The Militarization Of Canadian Culture

Written By: 4Canada
Date: 2007-04-10 10:15:47
<a href="/article/81547979-the-militarization-of-canadian-culture">Article Link</a>

When we first sent some 2,000 troops to Afghanistan, it was a major assignment—not strictly peace-keeping, but not war-fighting either—and yet it rarely made the news. But ever since we took on the war-fighting role in Southern Afghanistan, our mission has become a major part of our daily cultural consumption. And our approach in the country apes the Americans’—witness our government’s cavalier attitude toward the routine torture of Taliban prisoners seized by Canada and turned over to the Afghan government.

Which brings us to a crucial point—this deliberate attempt to shift our cultural landscape could not be happening without the complicity of the media, who have become willing partners in this remaking of Canada.

<a href="http://ceasefireinsider.wordpress.com/2007/04/10/the-militarization-of-canadian-culture/">http://ceasefireinsider.wordpress.com/2007/04/10/the-militarization-of-canadian-culture/</a>

“The militarization of Canadian culture reflects the spread of “deep integration”—the Bay Street initiative whose aim is to see Canada effectively assimilated into its behemoth neighbour.” 
 
 
Dobbin’s views won’t be popular with those holding military beliefs. Having read his article in full I find it coincides with my own opinions. 
 
There seems to be this esprit de corps among allies of the moment to the point where all things military take over from reason, armyguy was the pinnacle of that type of thinking and in his opinion anyone outside of the military had no idea nor should have counter views to the military belief system. 
 
Over four hundred years ago a twenty-five year old law student gave us a heads up 
 
<a href="http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html">http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html</a> 
 
<a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard29.html">http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard29.html</a> 
 
 
from Dobbin’s article, and worth repeating 
 
This situation reveals how naive we are as a nation. That old adage—the first casualty of war is truth—applies here in spades because this war is based on lies, including: 
• This has nothing to do with oil and gas pipelines. 
• This is a fight against terrorism. (The truth: It’s an occupation being resisted by indigenous militants.) 
• The current Afghan government is democratic. (The truth: Many senior figures should be tried for war crimes, and others are drug lords.) 
• Girls are now going to school. (Really? How many?) 
• Bombing villages will provide them with security. 
• We can “win.” 
What we are doing in Afghanistan is unsupportable. But what we are doing to ourselves is not so obvious. We are corrupting Canada’s own institutions, including our military, our foreign service, our foreign aide program, and our public broadcaster. Worst of all, as long as we stay in Afghanistan, we are corrupting our political culture. 
--- "And God said: 'Let there be Satan, so people don't blame everything on me. And let there be lawyers, so people don't blame everything on Satan." 
 
* George Bu

We should indeed ponder on why this happening to Canada and why now. <a href="http://www.alternativenews.org/news/english/materialist-militarism-20060808.html">Food for thought</a>.

Interesting links. But the first sentence from his article also is work repeating: 
 
"It is stunning how quickly the Canadian military can be recast as a key part of Canadian culture, especially now that we have abandoned our historic peacekeeping role." 
 
. . .because it assumes we have always been peacekeepers. We haven't. We've always been warriors, who kept peace. 'Peacekeeping' was the Liberals justification to reduce spending on the military, to the point where many had to take part time jobs to make ends meet. 
 
Just as his assumption that "When we first sent some 2,000 troops to Afghanistan, it was a major assignment—not strictly peace-keeping, but not war-fighting either". 
 
That stereotype was played loudly (and even currently) "with the complicity of the media" he chastizes. Afghanistan was never about peacekeeping, and it was never a secret that it was about war. Now the mission has changed, but combat is part of it, just as combat was always a part of peacekeeping. Some of our bloodiest battles since Korea were under the guise of 'peacekeeping'. The Airport at Cypress in 1974. The Medak Pocket. But people and the Media took no notice, so they never entered the public conciousness. I guess people discovering this new information somehow means we are 'glorifying' what we are trying to do in Afghanistan, when the intention is to put it into the perspective of what we have already done in the past. 
 
I see many are citing the 'militarization' of Canada, when it is the public that has forgotten our history. They have forgotten our history, and somehow feel this new information is presented not as 'rememberance' but as 'propaganda'. Just as 4C feels that 90th anniversary and re-dedication of the Vimy memorial are somehow part of the 'new' conciousness of the Canadian Military, but it is about remebering the history. 
 
And it is a proud history. We have never been the agressors. We have never had a civil war. And we have never failed in our mission, once that mission has been decided. 
 
PBS 'Frontline' had an excellent piece the other night on what Canadian soldiers are facing in Afghanistan. It's not on their website yet, but here is a little writeup. 
 
<a href="http://gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070408/DAYBREAK/704070304">http://gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070408/DAYBREAK/704070304</a> 
--- The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

Peacekeeping? Dr is right. I fired more bullets in Bosnia than I do in Afghanistan. WE have only been peacekeeping for 50 yrs. We have fought wars for over a 100( 1812-1953). Peacekeeping is a Liberal word for your a target.

---
27 yrs in the military, 10 tours now and I hope another in Feb

*bump* 
 
Just thought I'd let everyone know that the program is up on PBSs' website now. 
 
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/afghanistan604/video_index.html">http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/afghanistan604/video_index.html</a># 
--- The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

"... they will conduct an internal investigation to review their practices."

They obviously think we're complete idiots to bother saying such a thing.

