V for Victory, Peace Through Victory

Today is the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

10 years ago today, Al Qaida terrorists under the direction of Osama Bin Laden crashed two jet airliners into the World Trade Centre in New York City. They also crashed a jet airliner into the Pentagon in Washington, DC. A fourth airliner crashed into a field in Pennsylvania when passengers decided to take the plane back from the hijackers.

2,819 people were killed in the attacks. Fortunately, it was far short of the 10,000 suspected to have been killed within hours of the attacks.

The people of the United States, Canada, Britain and the civilized world were certainly afraid on the day of the attacks. But not too afraid to fight back.

Osama Bin Laden would not live to see the 10th anniversary of the attacks he directed. But he did live to see the full extent of the western victory over the fear he sought to plant in the hearts of the civilized world.

The civilized world should not be mistaken to mean only the western world. The attacks launched on the United States were meant not only to terrify citizens of the United States, but freedom-loving people around the world, including those in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran (among others).

He did live long enough to see the civilized world fight back: in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Iran, in Tunisia, in Egypt, in Libya, in Syria, in South Sudan, and in countless other places around the world.

The fight for freedom certainly hasn't been definitively won anywhere. Even in places that now show so much promise, such as Egypt, there is still a chance that the forces of Islamofascism will exploit the efforts of the liberal (classical liberal, that is) activists who are throwing off the chains of oppression. There is still a chance they may simply be re-chained under someone else's brand of oppression.

It happened after the Iranian revolution, and could quite easily happen again.

But in the guise of Islamofascism -- something that should not be mistaken for Islam itself, but is rather a political perversion of Islam -- the world sees the kind of threat it has seen on occasion in the past: the kind of threat that simply must be defeated in order for peace to be possible.

It's been seen before. During the 1930s, in Germany, Adolph Hitler lead a political phenomenon so hostile to anything even resembling peace -- let alone a just peace -- that it had to be destroyed for peace to be possible.

Some, like Neville Chamberlain, attempted to placate that threat in the hopes of attaining peace. The more they attempted to appease Hitler, the more aggressive he became. Peace was only possible when Winston Churchill became Prime Minister of Britain, and stood up and declared that they would fight Hitler anywhere and everywhere they could.

In the process, he made the v-shaped finger salute -- v for victory -- truly iconic.

In the 1960s, the peace movement adopted the same gesture in order to demonstrate their devotion to peace.

Some have viewed this as a perversion of the "v for victory" gesture. They're not entirely correct.

Certainly, the peace movement can often be wrong about their pronouncements. For example, any peace activist who demands that the western world stop fighting the war on terror is not legitimately a peace activist. Their demands would result in a world in which radical Muslim terrorists would continue to attack the civilized world while the civilized world simply declines to fight back.

That is not peace.

In the case of Islamofascism, as with the case of Nazism and fascism before it, peace -- true, actual peace -- is only possible through victory.

On this, the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we must not allow ourselves to forget the example of Winston Churchill. We must win the victory against Al Qaida and the varied forces of Islamofascism so peace can be possible.

Lizzie May Has a Problem

"Ottawa group of four" defying Green Party leadership

When Green Party leader Elizabeth May went to her party membership looking for permission to ignore her own party's rules -- the Green Party constitution called for fixed-date leadership contests -- it was tough to tell whether or not the move should be condemned or applauded.

There was, of course, the sheer sanctimony of it. May has been the loudest complainer whenever she felt that Prime Minister Stephen Harper was breaking the rules. Then again, she was clearly disregarding the rules of her own party.

On the other hand, however, was Sylvie Lemieux. As a member of the Green Party's Ottawa Group of Four, she clearly had some extreme views, and was prepared to give herself the power to enforce those extreme views over others.

Paul Maillet, Quais Ghannem and Akbar Massoui round out the Group of Four.

A conference -- being described as a "peace conference" -- being organized by the cabal has quickly become a case in point.

The conference claims to be discussing “just and sustainable peace”. However, a deeper look below the blanket rhetoric reveals that it's actually about anything but.

According to Maillet, considered to be the ringleader of the Group of Four, the conference's goal is to identify “an alternative approach to conflict that doesn’t lead you down the path of violence."

