# Militarism on rise in Conservative Canada



## GAP (28 Jul 2012)

Strange.....this was not even in the Star......but biased nonetheless......

 Militarism on rise in Conservative Canada
By Yves Engler | Jul 27, 2012
Article Link

Six and half years into Harper’s Conservative government Canada has become so militaristic that the head of the armed forces can demand a new war and few bat an eye.

Two weeks ago the Chief of the Defence Staff Walter Natynczyk told the Canadian Press “We have some men and women who have had two, three and four tours and what they’re telling me is ‘Sir, we’ve got that bumper sticker. Can we go somewhere else now?’” The General added that “you also have the young sailors, soldiers, airmen and women who have just finished basic training and they want to go somewhere and in their minds it was going to be Afghanistan. So if not Afghanistan, where’s it going to be? They all want to serve.”

It is not surprising that the head of the military would want to go to war (that’s his job after all). What’s troubling is that Natynczyk felt comfortable saying so in public and that neither the opposition parties nor any mainstream commentators criticized his call to arms. 

The Chief of the Defence Staff’s warmongering is the logical outgrowth of the Conservatives’ bid to make Canadian society more militaristic. During the Conservatives’ first six years in office the military budget increased from $15 billion to $23 billion and the number of troops rose by about one quarter to 95,000. The special forces, which Ottawa can deploy abroad in total secrecy, more than doubled.

An increase in the size and strength of the military makes war more likely. In a recent article leading foreign policy journalist Lee Berthiaume reported that the Harper government’s 2007 decision to acquire four massive C-17 Globemaster military transport planes spurred the plan to establish bases around the world. “The decision to acquire four C-17s (CC177) for strategic airlift indicates the government’s intention to utilize the CF [Canadian Forces] more extensively off continent,” read a May 2010 briefing note signed by Natynczyk, initiating the international base plan. Dubbed Operational Support Hub, the goal is to set up permanent bases in up to seven countries.

In recent months Canada has signed an agreement to house soldiers and equipment in Kuwait, Jamaica and Germany and is negotiating to set up bases in Singapore, South Korea, Tanzania, Senegal and Kenya. According to a military briefing note obtained by Postmedia, the bases are designed to improve the Canadian Forces’ “ability to project combat power/security assistance and Canadian influence rapidly and flexibly anywhere in the world.” Publically, defense minister Peter MacKay called the base initiative part of expanding “our capability for expeditionary participation in international missions….We are big players in NATO.”

By setting up overseas bases and increasing the military’s size, the Conservatives are preparing for future wars. They’ve also built the cultural and ideological foundation for constant war. In one of innumerable examples, the updated 2011 citizenship handbook Discover Canada: the Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship praised this country’s military history with more than a dozen photos depicting war or armed forces personnel.

Similarly, over the past few years soldiers have regularly appeared at major sporting events rappelling down from the rafters or in sombre moments of silence for the fallen. Incredibly, reports Embassy, the Canadian Forces admit to having spent $353.6 million and directed 661 staff members to promoting their work in 2010-11.

The Conservatives’ militarism is unrelenting. After waging war in Libya they organized an $850,000 nationally televised celebration for Canada’s “military heroes”, which included flyovers from a dozen military aircraft. Harper told the 300 military personnel brought in from four bases: “We are celebrating a great military success. Soldier for soldier, sailor for sailor, airman for airman, the Canadian Armed Forces are the best in the world.”
More on link


----------



## aesop081 (28 Jul 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> In a recent article leading foreign policy journalist Lee Berthiaume reported that the Harper government’s 2007 decision to acquire four massive C-17 Globemaster military transport planes spurred the plan to establish bases around the world.



Who's decision to buy C-17s ?

 :


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jul 2012)

Just consider the source ... this is from the same iPolitics website as the original article:



> *Yves Engler* is the author of a number of books on Canadian foreign policy. His forthcoming book, _The Ugly Canadian: Stephen Harper’s foreign policy_, will be published in October. Dubbed “Canada’s version of Noam Chomsky” (Georgia Straight), “one of the most important voices on the Canadian Left today” (Briarpatch), “in the mould of I. F. Stone” (Globe and Mail), “ever-insightful” (rabble.ca) and a “Leftist gadfly” (Ottawa Citizen), Yves Engler’s six books have been praised by Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, William Blum, Rick Salutin and many others.



This is par for the hand wringing and childish foot stamping that passes for analysis on the 'left.' They are, by and large, bloody juveniles, albeit 40, 50 and 60 year old juveniles.






The Canadian 'left' at its intellectual best


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jul 2012)

> Similarly, over the past few years soldiers have regularly appeared at major sporting events rappelling down from the rafters *or in sombre moments of silence for the fallen*





 "ipolitics" huh.  Good ol' apple ripoff.


