Blog - Politics
After more than 100 Canadian deaths in Afghanistan, the public is getting used to seeing images of coffins being removed from military airplanes.
Peter Prontzos: How many Canadians will die for nothing in Afghanistan?
By Peter G. Prontzos
It is hard to write when one is upset, and I was very distressed to hear on December 5 that three more young Canadians were killed in Afghanistan. The terrible news also made me angry.
The 101 Canadians who have been killed in Afghanistan believed they were serving our country, and for that they deserve our respect and gratitude. We must not forget or trivialize their ultimate sacrifice.
But there is an awful truth that we tend to avoid, a truth that must be proclaimed if we are to end the killing on all sides of this bloody conflict. The truth is that those 101 brave Canadians died for nothing.
Their lives were stolen from them, and from their loving families and friends, because of a lie. Too many young children will never see their fathers again, because of a lie. More accurately, they died for a series of lies.
One lie is that Canada is there to help the “democratic” Hamid Karzai. But the fact is that his government was installed by the Bush regime, and that it is both incompetent and riddled with corruption from the drug trade.
A related lie is that this is a war for women’s rights. Since when has Stephen Harper ever taken the lead in advancing the rights of women? Indeed, one of the first things Harper did when he became prime minister was to close 12 out of 16 Status of Women Canada regional offices, while removing “equality” from SWC’s objectives.
Another lie is that it is possible to win a military victory over the various tribes and political factions fighting the occupiers. British and American military officials are finally admitting that they are losing ground, and the bloodshed will only increase as the war drags on.
The biggest lie of all is that Canadians are being killed in the fight against terrorism. The Taliban did not attack the United States on September 11, and it is not the only group fighting against the U.S.–led occupation. Moreover, even the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has concluded that Bush’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have led to more anti-Americanism and more terrorism, not less. Every time innocent civilians are killed or a wedding party is bombed, more people take up arms against the U.S.–backed forces, or support those who do.
In reality, Canadians are dying in Afghanistan in order to please the Bush regime by aiding its attempt to dominate the Middle East for its own geostrategic purposes, especially that of controlling the oil in the region. In addition, there are some in the Canadian military who despise our peacekeeping reputation and would rather that we adopted the mindless war-fighting mentality of the American military.
There is, however, a sane and humanitarian alternative to endless war and continued killing in Afghanistan: start negotiations with all sides in the conflict, as many NATO countries are urging, and bring in well-funded United Nations peacekeeping troops to enforce any cease-fire agreement. This approach has been successful in similar conflicts around the world, and just might work in Afghanistan.
Instead of wasting lives and money in an unnecessary war, we could offer real development aid to the Afghan people. Only 10 percent of Canadian funding, for instance, is spent on reconstruction. Moreover, the billions of dollars being squandered in a futile military exercise in Afghanistan could be spent here in Canada, to improve our health-care and education systems, to create jobs, to house the homeless—and to help returning Canadian veterans to heal the mental and physical wounds of war. We owe them that.
Both the Liberals and the Conservatives share the guilt of having sent Canadians to a needless war in order to please the United States. But they are not the ones whose sons and daughters are facing death on a daily basis. It’s always easier to send other people’s children to war while striking heroic poses when one is safe at home.
One version of the golden rule goes, do not do unto others what you would not want others to do to you.
The fundamental question is this: would you be willing to go to Afghanistan and risk your own life, or that of your children, in this war? If the answer is no, then you do not have the moral right to ask others to do what you would not.
It is past time for us to demand that no more Canadians or Afghans lose their lives for a lie.
Peter G. Prontzos teaches political science at Langara College in Vancouver. He spent two years in the U.S. Marine Corps before moving to Canada to resist the war against Vietnam.


email
print











Comments
As Mr. Prontzos is aware, Canada is a member of Nato, and had enjoyed the benefits of protection for 56 years without being required to do anything. When our ally was attacked we mobilized our armed forces... this is why we are in Afghanistan, not any of the professor's partisan attacks on Conservatives.
How is it that the author was able to jump from the state of women in Afghanistan to the closure of Status of Women offices in Canada? Partisanship I expect, and a good deal of contempt for the reader. This year $29.9m was spent on Status of Women, a record. The only difference is that branch offices closed and public servants lost their jobs leading to an obvious squeal from those who feed at the trough of public expense, the good professor included.
Another favourite line: "there are some in the Canadian military who despise our peacekeeping reputation and would rather that we adopted the mindless war-fighting mentality of the American military." This type of comments only comes from the mindless anti-war mentality of the American left.
Fortunately though we can negotiate... I'll trade you your daughter's clitorectomy for 10% less opium production? What is to be negotiated?
Let us not forget that our mission in Kandahar was started by Liberals and extended by both the Libs and the CPC. Let us not forget that 101 Canadians have died in their voluntary service to this country... and let us not abandon the successes that the mission has had.
