The Uniquely Canadian Myth of "We Support the Troops, Not the Mission", Exposed.

[rogerstaubach]

The Uniquely Canadian Myth of "We Support the Troops, Not the Mission", Exposed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/2006...RrFM1IB;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

"Canadian soldiers expressed bewilderment, surprise and anger that people back home would question their role in Afghanistan"



"Another soldier struggled to contain his anger when told of a recent public-opinion poll that suggested most Canadians opposed the Afghan deployment.

"I'll hold my tongue - but that burns me, really," said Cpl. Pascal Johanny of Shediac, N.B.

"The Canadian public has always approved of Canadian missions - in Bosnia, in Kosovo, always giving their support.

"Now we're here in one of the worst places that needs the most help, and now they don't want to support us? It's kind of odd."




The good old disconnect between the Canadian people and the military is quite evident. How is being against the deployment, viewed as being supportive of the Canadian troops when it is obvious that it does affect the morale of Canadian soldiers? How is this good for the Canadian soldiers?

 

[lenharper]

Well there you are, a brilliant reason to support Canadian deployment of troops in Afganistan -- if you don't, you'll hurt PFC whoever's feelings.

Good God man, there are reasons aplenty to be either for, or against, our country's involvement in this military action but to worry that our troops feel the fact that the Canadian public have not thrown their wholehearted support behind this mission is "kind of odd" doesn't register very high up the scale.

But thanks once again for reprinting yet another news article.

 

[Hard Idle]

There is nothing wrong with oposing colonial missions thousands of miles away where there are no Canadians or Canadian interests to defend.

If I were a soldier, I would be more offended by the cynicism of a policy which sent me on a misson that lacks public support in the first place. In effect the soldiers are being used to emotionally blackmail the public into supporting a mission.

Don't get me wrong, it's a welcome change to see Canadian forces attacking Mujahadeen instead of protecting them like most of the previous decade.

Still, I believe armed forces are mostly for fighting at home or on your immediate doorstep, not all over the world for "values".

 

[SilentLeviathan]

Personally I support the mission in Afghanistan. However, if you don't support the mission you can't really support the troops. Of course you're not going to wish them harm and want them to return safely, but "supporting the troops" is implicit support of the mission.

 

[rogerstaubach]

Well there you are, a brilliant reason to support Canadian deployment of troops in Afganistan -- if you don't, you'll hurt PFC whoever's feelings.

Good God man, there are reasons aplenty to be either for, or against, our country's involvement in this military action but to worry that our troops feel the fact that the Canadian public have not thrown their wholehearted support behind this mission is "kind of odd" doesn't register very high up the scale.

But thanks once again for reprinting yet another news article.

Yes, len here I am, relaying what Canadian troops deployed in a dangerous land are saying about how they feel about the lack of support they feel from their Canadian brothers and sisters, thousands and thousands of miles away safely cocooned in their sanctuary of Canada.

If you believe that the feelings of Canadian troops in regards to "support" of them and their mission from Canadians is somehow low on the scale of relevance then you are sadly mistaken. It affects morale, which could lead to a whole host of unwanted consequences down the road.

SilentLeviathan, is correct when he says "you can't support the troops without supporting the mission". And this unfortunate reality is evidenced by the soldiers comments in the news article. Highly relevant.

I appreciate your sincere thanks for my reprinting yet another news article. I sincerely wish you can thank all those other posters who reprint news articles as a basis of discussion.

 

[rogerstaubach]

There is nothing wrong with oposing colonial missions thousands of miles away where there are no Canadians or Canadian interests to defend.

If I were a soldier, I would be more offended by the cynicism of a policy which sent me on a misson that lacks public support in the first place. In effect the soldiers are being used to emotionally blackmail the public into supporting a mission.

Don't get me wrong, it's a welcome change to see Canadian forces attacking Mujahadeen instead of watching their backs like most of the previous decade.

Still, I believe armed forces are mostly for fighting at home or on your immediate doorstep, not all over the world for "values".

Canada should drop out of Nato and UN Peacekeeping-making missions altogether. I don't see how Canada's interests as you described above are served in Bosnia, Cyprus, Haiti, Germany, etc and all the other places Canada has security and military personnel. How are Canada's national security interests affected by Haiti, by Cyprus, by Bosnia etc?

 

[rama putri]

Well, this won't help anything, but I support our Canadian troops and their mission. It would be a sweet day if Canadians found Bin Laden.

Hmmm...then I'd be torn between hoping they shoot him right there on the spot or sending the criminal to gitmo for life via a chains, an orange jump suit and a German sheppard sniffing his balls.

 

[rogerstaubach]

Well, this won't help anything, but I support our Canadian troops and their mission. It would be a sweet day if Canadians found Bin Laden.

Hmmm...then I'd be torn between hoping they shoot him right there on the spot or sending the criminal to gitmo for life via a chains, an orange jump suit and a German sheppard sniffing his balls.

Whatever they do, if OBL is caught they can't send him Gitmo. The calls for his release from his unjust, torturous, and unlitigated detention at Gitmo would be postively deafening.

