violation of the constitution. There is no such right.
Right, unfortunately, ultimately depends on might. The US Supreme Court Justice Roger B. Taney ruled in 1861 that the President had no right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus; that only Congress could do so, and that Lincoln was in violation of the Constitution for doing so.
He ignored the ruling. He had the muscle to do so. Shades of 9/11...
The courts may rule as they wish, but ultimately even they depend on the obedience of the men in arms.
Yes, I know. I was merely pointing out the fallacy - which for all I know you do not actually believe - that the federal govt was acting improperly when it called in troops to enforce federal law in Arkansas (and Albama and Mississippi).
Yes, I know. I was merely pointing out the fallacy - which for all I know you do not actually believe - that the federal govt was acting improperly when it called in troops to enforce federal law in Arkansas (and Albama and Mississippi).
I believe that the US federal government was acting correctly in defence of the rights of all its citizens in the 1950s. But it should be stated that nothing much germane to the question actually changed in the US Constitution between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education; rather, it was people's (particularly judges') interpretation of it. In both instances, each interpretation — inimical to the other — carried the force of law ultimately because it was backed by guns: guns that either kept blacks out of facilities, or escorted them into them. If, in either case, those who carried the guns had objected, as they did in the Civil War, that would have established the practical limit to judicial power.
There's a line in the movie Grendel, Grendel, Grendel I've always found illustrative. Beowulf (a rather patrician and bellicose figure in this telling) has just been charged with heresy for his comments by the priests of King Hrothgar's court. After tiring of using humour to spar with these humourless men, he deftly deflates their assertions by wryly observing "Heresy is determined by which end of the sword you're at." This is why I feel it's important to insist that the army not be consulted as to the wisdom of the missions they are given, yea or nay.
This is why I feel it's important to insist that the army not be consulted as to the wisdom of the missions they are given, yea or nay.
It's a very good articulation of an important reason, to be sure.
I am beyond sick of hearing from
"Canada's top soldier" every time someone needs an opinion on Afghanistan.
Ah, I hate coming late to threads like these. But in my work with troops and ex-troops these days, I'll say this:
1. The troops 100% believe, in every mission they go on, that they are doing what's right, and that it's making a positive difference in the lives of the people they see in the foreign country. This goes for Afghanistan and every other deployment they are sent on. From what I've heard, they can be frustrated with the people they see, or confused or distressed by them, but they do not report that they hated or felt contempt for them. (In fact, they talk very proudly about bringing food and medical aid to the people they saw, far more than they talk about combat. An interesting way that Canadian values come out, I think.)
2. The troops have an extremely stressful and dangerous job that they are forced to do, day after day, with few outlets for stress release outside of complaining or commiserating with their own closest mates.
3. The troops deserve to feel that their work is right and worthwhile. We can only ask them to do their job, given the consequences in #2, if they can feel that way.
4. The troops do not decide what work they do. That is the job of the government, which serves at the pleasure of the people.
Conclusion: the troops have the attitude we force them to have; it is stupid and pointless to ask them what they think of it. (Asking them to describe what they're going through, and reporting on it honestly, is, I think, an important but unrelated part of the journalism.)
The people who need to consider the value of the work are the public in general; the means by which to do this is open, honest, public debate, on record, in parliament. But this debate has been consistently shut down by the CPC's bleatings ("don't you support teh troops!!?!!11!") and the Liberals' willing cowardice in the face of these bleatings ("TOTALLY WE SUPPORT THEM!!!11!1!ONE!")
Until we divide the mission from the people doing it, though, the debate will never actually happen. I 100% agree that asking Rick Hillier whether he supports it is pointless; but that's what the media do these days, troll the very bottom of the seabed for soundbites.
By the way, I agree with all your points, too, Laura, but I want to point out that no Canadian soldier is forced to serve in Afghanistan. They all volunteer to go there (unlike, say, the Americans sent to Iraq who joined the National Freakin' Guard for chrissakes). There are career and personal repercussions to consider, but in the end, they all volunteer specifically for each overseas mission. I don't think that that is generally known.
M@, thanks so much for that.
It's especially telling, I think, that someone who is actually interviewing soldiers who have been in Afghanistan agrees that it's pointless to ask them whether or not Canada belongs there.
ImpStrump, thank you for bringing this up. Your question led to an interesting explication. I hope you don't feel piled on. As a simple question around here...
Post a Comment