Make or break for Operation Athena
The Van Doos are scheduled to arrive at Kandahar in August. I shudder to think of the reaction in Quebec if they take serious casualties.
CFB WAINWRIGHT, ALTA.If Québécois casualties effectively put an end to the combat mission there are very nasty longer term implications, to wit: 1) The Canadian Army is very unlikely to be used in combat in the future; or 2) only anglophone units can be so deployed.
[...]
More than 2,000 Quebec-based troops have come to this sprawling military base for final drills before their summer deployment to southern Afghanistan,
It will mark the first time Quebec soldiers have gone to the dangerous region as a battle group.
[...]
The troops are keen. But the bigger question is whether Ottawa is ready for the casualties and the political fallout that could come after the six-month deployment of the Quebec contingent.
"It's dicey," military historian Jack Granatstein says.
At the heart of the deployment are close to 1,000 soldiers from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Battalions of the Royal 22e Régiment, the famed "Van Doos." They'll be joined by a battery of artillery, engineers, an armoured reconnaissance unit, a service battalion, field ambulance – 2,500 troops in all. Of the total, 2,171 come from CFB Valcartier, just north of Quebec City.
It marks the biggest deployment yet of Quebec-based soldiers to Afghanistan, although some 200 of them are over there now, many of them Van Doos providing security for the provincial reconstruction team. As well, troops from the 5e Régiment Artillerie Légère du Canada, also based at CFB Valcartier, operate the unmanned aerial reconnaissance vehicles that serve as the eyes in the skies over Kandahar.
But the upcoming deployment promises to truly bring the front lines of Afghanistan home to Quebec, where support for the war is lower than in any other region of the country. Some say it could bring political consequences too, if casualties are steep, and Quebecers turn even further against Canada's presence in the troubled nation.
"It seems to me there are two possibilities: One is public opinion collapses; the other is that it might in effect rally around our brave (troops). I certainly hope it's the latter," Granatstein says...
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 2:37 p.m.
20 Comments:
The politics of this truly suck. It’s especially maddening to think there’s heightened anxiety over how pacificist/isolationist/socialist Quebec might react should Quebecois troops take casualties - as if it’s somehow more acceptable for anglos to take a hit. And for most Quebecois I don’t doubt it is more acceptable.
This gives me one more reason to cheer on the Bloc and PQ and hope they can finally get their separatist act together.
Already it's primarily the anglo-sphere which is carrying the burden in Afghanistan. It's a crying shame that the same dynamic is true right inside our borders.
I'm sure the Quebec troops themselves are keen, but there is no doubt that the most pacifist group in this country are the French; not to mention the anti-semitism and anti-Americanism that is rampant there.
I don't get it, a country can have carnage on it's highways in comparison to combat deaths ... even murders by far outstrip combat deaths ... yet combat casualties cause millions of Canadians to go mushy and wax on about the "good'ol day" of Peacekeeping ... and they cause the Quebec French go balistic.
If there are casualties this summer, and "if" the French go crazy and kill the mission as a result, you can't imagine the changes that are going to take place in my politics. I will work tirelessly to get Quebec out.
Paul, what Anti-semitisms is there in Quebec. I live in a Jewish area of Montreal. My next door neighbor is Jewish. My neighbor across the street is Jewish. We are friends yet they know where I stand on Israel policy towards the Palestinains. On Friday nights and Saturdays, the sidewalks of every block of Outremont, Cotes des Neige, NDG, has Orthodox Jew families walking together. No one ever bothers them and they feel at home and safe, which they are. You just wish it wasn't so.
However, I am very much against Israeli policy with regards to the Palestinians and Pelestine. In Quebec, we can dintinguish between Quebec Jews and Israli foreign policy, just like my Anti-Americanism is not directed at the United States and the American people, but at the US foreign policy and those that drive it to be the way it is. Some of us are smart enough to distinguish between the two, and it seems there are more of us in Quebec then in Anlo-Canada
One more thing. We are not isolationists in Quebec. Arrange to send the 2000 troops to Darfour, and you will see the support Quebec will provide. We are just againts Canada playing "Mini-Me".
Perhaps some torchbearer in the Quebec mainstream media will trumpet the successes of the Quebec contingent, highlighting the proud and brave work that the soldiers are engaged in. I'm not holding my breath, but perhaps there will be balanced reporting that will report on postive results brought about by the Quebec-stationed personnel, where English MSM has failed. A distant hope, I know...but a hope nonetheless.
Protect me from Quebec specialists from SK and BC...
taxpayer: "Arrange to send the 2000 troops to Darfour, and you will see the support Quebec will provide."
What makes Darfur a more worthy project? Anyway, I don't believe Quebecers would be any more supportive of a combat role there. And it's easy to wax bold for an unlikely/hypothetical mission.
