Friday, November 10, 2006

Remembrance Day

Tomorrow is Remembrance Day in Canada. It occurs to me that this day is not just the most sombre one in this country, but also the most patriotic. I think it says a great deal about the character of Canadians that we have little taste for jingoistic nationalism but we are very disciplined about honouring those who have sacrificed for this country.

This year will involve a very special act of remembrance for me. My father, who passed away a year and a half ago, was a World War II veteran. This weekend I'm going to be working on editing his memoirs. I'm currently right at the chapter where he talks about his war experiences. He was in the dental corps but ended up being assigned to a ship that was torpedoed by Nazi submarines off the coast of Norway.

I think this will be a very poignant Remembrance Day for all Canadians. This is the year, it seems, that it has really sunk into the the Canadian public that we are currently at war in Afghanistan.

Back in the 70s and 80s, I think many of us in this country had fallen into thinking of conventional infantry war as being sort of old-fashioned and obsolete. After all, our country hadn't been in a war for a generation. What military we had was kept up, it seemed, purely for appearances sake. The umbrella of the American nuclear deterrent and the dynamics of the Cold War made the very notion of a ground war almost absurd.

How things change.

Those of you (apparently few) who read my movie review of Flags of Our Fathers will recall that I was once a great student of Sun Tzu's Art of War. It deserves to be said that even that great Chinese strategian spent the first several chapters of his text discouraging war. He goes to great lengths to describe how war will bankrupt a nation on every level. Much of his strategic advice is aimed at showing kings how to avoid war by outmanoevering the enemy and creating a deterrent. To Sun Tzu, all-out war was something to be left as a last resort and resolved quickly. His words are as wise today as they were then.

But what is the last resort? Especially these days with international public attention focused on that screwed-up war in Iraq, it's useful to step back and consider what exactly a "just war" would look like in this day and age.

It's tempting to take the total peace-nik attitude of saying that no war is ever justified unless you are fighting in self-defence. But then there's that big fat stinky exception of Nazi Germany. Realistically, Nazi Germany could never have invaded North America, but few would question that we were justified if fighting that profound evil.

Yet, if you look back at the records, people at the time either weren't all that aware of the crimes against humanity or weren't all that concerned about them. They fought and died for somewhat different reasons than the ones we project on them now, but thank goodness they did.

So given that we live in a 'hindsight is 20/20' world, how do we tell the next time we are faced with a Hitler? Are we in fact justified in taking aggressive action in fighting Hitlers? Who should make these determinations? For example, Canada's war in Afghanistan has the full blessing of the United Nations, yet not everyone agrees that this is justification enough. When we see people suffering elsewhere in the world, when is it our duty to step in and when is it none of our bloody business? Are we in the West hypocrites in our moral self-righteousness? Would another country be justified, for example, invading Canada in order to liberate the (arguably) oppressed native people? Just what sorts of rules should we set before we embark on this most drastic of human actions?

These are all very sad questions to think about, but necessary ones. On this Remembrance Day weekend, I'd like to invite you all to voice your deepest thoughts on the topic of war - both war in our time and in general.

The Pogues - And the Band Played Waltzing Matilda

posted by Mentok @ 10:14 a.m.,

31 Comments:

At 1:21 p.m., Bathroom Hippo said...: My great grandpa was killed in WWII fighting the Nazi bastards. I never met him...I could have got the chance...but that's life and death. War isn't all so bad...not even the war in Iraq. The consequences of no war are far worse than the consequences of war.

I'm pretty ashamed of my country for their lack of support for the troops and their mission. War is never pleasant, nor is it fun. But it's a part of life...and you've got to support one side or the other. My biggest fear is the day where Americans and Canadians will never know what victory feels like.
At 11:52 p.m., Suzan Abrams, email: suzanabrams@live.co.uk said...: Hi Mentok,
I'm just thinking...
how wonderful it is that you're editing your dad's memoirs.
It's like...what a precious noble thing!
I believe, this enriching process will only stretch the bond, to draw you closer to him in spirit.
At 5:57 a.m., Rachel said...: Oh this is quite a post and deserves my open eyes and rested brain...I will return. :)
At 2:07 p.m., Grumps said...: Mentok

I'm starting to work on a similar project only I'm planning a novelized version of my dad's life.

I have the usual but also some different reasons to be grateful today. My dad was liberated by the Allies twice. The first time was when they freed Italy from the Germans. The second time was when their presence allowed him to escape Yugoslavia after the Communists had taken over. Were it not for soldiers before and after the war, my dad might have never made it to Canada.
At 2:49 a.m., Rachel said...: I think it is wonderful you are editing your dad's memoirs. That is awesome.
I was also thinking of writing a novel based on my dad's life like grumps...Maybe someday.

