March 17, 2008
A Word From The Opposition
"Stop the torture—end the war," read one colourful placard at Queen's Park. "End the siege of Gaza," read another.
Voicing solid opposition against the war in Afghanistan and the occupation of Iraq, immense columns of demonstrators took over Queen's Park and Bloor Street on Saturday. "From Iraq to Palestine," they shouted, "occupation is a crime!" When the demonstration reached the heart of Yorkville, you could imagine the neighbourhood's original war resisters seized by the haunting familiarity of the whole thing.
Two fingers in a peaceful "V" extended from a passing Mercedes. Apparently unaware of his solidarity’s inherent irony, the driver of a nearby Escalade laid on his horn, waving.
Peggy Nash and friends march at the front of the line.
Marking the approximate fifth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Saturday’s rally and march were organized to coincide with those held in some twenty other cities and towns nationwide. While similar demonstrations have happened in past years, this one—considering the timing—held an especially grave significance. On Thursday, the Conservatives and Liberals voted nearly unanimously to extend Canada’s war against Afghanistan to 2011. The motion passed 198-77, with only Bill Matthews, the Liberal Member of Parliament for Newfoundland’s Random-Burin-St. George’s riding, disputing his party’s position. To the demonstrators—not to mention, you know, Afghanis—it’s like the war has started all over again.
Diane Alexopolous, representing the Toronto Coalition to Stop the War, opened the day at Queen’s Park by calling out the federal opposition. "Today’s rally," she pronounced over a piercing shriek of feedback, "is where you’ll find the real opposition to Harper’s War on Terror." Stephane Dion’s Liberals form the supposed official counterpunch to Stephen Harper’s minority Conservatives, though you’d hardly know it from their voting record. "Shame on Stephen Harper; shame on Stephane Dion," the assembled fired back.
Outlining a few ugly statistics like the federal budget’s $18,000,000,000 earmarked for military spending—a tenth of the total budget—and the nearly five million-or-so bullets fired in Afghanistan, Cathy Crowe of the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee and the Housing Not War Campaign came out with an impassioned indictment of Harper’s hawkish policies. Countering successes asserted by the government and the military, Crowe declared, "We know that by every measure, the war in Afghanistan is not a success. Poverty is up, civilian deaths are up... by every measure, things today are worse—not better. So we have to ask ourselves: do we want to continue a combat mission in Afghanistan?"
In unison, the rally answered, "No!"
"If we want to bring hope," she said, "let’s stop with the NATO combat mission. Let’s turn instead to the United Nations, and let’s reach out towards a peace process."
The lack of affordable housing in Canada was as much a thesis of the day’s demonstration as was opposition to the wars, solidarity with Palestine, or disgust with the Bush/Harper axis. On March 4th, following the city’s closure of over three hundred shelter beds, a homeless Aboriginal man named Robert Maurice froze to death on the streets, triggering direct action by the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty at City Hall. "The police, city officials, city politicians and others refuse to accept that he was homeless," Crowe continued, "but he was homeless by any definition." Drawing a comparison between the displaced of Afghanistan and those of Toronto, she said, "In the Afghan winter, hundreds that were made homeless by the war have frozen to death. We know here in Canada about downtrodden people. We see people in our country begging for money, begging for food, and dying on our streets." Amid continuing cries of "shame," Crowe concluded: "All of this while our soldiers are coming home severely maimed and dead, returning along the so-called ‘highway of heroes.’"
Out of our massive federal surplus, billions of which has been intravenously pumped into every tank and rifle in the country, not even one percent was provided to support affordable housing.
The war against Afghanistan has been a contentious, divisive issue in both Canadian society and politics over the last few years. Torontoist spoke with Linda McQuaig, columnist at the Star and author of Holding the Bully’s Coat, a critical examination of Canada’s role in the U.S. empire. Referring to the Conservatives’ attempt to resurrect Pearson in describing Canada’s role in Afghanistan as "peacekeeping," she says: "There is no resemblance between Canada’s role in Afghanistan and the UN peacekeeping mission developed by Lester Pearson in connection with the Suez Crisis in 1956. Pearson’s mission was a genuine effort at keeping the peace, and it helped avert a war. By contrast, the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan is an aggressive use of military power that began with an illegal invasion and continues as a war to suppress a domestic insurgency."