“We were able to get some academics from the University of Tehran, and we thought that this was a good place to start,” he added.

For the sake of posterity, this needs to be stated again: they thought the University of Tehran was a good place to start. On speakers for a conference in favour of "just and sustainable peace".

However, the real cuplrit for the attendance of Dawood Ameri and Saeid Ameli was Manoussi, who attended an Iranian government-sponsored conference in Tehran during the last year.

The Ameri's Islamic World Peace Forum features several anti-Semitic cartoons. Ameli, who will be keynote speaker, has actually praised Iran for its efforts to protect women's rights, and has falsely claimed that stoning is no longer used by the Iranian "justice" system.

And these are the people that the Ottawa Group of Four are looking to as guides toward "just and sustainable peace".

The utter shamelessness of the Group of Four is utterly astounding. Maillet actually attempts to defend the event by espousing the values of non-violence.

“One of the principal Green party values in non-violence, and this is what we’re trying to practice,” he said. “Non-violence has to mean living these values somehow.”

Of course, this begs questions: does Iran truly practice non-violence when it funds Hezbollah, who in turn launch rockets into Israeli civilian settlements?

Rationally, we already know the question: no. Of course they don't. Maillet is either wilfully ignorant to this detail, or somehow ignorant altogether.

It's hard to tell whether Maillet, a former Colonel with the Canadian Forces, errs on the side of naivete or wilful ignorance.

“A professional peacekeeper does not choose to have conferences with his friends. He chooses to have dialogue and discussion with people with whom he has differences," he insisted. "That is the place you can make gains.”

Of course, what Maillet clearly doesn't understand is that you can only make gains with adversaries who are willing to come to the table in good faith. The Iranian regime -- with whom all of Maillet's prized Iranian speakers are aligned -- never comes to the table in good faith; it comes merely to spread its own propaganda.

Elizabeth May, at least, seems to understand this much.

“You can’t have a dialogue if you don’t have balance," May said. "You can’t be naive about these things.”

“This is not a happy event,” she continued. “If they’re not aware that they’ve put together a conference which is unbalanced, then they’re not paying attention. I hope they’ll cancel.”

If they don't, May will have a serious problem within her party.

What needs to be seen is what May will do if they don't cancel. The Green Party should move to not only cancel the nominations of Maillet and Ghanem, but expel all four members from the party. However, May hasn't committed to this course of action.

At least with Elizabeth May still at the helm of the Green Party, Sylvie Lemieux won't be using it as a platform for the Ottawa Group of Four's extreme tyrant-coddling agenda.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Creekside - "A Maclean's Conjob MP Circle Jerk"

John Oglivie - "What Do Elizabeth May and Vic Toews Agree On?

Not Much of a Threat

George Galloway not much of a security risk

It seems that members of Canada's "peace" movement attending Monday's Resisting War from Gaza to Kandahar conference in Toronto will be disappointed. One of their star speakers, British RESPECT unity coalition MP George Galloway won't be admitted into Canada for the event.

According to Immigration and Citizenship Canada -- the department headed by Jason Kenney -- Galloway has been ruled inadmissable due to his sympathy for the Taliban and for financially supporting Hamas, which appears on Canada's black list of terrorist organizations.

Clearly, the latter issue is of much greater import than his sympathies for the Taliban. While his financial support of a terrorist organization does and should give one pause, it's also believed by a vast majority of Canadians that our country stopped holding one's sympathies against them when the Cold War passed into the pages of history.

George Galloway is an outspoken critic of the war in Afghanistan. This is no secret. He's also famous for insisting that Taliban are not his enemy.

If he has any reservations about what the Taliban did when they were in control of Afghanistan -- oppressing women, ethnically cleansing portions of the country and destroying other culture's religious iconography -- or the things they would do if allowed to return to power, he's certainly kept them to himself.

But in Canada, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms supports one's right to freedom of conscience and belief. Our government is expected not to bar people from entering the country based on their beliefs unless it poses a threat to the country.

