Panel data provided by Madison's Canadian Lumber Reporter.

On What Reckless Path Are Our Leaders Taking Us?

By Peter Ewart

By Peter Ewart

These are disturbing times that require cool heads on the part of government and military leaders. History has shown that inflammatory actions and comments by world leaders play a big part in creating the conditions for war, conflict and aggression.

Indeed, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was justified by inflammatory comments by George Bush, Dick Cheney, Tony Blair and others that have since been proven to be false and as the recently leaked “Downing Street memo” has indicated, “fixed up” to justify what can’t be justified. Not a few have come to believe that the entire “war on terror” is a camouflage for naked military aggression to seize control of strategic and oil-rich areas of the Middle East.

So what then are we to make of the statements of General Hillier, the new Chief of Staff of the Canadian forces in regards to the recent terrorist bombings in London? On July 14, Hillier announced that Canada is sending 2000 more troops to Afghanistan that will “target the ‘detestable murderers and scumbags’ behind the rise in international terrorism” who “detest our freedoms … our society … our liberties.” He went on to call those who are resisting the American installed government in Afghanistan as “despicable murderers and bastards.” The Canadian troops, according to the Globe and Mail, “will be heavily centred in the southern mountains, where soldiers will be called upon to hunt down and fight the insurgents.”

Defining the “new face” of the Canadian military, Hillier went on to say that “we are the Canadian Forces … not a public service … and our job is to be able to kill people.” However, in his interview, Hillier refused to speak about the number of potential casualties for Canadian troops in carrying out this “job”.

Given the unprofessional nature and tone of Hillier’s comments, one would expect that at least some of our political leaders would object, given the qualms that the vast majority of Canadians have had about the American intervention in the Middle East and about participating in U.S. counter-insurgency adventures in general. But that has not been the case. 

In an interview on television, Paul Martin fully supported Hillier’s comments, as did a spokesperson for the Conservative Party. What is perhaps most interesting is the statement by the leader of the NDP, Jack Layton, in which he expressed support for Hillier’s comments, saying his “controlled anger, given what’s happened, is an appropriate response.” Even more bizarre, Layton went so far as to claim that Hillier was being “level-headed”. This is the same Layton who claims to have “anti-war” credentials because he opposed the original invasion of Iraq. Of course, at one time, Tony Blair himself, another social democrat, also claimed to have “peace’ credentials.

What is the significance of Hillier’s statements and the politicians support of them? 

Well, first of all, Canada is involved in aggressive military action against forces within another sovereign state, i.e., Afghanistan. Whatever our stated intentions, for many in Afghanistan and the Middle East, Canadians will be seen as invaders just like the Americans. Have our political leaders informed us of what the consequences could be? 

On July 18, a respected think tank in Britain, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, released a report in which it has asserted that the British participation in the invasion of Iraq has increased the likelihood of retaliatory attacks (such as the recent subway bombings) on British soil. What will be the likelihood of retaliatory attacks in Canada when leading military officials and politicians use terms like “scumbags” and “bastards”, and send 2000 troops in a shadowy mission to crush an insurgency force in Afghanistan? There is some irony in that just when a number of countries (including Britain) are either considering or are in the process of withdrawing troops from the Middle East and Bush’s disastrous “Coalition of the Willing”, up jumps Hillier, Martin, Layton and company, like Boy Scouts, calling to send more Canadian troops in.

In one astonishing leap of logic, General Hillier links the perpetrators of the London bombings with all the forces that are resisting the American led occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq. Like George Bush, they all get lumped into one entity: “terrorist”. 

The fact is that there are numerous groups and organizations with a variety of aims and motives who are opposing the American and British occupation, and the politics are extremely complicated. Both Afghanistan and Iraq have a long history of resisting foreign invaders whoever they are. For example, the Afghanis fought British colonial occupation in the 19th and 20th centuries. In the 1980’s, they fought the Russian invasion. And now it is American, British and Canadian. For an Afghani farmer back in the hills, what is the difference? All he sees is some more foreigners who have come to invade, drop bombs and wreak devastation on his country. Does Hillier really believe that the Afghani farmer or tribesman who resists does so because he “detests our liberties”? Chances are he hasn’t heard of or could care less about our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and simply wants to live in peace without foreign interference. Afghanistan is a desperately poor, war-ravaged country. It has never done anything against Canada. So why have we sent troops there? If Hillier’s comments are to be taken at face value, it is not for “peacekeeping” but for “killing.”

Some see Hillier’s statements as an indication of a significant shift in Canadian military policy that will result in more aggressive military actions abroad and a further coming “under the thumb” of the U.S. military. Indeed, Stephen Staples of the Polaris Institute asks: “Are we seeing an Americanization of the Canadian forces?” Yet where is the public support for such a shift? And where has the discussion taken place? 

Most people believe that the main purpose of the military should be to defend our country. General Hillier believes that the purpose is “to kill” people in far away foreign places. Where do Martin, Harper and Layton stand on this? And what will they say when Canadian soldiers start coming home in body bags? We should ask them hard questions. War is far too serious a matter to be left in the hands of callow politicians and reckless generals.

Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home