Summarizing the thoughts of many at Saturday’s rally, McQuaig told Torontoist: "I think Stephane Dion’s capitulation on Afghanistan is a disgrace. He has clearly caved to pressure from Harper and the pro-war wing of his own party. By doing so, he has ensured that Canada will be fighting in Afghanistan until 2011, even though a clear majority of Canadians oppose this extension of our involvement in the war." Sixty-one percent of Canadians oppose the involvement of Canadian troops in Afghanistan past 2009.
Of course, Saturday’s demonstration was wider in scope than Iraq or Afghanistan, focusing on the so-called war on terror’s national and global fallout. Placards screamed DON’T ATTACK IRAN, responding to Bush’s repeated threats of military action against the Islamic republic—in spite of last year’s National Intelligence Estimate revealing that Iran had suspended any nuclear aspirations as of 2003. At the Israeli Consulate on Bloor Street, demonstrators demanded an end to Israel’s violent sixty-year occupation of Palestine.
Addressing the increasingly-questioned root of the war on terror itself, WeAreChange.org repeated its call to reopen the 9/11 investigations, particularly in light of 9/11 Commission chief Philip Zelikow’s cozy relationship with notable neocons like Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice. "If we skip past what got us into the war," said Richard Harris of the Toronto chapter, "we’re not going to really fix anything."
Trinity-St. Paul's church, where the march ended.
There was a time when we were able to look at our role in wars as lofty and noble, even in the early days of the war against Afghanistan. 2003’s near-renaissance of Trudeau-era nationalism had us pretty happy with ourselves, what with all our talk of legalizing pot and such. We’d thumbed our noses at the States, telling them we’d have no part in their insane war. Now, as we’ve become exceedingly aware, we’ve got one of our own.
"Dion has deprived Canadians of a chance to vote on this critical issue," McQuaig concludes, "and facilitated Harper’s attempt to bring about a far-reaching transformation of Canada from peacekeeper into combative junior partner in the U.S. military empire."
All photos by Miles Storey.
|
Although I'm not a proponent of war it is hard to justify abandoning the mission in Afganistan and leaving it ripe for the Taliban to regain power. The original primary mission (i.e., remove the Taliban and locate Osama) has wavered and having Harper at the helm is disconcerting, but how could Canada justify withdrawing our troops and leaving the Afgani's in such a state. If you read the history of Afganistan you will realize that foreign forces/powers have tired to occupy the country essentially throughout its entire history. If Canada could help Afganistan become a self-sufficient nation able to resist outside influences and provide for its people it would be commendable. The pressure should be applied to the government to increase its focus on rebuilding Afganistan and enriching the lives of its people. Simply abandoning them will only leave them with a bitter view of Canada and worse off than they were when we first arrived.
As for the suggestion from anti-war activists to turn to the UN for a peaceful resolution to the situation I would ask for them to provide an example in the past 20 years when the UN has been able to facilitate an end to violence on the scale of Iraq or Afganistan? The UN has become an over grown bureaucracy that cannot effect change due to the veto power of the Security Council and the excessive bureaucratic structure. I would like to see the UN ressurected; however, it seems to be going in the direction of the League of Nations.
Excuse the lengthy comment, but I watched the documentary, "No End in Sight" last night and reminded me that there are people that work extremely hard to do the right thing and help people, but the power structure can really screw things up.
The mission in Afghanistan is indeed a combat mission, a circumstance determined by the Taliban, not by NATO. The liklihood of the UN finding sufficient armed force outside of NATO to defeat a resurgent Taliban is roughly zero, suggesting that what these protestors are really advocating is the return of the country to the control of a group of brutish misogynist thugs. Nice.
Just for fun, have a read of today's news story about insurgents burning down a brand new school in Kandahar -
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iM1DEH-tok3uWagw-X1lBeDVEKDg
That doesn't bother us about any other country on Earth, apparently, so why make an exception?
Actually I can think of several countries that aren't run by aforementioned BMT's; Luxembourg for example, or Costa Rica.
