nothing, other than with the red shirt, white(me) and blue pants... colors of the Flag.
Posted on 09/02/2007 7:27:14 AM PDT by fanfan
We all support our troops, for heaven's sake, not to mention their suffering families. But your ribbon or Friday red is actually saying: Yes, we should be in Afghanistan
What a sad difference a year makes. Last fall I had the privilege of spending time with several women in Petawawa, military wives who had soldier husbands serving in Afghanistan. Every one of them displayed a cheerful, if wry, sense of humour, despite the stress they lived under day and night. And every one of them shone with a kind of inner strength and courage most of us will never have to know.
They impressed the heck out of me. Still do, when I think of them. Because of women like them -- and the obviously good men overseas they worried about constantly and spoke of so lovingly -- I was happy to make the simple, undemanding gesture of wearing red for a few Fridays. But I felt compelled to stop some time ago.
What used to be an uncomplicated show of pure human support has become political, and the politics is distinctly ugly. Under Canada's New Government, we're witnessing the rise of Canada's New Militarism.
It is both disturbing and scary.
And it's everywhere. It's in the sprouting right across the land of those American-style yellow ribbon decals, second-hand imagery with a sad little Canadian flag to make it appear not second-hand.
It's in ideas like the proposed "Highway of Heroes," a euphemistic designation to tack on to the stretch of roadway over which the coffins of dead young soldiers are driven in the repatriation process. Calling them heroes, rather than victims of tragically misguided policy, helps us justify the waste of their young lives.
There are echoes of the new militarism at the War Museum, where authorities have suddenly decided -- or been persuaded to decide -- that the appraisal and phrasing of history is best dictated by the Legion, that the most vocal members of the vets' group should be the official editors of our past.
And, perhaps most dramatic of all, it's in the politicization of the "support our troops" campaign.
Gestures like red shirts on Friday and decals on cars now create no end of uneasiness, evidenced by the controversy over stickers on public vehicles across the country. In Calgary, they've refused to put "Support Our Troops" on their police cars -- much to the dismay of many -- while in Ottawa, Vancouver and Toronto (after a reversal of position), they have decided in favour of the decals. That has also caused widespread dismay.
Three days after Ottawa police Chief Vernon White announced that the city's 180 marked cruisers would now sport the stickers, councillor Alex Cullen condemned the decision. Public vehicles should not be "billboards for political beliefs," he said.
No, no, said White. It wasn't "a political statement." And police services board vice-chairwoman Maria McRae observed that it was "wrong for anyone to politicize this."
Too late. And Cullen is absolutely right.
No matter how passionately people try to characterize it as a benign gesture of warm fuzziness, the issue of Friday red and support-our-troops decals has indeed become politically charged. Wear red on Friday or stick that decal on your car, and you're making an unequivocal political statement. You're not really saying you support our troops (no matter what the printed words say) because -- come on, who doesn't support the troops? We all support our troops, for heaven's sake, not to mention their suffering families.
No, your yellow ribbon or Friday red
is actually saying: Yes, we should be in Afghanistan. And yes, I do approve of our military presence there.
That is not a position I hold, but at least it's a realistic political reflection. What is not realistic is to pretend that your decal means anything different. It does not. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has made that very clear. "You can not say you are for our military and then not stand behind the things they do," he said. Support the troops? Then you have to support the mission.
And the mission, as has become painfully obvious, is war. The mission is a steady flow home of young soldiers in body bags, wounded soldiers with tragically altered futures, Afghan civilian casualties so numerous international organizations can't even keep an exact count, and devastation on a massive scale. And over this blighted landscape designated for "reconstruction," the red maple leaf flutters bravely.
Not surprisingly, Gen. Rick Hillier has become an enthusiastic cheerleader for the mission. The personable Chief of Defence even showed up recently at the big Red
Friday rally in Toronto -- along with Don Cherry, predictably -- whipping off his camouflage jacket to display a red T-shirt underneath. What is a little more surprising (though perhaps not to demoted former defence minister Gordon O'Connor) is just how outspokenly political the good general has become.
Except that he doesn't call it political.
"From the soldiers' perspective," he told a Globe and Mail interviewer recently, "we do not believe a group of people who will whip women for wearing heels that click on pavement should be allowed to reassume control of their country and the lives of those people in it." Soldiers' perspective? Sounds more like something you'd hear
in the House. Since when do soldiers -- at least Canadian soldiers -- decide who should and shouldn't be the government of a foreign nation?
But let's accept the general's premise, even with its political baggage. If we really believe we should occupy foreign countries to change governments driven by ethical principles in conflict with our own, why aren't we in some of the other fundamentalist countries that also frown aggressively on the clicking of high heels? Why aren't we in Sudan, helping oppressed minorities? Why have we avoided occupying Zimbabwe, where the corruption of Robert Mugabe's regime is destroying his people? Why not North Korea, where another mad despot has presided over the starvation and oppression of millions?
A lot of countries in this world are rife with persecution and abuse, a lot of places run by totalitarian regimes and dictators with medieval views on human rights. And if it's the evildoing terrorists we're trying to cut off at the knees, why aren't we in the one place that spawned Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers? Could it be because the ruling class of that place, the great oil-rich nation of Saudi Arabia, is on excellent terms with the current ruling class of the United States?