Galloway has donated thousands of British pounds to Hamas. This makes barring him from the country more palatable on legal grounds, but it really doesn't make him much of a threat.

"This decision, gazetted in Rupert Murdoch's Sun, is a very sad day for the Canada we have known and loved – a bastion of the freedoms that supporters of the occupation of Afghanistan claim to be defending," Galloway insisted. "This has further vindicated the anti-war movement's contention that unjust wars abroad will end up consuming the very liberties that make us who we are."

"This may be a rather desperate election ploy by a conservative government reaching the end of line, or by a minister who has not cottoned on to the fact that the George Bush era is over," he continued. "All right-thinking Canadians, whether they agree with me over the wisdom of sending troops to Afghanistan or not, will oppose this outrageous decision."

Many Canadians will certainly oppose this decision, and they won't be wrong to do so.

Then again, there are some who will argue that someone who financially supports terrorists should be barred from entering the Country.

That being said, Galloway doesn't pose much of a threat to Canada. While barring him sends a strong message to those who financially support terrorism, it does little to make Canada more or less secure.

George Galloway is not much of a threat to Canada.

What Will They Do If He Stays the Course?

"Peace" movement counting on Barack Obama to curb War on Terror

During his visit to Afghanistan, Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama has promised Afghan presiden Hammad Karzai that he will fight terrorism "with vigour".

In fact, Obama promised to undertake a complete approach to Afghanistan.

"Obama promised us that if he becomes a president in the future, he will support and help Afghanistan not only in its security sector but also in reconstruction, development and economic sector," said Agha Sherzai, the former governor of Khandahar.

Obama has enjoyed great praise from numerous portions of the anti-war movement as well as Iraqi politicians over his plans to withdraw from Iraq.

But in terms of the Afghanistan conflict, one can rest assured that the so-called peace movement must consider Obama way off the reservation.

Obama has committed himself to the Afghanistan conflict in a very encouraging manner, suggesting commit up to 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan, as well as allowing US forces to pursue insurgent fighters into Pakistan if necessary.

In particular, the Canadian "peace" movement must feel a certain twinge of betrayal. They had to have been counting on Obama to undermine the War in Afghanistan by withdrawing American troops from a conflict that, all too often, they can't tell apart from Iraq.

Some have already begun to target Obama, denouncing his "right-ward" "imperialist" turn.

But for those still clinging to Obama as their great hope for an anti-war, pacifist foreign policy, one has to wonder: precisely what will they do if he stays the course in Afghanistan?

Of course, the abject irony of the so-called "peace" movement advocating foreign policy stances that would -- and have proben to be -- detrimental to global peace and security, has already been covered at length.

There's no question that the peace movement will need another messiah. Considering the ultimate political fate of their previous anti-war messiah, Jimmy Carter, it becomes apparent they'll be waiting a long time yet.

To make matters worse, the alternative presidential candidate -- Republican John McCain -- is supportive not only of the war in Afghanistan, but also the war in Iraq. Evidently, the alternative to Obama is no better for the "peace" movement, and a great deal worse. There is, of course, always Ralph Nader, but that's a slim hope at best.

The "peace" movement may not like it, but it seems that realism will continue to prevail in foreign policy.

More Proof That They Just Don't Get It

Let's define "illegal" and "unjust", if we may

If their previous rounds of sparsely-attended protests against the War in Afghanistan weren't embarrassing enough, Canada's "Peace" movement is at it again today, staging protests in 20 cities across Canada.

"This war has nothing to do with the defense of democracy or women's rights in Afghanistan and everything to do with advancing U.S. strategic interests in the region," wrote the Canadian Peace Alliance in a news release. "We reject sending our youth to serve as cannon fodder in Afghanistan, where 78 Canadians soldiers have now died, with hundreds wounded, and even more psychologically damaged in an unjust, illegal war."

But let's define, if we may, the words "unjust" and "illegal".

First off, let's define "illegal". One the principle complaints against the war in Iraq is that it's illegal.

According to Chapter VII of the United Nations charter, use of force against another country is legal if its perpetrated in self-defense or if authorized by the UN Security Council.