My dad was in the army, he was a medic during the Korean war. But he wasn't in "the shit" he went later after all the damage was done.

War? Well I don't think we are as naive as we once were...Well I hope we aren't (god I hope we aren't) I like to think that we learn and progress and we are able to think for ourselves...
I think in regards to WWII America and the rest of the world waited too long to step in, I mean shit America seems to be jumping on anything as of late...
I think Afghanistan started out as a just war but that is all cloudy now (Where's Afghanistan?) People are so stupid...Ignorance is truly bliss.
Iraq is a mess, purely for economic benefit for who? I don't know...Texas? Gas prices are rising by the second here. (Before election: $2.17 1-2 days after polls closed: $2.43 Right now: $2.54)
Weapons of mass destruction? WTF? I thought we were looking for Bin Laden? We have the attention spans of nats...We had no place going to Iraq and if there were weapons they wouldn't just disappear into thin air and if we are so concerned about crimes against humanity then we should also step in to Sudan.

See now I have all my feathers in a ruffle...

*sigh*

But I always have respect for the troops, for all troops. The way this society treats Veterans is shameful. We owe them everything we have yet we can't even provide them with any decent health-care.

I am so moving.
At 1:04 p.m., Bathroom Hippo said...: Iraq an economic benefit? I don't think that was the plan at all.

As for WMD...think clearly please...the World's Intelligence Agencies all said Iraq had WMD. It wasn't just the US and Britain. My question is...what the hell happened to them? We know they had them. Where are they? Aren't you worried about this at all?

Yes Iraq has been run poorly...but keep in mind...we still have men and women over there. Everytime we bash this war it's hurting their efforts...their morale...and boosting our enemies morale.

As for the way we treat our veterans. Is it enough? Of course not. But we treat our veterans damn better than any other country. So if you want to move...get and stay the hell out.

On a personal note: I've got two friends serving in Iraq...and they are pissed about the coverage they've been getting.

I'm sorry Mentok...but I had to say this.
At 10:56 p.m., Mentok said...: First, thanks everyone for the great comments. I always enjoy a healthy debate...and debate is like exercise: it's not really healthy unless you end up flushed, red in the face and sweaty.

anon - thanks for the link. At first the notion of a podcast of the 2 minutes of silence seemed odd, but it's a nice piece.

hippo - i think the whole complicated situation in Iraq makes picking a "side" rather difficult. I'm all for supporting the troops. I make it a habit to buy a round of drinks anonymously for any soldiers I see at my local pub. But supporting the troops doesn't mean we go deaf, dumb and blind and give up our right to debate a war. It also supports the troops to get them out of harm's way if the conflict they are fighting is hopeless or pointless. It is not the point of any war to "know what victory feels like"; it is the point of just war to achieve peace. The shame about Iraq is that we are at a point where neither staying nor leaving will achieve peace and stability.

Susan - thank you for your kind words. At this time of year I'm finding myself feeling closer in spirit to my father.

grumps - that is a great project. I'm looking forward to the result. Your dad certainly had an interesting life. So many from that generation had great stories that they tended not to talk about very much. If only we could convince the hippies to be so demur.

rachel - you have done a great job of summing up the frustration and confusion many people feel about the wars. And, as a patriotic Canadian, I'm always pleased to hear about people thinking of moving. Come up to the REAL land of the free. Loyalist refugees, negro slaves, McCarthy era blacklist victims, Vietnam draft dodgers...Canada has always opened her arms to oppressed Americans yearning to breath free.

hippo - I'm just funnin' ya with the above, you big yankee doodle you. ;-)
As for WMDs, I'm not privvy to the intelligence info of which you speak, but I do know the number 1 job of a government headed to war is to win the support of their people by constructing a just cause. From the outset, I felt the WMD narrative was aimed in that direction. Therefore, a further failing with regard to Iraq is that the government failed to pick a "just war" narrative that would hold up over time. But that's just my cynical political hack view.

It's a fact that Hussein had been investing a lot in weapons research over the years. It's a fact that economic blockades and intelligence efforts for years had been aimed at thwarting his efforts. It now appears to be a fact that those previous initiatives were more successful than was thought at the time. It's the fog of war, plain and simple.

Keep it up, everybody. I'd love to hear more input on this topic.
At 6:19 a.m., Bathroom Hippo said...: How can the Clinton Administration, the Bush Administration, and Intelligence Agencies in the International Community all have been wrong about Iraq WMD?

Liberals tend NOT to address this and just say "Bush lied people died" without researching what got us into the war in the first place. You've got to be an asshole (not you Mentok) to believe we went into Iraq purely for an economic benefit.

You're absolutely right that President Bush let us all down with regard to selling this war.