----------



## Ignatius J. Reilly (28 Jul 2012)

That article is the most intellectually dishonest piece I have read in quite some time.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Jul 2012)

It lowers the already low bar of Ipolitics opinion pieces to near satire levels.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Jul 2012)

Since I think about as highly of Noam Chomsky and the rest of that peer group as I do of anyone who assumes every undertaking which involves the military must be "war", his lickspittles and peers have assessed his importance correctly.

I assume the article was posted for amusement.  Certainly it amused me.


----------



## 2 Cdo (28 Jul 2012)

In reading that piece of drivel I actually felt my IQ drop a few points. :


----------



## GAP (28 Jul 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Since I think about as highly of Noam Chomsky and the rest of that peer group as I do of anyone who assumes every undertaking which involves the military must be "war", his lickspittles and peers have assessed his importance correctly.
> 
> I assume the article was posted for amusement.  Certainly it amused me.



We can't only look at pieces that celebrate the military genre.....we have to look at the other side also.....


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Jul 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> We can't only look at pieces that celebrate the military genre.....we have to look at the other side also.....



And there are lots of folks to whom this piece makes perfect sense.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (28 Jul 2012)

Funniest part of this article is this 
"By setting up overseas bases and increasing the military’s size, the Conservatives are preparing for future wars."
Isn't that the job of the military, to be prepared for future wars?  :facepalm:


----------



## Journeyman (29 Jul 2012)

One of the downsides to peace is that war demands justification/credibility whereas peace does not; in peacetime lies and exaggerations -- theatrical angst, if you will -- carry very small risk or penalty. 

A reality that Mr Engler chooses to ignore, because he safely can behind his computer in tranquil Canada, is that [to steal from Robert Kaplan's _The Coming Anarchy_], "a large number of people on this planet, to whom the comfort and stability of middle-class life is utterly unknown, find war and a barracks existence a step up rather than a step down." 

As much as our existence irritates the left-wing's habitual 'rebel without a clue' types, the military is a necessary evil -- we won't be obsolete any time soon.


And personally, I suspect that Mr Engler and his fellow-travellers would be amongst the first out there, wringing their hands and wailing pathetically if the military _wasn't_ intervening in the globe's more televised catastrophes.


----------



## GK .Dundas (29 Jul 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> One of the downsides to peace is that war demands justification/credibility whereas peace does not; in peacetime lies and exaggerations -- theatrical angst, if you will -- carry very small risk or penalty.
> 
> A reality that Mr Engler chooses to ignore, because he safely can behind his computer in tranquil Canada, is that [to steal from Robert Kaplan's _The Coming Anarchy_], "a large number of people on this planet, to whom the comfort and stability of middle-class life is utterly unknown, find war and a barracks existence a step up rather than a step down."
> 
> ...


 After all isn't it the job at least according Mr Enlgler  of the Canadian Military  to make other peoples lives (At least those of whom he currently disapproves of) miserable  so he can feel better about himself.
Of course if said intervention lasts longer then either his attention span or a fortnight  He will then be completely absolutely morally opposed to any intervention any where and at any time........  until the next well televised crisis .


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Jul 2012)

Left a comment then had some commenter try to chastise me for it, sigh painful the article and level of thought in her comment.


----------



## elderly2 (30 Jul 2012)

I was just wondering why the critic has to jump right away to the conclusion, "militarism" as if a modern-day Hitler was moulded out of our dearly beloved Harper. Well, if I just would consider it as attempting to meet the demands of security in this ever-frightening world of invasive armies, terrorism and the like. Nothing else can pacify or out-threaten the enemies of our sovereign state but a strong military. Try to see how politically and economically stable America is.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Jul 2012)

elderly2 said:
			
		

> I was just wondering why the critic has to jump right away to the conclusion, "militarism" as if a modern-day Hitler was moulded out of our dearly beloved Harper.




Because that's the only canard the left has. Invoke Godwin and move on.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Jul 2012)

No doubt that they believe that a "Reichstag fire" will consume the Paraliment buildings as his first step in total domination of Canada.  :


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Jul 2012)

And the Governor General will die in office and the dread Harper will combine that appointment with Prime Minister. 

 :sarcasm:

It's all perfectly clear, after all his name starts with the letter H like Hindenberg and Hitler and Hess.

anic:


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Jul 2012)

Or an attempted assassination:
http://www.euronews.com/2011/08/29/back-in-the-day-lenin-survives-kaplans-assassination-attempt/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Jebus (30 Jul 2012)

Waging war in Libya..... That makes sense, unless you realize that the rebels "waged," war on their corrupt dictatorship and now has become the most liberal of all the Arab spring states. Isn't that interesting... The only nation which NATO intervened in is the only one (so far) which the muslim brotherhood has not won.