The war in Iraq was launched under dubious self-defense claims, and was not authorized by the United Nations. As such, the case for arguing that Iraq is an illegal war is actually fairly strong.

Meanwhile, however, the security and assistance mission in Afghanistan -- in which Canada is participating -- is approved by the United Nations. Thus, under Chapter VII, Article 42 of the United Nations Charter, the war in Afghanistan is legal.

Of course, it's unsurprising that the "peace" movement can't seem to tell the difference between the two wars.

The other claim made by the Canadian Peace Alliance is that the war is "unjust". Sadly, these people seem to have a very skewed idea of justice.

In the current state of Afghanistan, its armed forces and government, if NATO troops were to withdraw from Afghanistan, the Taliban would almost certainly return to power. Is this really the "just" result that the Canadian Peace Alliance wants in Afghanistan?

The same Taliban who denied education and medical care to women? The same Taliban who engaged in ethnic cleansing? The same Taliban who destroyed priceless Buddhist artifacts in the country? The same Taliban who imposed brutal theocratic government on the people of Afghanistan?

A return to power for the Taliban in Afghanistan is the last thing that would resemble justice for that beleaguered country.

Not only does the Canadian Peace Alliance have a convoluted sense of the legality of the war in Afghanistan, but they have a very bizarre sense of justice.

Which is appropriate enough, considering that their idea of peace is also to allow regimes like the Taliban to continue harbouring terrorists with impunity, allowing them save haven from which to plan their attacks.

The "peace" movement just doesn't get it. They hold the most bizarre and untenable beliefs on legality, justice, and peace imaginable.

Out of the Mouths of Babes

Naivete at heart of Canadian "peace" movement

When Robert Batsch brought his daughters Jamie, 18, and Robyn, 12, to Saturday's "Pan-Canadian Day of Action Against War in Afghanistan", he probably thought he was making some kind of grand point.

"War is not the answer. You don't fight to create peace," he insisted.

His older daughter, however, made a far more interesting point.

"[The government] shouldn't be making decisions that not everyone agrees with," Jamie Batsch announced.

This particular comment really only marks a growing trend toward institutionalized naivete within Canada's so-called "peace" movement (which, as alluded to in a previous post, becomes highly suspect when the "peace" it envisions doesn't really resemble anything like peace).

The incredibly naive suggestion that the government should require complete consensus before making any kind of a decision (when, precisely, will everyone agree with a decision that has been made?) notwithstanding, what is truly surprising is that this naivete is only echoed in the words of the elder Batsch. One can expect such naivete from an 18-year-old with little surprise. It's when one hears it from a 49-year-old that it becomes alarming.

Jell-O Biafra once said that "fighting for peace is like fucking for cellibacy."

While to Biafra and those who think like him, such a statement may seem like a truism, the fact is that history entirely contradicts it.

While Biafra, Batsch and their cohorts may loathe to admit it -- often engaging in protracted rhetorical gymnastics in order to avoid doing so -- history has proven to be full of beligerents who simply had to be fought. Those who suggest that peace can be attained simply by not fighting has clearly neither dealt with a schoolyard bully, nor paid sufficient attention to their history books.

It should be unsurprising that those who espouse pacifism would have difficulty measuring their beliefs against the shadow of a belligerent. Yet, some pacifists have managed to find the wisdom necessary to do so.

Consider the example of Freeman Dyson, who had to resolve his own pacifist beliefs against the threat posed by Adolph Hitler. He relates them in Weapons and Hope:

"…We had made our break with the establishment and we were fierce pacifists. We saw no hope that any acceptable future would emerge from the coming war. We had made up our minds that we would at least not be led like sheep to the slaughter as the class of 1915 had been.

We were not so naïve as to blame our predicament upon Hitler. We saw Hitler only as a symptom of the decay of our civilization, not as the cause of it. To us the Germans were not enemies but fellow victims of the general insanity. … We did not bother to read Mein Kampf.

We seized upon non-violence as the alternative to never-ending bombs and death. We were not sure whether Hitler could be successfully opposed with non-violence and turned from his evil ways, but at least there was a chance. With bombs and guns we were convinced there was no chance. If the worst came to the worst, if we opposed Hitler non-violently and he killed us, we should be dying for a good cause. That would be better than dying for Mr Churchill and the empire.

