Re: Editorial: Carolyn Parrish on Afghanistan

[career_radio-checker]

or Russian Roulette with a semi-automatic ;D

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Brilliant idea, on guard.   IMNSHO, that would be the perfect response on the part of Gen. Hillier: invite Ms Parrish to visit the troops and see for herself.   With her trip(s) to Palestine, she's already demonstrated that she is willing to tour conflict-torn areas, so a few days in Kandahar accompanied and protected by the CF's finest should be no sweat for her...

Hmmmmm.... Our very own Hanoi Jane

Could call her Kabul Carolyn

 

[PKR_Chequer]

Guys, check your fire on the the religious angle a little bit. The problem isn't Islam, the problem is extremism based on misguided interpretations of Islam.

Hey whiskey,

Not sure if that was directed at me or not, but for the sake of clarification...

I agree totally with you that the problem is not Islam.  Although I'm a Christian, I've got Muslim, Buddist, Hindu, Christian, athiest, etc, friends, colleagues, former roommates etc, and my comment wasn't intended as a slam against anybody's faith.

However...it's not an uncommon view that America's current foreign-policy adventures can be seen as a conflict between Western and Islamic  cultures (see for example The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order by S. Huntington of Harvard University, which I've read about, but haven't actually read for myself yet - it's on the list!  I don't have any citations handy, but I have read many articles (some of them cited in various threads on this board, I think) quoting extremist Muslim clerics who draw analogies between Afghanistan, Iraq and the crusades of the Middle Ages, and make claims about American/Western/Christian (insert the adjective of your choice here) imperialism.  I'm sure that if one looked hard enough, you could also find the mirror-image of that "crusade" rhetoric coming from the extremes of the Christian right-wing in the West.)

Now I don't necessarily agree with that interpretation.  I think that like most other things, the current world situation probably boils down to economics, but that's a whole 'nuther debate for a whole 'nother time. 

What I am saying is that lots of people on both sides do agree with that view, and I suspect that Ms Parrish, being a politician, is attempting to play on those sentiments among the voters of her riding (especially those who are recent immigrants of the Islamic faith) in order to improve her chances in the next election.  But then again, I'm pretty cynical about politicians in general... 

I don't have any special insight into the minds of the Islamic immigrant/first-generation Canadian voters of CP's riding, but I suspect that many of them are confused as heck -- torn between an attachment to their new country and a feeling of connection to the culture they left behind. I think that's what Ms Parrish is counting on: at the end of the day she hopes that these voters will identify enough with their co-religionists on the other side of the world that they will vote for her because she has tried to portray herself as sympathetic to the issues facing Islamic nations.

Does that make sense?  I'm not asking you to agree with my analysis, but I hope you can see where I"m coming from.

No offense intended, except possibly to Ms Parrish whom I don't particularly like, (based solely on her public statements, I've never met the woman) and I hope that clarifies my position!


edit: tried to clarify a couple of ambiguous sentences

 

[ArmyRick]

Wait until Canadians come home in body bags ?

Hey Ms Parrish, they already have...

SGT R. Shortt, RIP
CPL Beerenfenger, RIP
CPL Murphy, RIP
and lets not forget
SGT Leger, RIP
CPL Dyer, RIP
Pte Green, RIP and
Pte Smith, RIP...

They gave their lives for this country, Ms Parrish.

 

[McG]

and lets not forget . . .

Lets not forget those that were killed in Bosnia & Croatia.

 

[Gunner]

Lets not forget those that were killed in Bosnia & Croatia.

and every other Canadian soldier who fell around the world ensuring freedom for others.    

 

[Armymedic]

Let us not forget, cause windbags like her do, as soon as it is pushed out of the newspapers by her idiotic comments.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is my contribution:

30 July 2005

Carolyn Parrish, MP
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Dear Ms. Parrish;

Like many other Canadians I disagree with your recent remarks about both our mission in Afghanistan and our Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier.

First: I take no issue with your right to hold those views.  I disagree with them, but that's my prerogative.

Second: and even more important, I respect your right and, as an elected MP, your duty to express yourself.

I do suggest that your views are poorly founded.

Some friends, including many serving military personnel, retired members (like myself) and people interested in the Canadian Forces participate in a web based discussion called army.ca*  - http://army.ca/ .  The site's owner has addressed some of my concerns (and those of many others) in an editorial.  I would be grateful if you would read it because it reflects my views and those of several friends whose opinions I value.

In addition, I, specifically, believe that some of your views on Canada's military are ill-informed.

You suggested that we have 100 years of history as peacekeepers.  With respect, Ms. Parrish, that is utter nonsense.  We, Canadian sailors, soldiers and aviators have several hundred years of honourable, even glorious history as fighting men (and women) â “ some of it predating confederation.