On the other hand, I'm swayed by the power of your argument that if we can't help everybody we shouldn't help anybody.
I can't think when we invaded those countries.
By starting an endlessly smouldering civil war? The oppressed people of the world must be just lining up for that kind of help. Sure, they'll get blown up in street without warning for a decade or two, but at least their government's org chart will measure up to our high standards.
How about letting people have their own revolutions? Was that ever in fashion?
"By starting an endlessly smouldering civil war" Unlike Iraq, the violence didn't start with the invasion, it had been going on for decades. The original intervention was clearly self-serving, inasmuch as the US wanted to prevent the country from acting as a home base for terrorists (or insurgents, or whatever word you prefer for folks who kill civilians to send a message). However, there was a collateral benefit in getting rid of the Taliban, a group whose approach to public policy could best be described as stability though oppression and murder.
In any case, suggesting that the subsistence farmers and urban poor of Afghanistan are somehow in a position to wage a successful war against a group that's armed and funded by Middle Eastern oil money is either cynical or ignorant. The simple fact is that what NATO troops are doing there is a good thing, and no amount of kowtowing to cultural relativism will change that.
Interestingly, according to the Toronto Star, a BBC poll showed that 70% of Afghans wanted to foreign troops to stay in their country, a pretty telling number for a country that has a long,proud history of kicking the crap out of invaders.
It was so great to see such a large turnout on Saturday. I particularly enjoyed how I was able to call out scientology AND join others in a rally for peace!
When will learn that dropping bombs on a country won't help us make friends in that country?
"Hi we're here to help your democracy, sorry that one of our attacks on insurgents killed your brother and sister. Don't worry about it, we'll give you a Tim Horton's coffee back at base before handing your neighbour over to the Afghani government to be tortured. Err, I mean questioned."
I especially like that the google ad that is being generated is for useless peace emblems and tchotchokes from some place called "The Liberal Store", and half the subjects in the pictures are covered in them.
I think we can charitably describe the message of the protest - what with its conflation of Afghanistan with Iraq, Palestine and other conflicts, the suggestion that Canada serves in the former as some personal favour for the US President, the anti-continentalism, the ahistorical romancing of Personian Liberalism, the straw man denigration of the mission as "not a peacekeeping mission" (when it was never intended to be) -- as profoundly confused.
Nice photos though, really evocative.
EricSmith, I think your utopian comments are nice, but off base.
Rhalford and Patrick Metzger counter your snippets quite effectively and I look forward to seeing a well-thought-out reply by you to try to counter their opinion.
I am not a fan of war, but I am less of a fan of oppression and brutal murders. The Canadian mission to Afghanistan, as I see, is an altruistic mission. Canadian troops are there to help, not to plunder. One can possibly argue this point regarding the Iraq war.
My only fault with wars like that in Afghanistan is: why Afghanistan and not other countries, like Sudan, North Korea, Syria, etc.? People are suffering in those countries, so why choose to fight in Afghanistan and Afghanistan?
And when EricSmith suggests that we should allow for countries to revolt from within: that's all fine and dandy, except your idea fails miserably when put to practice. Just as those who "disappeared" this week in Tibet or last decade in Tiannaman Square.
Finally, I am tired of these "free Gaza" protests. Its as if these protesters have no clue as to what's really happening in and around Gaza. They just see a blockade and, as a result, Western advocates fancy Gazans as innocent freedom fighters looking for peace.
These same protestors refuse to acknowledge the human rights violations that exist in Gaza and Hamas's desire to wipe all of Israel proper off the map. They also don't put things into perspective: The US is building a fence/barrier around their US-Mexico border to prevent people from sneaking across the border (in that example, people are illegally sneaking into the US for jobs. In Gaza and the West Bank, the fear is for terrorists and suicide bombers). What would happen if Mexico started launching missiles into the US? That's an unacceptable act of war. Of course, when it involves Israel, missiles are seen as being perfectly fine and attributed to fabricated "occupations"
Re: starting a civil war:
Okay, stoking a civil war, then. Isn't that a clue that an invasion isn't going to work, at least as far as the secondary goal of peace, order, and good government goes?