We had grand visions of the redemption of Europe by non-violence. The goose-stepping soldiers, marching from country to country, meeting no resistance, finding only sullen non-cooperation and six-hour lectures. The leaders of the non-violence being shot, and others coming forward fearlessly to take their places. The goose-stepping soldiers, sickened by the cold-blooded slaughter, one day refusing to carry out the order to shoot. The massive disobedience of the soldiers disrupting the machinery of military occupation. The soldiers, converted to non-violence, returning to their own country to use on their government the tactics that we had taught them. The final impotence of Hitler confronted with the refusal of his own soldiers to hate their enemies. The collapse of military institutions everywhere, leading to an era of worldwide peace and sanity.

…If our program did not make sense in terms of immediate practical politics, the idea of fighting World War II in order to save the Czechs or Poles or the European Jews made sense even less. We could see clearly that however badly we might suffer in the coming war, the Czechs and Poles and Jews would suffer worse.

…Above all, we were strengthened by the certainty that our program was moral and the society around us was immoral."

Just as Canada's so-called "peace" movement would surely insist, Dyson and his cohorts at the time believed that only they had learned the lessons of history, and only they, with their pacifist beliefs, could claim a moral position during this time of conflict.

However, as the war progressed, Dyson and his friends changed their minds, in part because of the concessions their fellow pacifists made to the belligerents of their time:

"Our little band of pacifists was dwindling. … Those of us who were still faithful continued to grow cabbages and boycott the OTC, but we felt less and less sure of our moral superiority.

For me the final stumbling block was the establishment of the Petain-Laval government in France. This was in some sense a pacifist government. It had abandoned violent resistance to Hitler and chosen the path of reconciliation. Many of the Frenchmen who supported Petain were sincere pacifists, sharing my faith in non-violent resistance to evil. Unfortunately, many of them were not. The worst of it was that there was no way to distinguish the sincere pacifists from the opportunists and collaborators. Pacifism was destroyed as a moral force as soon as Laval touched it.

Gradually it became clear to me that what had happened in France would also happen in England, if ever our pacifist principles were put into practice. Suppose that we succeeded in converting Mr Churchill and a majority of the British people to the gospel of non-violence. What then? We would nobly lay down our arms and impress our moral superiority upon the German invaders by silent noncooperation. But the English equivalent of Laval would soon appear, to make a deal with the Germans and make us contemptible in their eyes."

Unfortunately, activists such as Batsch doesn't share Dyson's wisdom. They lack his ability to measure their beliefs against the realities of the conflict at hand, and choose the lesser evil over the greater.

Few will answer that war is not an evil in and of itself. War is what Michael Ignatieff would describe as a moral hazard, and it in turn leads to other moral hazards.

However, there are times at which war, as a moral hazard, is necessary because the alternative, as physical hazard, is not permissable.

Allowing the Taliban to rule Afghanistan so they may continue to harbour terrorists as a passive-aggressive act against the Western world is no more permissable than allowing Adolph Hitler to sieze control of Europe so he may do as he wills.

Furthermore, neither of these alternatives to war -- in present as in history -- actually qualifies as peace. Therein lies the quandry for the pacifists among the modern peace movement, well-intentioned though many of them may be, and are.

So just as young Jamie Batsch doesn't seem to understand the concept of democracy -- only democratic paralysis results when the government is obligated to act only under conditions of complete public agreement -- the elder Robert Batsch doesn't seem to truly understand the concept of peace, and fails to comprehend that while fighting is not a peaceful act, sometimes not fighting is actually less peaceful.

And while he may have thought that he was making some kind of grand point by parading his young daughters in front of newspaper reporters, in the end, he's really only demonstrated the remarkable ability of two generations of Batsch's to miss the point.

So much for truisms.

Carter to Canadian "Peace Movement": Put That In Your Pipe and Smoke It

Mission in Afghanistan "critical": Nobel Peace Laureate

Sometimes, one has to wonder about Canada's so-called "peace movement".

