The Death of Peacekeeping
Scrappy @ Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:38 pm
Streaker Streaker:
$1:
The Death of Peacekeeping and the Battle for Canada’s Soul
Adbusters March/April 2007
[B]A European news camera follows a group of Canadians in battle gear as they swarm into a small Afghan village, breaking down doors with their boots and interrogating the families inside. In one home, inhabited by veiled women and an old man with a long white beard, a soldier is demanding information on the whereabouts of Taliban fighters. “Too bad for you if you don’t want to tell us where they are hiding,” says the soldier. “We are going to come and kill them. We are going to bomb and shoot everywhere. Is that what you want?”
In another home, a soldier raised on wheat and milk in a land of forests and rivers – a land in which the flourishing Afghan poppy fields are symbols of the dead in war – lectures a group of Afghan men. “It’s not a good idea to join the Taliban,” he says. “My soldiers are very well trained. They are good shooters. And you will die.”
Taking a softer line, he brandishes a wad of cash under their noses. But the men only look on in silence until, at last, one speaks. “It’s nice of you, but we don’t want your money. It’s our country. And with all our strength we will protect it.”
Those scenes were aired last summer on France 2,[/B] part of a report on the activities of Canadian soldiers currently operating – such a surgical term – in the Kandahar province of southern Afghanistan. It’s not the sort of reportage one tends to see on Canadian television, where domestic journalists embedded with the Canadian Forces must sign an agreement promising not to spend “an inordinate amount of time” covering nonmilitary activities, such as the plight of the Afghan people, and are required to submit their work to censors. Such images of the "high-intensity combat” that is now Canada’s primary occupation in Afghanistan disrupt a carefully crafted vision in which, as Canada’s Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, put it in his speech of September 11, 2006, “Canadian heroes are being made every day.”
Surrounded by families of September 11th victims, Harper repeated what Canadians are frequently told is the justification for their presence in that far-off land: “Canadians are reconstructing the basic infrastructure of a shattered nation.” Speaking with his trademark self-assurance, he informed the Canadian public that, “Many – but not yet all Afghan families – are beginning to rebuild their lives with our help.”
If only. As US-led NATO troops conduct search-and-destroy missions on villages while resurgent Taliban fighters kill schoolteachers, a new mafia of warlords and corrupt officials run the country under foreign protection. War-ravaged civilians find themselves, once again, in a familiar predicament: “The strong do what they can,” as the historian Thucydides observed in the fifth century BC, “and the weak suffer what they must."
Yet the boastful cries of an early American victory over the Taliban have lately been replaced by the cautionary words of NATO commander David Richards: "We need to realize that we could actually fail here." And Canada, traditionally a peacekeeper on the global stage, finds that it has bought an expensive piece of the American war on terror at a time when the United States' global reputation is sinking around the world. As other regions, like Darfur, cry out for the kind of mediation Canadians once provided, the world wonders: has Canada lost its soul?
Adbusters March/April 2007
[B]A European news camera follows a group of Canadians in battle gear as they swarm into a small Afghan village, breaking down doors with their boots and interrogating the families inside. In one home, inhabited by veiled women and an old man with a long white beard, a soldier is demanding information on the whereabouts of Taliban fighters. “Too bad for you if you don’t want to tell us where they are hiding,” says the soldier. “We are going to come and kill them. We are going to bomb and shoot everywhere. Is that what you want?”
In another home, a soldier raised on wheat and milk in a land of forests and rivers – a land in which the flourishing Afghan poppy fields are symbols of the dead in war – lectures a group of Afghan men. “It’s not a good idea to join the Taliban,” he says. “My soldiers are very well trained. They are good shooters. And you will die.”
Taking a softer line, he brandishes a wad of cash under their noses. But the men only look on in silence until, at last, one speaks. “It’s nice of you, but we don’t want your money. It’s our country. And with all our strength we will protect it.”
Those scenes were aired last summer on France 2,[/B] part of a report on the activities of Canadian soldiers currently operating – such a surgical term – in the Kandahar province of southern Afghanistan. It’s not the sort of reportage one tends to see on Canadian television, where domestic journalists embedded with the Canadian Forces must sign an agreement promising not to spend “an inordinate amount of time” covering nonmilitary activities, such as the plight of the Afghan people, and are required to submit their work to censors. Such images of the "high-intensity combat” that is now Canada’s primary occupation in Afghanistan disrupt a carefully crafted vision in which, as Canada’s Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, put it in his speech of September 11, 2006, “Canadian heroes are being made every day.”
Surrounded by families of September 11th victims, Harper repeated what Canadians are frequently told is the justification for their presence in that far-off land: “Canadians are reconstructing the basic infrastructure of a shattered nation.” Speaking with his trademark self-assurance, he informed the Canadian public that, “Many – but not yet all Afghan families – are beginning to rebuild their lives with our help.”
If only. As US-led NATO troops conduct search-and-destroy missions on villages while resurgent Taliban fighters kill schoolteachers, a new mafia of warlords and corrupt officials run the country under foreign protection. War-ravaged civilians find themselves, once again, in a familiar predicament: “The strong do what they can,” as the historian Thucydides observed in the fifth century BC, “and the weak suffer what they must."
