Ex-Canadian Forces officer says attacking Iran would be hist
bootlegga @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:49 am
$1:
As the war drums beat louder and the West and Israel continue to tread down a path leading to hostilities with Iran, a former Canadian soldier who has seen the ugly face of war cites a truism as one argument for peace.
It’s easier to start a war than to end it, according to Rollie Keith. The Fraser Valley resident is no Sunday warrior.
As a paratroop officer and a tank officer, he spent about 35 years in the Canadian military. Under the United Nations flag, he has been in places like the Suez Canal and the Sinai Desert. He did two tours in Cairo and Jerusalem. He was in Lebanon in 1975 before the start of the civil war there.
The retired Canadian military captain also tells it like it is. That was the reason he stepped down as the B.C. NDP candidate in Chilliwack-Kent in the election campaign of 2005. He had previously testified for the defence of former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic that as an observer on the ground, he had seen no evidence of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, which was the justification made for the NATO bombings of Yugoslavia. He felt the pressure to withdraw his candidacy when then NDP leader Carole James said that she disagreed with Keith.
The Straight recently talked with Keith by phone about how he looks at the unfolding situation involving Iran.
“I hope there’s not a war but we’re on the slippery slope in my estimation,” Keith said. “And whether it can be avoided or not, I think, is the big question. But then where would it go?”
Although Canada doesn’t have a lot of interest directly in the Middle East, according to Keith, the consequences of the destabilization of the global economy as a likely result of a war involving Iran would also be felt here.
“Prime Minister [Stephen] Harper I think would be inclined to at least have a nominal support of any American policy,” he said. “Look at how he...has endorsed Israeli attacks on Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.”
Keith can’t imagine how a war against Iran can be a winnable one.
But Keith’s view of conflicts in the world certainly transcends his military background. He’s into history as well as the dynamics of geopolitics.
“I’m a student of World War II and its consequences and I think it can be misinterpreted but I think two of the major mistakes coming out of World War II were the creation of the State of Israel and the State of Pakistan,” he said. “Because the destabilization over the last half century, a great deal of it has come because of those states disrupting the regions that they were established in.”
Keith was interviewed before the March 24 leadership convention of the federal NDP. In that interview, he was told that one of the candidates, Quebec MP Thomas Mulcair, had previously declared that he supports Israel in all circumstances. Mulcair is now the new NDP leader.
“A homeland for Jews is one thing but a theocratic state for the Jews, which has become a bully in the neighbourhood, should never have been allowed to happen,” Keith said.
It’s easier to start a war than to end it, according to Rollie Keith. The Fraser Valley resident is no Sunday warrior.
As a paratroop officer and a tank officer, he spent about 35 years in the Canadian military. Under the United Nations flag, he has been in places like the Suez Canal and the Sinai Desert. He did two tours in Cairo and Jerusalem. He was in Lebanon in 1975 before the start of the civil war there.
The retired Canadian military captain also tells it like it is. That was the reason he stepped down as the B.C. NDP candidate in Chilliwack-Kent in the election campaign of 2005. He had previously testified for the defence of former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic that as an observer on the ground, he had seen no evidence of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, which was the justification made for the NATO bombings of Yugoslavia. He felt the pressure to withdraw his candidacy when then NDP leader Carole James said that she disagreed with Keith.
The Straight recently talked with Keith by phone about how he looks at the unfolding situation involving Iran.
“I hope there’s not a war but we’re on the slippery slope in my estimation,” Keith said. “And whether it can be avoided or not, I think, is the big question. But then where would it go?”
Although Canada doesn’t have a lot of interest directly in the Middle East, according to Keith, the consequences of the destabilization of the global economy as a likely result of a war involving Iran would also be felt here.
“Prime Minister [Stephen] Harper I think would be inclined to at least have a nominal support of any American policy,” he said. “Look at how he...has endorsed Israeli attacks on Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.”
