to build and support a strong Canadian knowledge base in contemporary security and defence issues; foster informed public policy discussion and commentary through research, teaching, outreach and public education initiatives; and enhance communication and interaction between the Department of National Defence (DND), the Canadian Forces (CF) and the Canadian academic community.She also informs us that Bercuson is also Director of the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute, a defence lobbying group funded by one of the world's biggest defence contractors.
Which makes everything that much more sleazy. First of all, this is like the scandal Glenn Greenwald writes about, where the Pentagon has retired generals with defence contractor ties toe the government line on foreign policy and feeds them inside information to help them do so, and the mainstream press allowed these generals to masquerade on their shows as objective commentators. When the Globe and Mail gives editorial page space to Bercuson, or Jack Granatstein to yammer about how we have to kill more people in whatever part of the world needs its people killed, it ought to inform its readers that these guys are being paid to write this drivel by institutions with a vested interest in their doing so.
And, further sleaziness: Bercuson isn't writing this appalling crap out of any sort of principled belief in Canada's "Mission" (tm.) in Afghanistan then. This is all just getting his bread buttered. And what is he being paid to write? Is he saying we should stay in Afghanistan to help the Afghans? No. Is he saying we should stay in Afghanistan so that we can continue to pretend that nobody has died in vain there? No. Here's his reason for saying we shouldn't pull-out after 2011:
A complete Canadian withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2011 will be read in Washington as abandonment of the U.S. in the midst of a war and abandonment of NATO. If Canada pulls out of Afghanistan entirely next year, it won't matter how many Canadians have been killed there. In Washington, history is nothing more than a rationale to be used to make or break policy; history does not substitute for politics.A Canadian government that leaves Afghanistan in the middle of a fight will find very few friends in the State Department, the Defence Department, the White House or on Capitol Hill.
In other words: Canadian soldiers should continue to die to keep the Americans happy. And why is it important to keep the Americans happy? Not because they'll respect us, or think they owe us anything. (After all, they're quite ready to forget all our sacrifices to date if we leave in 2011.) Presumably it's important to keep the Americans happy to keep current trade avenues open. Considering that the total bill for the Afghan "Mission" (tm.) will be over $20 billion, one wonders how much any trade losses with the Americans would be.
I've got an idea though. Instead of sending soldiers to kill and die propping up a corrupt narco-state in Afghanistan, let's do something else. We should have our soldiers stay in Canada, and instead of dying randomly, they draw lots. The losers get sent to some border crossing, and after having had a chance to make their last goodbyes to family and other loved-ones, they're ritually sacrificed in order to placate the US-American trade gods, and by their blood sacrifice, they make the Americans keep the trucks flowing back-and-forth across the border.
It'll be cheaper and there won't be any danger of inadvertent war crimes that have proven so distracting for fat stephen harper and his gang of thieves, closet-cases and mental degenerates.
4 comments:
Just a little sarcasm there, eh? ;)
Seriously, though, your analogy aptly blows holes through the appeasers' arguments regarding trade. I do seem to recall the Canadian government (dating back to the early days following 9/11) giving in to more and more American demands with no benefit to Canadians (e.g. softwood lumber dispute). Thankfully, Canada didn't bend to the point of sending troops to Iraq, though had Harper been in charge at the time...
The Canadian government should just realize that the U.S. will look after its own interests first. Frankly, that should be expected of all governments with regards to foreign policy.
Trying to appease the U.S. with completely unrelated issues (such as the aforementioned war in Afghanistan for the benefit of U.S.-Canada trade) just doesn't work. As you said in your previous post, trucks will keep crossing the border because it is simply mutually beneficial... not because of some kind of supposed friendship.
"Just a little sarcasm there, eh? ;)"
Tis but a modest proposal! ;)
My post is based on the ideas Linda McQuaig talks about in Holding the Bully's Coat
which says that Canada should stand up for itself because that's the only way we'll have any influence.
Thankfully, Canada didn't bend to the point of sending troops to Iraq, though had Harper been in charge at the time...
Or Paul Martin or John Manley.
"Trying to appease the U.S. with completely unrelated issues (such as the aforementioned war in Afghanistan for the benefit of U.S.-Canada trade) just doesn't work. As you said in your previous post, trucks will keep crossing the border because it is simply mutually beneficial... not because of some kind of supposed friendship."
Zackly! It's bizarre that the same guys who call for us to make sacrifice after sacrifice for US friendship also say that no country bases its foreign policy on questons of friendship or honour or past promises.
We should have our soldiers stay in Canada, and instead of dying randomly, they draw lots. The losers get sent to some border crossing ... ritually sacrificed
There's a sci-fi story about this - I think it might be an old Star Trek plot. In order to minimize property and infrastructure damage in an ongoing war, the two sides agree to have soldiers and civilians participate in a casualty lottery. The air raid sirens would randomly sound, some people's numbers would come up, and off they went to be humanely disposed of by their own government.
Not included in the story line was how billions of dollars could continue to be lavished on arms manufacturers and dealers under this system. I guess it would need update.
thwap,
Thanks for the reference to the book! Also, I had almost forgotten that there were influential Liberal party members who were leaning toward joining the U.S.... given how Chretien losing power within the Liberal Party at the time, it really was a close call.
Alison,
I know of the Star Trek episode: "A Taste of Armageddon" from the original series. Two neighboring planets are at war, but they have computers that simulate attacks and calculate casualties. (Of course, they have real weapons too, "just in case", thus preserving the military-industrial complex, although this point isn't a major focus in the episode.)
As you say, each side's government is obligated to humanely dispose of citizens who are deemed casualties by the computers. This was done so that the two sides could continue to fight each other while minimizing the "horrors" of war.
Kirk points out near the end of the episode that they had sanitized the war to the point where neither side had enough motivation to stop. Eventually, Kirk convinces the world's government to negotiate with the other side, noting that if they were that afraid of the horrors of war, it was only logical to try peace.
I think that the heart of this episode was about never forgetting the horrors of war... never forgetting that behind war statistics heard on the news on conflicts from far away, there are real people dying.
It's something that seems to have been lost on the "chickenhawks" and armchair generals...
Post a Comment