For those too lazy to click the link:
November 9th, 2006
Why I refused to fight in Afghanistan
Speech given to the October 28 anti-war demonstration in Toronto.
Dateline: Monday, November 06, 2006
by Francisco Juarez
"I joined the Canadian Forces in 2002 and served my country proudly until this last summer. I transferred to the army in March of this year and applied for a commission as an infantry officer. I was full of desire to be a part of the humanitarian mission to assist the Afghan people in 2009.
After the last election, however, when the Conservatives took a minority Parliament as a mandate to reconstruct the national identity, and change the way our country acts abroad, I decided I could no longer be supportive of a mission that has as its priority and chief objective the support of US hegemony in the Middle East. The priority should be the assistance to the Afghan people.
We as Canadians are a compassionate and reasonable people, diverse and tolerant. We have compassion for all our serving members in the Canadian Forces, our American brothers and sisters, the Afghan people, and indeed the globe in its entirety. We have a long tradition of acting through our foreign policy with such a nature and acting as facilitators of peace and intermediaries in conflict.
This is our Canadian identity itself.
And without permission from the Canadian people, Harper and the conservatives have drastically altered the fundamental meaning of being Canadian.
It is because of our compassionate nature that we were sold on use of force in Afghanistan as a means to provide humanitarian aid, and enabling of representative democracy in Afghanistan.
As the people of Southern Afghanistan starve for lack of food and shelter in the approaching winter… perhaps they optimistically hope that this time that Canadian tank coming down the road is in fact full of food instead of high explosive rounds.
Conservatives are changing the fundamental meaning of being Canadian.
Armies — and our American brothers here today can attest to this — are by definition meant to close with and destroy the enemy. Armies are not designed to deliver aid and not to help in enabling representative democracy. They are mechanisms of death and destruction — period.
And as the use of the military must be an expression of our “rights driven society” and of our national will, I feel compelled to say that the majority of Canadians do not support the use of our troops in direct military confrontation.
This is not in the best interest of Canadian security nor, and most importantly, is it in the long-term best interest of the Afghan people. So whose best interest then is the war in Afghanistan?
We should demand a fuller debate in the House of Commons and in our broader society about the reasons why conflict exists in Afghanistan, and what our role is to be there.
We are told that we must stay the course in some form of dubious nautical metaphor. But I would suggest that perhaps it is time to take the ship back and repair its faulty rudder, and leave those leaders whom we see as irresponsible and disconnected from the national will — rowing away in a small boat of their own.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME NOW!"
Now, if I may comment.
You applied to be an infantry officer in order to "...be a part of the humanitarian mission to assist the Afghan people in 2009." Later, you state: "Armies...are by definition meant to close with and destroy the enemy. Armies are not designed to deliver aid and not to help in enabling representative democracy. They are mechanisms of death and destruction — period."
So, which is it Francisco? You joined the infantry, whose role is to "Close with and destroy the enemy", but you wanted to be part of a humanitarian mission. As I recall, sometimes armies ARE necessary to help in "enabling representative democracy", as our Canadian Army did in World War Two and later in The Federal Republic of Germany from Op PANDA in the 1950s until the stand down of CFE in Germany in the 1990s.
Strike One.
You also state: "I transferred to the army in March of this year ", and then you state "After the last election, however, when the Conservatives took a minority Parliament as a mandate to reconstruct the national identity, and change the way our country acts abroad, I decided I could no longer be supportive of a mission that has as its priority and chief objective the support of US hegemony in the Middle East."
NEWSFLASH:
The Conservative party won the last election in January of 2006. You transferred to the army in March of that same year, the same month in which Pte Costall was killled in action in a firefight with the enemy. You blame the conservatives for taking us to Khandahar. You are way off base. Check this out from the Mothercorp:
"Canada will increase its troop contribution to Afghanistan, sending as many as 1,250 soldiers to the southern part of the country.
Roughly 1,000 new troops will be sent to the southern city of Kandahar by February 2006, where they'll stay for up to a year, said Defence Minister Bill Graham on Monday.
As well, a 250-person Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) will arrive in the region in August 2005 and remain for about 18 months.
"This commitment is consistent with our new international and defence policies, which demonstrate Canada's emphasis on bringing stability and humanitarian relief to fragile states," said Graham in a news release." http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/05/17/afghanistan-050517.html
This was posted to the CBC website on 17 May, 2005. Yes, a full EIGHT MONTHS before the conservatives won the election and TEN MONTHS before you transferred to the army.
Strike Two
Why are we in Afghanistan? According to you, we are there to "...support...US hegemony in the Middle East."
I refer to UN Security Council resolution S/RES/1707 (2006) which states in part:
"...welcoming the extension of ISAF into Southern Afghanistan, with effect from 31 July 2006, the planned further ISAF expansion into Eastern Afghanistan and the increased coordination between ISAF and the OEF coalition..."
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/517/70/PDF/N0651770.pdf?OpenElement
Strike Three
You're out.