Yet the boastful cries of an early American victory over the Taliban have lately been replaced by the cautionary words of NATO commander David Richards: "We need to realize that we could actually fail here." And Canada, traditionally a peacekeeper on the global stage, finds that it has bought an expensive piece of the American war on terror at a time when the United States' global reputation is sinking around the world. As other regions, like Darfur, cry out for the kind of mediation Canadians once provided, the world wonders: has Canada lost its soul?
Link to full article.
Is our army becoming a bunch of American-style cowboys?
Streaky, reference your above quote that I have highlighted, please provide the video which you say aired on France 2 last summer, for without proof, I am a doubting Thomas. When did this alleged action take place? Which units were deployed at the time? If you can't provide the link then it is just fiction. Read the Liberal red book if you want fiction, start validating your articles you post ole commie one. Is your desk job as an admin clerk starting to addle your brain their Pete and rePete (Streaker and Scrape).
Tricks @ Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:38 pm
Streaker Streaker:
Of course there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11. 9/11 happened and Bush used it as a (false) pretext with which to sell the American public on an invasion of Iraq.
There's your connection.
So when we talk about Canadian involvement in afghanistan, and 9/11 is quoted as one of the reasons that is grounds to bring up a totally unrelated war because someone you don't like drew a connection. Is anyone else seeing the flawed logic there?There's your connection.
Tricks Tricks:
We're talking about Canada's response to US foreign policy in the aftermath of 9/11. Iraq and Afghanistan are both germane to the topic.
I thought it was about Canada's alleged actions in Afghanistan? And how if we give up our supposed peacekeeping we will become an extension of the US military. You'll also notice that Canada's response to US foreign policy differed on those two grounds. Which means they have even less to do with each other. Tricks Tricks:
Oh yes we are. Peacekeeping requires a multilateral approach. "Either you're with us or you're against us" obviously doesn't, and in our own way we've gone along with that.
Bullshit. That reeks of Anti-American rhetoric. Countries all over the world aren't recognized as peacekeepers like we are and don't have that mind set. I got an example, south of the border doesn't. $1:
If we've abandoned peacekeeping in order to embrace the American approach then we've rejected our commitment to multilateralism - and placed ourselves in a position of increased subservience to the US.
Pray tell what is this American approach? Is this truly the American approach or the Bush approach? Don't descend into generalizations now.
And again, how in hell would shedding our Peacekeeping name make us a servant of the US? What logic can you possibly be applying to that. Or is this a scare tactic to try and keep the Peacekeeping shroud around us?
"We have to stay how we are or we become like the big bad warmongers!"
Is that what this is about? Sure as hell seems like it.
Streaker @ Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:46 pm
Scrappy Scrappy:
Streaker Streaker:
$1:
The Death of Peacekeeping and the Battle for Canada’s Soul
Adbusters March/April 2007
[B]A European news camera follows a group of Canadians in battle gear as they swarm into a small Afghan village, breaking down doors with their boots and interrogating the families inside. In one home, inhabited by veiled women and an old man with a long white beard, a soldier is demanding information on the whereabouts of Taliban fighters. “Too bad for you if you don’t want to tell us where they are hiding,” says the soldier. “We are going to come and kill them. We are going to bomb and shoot everywhere. Is that what you want?”
In another home, a soldier raised on wheat and milk in a land of forests and rivers – a land in which the flourishing Afghan poppy fields are symbols of the dead in war – lectures a group of Afghan men. “It’s not a good idea to join the Taliban,” he says. “My soldiers are very well trained. They are good shooters. And you will die.”
Taking a softer line, he brandishes a wad of cash under their noses. But the men only look on in silence until, at last, one speaks. “It’s nice of you, but we don’t want your money. It’s our country. And with all our strength we will protect it.”
Those scenes were aired last summer on France 2,[/B] part of a report on the activities of Canadian soldiers currently operating – such a surgical term – in the Kandahar province of southern Afghanistan. It’s not the sort of reportage one tends to see on Canadian television, where domestic journalists embedded with the Canadian Forces must sign an agreement promising not to spend “an inordinate amount of time” covering nonmilitary activities, such as the plight of the Afghan people, and are required to submit their work to censors. Such images of the "high-intensity combat” that is now Canada’s primary occupation in Afghanistan disrupt a carefully crafted vision in which, as Canada’s Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, put it in his speech of September 11, 2006, “Canadian heroes are being made every day.”
Surrounded by families of September 11th victims, Harper repeated what Canadians are frequently told is the justification for their presence in that far-off land: “Canadians are reconstructing the basic infrastructure of a shattered nation.” Speaking with his trademark self-assurance, he informed the Canadian public that, “Many – but not yet all Afghan families – are beginning to rebuild their lives with our help.”
If only. As US-led NATO troops conduct search-and-destroy missions on villages while resurgent Taliban fighters kill schoolteachers, a new mafia of warlords and corrupt officials run the country under foreign protection. War-ravaged civilians find themselves, once again, in a familiar predicament: “The strong do what they can,” as the historian Thucydides observed in the fifth century BC, “and the weak suffer what they must."