Moreover, the use of pesonal attacks and ad hominum arguements in the commentars message is despicable. Mean-spirited comments like 'bitter old American ex-pat' or 'screed' do nothing to advance understanding.
Aristotle already pointed out the falacious character of the ad hominum ('to attack the man instead of the argument') 2000 years ago. Such arguments poison public discussion.
Substantively speaking, it seems to me that Canadians who die in Afganistan are being sacrificed on the alter of U.S. imperialism and the desire of the U.S. state to dominate the world, including Canada.
The commentor also mentions 'Nato as protecting Canada, and suggests Canada has an obligation to therefore support U.S. military invasion and occupation of Afganistan. In fact, Nato was formed as part of the anti-communist 'containment policy' after world war II as a means of enrolling Canada and other nations in the U.S. anti-Soviet crusade in Europe. It has done ""nothing"" to protect Canada.
David Benjoseph
I think your view that NATO has done nothing to protect Canada to be entirely false. As you know Canada does not have a military which would protect us if there was an invasion. Having the largest military in the world on our side has prevented Canada from having to deal with such a catastrophe.
While the debate of NATO's effectiveness is an entirely other debate, I don't think that you can reasonably say that Canada should have bailed on our military commitments to our largest trading partner and closest friend.
Also, please note that we are not all socialists and protecting Canada from the expansion of communism has been good in many eyes. Be careful using absolutes like nothing, because any example of the contrary negates your point.
It's apparent that you share some of the professor's views because you failed to address an important half-truth in the article, the increase of funding for the Status of Women. How can one agree with the author when what he has written contains false information?
Thanks for the greek lesson by the way. Here's an english lesson for you:
Screed - A lengthly piece of informal writing, a rant, a harangue.
Not sure that fits into ad-hominem, but you're the Aristotle expert.
The first four years of our deployment in Afghanistan were under LPC rule and only 10 of our soldiers perished...half of them at the hands of American troops. In the less than 3 years that the CPC has been in power we have lost 91 soldiers and our previously healthy budget surplus has been whittled down to nothing because Harper and the CPC are spending our tax dollars on weaponry when the vast majority of Canadians are opposed to this. Having said that I don't expect any CPC supporters (especially 'jon') to give up their ludicrous notion that other countries have been there to protect us out of a sense of altruism instead of naked self interest.
The US was attached by Afghanistan? Would that be the same Afghanistan that offered to deal on Al Qaeda and was rebuffed by the US in it rush to go to war?
I can speak here as someone who has over 22 years service in the US and Canadian Forces, including 19 months with forward units in Vietnam. I know CF members who do hold the opinion that the author claims.
Those Canadians died in vain, an unnecessary waste of life than can be laid directly at the feet of Parliament. The so called successes there are ephemeral. Victory will occur when whatever the situation at the moment we disengage is defined as victory.
Prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban and the United Nations worked together to reduce opium export from more than 3,000 tonnes of opium to less than 500 tonnes. In 2007, 8400 tonnes of opium was exported.
Here at home, the percentage of imported shipping containers inspected at our ports is less than 5%. Our major financial institutions launder tens of billions of dollars in profit from the sale of illegal narcotics annually. Our federal government used to issue slap on the wrist fines to our big banks. This, at least, acknowledged the existence of a serious problem. Today, there are no prosecutions. Visit any Canadian port city and you will find an open drug market. You will also find high rates of HIV and hepatitis C, as well as plenty of overdose deaths.
The Afghan parliament suspended one of its elected members after she spoke out against the fact that drug lords also held seats in the house. She has been the target of four assassination attempts.
There is no War on Drugs. Western economies rely on the cash flow provided by the black market drug trade to offset bubbles created by financial market speculation. Without that money, we couldn't afford to build rehab facilities for addicts.
Please don't say the 101 Canadians who have died in the Afghan war died for nothing. They died, albeit unknowingly, to protect the corrupt society we love, the nation state we call Canada.
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO404A.html
I find this article to be very opinionated, which I suppose is what the new is all about. We have accomplished many things with this war, for example, securing the opium, like "The Blackbird" posted before me.
I do, however, have the same opinon to some things Prontzos has said in the article. For example, I do also believe that Bush made up a bunch of lies, only to get access to the oil deposits. I, actually, do believe that Bush was behind 9/11 itself. Nothing like making up your own excuses.
However... I also notice that Prontzos has not posted any evidence to back up the things he says. He is talking about how he is so angry about the lies behind this war... but what is the true definition of a lie, hmm?
The definition of a lie is, in brief, "A distortion of the truth."
Well, isn't that your job, Mr. Prontzos? You are a reporter of the news. Your job is LYING in order to get people to back you up. You actually lied several times in your essay, refusing to put: 'I belive' or 'In my opinon'. The way you wrote the essay was like saying, "Yes, all of this is true! Believe me!". Therefore, aren't you just as bad as the people who you speak of?
Post a comment