Category: War on Terror
Why Are Our Troops in Afghanistan?
| 4/12/2007 | Posted by Patti under Afghanistan, War on Terror |
Anyone reading this blog would know pretty quickly, I’m not a fan of Stephen Harper as Prime Minister of this country. The ONE thing that I can give him his due for is that he inherited a war and has proceeded to do what is needed to make sure our troops can get the job done. Travers at the Toronto Star can’t seem to get the picture clearly, this war started when we signed on to take part in 2002.
What are our troops doing in Afghanistan? If Travers can’t find an answer to that in his role as a journalist, then he needs to get off his duff and find out. If he doesn’t want to leave the safe confines of his office in secure Canada, he could visit the forums at Army.ca and ask the guys who have been carrying out the mission they have been sent on, the guys who are losing friends and comrades, they seem to have a pretty clear picture.
There are few things that can move me to tears, but reading about, watching ramp or repatriation ceremonies or listening to the families of those who have lost our Canadian sons and daughters will do exactly that. It is not easy to write or read about the loss of young Canadians fighting in foreign lands. We can be thankful that historically, the only place young Canadians have died fighting to insure our continuing freedom and security has been in foreign lands.
Maybe the media needs to really listen to those who are doing the dying about what we’re doing in Afghanistan. I listened to one of our soldiers being interviewed just after the death of the six Canadians repatriated last night to Canada. He talked about how the media only talks about the fighting and the deaths, they don’t talk about the progress the troops are seeing. The reporter interviewing him never asked him about the progress he was referring to.
Maybe, while the country is reeling trying to understand what the people on the ground are doing there in the face of eight deaths just this week, the media could do something really responsible and helpful. It is in the media’s hands to be able to do that instead of playing silly bugger politics.
Let the troops talk about what they are seeing that is letting them maintain their commitment to the mission in the face of the deaths some of them are seeing happen first hand. Quit pressing the guys to talk about horrors they are still trying to come to terms with, let them talk about why being there matters to them. Maybe then Canadians could get some balance that will help us understand why those 53 Canadians have died fighting to secure a foreign country.
Afghanistan and Vimy Overlap
| 4/10/2007 | Posted by Patti under Afghanistan, Canadian News, War on Terror |
This past weekend has been a bit of a rollercoaster. The commemorations of the Battle of Vimy Ridge took place in France on a piece of soil deeded to Canada in 1922 as Canadian soil in perpetuity. On it stands one of the largest, and in my opinion, powerful memorials in the world.
As Canada prepared for the main ceremonies which took place yesterday, I opened one of our news sites online on Sunday afternoon and was stunned to learn six Canadian soldiers had been killed in Afghanistan. In comparison to the 3600 killed at Vimy Ridge, six doesn’t seem to be a lot however when it is six in one day out of a force of 2500 deploying some of the strongest armaments possible it is every bit as big and real.
The Canadians who scrambled out of cold wet trenches on that bitterly cold morning ninety years ago yesterday were about as protected as I would be if I walked out my back door and someone stood there with a machine gun. The Canadians killed in Afghanistan were in the back of a heavily armoured vehicle, wearing body armour guarding convoys moving into an area of Afghanistan that needs to be cleared of Taliban so power can be restored to the area.
So what is the overlap? They were Canadians, they were serving their country in a far off land to ensure that the fight they had there didn’t reach our shores and most of all, they are dead brave Canadians. Somethings never change.
Our maritime provinces took a direct hit with these deaths. One of the six was from Ontario, the other five from the maritimes. Although I’ve never seen figures breaking down enlistment from the various parts of the country, I suspect that we’d find that the maritime provinces have always pulled above their weight on a per capita basis of those who join up to serve this country. God Bless Them!
The memorial at Vimy while a focal point for a pivotal battle in Canadian history is a monument to all those who gave their lives for King and country in the Great War, the one that was supposed to end all wars. The monument carries the names of 11,000 Canadians who have no known resting place. That means they were either so blown up they couldn’t be identified or are buried where they fell. The scale of human carnage was so great in that war that just getting the wounded off the battlefield was a monumental task.
Some say that the Battle of Vimy Ridge was the defining moment of our country, our coming of age as a nation. I’d say it was a defining moment, one of a series of Canadian achievements in all aspects of our lives. In an era where the power of a nation was still measured in its ability to fight, it was a defining moment placing Canada squarely onto the world stage. The Canadian Corps had fought as a unit and had done in a day what other supposedly more powerful nations hadn’t succeeded in doing in two years.
Our Canadian troops would continue to command respect for their courage and ability from then until today. Even during the worse of the government’s starving our military for funds to properly equip them, the courage and professionalism of our military has never been doubted. Young Canadians joining our military do so knowing they follow in the footsteps of a long line of volunteer citizen soldiers who have distinguished Canada among nations.