Yet the boastful cries of an early American victory over the Taliban have lately been replaced by the cautionary words of NATO commander David Richards: "We need to realize that we could actually fail here." And Canada, traditionally a peacekeeper on the global stage, finds that it has bought an expensive piece of the American war on terror at a time when the United States' global reputation is sinking around the world. As other regions, like Darfur, cry out for the kind of mediation Canadians once provided, the world wonders: has Canada lost its soul?
Adbusters March/April 2007
[B]A European news camera follows a group of Canadians in battle gear as they swarm into a small Afghan village, breaking down doors with their boots and interrogating the families inside. In one home, inhabited by veiled women and an old man with a long white beard, a soldier is demanding information on the whereabouts of Taliban fighters. “Too bad for you if you don’t want to tell us where they are hiding,” says the soldier. “We are going to come and kill them. We are going to bomb and shoot everywhere. Is that what you want?”
In another home, a soldier raised on wheat and milk in a land of forests and rivers – a land in which the flourishing Afghan poppy fields are symbols of the dead in war – lectures a group of Afghan men. “It’s not a good idea to join the Taliban,” he says. “My soldiers are very well trained. They are good shooters. And you will die.”
Taking a softer line, he brandishes a wad of cash under their noses. But the men only look on in silence until, at last, one speaks. “It’s nice of you, but we don’t want your money. It’s our country. And with all our strength we will protect it.”
Those scenes were aired last summer on France 2,[/B] part of a report on the activities of Canadian soldiers currently operating – such a surgical term – in the Kandahar province of southern Afghanistan. It’s not the sort of reportage one tends to see on Canadian television, where domestic journalists embedded with the Canadian Forces must sign an agreement promising not to spend “an inordinate amount of time” covering nonmilitary activities, such as the plight of the Afghan people, and are required to submit their work to censors. Such images of the "high-intensity combat” that is now Canada’s primary occupation in Afghanistan disrupt a carefully crafted vision in which, as Canada’s Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, put it in his speech of September 11, 2006, “Canadian heroes are being made every day.”
Surrounded by families of September 11th victims, Harper repeated what Canadians are frequently told is the justification for their presence in that far-off land: “Canadians are reconstructing the basic infrastructure of a shattered nation.” Speaking with his trademark self-assurance, he informed the Canadian public that, “Many – but not yet all Afghan families – are beginning to rebuild their lives with our help.”
If only. As US-led NATO troops conduct search-and-destroy missions on villages while resurgent Taliban fighters kill schoolteachers, a new mafia of warlords and corrupt officials run the country under foreign protection. War-ravaged civilians find themselves, once again, in a familiar predicament: “The strong do what they can,” as the historian Thucydides observed in the fifth century BC, “and the weak suffer what they must."
Yet the boastful cries of an early American victory over the Taliban have lately been replaced by the cautionary words of NATO commander David Richards: "We need to realize that we could actually fail here." And Canada, traditionally a peacekeeper on the global stage, finds that it has bought an expensive piece of the American war on terror at a time when the United States' global reputation is sinking around the world. As other regions, like Darfur, cry out for the kind of mediation Canadians once provided, the world wonders: has Canada lost its soul?
Link to full article.
Is our army becoming a bunch of American-style cowboys?
Streaky, reference your above quote that I have highlighted, please provide the video which you say aired on France 2 last summer, for without proof, I am a doubting Thomas. When did this alleged action take place? Which units were deployed at the time? If you can't provide the link then it is just fiction. Read the Liberal red book if you want fiction, start validating your articles you post ole commie one. Is your desk job as an admin clerk starting to addle your brain their Pete and rePete (Streaker and Scrape).
Crappy, you'll always be a doubting Thomas, but, more to the point, you're kinda dumb and borderline illiterate.
Don't you have some office furniture to arrange somewhere?
SprCForr @ Thu Aug 23, 2007 6:35 pm
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
Actually I was referring to the period of the 50-70's when putting armour on the streets was not politically approved
Actually I was refering to the 70's.
Streaker @ Thu Aug 23, 2007 6:44 pm
Tricks Tricks:
Streaker Streaker:
Of course there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11. 9/11 happened and Bush used it as a (false) pretext with which to sell the American public on an invasion of Iraq.
There's your connection.
So when we talk about Canadian involvement in afghanistan, and 9/11 is quoted as one of the reasons that is grounds to bring up a totally unrelated war because someone you don't like drew a connection. Is anyone else seeing the flawed logic there?There's your connection.
I'm pretty sure I'm not seeing yours.
You'll have to take this up with someone who believes that there is no connection between 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Tricks Tricks:
Streaker Streaker:
We're talking about Canada's response to US foreign policy in the aftermath of 9/11. Iraq and Afghanistan are both germane to the topic.
I thought it was about Canada's alleged actions in Afghanistan? And how if we give up our supposed peacekeeping we will become an extension of the US military. You'll also notice that Canada's response to US foreign policy differed on those two grounds. Which means they have even less to do with each other. The article is about how Canada has ditched peacekeeping in favour of a close alignment with American foreign policy, and then points out the foolishness of this owing to the fact that American foreign policy is a failure (as most clearly evidenced by what has happened in Iraq).