Beyond the clichés and ragged bits of doled-out wisdom, there's really no logical justification for the whole adventure. If we were really trying to help oppressed peoples or stop the terrorists, we'd also be in all kinds of other places around the world. If, on the other hand, we just desperately want to play with the big boys on Team Bush (yes, I know its official name is NATO), then we're on track. We're right to accept Stephen Harper's militaristic worldview, get incoherently schmaltzy with Don Cherry and salute Gen. Rick and his red
T-shirt.
If, that is, we can live with the insidious mob psychology clearly at work. Smoothly abetted by a government that seems to love rattling sabres and waving big sticks (even if the sabres and sticks are a bit the worse for wear), we're being pushed and shoved into cheering simplistically for war.
You don't approve of U.S.-style political decals on police cars? Shame on you. You must hate our soldiers.
You think the mission in Afghanistan is a big, tragic mistake? Shame on you. You must hate Canada.
You believe we should get out -- now? Shame. You obviously hate freedom.
It's become nasty out there, and stifling. Try to debate issues that used to be open for discussion in this country -- issues that go the heart of our collective sense of morality -- and suddenly you're charged with lacking patriotism, or backbone, or some other fragment of cheap and borrowed jingoism.
The new rules of discourse are wartime rules (loose lips might sink ships, after all), and the only admissible consideration of war is the one that all but chokes itself on its own meaningless clichés. Wallowing in cheap sentiment -- as long as it's not our sons who have been blown to bits -- we say things like, "they're putting their lives on the line for us." Or "they're fighting for Canada." Or, in the words of Ottawa councillor McRae (though they could be anybody's), our uniformed men and women are "willing to sacrifice their lives to make sure this country stays as great as it is." (Could someone please explain to me how any of the debacle in Afghanistan is a fight for Canada, Canadians or our national greatness? Please?)
These days, on the combative watch of Canada's New Government, real value is measured in brass buttons, bombs and casualty lists.
And no matter what anyone says, it is deeply political. Every last poisonous bit of it.
jkennedy@thecitizen.canwest.com
I agree 100%. It is almost comical, because on the basis of the language used, one is logically forced to conclude that the Afghan campaign is unacceptable to the American-left as well.
nothing, other than with the red shirt, white(me) and blue pants... colors of the Flag.
I get it.
Thanks.
jkennedy@pro/canookistan/taliban.com
Hey Janice, our soldiers ARE heros, not victims - they volunteered for this job. I would think a writer would know the difference.
That’s odd, WWII started in September 1939 with the invasion of Poland in all the history books I’ve read.
It took the USA a couple of years and a slap in the face from Tojo to wake up and join the fight against fascism the rest of the world was involved in, but the war had been going on for over two years.
September 1939 until June 1945. Two and a bit months short of 6 years by my reckoning. Just a bit short if you include that little unpleasantness in the Pacific.
The USA started on 7 December 1941 and was over around 1945. You don’t have to stretch the truth here.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
It started in 1939 for Canadian troops. No stretch.
Germany invaded Poland on September 1st, 1939. That date is considered by historians as the onset of the Second World War. The USA entered the war on December 7th, 1941, which is two years, three months and six days AFTER the party started.
Victory in Europe Day (VE Day) was May 7 and 8 1945. That is the only factual error in what I posted. I forgot the exact date of the end of formal hostilities in Europe and misstated it by 3 weeks.
Victory over Japan Day (VJ Day) was August 15, 1945. The USA only became involved after Pearl Harbor, but the Chinese and several volunteer forces (including a very brave contingent of American airmen) had been fighting the Japanese there since 1931 (The Manchurian invasion).
I did not stretch the truth, I spoke it.
I must be a well-propagandized robot, as I am a member of a veteran’s club, wear red on Fridays, have the “pathetic Canadianized” ribbons on all my family’s vehicles, and stand shoulder to shoulder (metaphorically speaking) with all our troops in their duties.
I also support the Canadian government’s stance on keeping the fight over there rather than allowing the moon-worshippers to further infest our free nations.
The Taliban 'aint very nice to people, especially women. Then again, it was the Liberal Party's decision to first send it the troops. Not that I disagreed.
Things are not as simple as the lady would have us believe. Her delectable person is protected down to the last facet of Canadian law. She should find out about the females of Afghanistan and then pontificate.
> What used to be an uncomplicated show of pure human support has become political, and the politics is distinctly ugly. Under Canada’s New Government, we’re witnessing the rise of Canada’s New Militarism.
And it is about jolly time, too!
Canada equipped Gen Lewis Mackenzie and his Lads as UN peacekeeping troops back in the early 1990s to Sarajevo to “keep the peace” with thoroughly inadequate military equipment. That was a travesty and a joke — yet it is those days that this writer seems to pine for...
Our soldiers deserve better, and they deserve to do the jobs that they trained for. They trained to fight to preserve our way of life. No artificial obstacles should be placed in their way to impede them from doing the very best job that they can.
If “New Militarism” means that our soldiers get good equipment and excellent support, then I’m all for it.
> The USA started on 7 December 1941 and was over around 1945. You don’t have to stretch the truth here.
Hey, that’s OK. Churchill gave Roosevelt a Late Slip and everybody mucked in and got the job done. Better late than never.
Exactly.
See my post #12.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.