Canada: War: After voteless Parliamentary debate, Canada loses lives to war

.

The symbolic evidence that the new government regarded Canada as being de facto at war came soon not long after the new Prime Minister, Steven Harper, made a sudden secret trip to Canadian Forces in Kandahar, Afghanistan on March 12-14, not long after he had taken office.

Then in another theatre, a more generalized pro-active attitude was confirmed. With hinds+t, we can now link Harper's visit to our troops in Afghanistan with his deployment just a week and two days later, on March 23, of a small contingtent of Royal Mounted Canadian Police and Canadian Forces (with Brits and Americans) in an event in Iraq that fits a perceived pattern now of involving Canadian military pro-actively in tandem with our military allies on similar ad hoc clandestine missions in whatever countries necessary. So we can add this moment of pro-activity by Canada in Iraq to the newly-emerging orientation of policy toward Canada's presence in Afghanistan. The military action in Iraq sent a team, including both Mounties and Canadian Forces, into enemy-held territory to liberate the pouting peaceniks who wanted to throw sand in the face of the sand of the Iraqi desert, calling themselves "Christian Peacemakers," but actually only succeeding in making rescue efforts by our military necessary on humanitarian grounds. The niks should spend the rest of their lives paying for the small fortune spent, and the risk to lives and limbs of the rescuers, in order to save their miserable selves from themselves and their esoteric doctrine. In any case, Harper proved himself to be qu+t t+t=lipped about all the details of the hows of the episdoe (he has a stronger sense of security than the Lib govts of the last three decades).

Now comes a third very significant Canada-at-war event the first week in April. After the governing Conservatives permitted a voteless debate in the House of Commons regarding Canada's military commitments to the budding democratic emergence of Afghanistan among the states of the world seeking to contribute to its good order, suddenly Canada has forcefully had the fact of its being at war in that distant country come home to roost.

Doug Struck, of Washington Post's Foreign Service reports from Toronto, "In Canada, A Cautious Debate on Afghan Role" (Apr11,2k6). Altho his article was buried on WaPo's page A16, it is of vital significance to the shift enabled by the recent Canadian Parliamentary elections, toward balancing-out the negative tilt of the previous Liberal government in regard to the current worldwide political reality and also the still-sad state of Canada's military to do anything major in a military way, albeit relative to the size of the country's population and other relevant factors.

Canadian lawmakers joined in a show of patriotic support for the nation's troops in Afghanistan, tiptoeing around public opinion polls that [contrastingly] show deep division over the increase in the force there and distrust of involvement with the US military operations.

Canada's first open parliamentary debate on Afghanistan, which the government had feared would undercut backing for the military's growing role, turned instead into a parade of support for Canada's efforts.

At the same time, the bias of the WaPo report is apparent, since a Canadian news source says more precisely, "Back in Canada, polls have shown a majority of Canadians support Canada's role in Afghanistan, but many respondents were also opposed to Canada's aggressive posture, preferring a peacekeeping approach" (see live link below to Jim Farrell, CanWest News Service via Canada.com).

Pictured below (clockwise from top left): Lt. William Turner, of Toronto, but stationed in Edmonton; Cpl. Randy Payne, born in Lahr, Germany, but stationed at CFB Wainright, Alta.; Bombardier Myles Mansell, of Victoria, B.C.; Cpl. Matthew Dinning, of Richmond Hill, Ont., but stationed with the 2nd Canadian Mechanized Brigade in Petawawa, Ont. [Photograph by : Department of National Defence / File Photos]

Jim Farrell, "Canadian soldiers slain by Afghan bomb blast" (Apr23,2k6), CanWest News Service

Since Canada sent troops to Afghanistan in February 2002, 11 soldiers have died. But the danger of the mission has grown as troop levels have risen this year with Canada's planned assumption of command of the 6,000 NATO troops there, and with the move of Canadian troops to the volatile Kandahar region.