Keith can’t imagine how a war against Iran can be a winnable one.
But Keith’s view of conflicts in the world certainly transcends his military background. He’s into history as well as the dynamics of geopolitics.
“I’m a student of World War II and its consequences and I think it can be misinterpreted but I think two of the major mistakes coming out of World War II were the creation of the State of Israel and the State of Pakistan,” he said. “Because the destabilization over the last half century, a great deal of it has come because of those states disrupting the regions that they were established in.”
Keith was interviewed before the March 24 leadership convention of the federal NDP. In that interview, he was told that one of the candidates, Quebec MP Thomas Mulcair, had previously declared that he supports Israel in all circumstances. Mulcair is now the new NDP leader.
“A homeland for Jews is one thing but a theocratic state for the Jews, which has become a bully in the neighbourhood, should never have been allowed to happen,” Keith said.
http://www.straight.com/article-648981/ ... ic-mistake
I thought this was an interesting read - especially considering it's from a former CF officer who is NDP.
andyt @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:56 am
Just another Jew hater.
DanSC @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:00 am
The attacks on Lebanon and the Gaza Strip were at least somewhat defensive. Israel usually goes overboard with that defense, especially bombing the decidedly-not-Hezbollah-controlled city of Beirut.
andyt @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:04 am
bootlegga bootlegga:
Keith can’t imagine how a war against Iran can be a winnable one.
By the headline, this is the part that should have been discussed further.
SprCForr @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:27 pm
That piece sure puffs up his performance as an officer.
He wasn't that impressive, less than mediocre actually.
EyeBrock @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:32 pm
Testified for Milosevic's defence? Really?
Gunnair @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:47 pm
SprCForr SprCForr:
That piece sure puffs up his performance as an officer.
He wasn't that impressive, less than mediocre actually.
He wasn't that impressive, less than mediocre actually.
Can't help yourself, eh?
ShepherdsDog @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:17 pm
$1:
“A homeland for Jews is one thing but a theocratic state for the Jews, which has become a bully in the neighbourhood, should never have been allowed to happen,” Keith said.
Didn't start out that way. Most of the founders of modern Israel were secular socialists and some would say communists. As I've pointed out before, the Soviet Union was an early backer of Israel when it came into being because they thought that it would be a socialist state. It's only been the last couple of that the religious nuts have had real power, thanks mostly to that bullshit PR system they use to elect members of the Knesset.
The US, also didn't start out as a nation of Bible Bangers, but it's sure looking that way now. Listening to some of the mouthpieces/talking heads(esp in the Grand Old Tea Party), it's getting harder to differentiate between them and those they are claiming America is fighting. Talibaptists vs. The Taliban.
jeff744 @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:25 pm
Ignoring the part about the Jews the guy made an extremely good point about Iran, while Canada and the US could win the initial invasion it would turn into Iraq 2.0, only we would have just given the otherwise mortal enemies in the region (Iran vs. Al-Qaeda) into groups with a united cause of utterly screwing up the west's shit. All a war would do is unite the sects of Islam in their chants to burn the west when the Iranians are actually becoming increasingly pro-west due to anti-Iranian (Saudis, Pakistan, Al-Qaeda, etc) pressure in the area.
This is one of those cases where you are essentially going to punish the guy that can be fixed and turn him into a career criminal while letting the serial killer (compared to Iran's neighbours, they are a puppy) off with a warning.
1Peg @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:54 pm
jeff744 jeff744:
Ignoring the part about the Jews the guy made an extremely good point about Iran, while Canada and the US could win the initial invasion it would turn into Iraq 2.0, only we would have just given the otherwise mortal enemies in the region (Iran vs. Al-Qaeda) into groups with a united cause of utterly screwing up the west's shit. All a war would do is unite the sects of Islam in their chants to burn the west when the Iranians are actually becoming increasingly pro-west due to anti-Iranian (Saudis, Pakistan, Al-Qaeda, etc) pressure in the area.
