exploit our troops

Stephen Harper's recent visit to Afghanistan, and the fawning way most of the Canadian media reported on it, showed Harper at his US-wannabe best. I was going to wax sarcastic about it this morning, but this letter to the Star by a Guelph man saved me the trouble.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Afghanistan visit was no surprise. Boost morale? Please. As one commentator said, "Shania Twain would've been a better choice." To gain understanding of the situation? What could anyone learn in a 48-hour visit dominated primarily by press conferences. Conservative popularity waxes and wanes with support for the mission, so despite Harper's protestations, the polls are precisely what brought him there.

Now, I'm no Harper fan, but do I support our troops? If our soldiers must be in Afghanistan, I'd rather they do more humanitarian work. But I'd rather they not be there at all, considering they receive little attention from the rest of NATO, unwilling to shoulder more combat, or the United Nations, which won't buy Afghanistan's poppies instead of eradicating them and leaving farmers with no option to feed their families other than joining the Taliban. I support a debate on the mission to explore exactly why our soldiers are being killed and if the cause is worth it.

So do I support our troops? Not if you asked Harper. According to him, the ways to support our troops are by throwing more of them into the meat grinder of Kandahar without addressing the causes of the violence; convincing them to fight an endless (hopeless?) mission regardless of the costs; and exploiting them to generate good PR by snapping photos of them enjoying a Tim Hortons coffee.

That's what a real patriot would do. Or at least that's what our fearless leader would have us believe. -- Brandon Kidd, Guelph, Ont.

I'm not in complete agreement with Mr Kidd; I just want Canada out of there, and the troops home. But a debate about the goals of this so-called mission is a necessary first step, one that is long past due.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

not so fast

Not everyone thinks the Conservative government is a lock. Canada's opposition Conservative Party, which is set to bring down the minority Liberal government later this week, was hit by a new opinion poll on Monday that showed it was trailing in the country's most vote-rich region. The Leger Marketing poll for the Sun chain of newspapers put support for the Liberals in the powerful central province of Ontario at 43 percent compared with 31 percent for the Conservatives. Ontario, a Liberal stronghold at the federal level for the past 12 years, accounts for 106 of the 308 seats in House of Commons, and no party can hope to form a government without doing well there. . . . Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberals have been badly hurt by a corruption scandal and Conservative leader Stephen Harper says the government must be defeated as soon as possible. The Leger figures, however, suggest there is no guarantee Harper can end 12 years of Liberal rule. Thanks, ALPF! I must say, I...
Read more

dipstick

So there won't be an election yet. Talk about a squeaker . Feel free to tell us how you feel about this, unless it's all been said already, then feel free not to. ALPF mustered his courage and sent more links, so I have some good commentary to post. I found this Macleans story on the Conservative party's reaction to Stronach's decision - and public reaction to that reaction - very interesting. Canadians seem almost universally turned off by the name-calling and sexist slurs. On the other hand, when a certain governor made his "girly men" pronouncement, his constituency howled with glee. (Which is not to say the rest of us weren't appalled.) The Macleans article also notes that not all the sexism came from politicians: Some of the most sexist characterizations of Stronach didn't come from her political adversaries, but from media. Montreal's La Presse newspaper ran a cartoon of Martin leaning out his car window to solicit a street-walking Stronach...
Read more