It's not difficult to comprehend, when the old Lib regime was in power, how Canada's state media and its camp-followers on privately-owned networks like Global TV and CTV, as well as the overwhelming majority of daily printnews sources, that Canadian opinion as it exposes itself in public opinion polls, neglects its fundamental duty to world order, peace in the longer term, and decisive armed resistance to the War of the Terrorists against all nonIslamofascist governing. Canadians, both by the presuppositions of media poll-questions and by muddled moral-concept formation regarding the onslawt of Islamofascist terror, are not prepared to support clearly at this time the new direction which the government is pioneering after the collapse of Lib pseudo-Pearsonism in foreign policy. This is at least an interim problem of the present government.

On the other hand, the government did provide room for a real debate, never offered by a Liberal government, regarding Canadian involvement in defending the new developing-democracy in Afghanistan where many societal arrangments are still resisting, and will continue to resist, change. But on top of the government's fortitude in holding the debate, and its wisdom in not permitting a vote, the other parties (at least those of their members who spoke up) must also be given credit for discerning that the foreign-policy outlook of the Libs is dead. It simply is no longer viable. Rather, it had become downr+t dangerous for our troops, for the fledgling and imperfect democracies we support, and for our own society - which has also become obviously vulnerable to internal terrorist attack and espionage actively pursued by terrorist interests and their allies like Communist China.

So soon after this page-16 news development of such frontpage significance, Canada has once again lost lives among its soldiers f+ting in the thick of things in the trouble-zone of Kandhahar, former fortress / nest of the Taliban. Even this aching event is different, however.

Where previously, Canada had experienced death and wounding of our soldiers to friendly-fire from a US airplane flying amok, bombing a contingent engaged in n+time training, the result was a true tragedy indeed. This time around, the cause of death was not accident in any sense. The enemy in combat took out four young Canadians subjected to the terrorist warforce. The Canadian men were there to risk their blood for freedom, democracy, and world civic order. And in taking the risk against a proper enemy, they gave "their last full measure of devotion" - about which, according to the polls, too many Canadians seem blasé to a fawlt. Things, even attitudes, do not change overn+te. But perhaps public opinion will at some point catch up with the House of Commons, and more importantly with the women and men of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan.

The most recent concern emerging at issue in Canadian public opinion regarding Canada's warfare in Afghanistan (and wherever else it may occur under the new minority government), is the protocol of fly the flag at half-mast or not, when the body bags come flying home. Joel Kom reporting for CanWest News Serice and Ottawa Citizen, gives up the recent history:

An online government listing of every ceremonial flag-lowering for either the Peace Tower or all federal buildings shows those flags were not lowered to half-mast for Cpl. Paul Davis, Master-Cpl. Timothy Wilson or Pte. Robert Costall. All three soldiers died in Afghanistan in March.

That's a change from what was done for Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan under the Liberal regimes of former prime ministers Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. The same government listing shows that every soldier who died, except for one, had flags lowered to half-mast on either the Peace Tower or all government buildings -- or both -- in their memory.

The symbolic lowerings for Afghanistan casualties -- which was opposed by veterans groups, who said it was inconsistent with what was done in previous wars -- began with the deaths of the four Canadians who died after an American pilot mistakenly dropped a bomb on them in 2002.

It continued for three soldiers who died throughout the next two years, two of whom died when their vehicle struck a planted bomb and one of whom was killed in a suicide bombing.

While the public may stew this way and that, apparently the War Minister Gordon O'Conner, has decisively settled the matter for the near future. according to Simon Tuck, "Minister backs stand on flag - Latest casualties may hurt public support for Afghan mission, opposition MPs say, G&M (Apr,24,2k6). If nothing else, the itchiness over these kinds of details demonstrates that symbols and symbolic actins are important, protocols can have a heavy weit, and the symbols of death-by-war - bodybags and flags at half-mast - are very much up for discussion, debate, and dissent now that Canada is most definitely at war. The pseudo-Perasonian mist has evaporated. - Politicarp

Canadian Forces > Afghanistan > death count: 16