We will soon be celebrating the 200th anniversary of battles like Lundy's Lane and the capture of Detroit.  The first Canadian VC (our top medal, awarded only to the bravest of the brave in battle) was won by Lieutenant Robert Dunn, of Toronto, at Balaclava, at the Charge of the Light Brigade, over 160 years ago - one of the very first VCs ever won.  Canadians served at the relief of Khartoum in 1884, and it was Canadians who defeated Cronje's Boers, at Paardeberg, in 1900.  I'm sure you know about our record in 1914-18.  Perhaps you think our part in the intervention in Russia in 1918/19 was our initial foray into peacekeeping â “ I think most historians would disagree.  Of course you know that Canadians â “ some of your constituents amongst them, fought around the world in 1939-45, in Korea in the early '50s and, in too little known battles, in the Balkans in the '90s.  I'm sure some of your constituents will have sons or daughters, nieces and nephews, friends, even spouses in Afghanistan, or will be there themselves â “ in combat, in 2005 and for years to come.

We were, in a manner of speaking, trying to restore peace in 1914, 1939 and 1950, (as our forces are doing, now) but those wars grew, inevitably, into colossal struggles in which tens of thousands of Canadians were killed while they, to their eternal credit, killed many, many more tens â “ even hundreds of thousands of the enemy. Killing, Ms. Parrish, is a soldier's stock-in-trade; as is dying.  If you want our army to stop doing both then I really suggest you recommend that we disarm, totally, and use CIDA's civil servants or Katimavik's children for Pearsonian peacekeeping.  Until then, General Hiller, as is his duty, spoke over the heads of the Ottawa spin doctors, directly to the soldiers he is sending â “ on our behalf â “ into harm's way.

I reiterate, I take no issue with your right to hold whichever views you choose; soldiers, especially those still serving, take very seriously their duty to protect your rights to hold and propagate your views â “ more so in your case because you, unlike any if us, stood for election and you were elected, by our fellow citizens, to speak for them.  We respect politicians, including the ones who do not share our views.  I do not share your views.  I think they are poorly grounded in fact and history.  I ask you to reconsider, revise and restate yourself.

Thank you, Ms. Parrish for considering my views.

Yours truly

original signed by
Edward Campbell
Ottawa

* If you peruse the rest of the site you will probably find that most members disagree with you â “ some quite vehemently.  I'm sure you're used to that â “ the vehemence; I guess, sadly, it goes with your job.  Soldiers, too, have the rights to hold views and, within certain well defined rules, to express them.  They would rather not talk about you and your views; they are much more interested in questions like 'what is the best rifle?' and 'how should we best organize the rifle section?' but when they are already in (in some cases) or headed for Afghanistan (in others) they exercise their right to complain about leaders and leadership â “ especially political leaders, like you

 

[KevinB]

Outstanding job. 

 

[Armymedic]

Excellent post Edward, you speak much more eloquent then I could.

 

[MJP]

Wow, just WOW.

Excellent letter Edward!

 

[JasonH]

Independent maverick MP Carolyn Parrish not welcome back in caucus, PMO says

Tara Brautigam
Canadian Press

Saturday, July 30, 2005

1 | 2 | NEXT >>
Independent MP Carolyn Parrish. (CP PICTURE ARCHIVE/Tom Hanson)
ADVERTISEMENT

TORONTO (CP) - The federal Liberals slammed the door shut Friday on any notion that Independent MP Carolyn Parrish would be welcomed back into the party that she helped keep in power.

An aide to Prime Minister Paul Martin stifled speculation that he was about to invite the maverick MP from Mississauga, Ont., back into caucus after she was banished for criticizing Martin and stomping on a doll of U.S. President George W. Bush.

"He's not even entertaining the thought of welcoming Carolyn Parrish back to the caucus," said Marc Roy.

Martin did meet with Parrish after she threw her support behind the government in the razor-thin May 19 confidence vote, helping to keep the Liberals at the helm, Roy said. But she has not been asked to return to caucus.

"Did the prime minister talk to her, go see her after the vote? Yes. But the fact remains that the prime minister is not entertaining the idea of welcoming back Carolyn Parrish."

In Timmins, Ont., Martin shot down questions surrounding Parrish's possible return to the Liberal party.

"The fact is, that's not an issue," said Martin, who was in the northern Ontario city discussing the region's economic development.

Parrish refused to be interviewed, but in a statement e-mailed to her assistant confirmed that she had discussions with Martin.

"The lines of communication were open. Chit chat was taking place. It's correct that there were no formal negotiations because there's nothing to negotiate," the statement read.