With mere days to go before staging another series of underattended "Canada out of Afghanistan now!" rallies, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize has come out... in favour of the war in Afghanistan.

Damn.

Jimmy Carter, who won the prize in 2002, at least partially for his efforts to facilitate a peaceful resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (culminating in the signing of the Camp David Accords), would have been a man the Canadian "peace" movement should have considered a principal ally.

But apparently not.

Carter has described the Afghanistan conflict as a rare one he supports.

"The primary role in Afghanistan is still a very important one: just to maintain peace, with the hope that we could have a free and democratic society there," Carter announced following a meeting with United Nations secretary general Ban-Ki Moon.

"Now it's pretty much a holding game and I'm not sure about the progress, but I think it's important that Canada and others participate," Carter added.

One has to consider that this is coming from the man who devoted his presidency to fostering peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It takes a very solid commitment to peace to even think that what is so widely considered a lost cause would be worthwhile, let alone wagering his place in the history books upon.

Of course, it isn't as if Carter is a stranger to the issue of Afghanistan. During his presidency, he authorized aid to the muhajadin groups fiding the Marxist PDPA (People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan) government and the Soviet troops sent to reinforce them.
The PDPA had come to power by overthrowing the previous government, headed by Mohammad Daoud Khan, a progressive leader who was deemed insufficiently Marxist by the Soviet Politburo.

Contrary to commonly-espoused public belief, the Taliban was not among these mujahadin groups funded under Carter's administration

Now that one of the world's leading advocates in favour of peace has come out in favour of the war in Afghanistan, one has to wonder about what the issue is really about to Canada's co-called "peace movement", and whether it's really about peace at all.

At this point, it's a widely known fact that the Taliban -- the party we are trying to prevent from returning to power in Afghanistan -- harboured Al Qaida terrorists, as well as allowing terrorist training camps to flourish. Following the events of 9/11, it was quickly determined that Al Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden, planned and executed the attacks and that while the perpetrators were predominantly Saudi (though not in good standing with the Saudi government, essentially branded as outlaws), that the safety provided to these terrorists by countries like Afghanistan was instrumental in the training of these terrorists.

A world in which any country constantly lives under the shadow of terrorism is not a peaceful (or stable) world. President Carter understood this when he went to such lengths to foster an accomodation between Israelis and Palestinians. He understands this still when he acknowledges the importance of the Afghanistan mission: peace under terrorism is not peace, and even the most fickle so-called "peace" activist should be able to recognize this.

So, then, what's really at the root of Canada's so-called "peace" movement?

Their posters provide a clue.

In large letters on these posters, "Harper and Bush" are instructed to get "out of Afghanistan and Iraq now!"

Maybe it isn't about peace after all. Maybe it's more about politics.

After all, to point the finger of blame in the vicinity of these two men alone (overlooking the fact that it was a Liberal government that committed Canada to Afghanistan and the war in Iraq was initiated with widespread support from the Democratic party), is fundamentally a political tactic, one that overlooks important details of the issue in order to score some quick and easy points.

Surely, there are some among Canada's "peace" movement whose motives are largely apolitical, and geared entirely toward the promotion of peace. But there has been a very palpable strain of manipulation used by the politically-minded "peace"niks (many of them affiliated with certain political parties) that has led some of these indviduals to spurn an international order that actually qualifies as peace and favour one in which the threatening anarchy perpetrated by extreme elements (actually of varying stripes) is ignored in the name of ill-defined global utopianism.

Fortunately, Jimmy Carter is not so afflicted with such a naive point of view. Carter's dissent from Canada's so-called "peace" movement should give some of them pause to reconsider.

Not that we actually expect them to.

Why the Hostility?

Hostility directed at war mother underscores shortcomings of Canada's anti-war movement

Those with a long enough memory surely remember the countroversy provoked by vicious bloglodyte Canadian Cynic when he recently addressed grieving war mother Wanda Watkins.

In the now-imfamous post, Cynic addressed Watkins and her call for Canadians to support the Afghanistan mission.

'We don't want any family to experience the terrible pain of losing their son or daughter, but if Canada and NATO abandon the Afghan people, the sacrifices Lane, our family and others have made will be for nothing, Watkins said Monday.'