This change of tack on Canada's part inherently results in Canada becoming more of an instrument of US policy - I can't help it if you're unable to see the truth even when it's staring you in the face.
Tricks Tricks:
Streaker Streaker:
Oh yes we are. Peacekeeping requires a multilateral approach. "Either you're with us or you're against us" obviously doesn't, and in our own way we've gone along with that.
Bullshit. That reeks of Anti-American rhetoric. Countries all over the world aren't recognized as peacekeepers like we are and don't have that mind set. I got an example, south of the border doesn't. The fact is we've abandoned peacekeeping in favour of a much more hawkish approach in response to American pressure.
Call that anti-American rhetoric if you will, but frankly, to me it looks like you're thrashing about at this point.
Tricks Tricks:
Streaker Streaker:
If we've abandoned peacekeeping in order to embrace the American approach then we've rejected our commitment to multilateralism - and placed ourselves in a position of increased subservience to the US.
Pray tell what is this American approach? "Either you're with us or you're against us".
Lately, it's been anything but peacekeeping.
Tricks Tricks:
Is this truly the American approach or the Bush approach? Don't descend into generalizations now.
Try not splitting hairs, now.
Tricks Tricks:
And again, how in hell would shedding our Peacekeeping name make us a servant of the US? What logic can you possibly be applying to that. Or is this a scare tactic to try and keep the Peacekeeping shroud around us?
"We have to stay how we are or we become like the big bad warmongers!"
Is that what this is about? Sure as hell seems like it.
"We have to stay how we are or we become like the big bad warmongers!"
Is that what this is about? Sure as hell seems like it.
Lately the Americans have been a big bad warmongers, and never have they been so isolated as a result.
What do Canadians have to gain by following in their footsteps?
Tricks @ Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:04 pm
Streaker Streaker:
The article is about how Canada has ditched peacekeeping in favour of a close alignment with American foreign policy, and then points out the foolishness of this owing to the fact that American foreign policy is a failure (as most clearly evidenced by what has happened in Iraq).
Why does ditching peacekeeping mean we are aligning ourselves with American Foreign Policy.$1:
This change of tack on Canada's part inherently results in Canada becoming more of an instrument of US policy - I can't help it if you're unable to see the truth even when it's staring you in the face.
How so? We weren't an instrument in Iraq.Streaker Streaker:
The fact is we've abandoned peacekeeping in favour of a much more hawkish approach in response to American pressure.
$1:
Call that anti-American rhetoric if you will, but frankly, to me it looks like you're thrashing about at this point.
Thrashing? That's a laugh.Streaker Streaker:
"Either you're with us or you're against us".
Lately, it's been anything but peacekeeping.
$1:
Try not splitting hairs, now.
So you think all Americans, all Military personnel think like Bush. Thanks for the clarification.$1:
Lately the Americans have been a big bad warmongers, and never have they been so isolated as a result.
BUSH. Not Americans.$1:
What do Canadians have to gain by following in their footsteps?
Yet again. Why is shedding peacekeeping make us follow in their footsteps. How are you coming to that conclusion.
Winnipegger @ Thu Aug 23, 2007 9:54 pm
I was afraid of something like this. When George W. Bush went around trying to get countries to join the war in Iraq, I wrote a letter to the MP whom I supported. I said al-Qaeda attacked the US, our ally, so we have to take al-Qaeda out. Iraq hasn't bothered anyone since the Persian Gulf War ended in 1991, so leave them alone. Afghanistan yes, Iraq no. However, my intention was to go in and take out al-Qaeda quickly, then get out. The Taliban are not al-Qaeda, contrary to what George W. and his cronies want you to believe. The Taliban are hardly saints, but they're better than the war lords who came before. Most importantly, if you try to impose a political system on another country at the point of a gun, they will resent you and oppose you. They will want the foreign invaders out. When you mess in the internal politics of another country, it doesn't matter which side you pick, you always loose. It's far too easy for some local politician to rally support to defeat the common enemy: the foreign occupation army. It doesn't matter if you are there to help them, you will be demonized. It's easy for a politician to gain support this way, much harder to gain support by building support for the common good. The political "high road" is the moral "high road", much better and much more stable once achieved; however, lazy or ineffective politicians will always look for an enemy they can rally against. If you are the foreigner trying using military force to establish a political system, then you will be that demon.
The other factor is what is military intervention trying to achieve? If the goal is defence and security of Canada and its allies, then the message has to be "Harm us or ours and we take you out. Leave us and ours alone, we leave you alone." The fact is al-Qaeda attacked the US, and later the UK, they have to be taken out. The Taliban didn't attack anyone outside their borders; that has to be rewarded by leaving them alone. If you attack everyone anywhere anytime for any reason, then no one will be motivated to do what you want; you'll just attack anyway. So target al-Qaeda, don't target the Taliban.
Sometimes I regret writing that letter to an MP asking him to go into Afghanistan. Under the Liberal administration we never did target the Taliban, but the US (under George W.) has tried to involve Canada in the fight against the Taliban since we first go there. Stephen Harper very quickly declared the Taliban as our target. My intention was to go in big, get out quick. We didn't get out, now we're bogged down with the Taliban. This has become an occupation just like Iraq. The longer we stay, the more locals will resent the occupying army in their country.
