- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
A good article by Rondi Adamson (Toronto Star's house conservative) in The Christian Science Monitor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0403/p09s01-coop.htm
Excerpts:
'...Canadians have been in love with the image of themselves as blue-hat wearing do-gooders, convincing everyone to get along while never firing a shot...
...Canadian forces in Afghanistan are part of a multinational combat force participating in both the continuing battle against stubborn Taliban remainders and in the securing of the young Afghan democracy. One would think, given the generally accepted role of soldiers and given the easily provable brutality of the enemy in question, that Canadians would understand the inevitability of casualties, both military and civilian.
Yet a cursory look at recent headlines in Canadian newspapers reflects the sad reality: Canadians are in a dream world, and need to be shaken from their sleep. Some examples: "More risk for our troops," "Dangers to Canadian troops in Afghanistan expected," "Canadian deaths in Afghanistan unavoidable: Department of National Defence," and, "Nervous day for Canadian troops after Afghan blasts." On TV and radio, debates about whether our troops should be "exposed to danger" are commonplace. Should it not go without saying that soldiers face risk and danger? The minutiae of each death of a soldier (there have been 11 so far, four from hostile action, three in accidents, four from friendly fire) is parsed, analyzed, given wall-to-wall coverage, exploited by politicians and everyone with an anti-American ax to grind...
In 2005, reports from Canada's military commanders warned that Canada's forces were overstretched and underfunded. But those problems, grave as they are, are nothing compared to the dangers of the Canadian mind-set. Underfunding can be overcome. A firmly entrenched national myth, five decades in the making, is a different matter...'
And a good piece by Jack Granatstein, "Keeping the soldiers' bargain":
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=4f1c950a-74cc-4c39-9a05-e0b227c199d1&p=2
'...
...It's Kandahar, Afghanistan, and the casualties, still few in number, are beginning to mount. Are Canadians ready for this war?
To ask the question, unfortunately, is to answer it. They're not. The military reporter for one big newspaper recently asked me if Canadians could cope with such casualties. "Is this our Vietnam?" he wondered. Opposition MPs, columnists, letter writers and bloggers all bemoan Canada's turn away from "traditional" peacekeeping, and blame this fact for the dead and wounded in what they perceive as just another of George W. Bush's wars...
Many soldiers may not be politically sophisticated. But they clearly understand the basic equation: They will do Canada's dirty work and accept the blood and pain if their government and people back them up. If only our sophisticated Opposition politicians and media columnists had as much sense.'
Mark
Ottawa
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0403/p09s01-coop.htm
Excerpts:
'...Canadians have been in love with the image of themselves as blue-hat wearing do-gooders, convincing everyone to get along while never firing a shot...
...Canadian forces in Afghanistan are part of a multinational combat force participating in both the continuing battle against stubborn Taliban remainders and in the securing of the young Afghan democracy. One would think, given the generally accepted role of soldiers and given the easily provable brutality of the enemy in question, that Canadians would understand the inevitability of casualties, both military and civilian.
Yet a cursory look at recent headlines in Canadian newspapers reflects the sad reality: Canadians are in a dream world, and need to be shaken from their sleep. Some examples: "More risk for our troops," "Dangers to Canadian troops in Afghanistan expected," "Canadian deaths in Afghanistan unavoidable: Department of National Defence," and, "Nervous day for Canadian troops after Afghan blasts." On TV and radio, debates about whether our troops should be "exposed to danger" are commonplace. Should it not go without saying that soldiers face risk and danger? The minutiae of each death of a soldier (there have been 11 so far, four from hostile action, three in accidents, four from friendly fire) is parsed, analyzed, given wall-to-wall coverage, exploited by politicians and everyone with an anti-American ax to grind...
In 2005, reports from Canada's military commanders warned that Canada's forces were overstretched and underfunded. But those problems, grave as they are, are nothing compared to the dangers of the Canadian mind-set. Underfunding can be overcome. A firmly entrenched national myth, five decades in the making, is a different matter...'
And a good piece by Jack Granatstein, "Keeping the soldiers' bargain":
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=4f1c950a-74cc-4c39-9a05-e0b227c199d1&p=2
'...
...It's Kandahar, Afghanistan, and the casualties, still few in number, are beginning to mount. Are Canadians ready for this war?
To ask the question, unfortunately, is to answer it. They're not. The military reporter for one big newspaper recently asked me if Canadians could cope with such casualties. "Is this our Vietnam?" he wondered. Opposition MPs, columnists, letter writers and bloggers all bemoan Canada's turn away from "traditional" peacekeeping, and blame this fact for the dead and wounded in what they perceive as just another of George W. Bush's wars...
Many soldiers may not be politically sophisticated. But they clearly understand the basic equation: They will do Canada's dirty work and accept the blood and pain if their government and people back them up. If only our sophisticated Opposition politicians and media columnists had as much sense.'
Mark
Ottawa
