On getting out of your lane

I'm not a fan of Carolyn Parrish. I mean, I'm REALLY not a fan.

But to give the part-time geopolitical affairs expert and full-time harpy her due, she's at least plain about where she stands on the issue of Afghanistan:

Politicians sent them there for political reasons - reasons I don't agree with. To those who hove returned from fighting I say "thank God you're home safely. I'm sorry you had to endure terrible hardships to make some politicians happy." I'm sorry, but we'll have to agree to disagree on Afghanistan. I hope you broadcast this and my other response to your network. For me, the subject is now finished.

That's the only credit I'll give her, though. Her e-mails are so rife with misinformation, it would take me more time than I care to devote to fisking them as thoroughly as I might. But I will point out a few of her more irritating pieces of fantasy.

We have a long tradition, starting with Lester B. Pearson, of Peacekeeping. And the world recognizes this.

I've addressed this pernicious, but hardy Canadian myth many times in the past, however the truth bears repeating.

Firstly, our martial history does not begin with the Suez Crisis. That is nothing more than a convenient starting point for those who wish to propagate their own ideologically twisted version of our heritage, and it ignores the equally valid Canadian tradition of fighting hard when fighting is required - in South Africa, in France and Belgium, across Europe again, and in Korea.

Secondly, peacekeeping was never, NEVER the primary focus of our military. The Canadian Forces has always been devoted to war-fighting, first and foremost. Ignorant mouthpieces like Ms. Parrish like to talk about our proud and noble peacekeeping record, but make no mention of the fact that more Canadian troops were tasked with fighting the Warsaw Pact in Germany if it ever came to that than ever served in a blue UN beret. Our efficacy as peacekeepers stemmed directly from our reputation as warfighters; peacekeeping is ineffective without at least the credible threat of force.

Thirdly, peacekeeping was undertaken as a sub-strategy in a bigger conflict (pdf): the Cold War. It was one aspect of Canada's contribution to collective security for the West, and would not have developed the way it did without the bipolar superpower dynamic that gave it context. To promote it as some morally superior, wholly altruistic endeavour is profoundly ignorant or equally dishonest.

I'm so very tired of pulling this weedy lie from the soil of the Canadian consciousness. Please, let this be the end of it.

Next up: guilt by association - but only in the atrophied little brain of the Mississaugan councillor:

Of late, the Afghan political leaders have criticized the U.S, Britain and Canada as overly brutal and careless.

While it's true that the Afghans are concerned about NATO airstrikes, and civilian casualties in general, I'd appreciate it if Ms. Parrish would provide us with a quote from a disgruntled Afghan politician in support of her casual smear of the CF reputation in Afghanistan. Because I know the Canadians are viewed as a breed apart by local Afghan officials, and unlike her, I have the quotes to prove it.

First, from the Afghan Minister of Rural Rehabilitation and Development, Mohammad Efhan Zia:

"Our expectation is that international community and the Canadian government and Canadian people who have endured sacrifices and casualties in Afghanistan should not leave the job half done," Zia told reporters in the lush garden of a government guest house in Kandahar.

"I think it is the moral responsibility of the entire international community to help fellow mankind to come out of the vicious cycle of poverty and overcome the threat of terrorism in any part of the world."

...

"Because of Canadian financial assistance I've been able to start this massive development initiative in the province of Kandahar," he said.

"Canada is helping the government of Afghanistan in the area of security, they are making these efforts on the request of our government and on the request of the people of Kandahar for improving the security situation. They are not taking unilateral decisions here in the country."

And, even more to the point, Assadullah Khalid, the Governor of Kandahar:

Chaos created by international troops roaring through Kandahar City on military convoys needs to be reigned in, Afghan elders said Tuesday, and they're counting on Canada's military leadership to do the job.

The elders applauded Canadian efforts to make connections with civilians on the ground, such as a simple yet profound gesture to honour the families of two Afghans killed by coalition troops.

Canadian troops weren't involved in the men's deaths earlier this month. But a presentation made by Canadian soldiers to compensate their families won the respect of several local elders who say Canada should teach other international forces to respect Afghan customs.

"We know that when a suicide bomb hits a Canadian convoy, the Canadians aren't going to start shooting at everyone on the streets," said Kandahar's provincial governor Asadullah Khalid.

"But we must be able to say that of other forces as well."

...

"We feel that Canadian forces are different than other forces," said Khalid, "and the issue we have right now is to work with you and with international troops to find a solution to this problem."

Crow is best eaten fresh, Ms. Parrish, and goes particularly well with a slice of humble pie.

One last point of contention:

I do not support sending our troops to Afghanistan to bring western-style democracy to a country whose people don't appear to want to move that far, that fast.

I wonder why she thinks the Afghan people don't want our help? The elected government surely does, as indicated by the words of Hamid Karzai, Assadullah Khalid, Mohammed Zia, and others, who openly welcome our assistance and ask for more. The ordinary Afghans pictured in this post, and this one, and this one, also seem to value Canadian help getting their country back on its feet.

But the most effective rebuttal to Ms. Parrish's uninformed assertion is this poll of Afghan public opinion, released just last December, which shows that support for foreign troops in the country runs three to one Grateful to Unhappy (based upon a random national sample of 1,036 Afghan adults from 14-19 Oct, 2006, which apparently has a 3.5-point error margin).

I have one piece of advice for Carolyn Parrish, municipal councillor: either educate yourself on these issues so that you can contribute something of actual value to the national debate, or keep your garage door of a yap shut.