In other words, there will be no discussion of whether this entire Afghani adventure was a mistake because, well, that would mean some people died for nothing and, Holy Mother of God, we can't have that, so the deaths will continue into the foreseeable future because admitting that this was a bad move would be, you know, kind of embarrassing for everyone involved, and better to keep killing Canadians than look sheepish, know what I mean?

And in a breathtaking display of callous unconcern for anyone else's family members, Watkins continues:

"They deserve your respect. In supporting them, you'll make our loss much easier to bear."

With all due respect, Wanda, fuck you and your grief. It's not the job of the rest of Canada to continue to let its soldiers die just so you can sleep better at night. At this point, I don't give a rat's ass about making you feel better for your loss now that I know that the price is other peoples' lives. Fuck you and the politically-motivated, neo-con propaganda train you rode in on."

Aside from the obvious implications of spouting such a vicious attack on a begrieved mother, the hostility that many Canadian opponents of the Afghanistan war feel towards those who support the mission (as exemplified by Cynic's post) is a revelation in and of itself.

It reveals that many of these opponents of the war have yet to conciliate their lack of support for the mission against their stated support for the troops.

Consider the following post, also courtesy of Canadian Cynic:

"Here's a suggestion to all those chickenhawk, fake patriot Canadian wankers who want to slap those politically-charged "Support the troops" stickers on everything in sight, as if that's going to reduce the death toll of Canadian soldiers or something.

Why don't you pool your pennies and whip up a whole bunch of "Support the mission" stickers? Then there won't be any doubt what you're talking about, and you can slap those babies on all your shit to your heart's content, and you can finally all piss off and leave the rest of us alone.

How does that sound? Does that work for you?"

Cynic argues that the definition of "support the troops" offered by supporters of the war effort in Afghanistan represents a demand to support the mission. He argues that he can unquestionably support the troops without supporting the mission. Many of his ideological comrades would probably even try to emulate the argument raised by Jell-O Biafra when he insists "We support the troops the most because we say, bring them home!"

There are, however, two fundamental issues with such an argument. First off, Biafra raised his claim in response to "support the troops" demands made in relation to the Iraq war. Secondly, it seems to presume a lack of support for the war amongst the soldiers who are actually fighting it.

In the United States, a plausible argument in favour of this can be made against Iraq. This is because a case can be made that many of the soldiers fighting the Iraq war do not support it, as evidenced by the number of troops that have gone AWOL. This helps to reinforce the perception of soldiers callously being sent overseas, to die for nothing, by decision makers who really don't care.

However, in terms of Canada's commitment in Afghanistan, nothing could be further from the case. Canadian troops believe in the mission, and support it.

Consider the case of Canada's Royal 22nd Regiment, The Vandoos, who deployed to Afghanistan on 15 July.

Prior to their deployment, Quebec anti-war groups wrote letters to member of the Vandoos encouraging them to refuse their orders to deploy. The letters were noted to compare Canada's activities in Afghanistan to war crimes.

"I read the headlines and threw it in the trash," said Master Corporal Pierre Calve, who recieved one of the letters. "I believe in this mission. I have family here in Canada. This is a way to protect them, like our grandfathers did in the First and Second World Wars. It's not to go and kill people but to protect the peace."

Master Corporal Calve is a father of three.

The letter was also noted to claim the blood of Canadian soldiers was being uncaringly peddled by war-mongering politicians, "Canada's role in Afghanistan is a trap. It means on-the-ground Canadian soldiers become cannon fodder' for the illogical and unjust policies of generals and politicians."

The Van Doos would later hold a rally in support of the mission.

A day later, when the Vandoos held a march in support of the Afghanistan mission, anti-war groups turned out in protest rallies.

"We're not targeting the soldiers, we respect them as people," protest organizer Joseph Bergeron insisted. "But we are in total opposition with the Afghanistan mission and we want to show we represent the great part of the population that is opposed."

Yet Bergeron, as a spokesman for Guerre a la Guerre (War Against War) was part of the same organization that distributed the letters encouraging the Vandoos to desert. Guerre a la Guerre had even offered legal advice for members of the Vandoos who took up their invitation.