"If there are methods or procedures that need to be changed or adjusted, you can be reassured that"

... next time we won't get caught!

"Insp. Savard acknowledged that one of the officers was given a rock by protesters but did not use it."

The unnamed officer is a very sensitive guy, and he came to acquire such an affection for that particular rock that he was unable to let go.

"the minister won't comment on the actions of the officers because he doesn't get involved in police operations, leaving it up to the police to explain their actions."

And they are doing such a fine job of it - first flat out lying that they were not involved, then after it became impossible to back up, they admitted they were involved while making up more lies in a disparate attempt to put out the flames. Of course the Minister won't get involved - the Minister is neck deep in steaming shit because he's the guy in charge of the f'n police!

Oops, meant to post this otherwise nonsensical response here <a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20070824170435588">Quebec police, Day defend undercover trio</a>

". . .because it assumes we "

By "we" I presume you're not talking about us ordinary Canadians?

"Afghanistan was never about peacekeeping,.."

You got that part right.

"... and it was never a secret that it was about war."

Not much of a secret to those who took the time to become informed, but the government and its buddies in the media sure as hell did whatever they could do to make it seem like it was not about a real war.

"... Now the mission has changed,"

No kidding. It went from blowing up Bin Laden and his fictional gang of cave dwelling super evil, super elusive, and completely invisible terrorists, to protecting womens rights and building schools, not to mention handing out cheap made in China trinkets to impoverished children. Where's the mission at now, 'to be determined'?

"... but combat is part of it, just as combat was always a part of peacekeeping."

The use of 'peacekeeping' falls into the same category along side phrases such as 'friendly fire' and 'collateral damage'.

"... Some of our bloodiest battles since Korea"

Another insane war based on outright lies.

"... were under the guise of 'peacekeeping'."

Fool me once ...

"But people and the Media took no notice, so they never entered the public conciousness."

More like the media did a really fine job informing the public about absolutely nothing.

"I guess people discovering this new information somehow means we are 'glorifying' what we are trying to do in Afghanistan"

War is never glorious, but not being glorious is bad for recruitment and motivation, so it always ends up being spun into something that appears to be glorious or whatever else does the job.

"I see many are citing the 'militarization' of Canada, when it is the public that has forgotten our history."

There's a big difference between forgetting and not ever knowing. The history you speak of is a history that I expect most Canadians do not consider themselves to be a part of.

"... and somehow feel this new information is presented not as 'rememberance' but as 'propaganda'."

Well propaganda is a very important part of war because without it there would be a lot less wars.

"And it is a proud history."

It's the proudest history imaginable because your predecessors wrote it.

"We have never been the agressors."

Of course not, the enemy started it and that's why the enemy is the enemy.

"We have never had a civil war."

Wiping out almost all of the indigenous people and destroying their culture put an end to that nasty little footnote in our history.

"And we have never failed in our mission,"

That's because the parameters of the mission are always kept well in alignment with a brilliant success, and if that is not possible, then the "historians" have to be kept well funded and informed of the official facts, while the "revisionists" who disagree are to be ridiculed and punished.

"... once that mission has been decided."

You mean like the one in Afghanistan? Is that a dry sense of humor I detect, or are you still trying to be serious?

"PBS 'Frontline' had an excellent piece the other night on what Canadian soldiers are facing in Afghanistan."

Of course it was excellent, after all PBS is only a little bit less than entirely dependent on US government handouts - a government that is more than happy to see Canadian soldiers jump head first into the Afghanistan meat grinder they have created. Where is it at now, 69 and counting dead Canadian soldiers?

I'm sure we'll be chatting about the brilliantly successful conclusion to this merry-go-round mission soon enough.

Speaking of circle-jerk . . . 
 
""... once that mission has been decided." 
 
You mean like the one in Afghanistan? Is that a dry sense of humor I detect, or are you still trying to be serious?" 
 
Sarcasm. Somalia, Croatia as examples. They can't be failures, because there was no 'mission' to complete. And if you watched the video on the US Government propaganda site, PBS, you'll see Afghanistan is the same way. 
 
Example: 
 
"Others had fought for it, the previous autumn and winter, but the Royal Canadian Dragoons, Recce squadron, had made the crucial vantage point habitable, secure, battening down the hatches and clearing the approach road of mines. They had eyes on, through the telescopic sights of rifles and surveillance radar. Regularly, in convoys, they patrolled the larger area – a crucial chunk of Zhari district criss-crossed by dirt trails used to hustle out opium and muster in fighters. It was this Canadian presence that had the insurgents on their heels. They couldn't tyrannize at will." 
 
"Last week, two Van Doos were killed trying to retake that position." 
 
"What happened, in so brief a span? Short answer: Canadian troops left." 
 
"They turned Ghundy Ghar over to Afghan national security forces – an Army encampment at the bottom of the hill, Afghan police checkpoints along the arterial road on the northern bank of the Arghandab River. Gift-wrapped it for the Afghans. And they couldn't hold it. Couldn't even prevent insurrectionists from planting massive improvised explosive devices right inside what had been the Canadian compound." 
 
<snip> 
 
"It was Afghan civilians who'd pleaded for Canadians to return last week." 
 
"Abandoning Afghanistan prematurely, on some arbitrary deadline, really will mean that those Canadians died in vain." 
 
More: 
<a href="http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/250147">http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/250147</a>--- The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.