For government, the beauty of war is that it provides almost unlimited scope to lie, to spy, to spend in ways that enrich your friends, to suppress dissent, to punish critics, and undermine the constitution. All this is clear from the actions of the war mongers heading the U.S. Government who talk no straighter than they shoot.
Having inherited a war, Stephen Harper clearly has no intention of giving it up. Thus, he now asserts, to question the war, even in Parliament, is tantamount to treason: it would both endanger the troops and could result in their betrayal.
But why should it? If you're driving an armored vehicle on a dirt track in the backwoods of Kandahar Province, knowing that Parliament is discussing the Afghan mission doesn't alter the importance of watching for signs of a bomb in the next culvert, or a suicide bomber in the taxi heading your way. How could any soldier forget that? Whatever the hell is happing in Ottawa, you life and that of your buddies depends on your keeping your eyes skinned and your wits about you. That surely is what any soldier worth his salt would be doing.
And insofar as the troops know their mission is being discussed in Parliament, the press or on the Web, wouldn't that be good for morale? Wouldn't they be glad to know that we care for them, and about what they're doing?
And as for any attempt to pull them back being a betrayal, when did soldiers ever complain when the mission ended. One can just see it, February 21, 1916: Dawn of the battle of Verdun (French casualties 550,000; German losses 434,000): Its over lads, you can go home. Isn't that a bitch. Isn't that a betrayal. Aren't those politicians just the biggest son's of bitches. The Gerries had 200,000 shells set to go the first day and we didn't get to see the show. Bummer. Yeah, right.
Permanent Link
.