"Protect me from Quebec specialists from SK and BC..." - Does that mean only people resident in Quebec, or at least adjacent, may be specialists on Quebec? Knowledge or insight is inversely proportionate to distance from Quebec?
If that's so, then it logically follows that anyone resident in Quebec certainly couldn't have views worth consideration about SK, BC, or the rest of Western Canada.
Every single poll that ever was puts Quebec as the most anti-American and Pacifist province. So much so that if Quebec were removed from the polling equation, Canadians would be seen to support the mission in Afghanistan by a good majority.
Anti-semitism is not a general problem in Canada, but once again, Quebec has the highest dose of it in both act and sentiment. I read a good summary of it years ago; if I can find a link to the piece, I'll be sure to post it for you. It goes hand in hand with a large anti-war bent in the province and a large Muslim population. I'm speaking in general province wide terms, not "your" neighbourhood.
"Quebec Specialists" from SK and BC are created after decades of observation and experience. Like the article suggests, Quebec can derail the mission to Afghanistan ... and if it does, like I said, I will forever do my best to rid Canada of the province with it's hand out, demanding arms contracts but screaming when it doesn't get them ... yet being purely pacifist. It should rub any fair minded person that Quebec is Canada's arms industry giant ... yet is pacifist.
And, like typical pacifists, they always want to be where we aren't (Darfur), and be opposed to wherever we are ... I've lived long enough to have seen it for decade, after decade, after decade. From World War One on, the burden of war has been carried by Anglo Canada.
Like I said, I'm sure the French Canadian Forces are able and willing as any ... but province as a whole is not ... and never has been in any conflict at any time, since WW One.
This is the last I'll say, as I'm not sure The Torch is the forum for this discussion ... my apologies to owners ahead of time.
taxpayer: A major problem regarding Darfur is that the Sudanese government refuses to accept a large and effective "peacekeeping" force. Moreover, the UN Security Council (read China, Russia) is unwilling to authorize intervention against that government's wishes.
So, do you propose that Canada invade Sudan, without a UNSC mandate, in a mission that would be at least as combatative as the one in Afstan? And remember that Sudan has modern jet aircraft and helicopter gunships.
"Darfur update: Usual suspects still at it"
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009426.html
"Darfur realities?"
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009251.html
Which countries do you think would invade along with us? And how would we supply our troops and give them air support?
Mark
Ottawa
boswell, if you find me a comment by me (which would be the "me" in the "Protect me from Quebec specialists from SK and BC...") where I spout off about what the people in BC or SK are like, about the provincial politics of BC or SK, about the structure and make up of their political will... if you can find me a comment, a posting, a person that I once knew that heard me say something to someone that one time down at the 51 flavors (Bueller? Bueller?) then I will happily eat my shirt.
But until then bigoted, unsubstantiated, accepted by polite company because it's trendy to bash Quebec crap like jr's and paul's will be mocked by me.
Where there are humans there is bigotry. Singling out Quebec as a fount of one version or another of bigotry is stupid on the order of throwing around rocks while living here.
paul and jr take a perfectly legitimate political view (which clearly they dislike), not wanting to be in Afghanistan, and wrap it up in a bunch of other crap, so that anyone who disagrees with their view is now clearly a socialist, isolationist, pacifist (that's an insult now? is it on the order of "liberal" in the US?), anti-semite who is anti-American and ignorant.
This is not a discussion, it's a mugging. It serves to narrow the debate into black and white, remove nuance and allows them the moral high ground to spew bigotry while condemning others for (supposedly) doing the same. The point, I've been told, of military interventions like Afghanistan, is to spread freedom and democracy and stability.
Isn't one of the cornerstones of those concepts the whole idea of freedom of speech and thought (with in certain bounds, clearly)?
So, boswell, no I don't think that people who live in SK and BC should be spewing barely concealed hate for Quebec because it's convenient. I don't think that they should pretend to know what everyone in Quebec is thinking, and I certainly don't think that they should take a difference of opinion with people as a chance to launch an unsubstantiated attack on a whole province. No more than I think that people within Quebec should do the same to other Provinces.
Does that answer your question boswell?
Cameron,
So, I take it that in your loopy lexicon anyone you disagree with politically, is a “bigot”.
You’ll note that my complaint was about the ‘politics’ surrounding the Van Doos deployment. The politics I referred to was not just the politics of Quebecers but also those expressed in the ROC as, for example, in the Toronto Star article linked above citing Granatstein, EKOS polls, etc.
“It’s not a discussion, it’s a mugging”
No, it was neither - it was a statement of opinion. And I don’t apologize for my opposition to the socialism, isolationism and pacifism you clearly want to defend (which I guess makes me "bigoted" against you too). I also don’t apologize for my expression of solidarity with the Quebec separatists’ aims.