In Cyprus we had to do something to resolve the conflict between two NATO members. They were both supposed to be our allies, and that was during the Cold War. We offered to be peacekeepers but only after both sides wanted peace. Many locals may not, but the governments did. This is a key part of peacekeeping: tough love, wait until both sides are tired of fighting. Wait until they've killed enough of each other so they both want an end. Wait until the generals or leaders who will never accept peace have been killed off. Don't trade or provide any supplies during war, embargo warring countries, but don't directly intervene until they want it to end. When we do go in, it is with continual threat that if either side mounts an organized offensive against peacekeeper forces, we'll just go home and let both sides kill each other again. Both sides must feel the pain of war, realize that glory is a lie, before that threat has any teeth. We didn't do that in Bosnia, that's the reason it failed. The European Union wanted a quick end before the conflict spread to the rest of Europe, so waiting until they kill each other didn't happen. I don't have any easy answers for Bosnia, but when America went in to be "peacekeepers" they wanted complete control and would kill anyone who defied them. That isn't peacekeeping, that's conquering.
The Middle East has a harsh culture. They have a very old culture, thousands of years old, predating modern democracy. That culture comes from a time of kill or be killed. I read once that one of them said they will win by "teeth and tong, bullet and pen, as it has always been". That means they will try to convince fellow people the value of their cause, but they will also win power by military coup. That's a bloody system, and has to maintain power by tyranny. A modern liberal democracy doesn't require oppression, it thrives on peace and cooperation, tolerance of differing opinion and differing cultures. It will take a long time for them to learn how that works, but it has to start with the belief they are in control of their own country, not some foreign occupying army. The presence of military on their soil will only drive more Afghanis to join whatever political party opposes the regime that invites them in. So as long as we are a strong controlling presence, we only drive more Afghanis to join the Taliban. But their culture says if you don't fight, you're useless. Catch 22; we're screwed. That's why we had to take out al-Qaeda firmly and quickly, then pull out. We can provide humanitarian aid, but no military presence to support the current government. Their government has to do that on their own. Be boy scouts, or be screwed.
(Oh, I did it again. Polishes medal.)
2Cdo @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:41 pm
Streaker Streaker:
Scrappy Scrappy:
Streaker Streaker:
$1:
The Death of Peacekeeping and the Battle for Canada’s Soul
Adbusters March/April 2007
[B]A European news camera follows a group of Canadians in battle gear as they swarm into a small Afghan village, breaking down doors with their boots and interrogating the families inside. In one home, inhabited by veiled women and an old man with a long white beard, a soldier is demanding information on the whereabouts of Taliban fighters. “Too bad for you if you don’t want to tell us where they are hiding,” says the soldier. “We are going to come and kill them. We are going to bomb and shoot everywhere. Is that what you want?”
In another home, a soldier raised on wheat and milk in a land of forests and rivers – a land in which the flourishing Afghan poppy fields are symbols of the dead in war – lectures a group of Afghan men. “It’s not a good idea to join the Taliban,” he says. “My soldiers are very well trained. They are good shooters. And you will die.”
Taking a softer line, he brandishes a wad of cash under their noses. But the men only look on in silence until, at last, one speaks. “It’s nice of you, but we don’t want your money. It’s our country. And with all our strength we will protect it.”
Those scenes were aired last summer on France 2,[/B] part of a report on the activities of Canadian soldiers currently operating – such a surgical term – in the Kandahar province of southern Afghanistan. It’s not the sort of reportage one tends to see on Canadian television, where domestic journalists embedded with the Canadian Forces must sign an agreement promising not to spend “an inordinate amount of time” covering nonmilitary activities, such as the plight of the Afghan people, and are required to submit their work to censors. Such images of the "high-intensity combat” that is now Canada’s primary occupation in Afghanistan disrupt a carefully crafted vision in which, as Canada’s Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, put it in his speech of September 11, 2006, “Canadian heroes are being made every day.”
Surrounded by families of September 11th victims, Harper repeated what Canadians are frequently told is the justification for their presence in that far-off land: “Canadians are reconstructing the basic infrastructure of a shattered nation.” Speaking with his trademark self-assurance, he informed the Canadian public that, “Many – but not yet all Afghan families – are beginning to rebuild their lives with our help.”
If only. As US-led NATO troops conduct search-and-destroy missions on villages while resurgent Taliban fighters kill schoolteachers, a new mafia of warlords and corrupt officials run the country under foreign protection. War-ravaged civilians find themselves, once again, in a familiar predicament: “The strong do what they can,” as the historian Thucydides observed in the fifth century BC, “and the weak suffer what they must."
Yet the boastful cries of an early American victory over the Taliban have lately been replaced by the cautionary words of NATO commander David Richards: "We need to realize that we could actually fail here." And Canada, traditionally a peacekeeper on the global stage, finds that it has bought an expensive piece of the American war on terror at a time when the United States' global reputation is sinking around the world. As other regions, like Darfur, cry out for the kind of mediation Canadians once provided, the world wonders: has Canada lost its soul?