----------



## elderly2 (31 Jul 2012)

If you follow world history, leaders like JFKennedy, Reagan, George Bush, Margaret Thatcher and Nixon who stood up (blatantly if not bluntly) for their pro-democratic, pro-capitalist militaries all ended up miserably if not dreadfully. These are the reasons why we need Stephen Harper for life to be our Prime Minister. Fence sitters like those of the Liberal Party have their own hidden agendas like sellling our government to hostile foreign states like Cuba. I do not want to name names. Imagine if Reagan had a photo-op with Fidel Castro's arms around his shoulders? What would be the reaction of the public?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Jul 2012)

I don't want any leader for life, as a memeber of the civil Service I can recall the mistakes of the Liberals (being polite here) and can see the mistakes being made by the conservatives. At some point the conservative need to be kicked out, I hope there is a viable alternative by then that is not to wingnutish.


----------



## Greymatters (1 Aug 2012)

One of the most skewed interpretations of our military I've read in a while...


----------



## bridges (2 Aug 2012)

"Bloody juveniles", "drivel", "left wing nuts", and let's not forget Biblical references... Oy!  I'm as concerned about the level of discourse in parts of this thread, as about the intellectual accuracy (or not) of the original article.

My general inclination is that we should continue striving for peace, while recognizing that there will always be others who don't, and that we should be prepared to defend ourselves and others.  Is this left wing or right wing?  Probably both.  

Neither "left wing" nor "right wing" thinkers have a monopoly on stupidity, nor on valid points.  The strongest society will probably maintain a balance between both perspectives - and respectful discourse.


----------



## bridges (2 Aug 2012)

It's unfortunate because there are some interesting points being made in there, but they're being lost in the noise.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Aug 2012)

bridges said:
			
		

> It's unfortunate because there are some interesting points being made in there, but they're being lost in the noise.


Could you point one out?    ???


----------



## bridges (2 Aug 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Could you point one out?    ???



Well, maybe "interesting" is in the eye of the beholder.   ;D   But I was thinking of this kind of stuff:

-Nothing else can pacify ... the enemies of our sovereign state but a strong military. 
-What Obama did for health care in Chicago, before becoming President  [I'm not sure of the background there.]  
-Ideology being akin to a religion for some people, not for others   [True, and I'd submit that this happens in ALL ideologies.]

Anyway, disruptive behaviour makes it hard to take any viewpoint seriously, and has been quite rightly identified here, IMO.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Aug 2012)

That's the HQ of the left wing funactics.................did you really think you could go in there and not be noticed??


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Aug 2012)

This, an episode of the summer session of The Agenda with summer replacement host Piya Chattopadhyay, features polemicist (masquerading as historian) Jamie Swift (Queens University) who has some strange but mostly childish ideas about the military, history and Canada,

The short form is: Jamie Swift is either deeply troubled or terminally stupid.

The long form is that Swift's new book, Warrior Nation: Rebranding Canada in an Age of Anxiety, is Yves Engler's diatribe (which leads this thread) taken to excruciating lengths.

One valid point Swift almost manages to make: most modern military historians, folks like Jack Granatstein and David Bercuson, are not writing history, they are not even trying to write history - they too, like Swift, are little better than pamphleteers.

In his famous exchange with Zhou Enlai, Henry Kissinger, hoping to find a bit of uncontroversial small talk said something like, "What do you think are the long term results of the French Revolution?"* Zhou replied, "It is too soon to tell." That's what historian must think about e.g. World War II, Korea and everything after them - the results are still unclear, they are too close to us, we cannot, yet, separate fact from fiction.  What we have, in the forms or e.g. Jack Granatstein and Jamie Swift are dueling polemicists pretending that what they say has even modest significance.

__________
* It may be that Kissinger actually asked Zhou about he Paris student protests of 1968 - but the French Revolution makes for a better anecdote. Kissinger needed an entrée to make up for the notoriously rude snub administered to Zhou in Geneva (in 1954) by US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles.


----------



## Journeyman (6 Aug 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... features polemicist (masquerading as historian) Jamie Swift (Queens University) who has some strange but mostly childish ideas about the military, history and Canada....



To be fair, Swift is a self-proclaimed "journalist" who apparently lectures at the Queen's University School of Business. The Wiki entry on him claims only that "....in 1968, he _pursued_ a degree in African Studies at McGill University" -- there is no mention that he actually received even a BA. Yes, I had to Google him since I'd never heard of him before (and I have a passing knowledge of Canadian military history writers). I think the literacy in the sole comment on him in "Rate My Prof" speaks volumes.

The book, _Warrior Nation_, however, is co-written with Ian McKay, PhD, a fervent anti-militarist who teaches Labour History at Queen's, which is to say, parroting Marx, Foucault, Gramsci, _et al_, in order to demonstrate that anyone who's broken a sweat is oppressed (well, except the military, of course; they're evil). I'm not sure of the division of labour, but Swift does have pride of place on the book's cover, so I suspect he's using McKay for some historical "credibility," notwithstanding McKay never having remotely studied military history.


----------