The categorical rejection of Parrish's re-entry into Liberal politics was a surprising, if not dangerous tactic, said University of Toronto political science professor Stephen Clarkson.

"I would've thought they would let her back into the fold quietly and have a talk with her, and figure out if there's any way that she can take a more reasonable stand in public, or less embarrassing stand on American issues," said Clarkson.

Clarkson, who is releasing a book this fall on the Liberal party's domination of Canadian politics, said the snub has the same tone of confrontation displayed by Martin's advisers during the 2004 election, when the Liberals maintained power but lost their majority government.

"They're not learning from that," he said.

"That kind of belligerent attitude is difficult to afford if you're not in complete control of the situation . . . when they're in a minority, it's a dangerous tactic."

Of the 308 seats in the House of Commons, the Liberals have 132 and the New Democrats have 19, giving the two parties 151 votes. The NDP has agreed to prop up the Liberals in exchange for a handful of concessions.

In opposition, the Conservatives have 98 seats and the Bloc Quebecois have 54, together marshalling 152 votes.

There are three Independents who effectively hold the balance of power: Parrish, who had said she'll continue to support the Liberals, Pat O'Brien who has sided with the Grits in the past, and David Kilgour, who supported the Tory-Bloc coalition during the confidence vote. The seat of Surrey North MP Chuck Cadman, who died earlier this month, is vacant. He stood in support of the Liberals during the confidence vote, keeping the party afloat.

Martin turfed Parrish last December after she criticized him and his team and stomped on a Bush doll as part of a TV skit satirizing her opposition to the U.S. president's ballistic missile defence scheme.

But Parrish garnered respect from her former colleagues when she voted for the government's budget on May 19, helping Martin cling to power by the narrowest of margins.

She showed up for the confidence vote despite suffering severe abdominal pain from what she described as a suspected ovarian cyst.

At the time, Parrish said "lots of colleagues" were urging her to rejoin Liberal ranks.

 

[MikeM]

Excellent letter Edward! Well done.

 

[Deleted member 6930]

Great Letter .... that about sums it up.

:warstory:

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Ed did you post that just to her or the papers as well?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Ed did you post that just to her or the papers as well?

Just to her; to her staffers in both her Ottawa and Mississauga offices, really.

The papers have been full of well considered objections; another isn't necessary.

She has, I'm sure, been bombarded with mail - probably more pro than con, truth to tell, in response to the number of contrary opinions expressed in editorials and letters in most papers and, I think, on radio and TV.

I think we need to remember that Parrish is popular in Canada and the peacekeeping mythology is deeply ingrained in the national consciousness.  (See, e.g: â ?Peacekeeping is awesome and I totally agree with it ...â ? in http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33074/post-246413.html#msg246413 )  I'm not trying to insult Oshawakid who, in his inaugural post told us he is 19 years old and wants to join, but what is it about peacekeeping that he finds so "awesomeâ ??

For most of the past 35+ years the Government of Canada (regardless of political stripe) has propagated an image of Canada in the world - the pictures at the bottom of the page pretty well sum it up.  Now and again - briefly in the mid-late '80s/very early '90s and again, just recently, the government-of-the-day has stepped out of the peacekeeping shadows and actually told Canadians that it will send forces into battle.  Mostly however, as in the Balkans in the '90s, when the government-of-day uses the CF in combat it studiously avoids telling Canadians about it.  The message - in the media and in our schools - is relentless: good, kind, gentle Canadians go around the world, without guns and bombs, and feed babies.  Awesome, indeed.  (The un-stated but loud and clear counterpoint is that hard, cruel Americans go around killing innocents.)  This policy, which became explicit in 1969 when the Trudeau government formally disavowed St. Laurent's engaged, activist leading middle power policy and Pearson's helpful fixer mode, was, and remains highly popular.

It must be remembered that the generation which supported this policy was the one which fought World War II; it shared, with the intelligentsia, strong anti-capitalist sentiments and a hope, perhaps a conviction that it must be possible to build and sustain a caring and sharing society.  This generation came of age during the great depression - a searing social event which demanded villains, and greedy Wall Street (and, if you lived on the prairies, Chicago Board of Trade) capitalists filled the bill.