Adbusters March/April 2007
[B]A European news camera follows a group of Canadians in battle gear as they swarm into a small Afghan village, breaking down doors with their boots and interrogating the families inside. In one home, inhabited by veiled women and an old man with a long white beard, a soldier is demanding information on the whereabouts of Taliban fighters. “Too bad for you if you don’t want to tell us where they are hiding,” says the soldier. “We are going to come and kill them. We are going to bomb and shoot everywhere. Is that what you want?”
In another home, a soldier raised on wheat and milk in a land of forests and rivers – a land in which the flourishing Afghan poppy fields are symbols of the dead in war – lectures a group of Afghan men. “It’s not a good idea to join the Taliban,” he says. “My soldiers are very well trained. They are good shooters. And you will die.”
Taking a softer line, he brandishes a wad of cash under their noses. But the men only look on in silence until, at last, one speaks. “It’s nice of you, but we don’t want your money. It’s our country. And with all our strength we will protect it.”
Those scenes were aired last summer on France 2,[/B] part of a report on the activities of Canadian soldiers currently operating – such a surgical term – in the Kandahar province of southern Afghanistan. It’s not the sort of reportage one tends to see on Canadian television, where domestic journalists embedded with the Canadian Forces must sign an agreement promising not to spend “an inordinate amount of time” covering nonmilitary activities, such as the plight of the Afghan people, and are required to submit their work to censors. Such images of the "high-intensity combat” that is now Canada’s primary occupation in Afghanistan disrupt a carefully crafted vision in which, as Canada’s Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, put it in his speech of September 11, 2006, “Canadian heroes are being made every day.”
Surrounded by families of September 11th victims, Harper repeated what Canadians are frequently told is the justification for their presence in that far-off land: “Canadians are reconstructing the basic infrastructure of a shattered nation.” Speaking with his trademark self-assurance, he informed the Canadian public that, “Many – but not yet all Afghan families – are beginning to rebuild their lives with our help.”
If only. As US-led NATO troops conduct search-and-destroy missions on villages while resurgent Taliban fighters kill schoolteachers, a new mafia of warlords and corrupt officials run the country under foreign protection. War-ravaged civilians find themselves, once again, in a familiar predicament: “The strong do what they can,” as the historian Thucydides observed in the fifth century BC, “and the weak suffer what they must."
Yet the boastful cries of an early American victory over the Taliban have lately been replaced by the cautionary words of NATO commander David Richards: "We need to realize that we could actually fail here." And Canada, traditionally a peacekeeper on the global stage, finds that it has bought an expensive piece of the American war on terror at a time when the United States' global reputation is sinking around the world. As other regions, like Darfur, cry out for the kind of mediation Canadians once provided, the world wonders: has Canada lost its soul?
Link to full article.
Is our army becoming a bunch of American-style cowboys?
Streaky, reference your above quote that I have highlighted, please provide the video which you say aired on France 2 last summer, for without proof, I am a doubting Thomas. When did this alleged action take place? Which units were deployed at the time? If you can't provide the link then it is just fiction. Read the Liberal red book if you want fiction, start validating your articles you post ole commie one. Is your desk job as an admin clerk starting to addle your brain their Pete and rePete (Streaker and Scrape).
Crappy, you'll always be a doubting Thomas, but, more to the point, you're kinda dumb and borderline illiterate.
Don't you have some office furniture to arrange somewhere?
Just curious as to the legitamacy of this story.
![[huh]](./images/smilies/icon_scratch.gif "huh?"){kind=icon}
I know of people that have been on every tour since 2002 and haven't heard a whiff of anything like this happening. Do we have a time frame that this occured? Do we have the names of units involved? Is there a link available?
Without this, the story reads like a bad war novel!
sasquatch2 @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:08 pm
$1:
A European news camera follows a group of Canadians in battle gear as they swarm into a small Afghan village, breaking down doors with their boots and interrogating the families inside. In one home, inhabited by veiled women and an old man with a long white beard, a soldier is demanding information on the whereabouts of Taliban fighters. “Too bad for you if you don’t want to tell us where they are hiding,” says the soldier. “We are going to come and kill them. We are going to bomb and shoot everywhere. Is that what you want?”
In another home, a soldier raised on wheat and milk in a land of forests and rivers – a land in which the flourishing Afghan poppy fields are symbols of the dead in war – lectures a group of Afghan men. “It’s not a good idea to join the Taliban,” he says. “My soldiers are very well trained. They are good shooters. And you will die.”
Taking a softer line, he brandishes a wad of cash under their noses. But the men only look on in silence until, at last, one speaks. “It’s nice of you, but we don’t want your money. It’s our country. And with all our strength we will protect it.”
Those scenes were aired last summer on France 2, part of a report on the activities of Canadian soldiers currently operating –
In another home, a soldier raised on wheat and milk in a land of forests and rivers – a land in which the flourishing Afghan poppy fields are symbols of the dead in war – lectures a group of Afghan men. “It’s not a good idea to join the Taliban,” he says. “My soldiers are very well trained. They are good shooters. And you will die.”
Taking a softer line, he brandishes a wad of cash under their noses. But the men only look on in silence until, at last, one speaks. “It’s nice of you, but we don’t want your money. It’s our country. And with all our strength we will protect it.”