 

[alphauniform]

What is our troops mission by the way?????

Lets get over this OBL thing can we. He is nothing but a WMD...weapon of mass deception.



Translation of Funeral Article in Egyptian Paper:
al-Wafd, Wednesday, December 26, 2001 Vol 15 No 4633
News of Bin Laden's Death
and Funeral 10 days ago
Islamabad -
A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa'da organization, stating that binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, stated to The Observer of Pakistan that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora 10 days ago. He mentioned that 30 of al-Qa'da fighters attended the burial as well as members of his family and some friends from the Taleban. In the farewell ceremony to his final rest guns were fired in the air. The official stated that it is difficult to pinpoint the burial location of bin Laden because according to the Wahhabi tradition no mark is left by the grave. He stressed that it is unlikely that the American forces would ever uncover any traces of bin Laden.

Also reported by the BBC monitoring service.

 

[CapitalGuy]

Canada should drop out of Nato and UN Peacekeeping-making missions altogether. I don't see how Canada's interests as you described above are served in Bosnia, Cyprus, Haiti, Germany, etc and all the other places Canada has security and military personnel. How are Canada's national security interests affected by Haiti, by Cyprus, by Bosnia etc?

Here's how:

The Canadian standard of living - our ability to create and maintain jobs, to pay for health care, to leave freely - is dependant on a stable global economy. Instability somewhere else in the world impacts our ability to maintain our standard of living, by negatively impacting the markets. Wars in Europe or Asia, that have the potential to spread outside the borders of the warring nation(s), have to be stopped before the world economy is too seriously disrupted. In other cases, it is preventive medecine.

For example, NATO intervened in Bosnia because that war was about to become a proxy war between Germany (who was funding Croatia) and Russia (who was funding Serbia). Recall that in 1995, when the Dayton Accord was negotiated, Croatia had just cleared the Serbs out of the Kraijina, and were about to turn left and enter Bosnia and Serbia. Had that happened, who knows how the planet may have turned? So NATO, under extreme US pressure, intervened to stop the war. Germany is a no-brainer (and we're not there anymore, by the way, other than some NATO posts and administrative staff). Afghanistan is an attempt to prevent terrorists from having a safe haven in which to train. And on and on. Haiti was just an embarassment. It's in our backyard, so we and the US were compelled to intervene. Plus, lots of votes in Montreal.

In other instances, we participate in order to prop up an alliance that maintains stability. Cyprus was an attempt to keep NATO stable and cohesive by preventing NATO members Greece and Turkey from fighting each other.

A conflict in some far-flung part of the world directly impacts Canada by causing instability and risk to the open global flow of goods and services, which funds our society and pays for our root canals and hip replacements and double-doubles and Nissan Maximas. So, we judiciously choose those fights that serve our national strategic interest.

Selfish, but true.

 

[Hard Idle]

Canada should drop out of Nato and UN Peacekeeping-making missions altogether. I don't see how Canada's interests as you described above are served in Bosnia, Cyprus, Haiti, Germany, etc and all the other places Canada has security and military personnel. How are Canada's national security interests affected by Haiti, by Cyprus, by Bosnia etc?

I never supported any of them either. And out of all of those, only Cyprus is an actual peacekeeping mission and was not misrepresented to the Canadian public.

 

[sparty86]

Here's how:

The Canadian standard of living - our ability to create and maintain jobs, to pay for health care, to leave freely - is dependant on a stable global economy. Instability somewhere else in the world impacts our ability to maintain our standard of living, by negatively impacting the markets. Wars in Europe or Asia, that have the potential to spread outside the borders of the warring nation(s), have to be stopped before the world economy is too seriously disrupted. In other cases, it is preventive medecine.

For example, NATO intervened in Bosnia because that war was about to become a proxy war between Germany (who was funding Croatia) and Russia (who was funding Serbia). Recall that in 1995, when the Dayton Accord was negotiated, Croatia had just cleared the Serbs out of the Kraijina, and were about to turn left and enter Bosnia and Serbia. Had that happened, who knows how the planet may have turned? So NATO, under extreme US pressure, intervened to stop the war. Germany is a no-brainer (and we're not there anymore, by the way, other than some NATO posts and administrative staff). Afghanistan is an attempt to prevent terrorists from having a safe haven in which to train. And on and on. Haiti was just an embarassment. It's in our backyard, so we and the US were compelled to intervene. Plus, lots of votes in Montreal.

In other instances, we participate in order to prop up an alliance that maintains stability. Cyprus was an attempt to keep NATO stable and cohesive by preventing NATO members Greece and Turkey from fighting each other.

A conflict in some far-flung part of the world directly impacts Canada by causing instability and risk to the open global flow of goods and services, which funds our society and pays for our root canals and hip replacements and double-doubles and Nissan Maximas. So, we judiciously choose those fights that serve our national strategic interest.

Selfish, but true.

Nice job.

 

[rogerstaubach]

I never supported any of them either. And out of all of those, only Cyprus is an actual peacekeeping mission and was not misrepresented to the Canadian public.