There's not much I can say against the argument that we broke it and have bought it. But invading Afghanistan was not an uncomplicatedly beneficial decision, and supporters of the current strategy are having a tough time explaining how it'll turn out well. In any event, as far as being a force for positive change around the world goes, doing it this was doesn't scale well at all.
^^^actually, its a matter of Canadian politicians having a tough time justifying to Canadians that Canadian soldiers - mostly young men - are dying while trying to liberate a country from an oppressive, undemocratic ruling party.
Deaths never make good press, especially when it indeed is for a fight with no end in site nor without an exit strategy.
Of course, we could have stayed out of Afghanistan, but history's shown us how well avoiding war works. Just as Yugoslavia, Rwanda, etc
It's shown us how well waging war works, too.
I was going to say. Do you think it'd be in better shape today if we'd bombed it harder?
bombed it earlier? yes.
I'd rather see 1000 "soldiers" die before those 1000 soldiers rapes women and children and killed 1000 villagers for the sole reason those villagers are of a different ethnicity.
I guess you will also bemoan the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima?
They are the buzzards and dreadful crows of war: "Necessary evils, I suppose"
Sure, but that's not the choice. You can't zap just the Bad Guys -- inevitably, you also kill the commuter trains and the Red Cross posts and the refugee convoys and the Chinese embassies and so on.
And others. People burned in their thousands.
Miles, I don't know how many times I've complimented you but, as always, the pictures are great.
Frankly I have issues with the necessity for Dresden and Hiroshima myself, but that's nothing like what we're talking about here.
The war is by all accounts and all surveys supported by the soldiers who are fighting it (and to characterize them as witless tools of the Bush-Cheney junta would be to do them a great disservice), by the people on whose behalf it's being fought, and by the majority of the population of Canada. The purpose is to prevent the return of a regime that is backwards, brutal and evil by anyone's standards, and while civilian casualties are inevitable in war, it's as probably as targeted a war as has ever been fought. I would conjecture that if NATO pulled out, the immediate civilian casualties would be far greater than what's going on right now, and the future for the rest would be bleak.
I'm challenged to find any legitimate moral grounds for opposing to the Canadian forces presence and function in Afghanistan, so I conclude that it's the the standard knee-jerk objection to the use of the military, however worthwhile the cause or positive the outcome.
I suggest to you that you go spend time in a part of Afghanistan currently being controlled by NATO, then visit an area being run by the Taliban. In the unlikely event that the latter let you leave the country with your head attached, you can tell us which you prefer.
The reasons for Canada's involvement in Afghanistan are well-documented. The main reason: Because Canada wasn't involved in Iraq, and it was felt that Canada probably really needed to be involved somewhere.
You might recall that the Taliban weren't much of a problem (for the west) for the years leading up to 9/11. You might also recall that the Taliban were given a window to cough up Bin Laden prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Unfortunately for them, Afghanistan is and was a totally broken country, which made the task of coughing up Bin Laden impossible - even if they'd wanted to do so (which they didn't). But all I ask is that you consider, hypothetically, that they did deliver Bin Laden to the US (perhaps purely out of an interest in self-preservation).
If they'd met Bush's ultimatum, would any NATO soldiers be there right now?
I believe the answer is no. So remind me again - how does a concern with "human rights" fit into this?
It's merely an appeal to emotion. And judging by the comments here, it's working pretty well so far as justifications go.
The reason I'm a non-fan (and a non-supporter) of the war is that it is futile. By the time 2011 rolls around, we will have more dead Canadian soldiers. Afghanistan? It will still be a massively corrupt narco-state.
I noted in post 6 above that the reasons for the war were about American self-interest; certainly noone was claiming altruism. However, we're there now and there's no pressing geo-political reason to stay, with Al Qaeda safely ensconced and untouchable in Pakistan. But we're there and we've made commitments and people trust us to do what we said we would do.
Reasons change.