By the mid '60s the million men (mostly men) who fought World War II were prospering - beyond the dreams they might have held in 1935.  They were, also, imbued with a new nationalism as Canada approached its centennial.  They were, rightfully, proud of their country and its new, active, leadership role in the world and leading the way in the UN - including peacekeeping - was one of the things in which they took pride.  Canadians really did want a third way - the million men (in uniform, in 1945) had chafed at being thought to be British by too many Americans and being thought to be colonials by too many British.  They wanted an independent Canada - but one with values created by the great depression (a mean, niggardly, penny pinching view of the world) and by the explosion of American mass, popular culture (envy of whatever celebrity appears on the US stage and a desire to have a Canadian this and Canadian that).  They, and their children, were ripe for the Pierre Trudeau/Ivan Head revolution in foreign policy.  It wasn't what most of the million men wanted, not at all, but by the time they woke up and saw the shape of the new Canada their children - now teen-agers and young adults, were firmly on side.  The children of the million men are, of course, the boomers - and they run Canada.

I don't expect Ms. Parrish to read, much less acknowledge my letter; I expect her staff to add it to the smaller, contrarian pile.  I expect her staff to reassure Ms. Parrish that:

"¢ Most Canadians are on her side - confirmed by their own letter/e-mail count and by the detailed, expert polling which Liberal Party of Canada officials still share with Ms. Parrish; and

"¢ Although she may not be welcomed back into the Liberal Party she will still get all the perquisites and benefits including pork-barrel projects and a rope-a-dope, sacrificial lamb, official Liberal opponent in the next general election.

Awesome is an interesting word - one I would apply to very large, very bight things (like nuclear explosions) but never, ever to a military sideshow which tries to prop up a failed foreign policy.

</rant>

 

[Hunter911]

Great job Edward... Im really glad someone said what had to be said 

On another note, in an article on Rick Hillier in the Globe and Mail, Saturday July 30th, Ms. Parrish said "...we are not about to throw away a noble reputation in the world because of a testosterone filled General, and i think someone should put a clamp on his mouth."

:-\... Does this seem wrong and ignorant to anyone else?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Great job Edward... Im really glad someone said what had to be said  

On another note, in an article on Rick Hillier in the Globe and Mail, Saturday July 30th, Ms. Parrish said "...we are not about to throw away a noble reputation in the world because of a testosterone filled General, and i think someone should put a clamp on his mouth."

:-\... Does this seem wrong and ignorant to anyone else?

Hey, if being a decisive , iintelligent leader requires testosterone, Ms Parrish might think consider getting the neccesary surgery done ;D. Might help her get back into the caucus :

 

[Edward Campbell]

Great job Edward... Im really glad someone said what had to be said 
...

It is also a matter of saying it in a respectful manner.  Ms Parrish, unlike us, has stood for election and the electors have seen fit to choose her as their representative.  She deserves our respect for that - but not, necessarily, our agreement with her views and positions or our respect for the way she chooses to express them.

Just got this a few minutes ago:

From: Carolyn Parrish, M.P. cparrish@rogers.blackberry.net
Sent: August 2, 2005 6:31:03 PM
To: "Edward Campbell" ____________@hotmail.com
Subject: Thank you

For a very thoughtful letter. The 100 years of peacekeeping was a shortened
quote. I'm totally aware that our first 50 years were spent fighting tyranny and
democracy - real armies that wanted to change our way of life or the lives of
our allies. The last 50 have been devoted to â Å“peace makingâ ? in hundreds of hot
spots in the world. Reporters truncate quotes to suit their purposes. I read the
editorial you directed to my attention and would really appreciate the
opportunity to respond to it in detail. Perhaps you could forward my response to
the magazine's publisher.

Again, I truly appreciate your thoughtful, respectful letter and will put effort
into responding to it, and to the editorial, as soon as is possible.

Carolyn

I am mindful of a comment by a now sadly dead colonel from my old Regiment who reminded us of the symbolism of changing the guard on Parliament Hill rather than a Rideau Hall.  It is our constitutional democracy which we defend, in the name of our sovereign; the 'heart' of our constitutional democracy sits in the middle of the precincts of parliament and that is where we, symbolically, mount guard for the nation.  (The guard is posted at Rideau Hall, of course, to 'guard' our commander-in-chief â “ also of symbolic importance.)  When we defend our constitutional democracy we also defend the parliamentarians, including Ms. Parrish, all of them, some of whom I detest quite thoroughly.  We may detest (some of) them but we owe them our loyalty and a modicum of respect, at least for the office they hold.  The same, in a way, as saluting the commission â “ even when you despise the officer holding it.

 

[Haggis]

Replies from Ms. Parrish (if any) will be posted here.

I got one!!!

Thank you for a very eloquent description of the life of one of our very brave, very competent soldiers.  I've been to Bosnia, the Middle East and other hot spots.
Needlessly putting soldiers in danger to prop up an American appointed puppet government is a crying shame.

Sincerely,

Carolyn Parrish, M.P.
Mississauga-Erindale

Although I give her bonus points for replying, she didn't answer my questions.