The presence of 5,000 teenagers of which 3,600 were representing not just in body but in name one of those who died on that day 90 years ago. As they entered the memorial area wearing their green shirts with the name of their soldier affixed, it makes one wonder if there were really 7,200 parading in, the flesh and blood student and the spirit of the soldier marching smartly beside them, assured that their sacrifice had not yet been forgotten.
Unlawful Death? Whose Law?
| 3/17/2007 | Posted by Patti under War on Terror, World Politics |
A British inquiry into the death of a young British soldier, as the result of U.S. military action during the first week of the Iraqi war in 2003 has ruled the death as unlawful in that the pilot didn’t take steps to identify the target as a ‘friendly’ that could have been taken. The U.S. meanwhile has concluded their own inquiry and decided that the death was a ‘tragic accident’.
In some circles the response was outrage and anger at the US. In response, some US based bloggers sort of basically suggested that these things happen and get a life. While it would have behooved the US authorities to have provided full disclosure to the British authorities as allies and brothers-in-arms in the Iraq war, I rather doubt that the two responses would have changed.
For those who rail at the US, they may want to have a look at the response and outcome to ‘friendly fire’ deaths among their own service people. Had it been an American killed rather than a Brit, I suspect the outcome of their inquiry would have been the same.
Therein lies the problem. It has become abundantly clear that the British (and Canadian as our standards tended to be inherited from the Brits) standards of discipline and conduct are set higher than our US allies.
Just last week as the British inquiry was wrapping up their inquest, the Canadian military wrapped up an inquiry into the death of a young Canadian in a ‘friendly fire’ incident last year in Afghanistan. A Canadian soldier stands charged with manslaughter and neglect of duty in that death. In civilian life, the accident would have been a tragic accident, the soldiers weapon went off in a vehicle and killed his mate seated near him. In the Canadian military that is a serious breach of discipline.
The British military would likewise take the dropping of a bomb onto a position which had taken the necessary measures to identify themselves as ‘friendly’ as a very serious breach of discipline. Their US allies takes it seriously but provided with what they consider to be reasonable doubt decline to hold their service person to account for their actions.
I’m not particularly passing judgement on either system. There are those who would consider the Canadian & British standards harsh while there are others who would consider the American system, too forgiving. It appears the bigger question is when you have military service people of one country killing those of an ally, which standard takes precedence? Which laws govern the outcome?
It’s not an issue that it easily resolved. Had it been a British flyer killing an American soldier it seems that there would be a trial happening by now. Anything less would be contrary to order and good discipline so prized in the British military. Those are standards that their military has adhered to for generations just as the standards the Americans adhere to have been there for generations.
It seems that before one country agrees to be an ally of another, these are the sort of things that need to be agreed upon.
The Boy Harper Finds New Low
| 2/22/2007 | Posted by Patti under Canadian News, Canadian Politics, Ethics, Harper, War on Terror |
Harper sank to a new low yesterday in the House of Commons when he launched a smear at Liberal MP Navdeep Bain and his father-in-law who the Vancouver Sun is reporting was to be on the potential list of witnesses to be brought before an investigative hearing into the downing of the Air India flight in the 80′s.
The smear came in response to a question that was being put to him by Liberal leader Dion about Harper’s meddling with the judicial appointment process. It does appear that the boy was attempting to avoid answering questions on one of his dictatorship moves and created a firestorm over another issue that truly is worthy of serious and reasoned debate, not one of attacks and slurs.
At issue is two clauses in the Anti-Terrorism legislation that was passed in the wake of 9/11. One clause allows for ‘preventative arrest’ of people that law enforcement agencies believe is or could be involved in an imminent terrorist activity and the other allows for investigative hearings where witnesses could be compelled to testify. Both of the clauses were controversial amongst the Liberals when they passed the legislation and they appear to be just as controversial now.
The clauses are set to expire March 1st if the House doesn’t vote to extend them. The sunset provision was built into the clauses at the time the legislation was enacted because of their controversial nature and the concerns about the potential for abuse of civil liberties by police. The clauses have yet to be used and at this point the Liberal stand is against extending them.
I have to admit to some ambivalence on the issue of extending the clauses.
The social justice part of me leans towards not extending them because they do leave too much power in the hands of law enforcement agencies and we’ve seen what them and an agenda can do to innocent people. Out of necessity, the definition of ‘terrorism’ is rather broad which adds to the potential for abuse of the clauses.
Another part of me looks at the fact that the clauses have not been invoked which provides some hope that they would not be abused. I would be wearing rose coloured glasses not to realize that there are situations when police have a pretty strong sense that someone is about to or is involved in some criminal activity which they are powerless to prevent in the absence of appropriate evidence in order to arrest the suspect. So, the concept of preventative arrest has it’s benefit if applied prudently.