RE: The Hiroshima comments
I recommend checking out a manga series from the 70s called Barefoot Gen. It provides a Japanese civilian perspective on Hiroshima and the aftermath. The art might not be as stylized and hyper-detailed as some of today's stuff, but both the story and the art are still incredibly shocking and frightening. The author is a Hiroshima survivor and the story is loosely based on his experiences. Civilian casualties occur in every war, but that doesn't mean that we should accept it and keep dropping bombs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barefoot_Gen
I'm challenged to find any legitimate moral grounds for opposing to the Canadian forces presence and function in Afghanistan, so I conclude that it's the the standard knee-jerk objection to the use of the military, however worthwhile the cause or positive the outcome.
How about this, doofus?
* We went in there because of bogus intelligence that said Osama Bin Laden was there (obviously, he's not, not with no kidneys and a need for daily dialysis!)And we haven't caught him yet!
* We're supporting a corrupt narco regime that's selling millions of tons of heroin! A trade that NATO was supposed to stop, and hasn't stopped yet.
* We're damaging our credibility across the globe, and setting up ourselves as a potential terror target (not to mention setting Canadian kids up for attack when they vacation overseas, a factoid mentioned by British politician George Galloway, Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow on an episode of The Hour With George Strombolopolous last year-here is the statement:
Think first before you talk, and stop being such a patsy.
Heh heh. "Narco regime". The sleepiest tyrants of all!
Can we at least all agree on one thing: that 9/11 truthers make everyone else at peace rallies look bad by association?
Solex:
Reasonable people may disagree, but—good grief—relying on British politician George Galloway to make your points?
The same George Galloway who called the disappearance of the Soviet Union the "biggest catastrophe of [his] life"?
Who supported Syria's occupation of Lebanon?
Who calls capitalism worse than Hitler?
Who alleges that the news media are controlled by "Zionists"?
You discredit your entire argument by citing him and his elusive "factoid" that Canadian foreign policy is directly increasing violence against young Canadian tourists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway
Patrick, there is a pressing geopolitical reason to stay. It's the same reason that we went there in the first place: it pleases Washington.
As for human rights, I think you're conflating "reason" and "justification". While the reason for our involvement in the war remains unchanged, the justification can be ever-changing.
RE: Solex
It seems that the aninominity of the internet has provided you with a platform to be rude and dismissive. The comments section for this article has provided relatively intelligent arguments from both sides of the issue without resorting to the use of insults and/or name calling (e.g., Doofus). If you feel that people are not as well versed as you in the facts leading up to our participation in the war in Afganistan then perhaps you could provide a brief synopsis as well as some helpful links. I thought we left the name calling to our elected officials?
With respect to making Canadian citizens targets for terrorist attacks at home and abroad do you really think that we could avoid being a target of terror simply by not participating in the war in Afganistan? Canada has likely been a target since the beginning since we are a historical ally of the US and provide them with needed energy supplies, as well as numerous raw materials.
Canada's international reputation has been less than stellar in recent memory due to our lack of committment to international agreements (e.g., Kyoto). I'm not suggesting that we simply participate in a war to better our international image, but neglecting another one of our commitments and leaving Afganistan in a state of ruin seems pretty shameful.
We may have not joined the NATO coalition for altruistic reasons, but as Eric Smith said above, "we broke it and have bought it."
Galloway is an absolute joke. I'm English, he's been a publicity seeking whore his entire career, he'll go anyhere and say anything if it gets him on television.
His appearance in front of the senate in 2005 was, in my opinion, masterful, but it was also completely out of character. Typically he pissed away any respect that his appearance afforded him by going on the Celebrity Big Brother programme, while a working MP, and making a complete twat of himself.
Galloway is a bigger fool than Bush, we're just lucky his idiocy is restricted to rhetoric.
And thanks Maria :)
Well, I'm no expert or nothing...just simple country folk (which I am by birth, btw). I don't know how to handle the situation in Afghanistan, but I do know this: NATO will lose. The mission WILL fail.
No external power has ever held Afghanistan, and make no mistake about it cause this is an occupying force, whatever the true intentions of the mission are, NATO will not win.
I don't know the answers, but I know enough history to know that is unconquerable.
Doofus. Ha. Nice one. You have no idea what you're talking about, do you Solex?