So Paul Martin and his liberals misrepresented the Afghan mission to the Canadian people prior to increased troop and enhanced mission deployment? So the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc and every organization, group and individual in Canada was basically asleep, unaware or uncaring at the time? Maybe decades of this uniquely Canadian mythology of enlightened and benign Canadian Peacekeeping missions dulled and deluded the Canadian populace about the true nature of the world?

 

[Hard Idle]

So Paul Martin and his liberals misrepresented the Afghan mission to the Canadian people prior to increased troop and enhanced mission deployment? So the Conservatives, the NDP and the Bloc and every organization, group and individual in Canada was basically asleep, ...

Most of the missions have been misrepresented. But in the case of Afghanistan I guess it was understood that we had to give the Americans something after refusing Iraq, and this was by far the more benign concession to make.

 

[rogerstaubach]

Most of the missions have been misrepresented. But in the case of Afghanistan I guess it was understood that we had to give the Americans something after refusing Iraq, and this was by far the more benign concession to make.

So 3 years in the making, this giving of something after refusing Iraq? What about the troops in Afghanistan prior to Iraq? What was this giving of something for?

What about the Dutch, Italians, Germans, and the other hosts of countries involved in Afghanistan? All there to appease the Americans too? Man o man can these Americans strong-arm other nations to do their bidding.

 

[red]

Personally I support the mission in Afghanistan. However, if you don't support the mission you can't really support the troops. Of course you're not going to wish them harm and want them to return safely, but "supporting the troops" is implicit support of the mission.

I disagree. You can support the troops and not support the mission. Its the same as a parent loving their kids but not wanting them engaging in dangerous activities.

 

[Hard Idle]

Accessory to changing the rules

... Wars in Europe or Asia, that have the potential to spread outside the borders of the warring nation(s), have to be stopped before the world economy is too seriously disrupted. In other cases, it is preventive medecine.

For example, NATO intervened in Bosnia because that war was about to become a proxy war between Germany (who was funding Croatia) and Russia (who was funding Serbia)...So NATO, under extreme US pressure, intervened to stop the war...

Selfish, but true.

A plausable theoretical argument but it does not fit the model:

1) This conflict had no potential of to engulf states outside the original theater, none of the parties involved had either the wish nor the ability to do this.

2) The potential for the proxy-war scenario arose in the first place only because Canada and other outside interests actively prevented the impending defeat of secessionist forces for three years, then gradually rebuilt them.

If it were really a priority to wrap-up major combat, restore stability and minimize economic fallout, the fastest and cheapest way to do that would have been to leave the war to take it's course. There was also a second chance to end it simply by insisting on the adhearence to the already signed Lisbon Treaty.

Therefore the real reason for the mission was not to contain or shorten the war, but rather to achieve a specific outcome and more importantly, to establish precedents from which future endeavors - like "pre-emption" and "regime-change" - would no longer be unthinkable.

Whose strategic interest is that?

 

[Hard Idle]

... Haiti was just an embarassment. It's in our backyard, so we and the US were compelled to intervene. Plus, lots of votes in Montreal.

A conflict in some far-flung part of the world directly impacts Canada by causing instability and risk to the open global flow of goods and services, which funds our society and pays for our root canals and hip replacements and double-doubles and Nissan Maximas. So, we judiciously choose those fights that serve our national strategic interest.

Selfish, but true.

Can anyone tell me what could possibly ever happen in Haiti that would impact any economy except those of the two countries which share that island?

Further more, nothing whatsoever has changed in terms of security, human rights or prosperity as a result of the intervention. 95% of the migrants were economically motivated and they continue to seek ways out.

Another excercise intended purely to inoculate the public for more ambitious regime change projects and building tolerance for colonial reachback.

 

[CapitalGuy]

Can anyone tell me what could possibly ever happen in Haiti that would impact any economy except those of the two countries which share that island?

Furhter more, nothing whatsoever has changed in terms of security, human rights or prosperity as a result of the intervention. 95% of the migrants were economicallty motivated and they continue to seek ways out.

Another excercise intended purely to inoculate the public for more ambitious regime change projects and building tolerance for colonial reachback.

That's what I said. Haiti has no economic impact on Canada and is not of any strategic concern to us (or to the US). But it's a broken country in our own hemisphere and it's embarassing to the rich countries to have a problem child so close to home. We harp on the Europeans to sort out their own messes in the Balkans, so we are compelled to sort out the mess in our own backyard, even though it is not of direct strategic interest to us. I don't think regime change or "colonial reachback" come into play here anymore. It's just an ugly situation right in the superpower's back yard (which is why they intervened in force in 2004), of no value (which is why they left as soon as the headache could be handed off to someone else ie. a South American coalition).

 

[rogerstaubach]

I disagree. You can support the troops and not support the mission. Its the same as a parent loving their kids but not wanting them engaging in dangerous activities.

The troops as evidenced by their comments disagree with you. Seeing as you wish to support the troops, the troops are saying they do not feel supported by people who do not support the mission because they are the "mission" in flesh and blood.