To sum up the story, Bergeron and his group wrote letters to the Vandoos encouraging them to AWOL to avoid service in Afghanistan. When they refused, Bergeron and his group protested at a rally organized in opposition to a march staged by the Vandoos to show their support for the mission.

This is hardly supporting the troops, considering that the troops support the mission.

Under these pretenses, the claims of the Afghanistan war opponents come to seem nothing short of outright arrogant. They argue that they can support the troops without supporting the mission that the troops support. Somewhere in this argument they must understand that they are suggesting they are better judges of what causes Canadian soldiers should be allowed to sacrifice their lives for than the people who will be doing the actual sacrifice.

When the troops, or their families, reject their arguments, the anti-war crowd has shown very few compunctions about targeting the troops themselves, both directly and indirectly.

This isn't to say that one must support the mission whole-heartedly in order to support the troops.

The public dislike of the mission is notable (70 percent in Quebec oppose the mission). Frankly, anyone in their right mind should dislike war.

However, we should also recognize that sometimes war is a necessary evil, and when our fighting men and women are willing to make the supreme sacrifice, we as Canadians do not really have the right to deny them the opportunity to participate in missions they support, particularly not when those missions are already underway.

The support of Canadian troops for Afghanistan has proven to be a serious stumbling block for the Canadian anti-war movement. Sometimes when they tumble over those hurdles, as was the case with Canadian Cynic, it's merely offensive and embarrassing.

Sometimes, however, as in the case of Guerre a la Guerre, it's criminal--an outright act of sedition.

In the end, however, the troops do support the mission, and one can't support the troops without at least respecting their right to support it. That is where the Canadian anti-war movement ultimately fails.

Halloween Spirit Permeates Afghanistan Rallies

"Canada out of Afghanistan" rallies touted as "huge success"

Ah, yes. Halloween. That time of year when adults and children alike disguise themselves as someone or something else for fun.

It should come as no surprise, then, that in the days leading up to Halloween, the “venerable” Toronto Star has been hard at work describing October 28’s “Canada out of Aghanistan Now!” rallies as something they weren’t – a success.

500 protestors marched through the streets of Ottawa (population 859,704). 200 protestors showed up in Halifax (population 359,111). 500 congregated in Montreal (population 3,326,510), and 600 in Vancouver (population 600,000). In Edmonton (population 937, 845), fewer than 100 turned up.

Success? Hardly. Not in one of these cases did so much as 1% of the city’s population turn out to agitate against Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan.

“I get the feeling we’re making history here today,” said NDP leader Jack Layton. “Millions of Canadians are deeply concerned about this combat role.”

Layton, whose comments about Canadian involvement in Afghanistan have alienated Canadian military service men and women from his party, may have wanted to check his rhetoric before spewing this absurdity. If “millions of Canadians are deeply concerned about this combat role,” millions of Canadians might have actually shown up to these rallies.

Thousands (but barely thousands) of Canadians in 37 cities – far from what Toronto organizer Sid Lacombe implied when he said, “there are 37 different actions happening in Canada today, all the big cities, and even small towns.”
37 rallies in a country with a population of 32,000,000 hardly represents a huge success. In fact, a mere 37 rallies is a dismal failure.

Even more amusing is the common failure in logic. It seems that many protestors have confused the war in Afghanistan with the war in Iraq. “It’s an illegal war,” 60 year-old Ellen Schifren asserted.

The same charge leveled against the American war in Iraq. Of course, one might expect an obvious international law expert like Schifren to know that the war in Afghanistan is actually being conducted under a UN mandate.

Whoops.

This was hardly atypical. Many of the protestors carried placards portraying Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a war monger, despite the fact that it was actually the Liberal Party of Canada that committed Canadian troops to Afghanistan, and did so without a parliamentary vote, or even a debate.

Whoops.

While one certainly can appreciate the value of dissent on an issue as key and important as the war in Iraq, these rallies essentially turned out to be nothing more than a Halloween masquerade – protesters masquerading failure as success, Stephen Harper as George Bush, and the dumber as merely dumb.