I'm interested in history, and agree with AnarchX that a war in Afghanistan is unwinnable. The practical way to deal with the place is to do what the Brits did after they got shit-kicked trying to occupy it in 1841 - just show up when the Afghans cause trouble, kill a bunch of people and burn everything in sight. That's the punitive approach, and while not entirely effective, it works for a while and beats hanging around getting picked off piecemeal.
It would be pretty easy to do that - go home and just send in the B2s when Osama turns up in a ticker tape parade in Kabul. In fact, it would be far easier than occupying the place, and easier still than building schools and roads, hospitals and bridges, as NATO is doing.
Whatever the motivation (and I'm by no means convinced it's as nefarious as that lovable looney Galloway claims), the current situation is far better for the majority of the Afghan people than the Taliban were. Does anyone disagree? Cause I'd love to hear that argument.
Intentions count, but so do outcomes.
Yeah, let's just wait until the Afghans show up then kill them: great idea! It worked for the Americans in Vietnam, and it'll work for us Canucks in Afghanistan. Sound just like the crappy tactics the US Army used in Vietnam, all the 'Honor Thy Nation', CORDS, and Phoenix Program stupidness that did NOTHING for them except get them kicked out of Vietnam the same way they, and we, will get kicked out of Afghanistan/Iraq. Real smart, and real mature politically and socially.
And you don't want to listen to George Galloway about our being in Afghanistan? Fine! Listen to what a fellow Canadian has to say about this:
A different adjective comes to my mind — pathetic. He reminds me of a little boy trying to sound really tough, hoping to impress the schoolyard bullies.
They want to recast Canada as a swaggering, bellicose power — a kind of pipsqueak version of the US.
One suspects Hillier's comments — and their endorsement by Prime Minister Paul Martin — are aimed at Washington, and are part of Ottawa's effort to make amends for our decision to stay out of Iraq by stepping up our support for other parts of George W Bush's war on terror.
In response to repeated requests from Washington, Ottawa has also announced a $13 billion increase in Canada's military spending and plans to integrate our forces more with the US war machine.
One serious problem with this strategy is that the war on terror makes no sense.
The terror directed at the US is what American academic Chalmers Johnson has called "blowback" — responses to US foreign interventions.
By refusing to acknowledge the role that decades of US interventions in the Middle East have played in provoking terrorist blowback, and instead intervening even more aggressively in the region, Washington is locking itself into an ever-widening cycle of violence with the Muslim world.
This is not Canada's war. We have played a more even-handed role in the Middle East and consequently we're not widely hated over there, as the US and Britain are.
But Hillier and many high-profile Canadians are keen to draw us more deeply into that war. Hillier tells us that our military's job is to "be able to kill people."
Really? I would have thought our military's job was to protect Canada. Sometimes that involves killing people, as it did in World War II. But mostly it involves helping keep peace in the world.
The role of Canada as a peacekeeping, law-abiding nation is one that most Canadians like.
But it seems to irk Hillier and his crowd. They disparage the idea of our military forces as "community helpers in fatigues," as a National Post editorial recently sneered. They want to recast Canada as a swaggering, bellicose power — a kind of pipsqueak version of the US, winning kudos in Washington as we ramp up our belligerence against US enemies.
The Post urged Hillier to become even more confrontational, arguing that his message "really needs to be delivered from the barrel of a gun."
In fact, Hillier's approach is highly provocative in a very volatile situation. Like Bush's challenge to the Iraqi insurgents to "bring it on," Hillier seems to be taunting Afghan fighters, saying in effect: "Hey, scumbags, Canada has targets too. Bet you can't hit us!"
Of course, if the "scumbags" take the bait, it probably won't be our tough-talking general who gets hurt, but rather Canadian soldiers in the line of fire, or Canadian civilians riding the subway to work.-Linda McQuaig,
Of course, you don't have to listen to Linda McQuaig either. Also fine. Stay sheeple (sheep people) and keep plugging your heads in the sand and your fingers in your ears all the time. Keep being like the American populace is now. Be like the Spaniards who believed the same bullshit about being in Iraq until the Madrid train bombings happened. Keep on being deaf, dumb, and blind-it's all okay by me.
Just don't say you all weren't warned.
Here's more from Ms. McQuaig about our involvement in this stupid war, and our close ties to the U.S.;