I have zero ambivalence about the boy’s smearing though.
He was wrong and had he made the same statements outside of the House, he could be finding himself facing some legal ramifications. A reading of the article in the Vancouver Sun gives little indication as to what exactly a hearing would expect to be exploring with Darshan Singh Saini (Bain’s father-in-law) or if he could potentially be implicated in the plot.
The boy Harper was attempting to link the potential witness of Saini to a hearing that will not take place should the anti-terrorism clauses expire next week to the reason that the Liberals have taken a stance opposite to the stand they took five years ago when the laws were passed.
That is somewhat typical of the low brow thinking of Harper. A lot has changed in five years, not the least of which is the makeup and leadership of the Liberal party which had been divided in the first place on the issue. We also have a minority government in place that demonstrates a very black and white thinking process towards its own right wing ideology. The Liberals as the Official Opposition needs to be the party of sober second thought.
Mike over at Rational Reasons puts the issue rather well:
It is quite clear that Stephen Harper will spread any myth, any lie, any outrageous conspiracy theory as long as he thinks it will get him his precious majority. God help us all then.
….
Stephen Harper has demonstrated he has no honour, no morals, no ethics and no scruples. He does not deserve to be president of a student’s council, let alone Prime Minister of Canada. Frankly, none of them do, but Harper most especially.
Well expressed Mike.
Eugene over at LE REVUE GAUCHE puts forth his argument that Harper is not and never will be a statesman or parliamentarian:
But pompous megalomaniac he is Harper could not resist, nor could he trust anyone else to deliver his hit on Dion and the Liberals.And so he showed himself to be what he really is, an Opposition Leader. Not a Prime Minister.
And what he was today was an Opposition Leader, a strong one, one who is gaining in the polls. And thus one doomed by his limitations of office, and personality, to act like an Opposition Leader rather than as a PM. Holding on to power with a minority, but acting like you are majority has won Harper the polling support of some Canadians.
But in reality what the recent polls have shown is that he is far better as Leader of the Opposition than Dion is.
And that is what he confirmed today. He does not have the stuff to be PM. He is no statesman, and no parliamentarian.
I agree with Eugene, the boy has zero class. He strikes me as someone who either was the schoolyard bully or was bullied and is now getting his revenge on the whole country. Course, when you vote for a red-neck you get low brow.
The final word goes to Ekonoline:
Harper is a chameleon of sorts, fashioning himself as a moderate conservative while simultaneously sinking to any low to gain political advantage. Three years ago, he accused Paul Martin of supporting child pornography. How low can he go? I seem to recall learning in my high school civics class that Canada is a democratic country, where slanderous allegations cannot be simply thrown about at will. Harper would do well to keep that principle in mind. Innocent until proven guilty, Stephen, innocent until proven guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty indeed.
Canadian Anti-Terror Legislation Dividing Liberals
| 2/16/2007 | Posted by Patti under Canadian Politics, War on Terror |
Stephane Dion is facing what appears to be his first divisive issue as Liberal leader. Two clauses in the anti-terror legislation brought in by the Liberals under Chretien are set to expire on March 1st unless renewed by parliament. The two clauses were controversial when the laws were passed which is why the sunset clauses were built in. The left wing members of the party are now pushing for the clauses to be allowed to expire on the basis they are not needed.
Change of NATO Command As Canucks Get Relieved
| 2/5/2007 | Posted by Patti under Afghanistan, War on Terror |
The US military has taken over command of the NATO forces in Afghanistan from the British. If you recall, the British took over from the Canadians. Reportedly, Gen. Dan McNeil will take a more hardline approach to the Taliban resistance which many expect will result in a bloody spring return of fighting. The weather and terrain in Afghanistan makes it difficult for fighting which provides a small measure of relief for battle weary troops, including the Canadians.
Guilt By Association
| 1/27/2007 | Posted by Patti under War on Terror |
It appears that the main reason that the US is standing by it’s decision to keep Mahar Arar on their terrorist watch lists is some of his travel patterns (he traveled a lot related to his work) and people he knows. Both ‘markers’ of guilt are quite legal in post 9/11 United States. It is not legal in Canada to consider someone guilty based on associates, close and casual, although I have no doubt that decisions to investigate someone are based on association.
Taliban Spokesman Captured in Afghanistan
| 1/17/2007 | Posted by Patti under Afghanistan, War on Terror |
NATO yesterday reported that a top Taliban spokesman had been captured in Helmand province which is the first time that a capture of this nature has taken place. While taking a spokesman out doesn’t take down an organizer of attacks on NATO troops and more importantly for me, Canadian troops it does momentarily reduce their ability to get their messages out and sends the message that they can be vulnerable.
Follow Me!