An
intelligent discussion on TVO's
The Agenda, in which
Steve Staples is called out on the difference between UN "blue helmet" peacekeeping and its current Congo mission (which we appear to
have avoided), and in which Janice Stein in surprisingly, er, robust.
Video:
Earlier on
The Agenda, "The Debate: Assessing Afghanistan", video at
Predate here.
1 Comments:
First ... let me acknowledge that I didn't watch the entire program. I just don't have the one hour necessary. Thus ... you may wish to dismiss my comments ... so I will only comment on the part of the program up to the first 'commercial' break.
I do have a general comment to make. I wish that Canadians ... and especially the academics in our midst ... would plainly and openly admit that the pacifist appeal of 'peacekeeping' meets with their approval. While no one wants troops killed, injury and death are a natural component of combat. The bleeding hearts want a return to safe, humane and heartfelt missions run by the UN.
Please point out a mission ... a word that does cause the academics a severe case of the shudders ... that the UN has run where combat (the end all and be all of troops) was run successfully by the UN. Forget that Afghanistan is nominally a UN operation. It is not! Gen McCrystal might choose to cc the UN but his real reporting is to NATO and his own national command structure.
The do gooder effort appeals to that huge element of Canadians who don't want to hurt anyone ... and thus, hopefully, who will not be hurt in return. The real world doesn't operate that way and I commend the banishment of the phrase 'peacekeeping' from our lexicon.
Secondly, the real world ... whether within Canadian shores or outside of them ... requires that mature and proper nations be able to defend themselves and their interests. While we align our military policies and practices with the US ... rightly, of course ... we must be able to show the world and nasty people elsewhere that we can do so. I'll admit it's unlikely that we will fight on the ground in the NW Frontier provinces of Pakistan but the those who are fundamentally opposed to our way of life must know that we can take that fight to them. After all, that's why we're in Afghanistan ... to fight the enemy in its homeland rather than on Canadian soil.
Lastly, the military and its associated ancillary services can provide humanitarian aid. But that is all a very secondary, at best, reason for the military's existence. I know ... I know ... the liberals would prefer that the Canadian Red Cross owned those C-17s.
I believe we've a chance to wake up and smell the roses in Canada. I'm not advocating a jingoistic rebirth of the anti-Fenian militias. But I am hoping that we can arrive at an intelligent and realistic acknowledgment that the armed forces must be there and must be capable of performing both at home, in defense, and overseas as an extension of Canadian nationalism.
Regards,
George
Post a Comment
<< Home