This is one of those cases where you are essentially going to punish the guy that can be fixed and turn him into a career criminal while letting the serial killer (compared to Iran's neighbours, they are a puppy) off with a warning.
This is one of those cases where you are essentially going to punish the guy that can be fixed and turn him into a career criminal while letting the serial killer (compared to Iran's neighbours, they are a puppy) off with a warning.
You're assuming that Canada and the US need to put boots on the ground (invasion). All the west needs to do is destroy the Iranian military through air and naval power.
jeff744 @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:04 pm
1Peg 1Peg:
jeff744 jeff744:
Ignoring the part about the Jews the guy made an extremely good point about Iran, while Canada and the US could win the initial invasion it would turn into Iraq 2.0, only we would have just given the otherwise mortal enemies in the region (Iran vs. Al-Qaeda) into groups with a united cause of utterly screwing up the west's shit. All a war would do is unite the sects of Islam in their chants to burn the west when the Iranians are actually becoming increasingly pro-west due to anti-Iranian (Saudis, Pakistan, Al-Qaeda, etc) pressure in the area.
This is one of those cases where you are essentially going to punish the guy that can be fixed and turn him into a career criminal while letting the serial killer (compared to Iran's neighbours, they are a puppy) off with a warning.
This is one of those cases where you are essentially going to punish the guy that can be fixed and turn him into a career criminal while letting the serial killer (compared to Iran's neighbours, they are a puppy) off with a warning.
You're assuming that Canada and the US need to put boots on the ground (invasion). All the west needs to do is destroy the Iranian military through air and naval power.
Even that would warrant a huge retaliation against any Americans unlucky enough to be anywhere near Iran, and it wouldn't be something they would forget, it would breed generations of people that would be perfectly willing to kill westerners over that single move. Israel would get the worst of it as the Iranians would no longer have any reason to hold back their support of Hezbollah and Hamas and would likely send their own guys to make life in Israel even more dangerous.
If you are going to strike Iran, you better be damned sure you are right, because if you are wrong thousands will end up dying for nothing.
Hyack @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:47 pm
Conventional warfare in the Middle East is a no win situation as has been proven by the British, French, the Soviet Union and lately the Americans. As far as I see it if Iran ever develops a workable nuclear device along with a delivery system, whether a missile, a man or a mule the destruction of Israel is inevitable. Where would that leave the rest of the world? What would the UN or NATO do aside from tsk tsk tsk.
ShepherdsDog @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:52 pm
Other Muslims might take a dim view if the Iranians nuke Jerusalem. Besides the religious significance of taking out Islam's third most holy city the fallout would contaminate the surrounding Arab nations.
jeff744 @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:52 pm
Hyack Hyack:
Conventional warfare in the Middle East is a no win situation as has been proven by the British, French, the Soviet Union and lately the Americans. As far as I see it if Iran ever develops a workable nuclear device along with a delivery system, whether a missile, a man or a mule the destruction of Israel is inevitable. Where would that leave the rest of the world? What would the UN or NATO do aside from tsk tsk tsk.
There are a lot of reasons that Iran could develop a nuke that don't involve bombing Israel. Pakistan and Israel both have nukes and both are hostile to Iran. Saudi Arabia has been calling for the US to bomb the hell out of Iran for years. The US is openly hostile to Iran and nuclear weapons are an amazingly effective way of ending the threat of foreign assisted coups and the like.
Also: Just defending reasons if they actually did build a nuke.
Hyack @ Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:17 pm
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
Other Muslims might take a dim view if the Iranians nuke Jerusalem. Besides the religious significance of taking out Islam's third most holy city the fallout would contaminate the surrounding Arab nations.
Do you really think that bat shit crazy Ahmadinejad would give a rats ass what the rest of the Muslim world thought? For years now he's been cheering on the development of his nuclear program despite orders from the UN to cease and desist, and repeatedly has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".