Those scenes were aired last summer on France 2, part of a report on the activities of Canadian soldiers currently operating –
That whole scene of the canadian troops kicking a door and threatening civilians was without doubt staged and phony. The psuedo "Canaidians" did a pretty convincing acting job but the Afghans screwed up bigtime.
Actually that bit about the old Afghan squatting in his house telling about how strong the people are made my BS meter go off big time.
Really give your self a silly slap. If you really like this sorta thing stick to CSI.
These guys do not debate politics or give NATO troops any lip. They just dummy up and know nothing. OR THEY END UP IN THE CAGE....
HOCKEY PUCKS
Winnipegger @ Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:03 pm
I found the website of France 2. It's quite simple:
http://www.france2.fr/
Streaker, could you ease the criticism by citing the source? I tried a simple search but didn't find it. I did find the Adbusters text article, but the video would really help.
http://adbusters.org/the_magazine/70/The_Death_of_Peacekeeping_and_the_Battle_for_Canadas_Soul.html
Streaker @ Sat Aug 25, 2007 6:30 am
Tricks Tricks:
Streaker Streaker:
The article is about how Canada has ditched peacekeeping in favour of a close alignment with American foreign policy, and then points out the foolishness of this owing to the fact that American foreign policy is a failure (as most clearly evidenced by what has happened in Iraq).
Why does ditching peacekeeping mean we are aligning ourselves with American Foreign Policy.Does US policy embrace peacekeeping or multilateralism? No.
Canadian policy used to. But now our government seeks to ingratiate itself with the Americans by embracing a self-destructive, disastrous American policy, and discarding an honoured Canadian tradition.
Do you see Harper criticising the Americans over Iraq? No, but you do see him doing their bidding in Afghanistan, pathetic Uncle Tom that he is.
If it makes you feel any better, take solace in knowing that the Liberals can take their share of the blame for all this, too.
Tricks Tricks:
Streaker Streaker:
This change of tack on Canada's part inherently results in Canada becoming more of an instrument of US policy - I can't help it if you're unable to see the truth even when it's staring you in the face.
How so? We weren't an instrument in Iraq.If we had gone into Iraq we'd have become an even more of a US tool, of course, but that doesn't mean that we haven't become one by going into Afghanistan.
Tricks Tricks:
Streaker Streaker:
The fact is we've abandoned peacekeeping in favour of a much more hawkish approach in response to American pressure.
Hawkish? What the hell does that mean? You mean we are actually fighting?The key here is that it was a response to American pressure. Perhaps that's why our soldiers are (according to the article) kicking down doors and handing out candy bars instead of doing more useful things.
Tricks Tricks:
Streaker Streaker:
Call that anti-American rhetoric if you will, but frankly, to me it looks like you're thrashing about at this point.
Thrashing? That's a laugh.It is a laugh. Joke's on you.
Tricks Tricks:
Streaker Streaker:
"Either you're with us or you're against us".
Lately, it's been anything but peacekeeping.
Still splitting hairs, I see.
Tricks Tricks:
Streaker Streaker:
Try not splitting hairs, now.
So you think all Americans, all Military personnel think like Bush. Thanks for the clarification.Still thrashing about, I see.
Tricks Tricks:
Streaker Streaker:
Lately the Americans have been a big bad warmongers, and never have they been so isolated as a result.
BUSH. Not Americans.Is this a tacit admission on your part that Bush is a prick?!? My god, man - there's hope for you yet!
Tricks Tricks:
Streaker Streaker:
What do Canadians have to gain by following in their footsteps?
Yet again. Why is shedding peacekeeping make us follow in their footsteps. How are you coming to that conclusion.Do you have some sort of cognitive disorder?
Do you believe that US foreign policy is a success and that it is in the Americans' best interest to continue pursuing it and ours to embrace it?
Streaker @ Sat Aug 25, 2007 6:34 am
2Cdo 2Cdo:
Just curious as to the legitamacy of this story. I know of people that have been on every tour since 2002 and haven't heard a whiff of anything like this happening. Do we have a time frame that this occured? Do we have the names of units involved? Is there a link available?
Without this, the story reads like a bad war novel!
I know of people that have been on every tour since 2002 and haven't heard a whiff of anything like this happening. Do we have a time frame that this occured? Do we have the names of units involved? Is there a link available? Without this, the story reads like a bad war novel!
I put up a link to the story - that's usually how it works. But I'm not a fact checker for Adbusters so I'm not going to dig around for some year-old footage.
The writer is respected and accomplished, and I think the claims she makes are plausible. Beyond that, make of the article what you will.
Streaker @ Sat Aug 25, 2007 6:40 am
$1:
Turning Point
The minority government under Conservative Stephen Harper has taken the country on a radical swing to the right. Marching in lockstep with a Bush Administration that has severely, perhaps irreparably, tarnished America’s image in the world, Harper has mimicked the failed policies of American neoconservatives at almost every juncture. Not only did he, prior to his election, champion the war in Iraq and a Canadian role in “missile defense” – issues a majority of Canadians opposed – he has embarrassed Canada internationally by thwarting implementation of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, throwing himself behind Israel in Lebanon and Palestine (his government was the first to announce a boycott of the Palestinians after the election of Hamas, even before the United States) and refusing to permit a public debate on the war in Afghanistan.