“Isn't one of the cornerstones of those concepts the whole idea of freedom of speech and thought”
A very noble thought, but negated by:
“I don't think that people who live in SK and BC should be spewing barely concealed hate for Quebec because it's convenient.”
“Barely concealed hate”? That’s just over-the-top nonsense. You wouldn’t be trying to bully us right-wingers would you?
“....launch an unsubstantiated attack on a whole province.”
Hardly. Hyperbole aside, Quebec’s general political leanings are well established. Clearly there are different views but, on the whole, the trend is clear. You should move there - Quebec would seem to be your cup of tea.
I didn't mean Darfour without a UNSC mandate. Darfour or Somalia, or somewhere where we can be of use. There are so many problem spots in the world, yet all the countries bunch up in Afghanistan where Washington wants them to be. Thats the part I cant stand. Darfour is a real human tragedy where Canada's involvement would not be seen by the world as an operation only meant to suck up to Washington but one where Canada would earn the world's respect, a respect that has been crumbling recently, now that we so openly back-up bad US foreign policy and are pro-Israel.
Sudan has an Air Force? So do we. Sudan has a few Hinds? We have CF-18s. How would we support our deployment in Darfour? The same way we support our troops in Afghanistan: Hercs, Polaris, leased Airlift and eventually (sigh) C-17s since they are ordered and on their way (but we could do without). CF-18s can also do ground attack when needed to support the troops.
Can't we do anything unless the US Army, Navy and Air Force are there to protect us? (Iraq 1, Kosovo, Afghanistan) Are we really just Washington's Mini Me?
taxpayer: I understand you have severe problems with spelling, punctuation, logic and logistics.
Try again: or, preferably, go away, Mini You (polemical style in the face of...)
Mark
Ottawa
"taxpayer: I understand you have severe problems with spelling, punctuation, logic and logistics."
Oh my God! I have turned into George W. Bush!
jr, no people who make sweeping, derogatory comments about the views of a whole province are bigots.
It's a mugging in so much as it narrows the language and the views that are deemed acceptable. That you (and I) think that Canada should be in Afghanistan is a perfectly valid view point. It makes neither of us capitalist running pig dog war mongers intent on helping out the Bush-nazi war-criminal regime. Because it's perfectly acceptable to think that some situations are solvable by the proper application of force interlocked with other solutions once there is stability.
My problem is with "if they don't like it I'll help them leave"... which smacks of "America, love it or leave it". Now, I'm not Anti-American, but I'm anti any kind of further degradation of our political discourse down to the divisive and polarized mess our friends to the south find themselves with.
I'm impressed with your selective cutting and pasting from the section of my comment about freedom of speech. Good job. *golf clap*
I don't have to move jr, I'm there now. Have been my whole life (look, more "love it or leave it").
Finally, the bulk of the my comment, especially the bulk of the bits about bigotry, was directed at paul ("rampant" hahahahah...) and not you jr. Pardon me if that wasn't clear enough.
I think ataxpayer gives to much credit to some of our fellow Quebecois and Canadians. There is a segment of the people who are against the use of force in all cases. So Darfur would be all fine and wonderful as long as it was pictures of DART making clean drinking water and CF personal handing out food and it would all go to shit as soon as the narrative turned to ramp ceremonies and dead Sudanese at security checkpoints.
So Darfur would be all fine and wonderful as long as it was pictures of DART making clean drinking water and CF personal handing out food and it would all go to shit as soon as the narrative turned to ramp ceremonies and dead Sudanese at security checkpoints.
Bingo.
BB, it's that lack of stomach that pisses me off.
I'd love us to be in Darfur, I really would. But I want us kicking in doors and shooting (and killing, and them mb mounting on a spike as a warning) the people committing genocide. I want a total no go zone around refugee camps where the NGOs and other medical personal can go about their business. I'm going to get none of these things for a couple of reasons:
1) For good or for ill we're in Afghanistan, to paraphrase Powell, we helped break it, we bloody well better put back together again
2) Too much Galloway left and not enough Orwell left
3) I'm not sure that the Canadian public will like the optics of Canadian troops (mostly white) shooting Africans
4) The mechanism does not exist for the UN to go "You've turned on your citizens, you've let loose hell upon them, sorry, you've lost your moral ability to lead, we'll be taking over now. Oh, you don't like that? Tough shit."
Mark I think that this post ties in nicely to the more recent one about the media/public relations being another front on the war.
The absolute abdication of any attempt at explaining what's going on in a meaningful way by the DND and the Canadian government is shameful.
Post a Comment
<< Home