At an event in support of an NGO that builds schools in Afghanistan – one of a handful that have not pulled out as the line between military and development roles becomes dangerously blurred – I spoke to an academic who works with global policy issues. Arguing for a return to peacekeeping, she said, “Canada is weak militarily but strong diplomatically. So why would it emphasize its weaknesses at the expense of its strengths?”
Canada’s new belligerence and its subservience to American foreign policy goals are minority positions that threaten to turn Canada into a mirror image of a US administration in decline. Yet it’s not too late to turn things around. The stated intentions for Afghanistan were noble: to rebuild the country and help its destitute citizens recover from decades of war. By returning to its peacekeeping traditions and rejecting any government that would threaten to destroy what it holds most sacred – its sovereignty, its commitment to international law and diplomacy as an alternative to perpetual war–Canada can again act as a global mediator and refuse to become what it most opposes.
Peacekeeping is an essential part of Canada’s national identity, one that has historically been a force for good in the world. With so much at stake, neither the world nor Canadians can afford for Canada to surrender its soul.
The minority government under Conservative Stephen Harper has taken the country on a radical swing to the right. Marching in lockstep with a Bush Administration that has severely, perhaps irreparably, tarnished America’s image in the world, Harper has mimicked the failed policies of American neoconservatives at almost every juncture. Not only did he, prior to his election, champion the war in Iraq and a Canadian role in “missile defense” – issues a majority of Canadians opposed – he has embarrassed Canada internationally by thwarting implementation of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, throwing himself behind Israel in Lebanon and Palestine (his government was the first to announce a boycott of the Palestinians after the election of Hamas, even before the United States) and refusing to permit a public debate on the war in Afghanistan.
At an event in support of an NGO that builds schools in Afghanistan – one of a handful that have not pulled out as the line between military and development roles becomes dangerously blurred – I spoke to an academic who works with global policy issues. Arguing for a return to peacekeeping, she said, “Canada is weak militarily but strong diplomatically. So why would it emphasize its weaknesses at the expense of its strengths?”
Canada’s new belligerence and its subservience to American foreign policy goals are minority positions that threaten to turn Canada into a mirror image of a US administration in decline. Yet it’s not too late to turn things around. The stated intentions for Afghanistan were noble: to rebuild the country and help its destitute citizens recover from decades of war. By returning to its peacekeeping traditions and rejecting any government that would threaten to destroy what it holds most sacred – its sovereignty, its commitment to international law and diplomacy as an alternative to perpetual war–Canada can again act as a global mediator and refuse to become what it most opposes.
Peacekeeping is an essential part of Canada’s national identity, one that has historically been a force for good in the world. With so much at stake, neither the world nor Canadians can afford for Canada to surrender its soul.
Link
Streaker @ Sat Aug 25, 2007 6:45 am
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
I found the website of France 2. It's quite simple:
http://www.france2.fr/
Streaker, could you ease the criticism by citing the source? I tried a simple search but didn't find it. I did find the Adbusters text article, but the video would really help.
http://adbusters.org/the_magazine/70/The_Death_of_Peacekeeping_and_the_Battle_for_Canadas_Soul.html
http://www.france2.fr/
Streaker, could you ease the criticism by citing the source? I tried a simple search but didn't find it. I did find the Adbusters text article, but the video would really help.
http://adbusters.org/the_magazine/70/The_Death_of_Peacekeeping_and_the_Battle_for_Canadas_Soul.html
I'd really like to see it too, Winnipegger, but finding the footage on the France 2 site looks like a wild goose chase to me, and they might not have archived it at all.
2Cdo @ Sat Aug 25, 2007 7:37 am
Streaker Streaker:
2Cdo 2Cdo:
Just curious as to the legitamacy of this story. I know of people that have been on every tour since 2002 and haven't heard a whiff of anything like this happening. Do we have a time frame that this occured? Do we have the names of units involved? Is there a link available?
Without this, the story reads like a bad war novel!
I know of people that have been on every tour since 2002 and haven't heard a whiff of anything like this happening. Do we have a time frame that this occured? Do we have the names of units involved? Is there a link available? Without this, the story reads like a bad war novel!
I put up a link to the story - that's usually how it works. But I'm not a fact checker for Adbusters so I'm not going to dig around for some year-old footage.
The writer is respected and accomplished, and I think the claims she makes are plausible. Beyond that, make of the article what you will.
The article was well written, of that there was no doubt, but as soon as the inevitable anti-Americanism showed it lost credibility. Talking of a "Canadian Marine Corps" and closer ties to US military revealed an agenda that relies on half truths and outright lies. Really, quoting Stephen Staples? The man knows less about the Canadian military then my dog! Whenever he has debated anyone in the military he has been verbally bitchslapped and had his agenda of misconceptions gutted like a fish. In short, the article rapidly turned to crap, but I would really like to see this footage of "Canadian" troops in Afghanistan doing what was claimed of them to confirm my suspicions!