With regard to sanctions. Yes they were working against Saddam. But guess what? They were also hurting the Iraqi people. Have you not heard of the Oil-for-food scandal in which Saddam pocketed billions at the expense and suffering of his own people?

The Iraq war has been run poorly, and it cost the Republicans. But we can't leave. Iraq isn't all bad. The Kurds are the nicest folks and most of Iraq is secure. The problem is Baghdad and some surrounding areas. Don't give up on the war, damnit.
At 1:45 p.m., FiL said...: The current Iraq war should never have happened. The WMD intel was suspect and inconclusive, but was selectively interpreted by demagogues. On top of it all, Saddam's regime, as heinous as it was, did NOT pose a clear and present danger. The invasion was a geopolitical disaster.

That said, the US now has a responsibility to ensure the stabilization of Iraq, given that it has turned it into a near-failed state. To do so, it needs to shed its hubris that it can do so alone. Such unilateralism created the mess in the first place.

As for the troops in Iraq, it is tragic that they were put in harm's way for this cause. The US military establishment was not keen to go into Iraq, but they were ordered to go and they did go. They do deserve support, and apologies.

Afghanistan I see differently. The Taliban regime harboured a threat and facilitated aggression, so I see the military action there as justified and appropriate. But, like Iraq, little thought was given to what was to come after the war. The military effort on the ground largely relied on mobilizing and coordinating warlords - a cheap and effective way to fight, but hardly the basis for stability and peace. And thanks to Iraq, Afghanistan is no longer the focus. Hence the warlords and extremists continue to make life miserable for the Afghan people.

Oh, and thanks, Mentok, for a timely & thought-provoking post!
At 9:32 p.m., Bathroom Hippo said...: Fil...NATO is in charge of Afghanistan. You can't blame recent insurgent spikes on the Bush Administration or anyone's lack of focus. I've read Jawbreaker: The CIA's account of what happened in Afghanistan. Mistakes were made...but the focus was never lost.

Why don't you blame the terrorists for terrorist attacks? That's where the blame should go.

The Iraq WMD intelligence was never suspect. It is now...but it wasn't then. You go into war with the intelligence you have not the intelligence you want.

As for the clear and present danger...yes Iraq was a war of choice. Have you seen the mass-graves in Iraq? Hundreds of thousands of people killed by Saddam Hussein. Did you not know he used chemical weapons on his own people? Saddam was a potential threat...perhaps not a current threat. Did you not know he was building his missile capabilities and weapons technologies? Did you know he violated over a dozen U.N. violations? Did you know he fired at US planes in the safe zone?

"Please stop it" is clearly not enough. Sometimes diplomacy doesn't work.
At 9:33 p.m., Bathroom Hippo said...: violations = resolutions.
At 11:37 p.m., Mentok said...: He he, I love it when Spock vs Bones matches break out, 'cause then I get to play Captain Kirk. Bring on the green space hotties!

It seems to me that, unless FiL's Pentagon sources are very spooky indeed, that we civilians cannot be certain about how good or bad the intelligence was. Certainly there have been lots of stories in the news suggesting things were a bit squishy, but those stories could just as easily be 20/20 hindsight and after-the-fact butt covering. Hard to say.

No one would deny that Hussein was a bad bad man, but there are lots of dictators who are bad bad men, including Kim Jong Il, who we know for sure has WMDs. So obviously there must have been other reasons for singling out Hussein.

Which leads us all back to the whole definition of just war, with WWII as the archetype of just war. The US and Britain didn't go to war with Hitler because he was a bad man. They went to war when and only when the Axis attacked them. In hindsight, we have re-written the narrative to make it all about fighting evil, but at the time it wasn't.

So again the question remains: Given the fog of war and the limited intelligence of we poor humans, how do we mere mortals manage to figure out when war is justified?

(See, I told you I'd be pulling a Captain Kirk. Note the defence of human weakness ;-)
At 12:35 a.m., Bathroom Hippo said...: Mentok:

There's a key difference between the Hussein regime and the Kim Jong Il regime. That difference is China. China has the diplomatic power and position to easily disable the North Korean threat. We had no such diplomatic power with Iraq.

Don't you remember that just right after China said it was disappointed with the North Korean missile test that North Korea apologized!!! That's diplomacy.

Mentok...even with "squishy" intelligence (which wasn't squishy at all - Intelligence Agencies Worldwide including Putin in Russia at one point said Saddam had WMD) one has to take into account Iraq's history with WMD.

That's the decision process.
At 1:06 a.m., Bathroom Hippo said...: But don't take my word for it. I'm just a cartoon character. I don't really exist.
At 8:37 a.m., Mentok said...: "I don't really exist"..

That sounds like a Buddhist sentiment. Success at last! ;-)

If we only took the advice of people who exist, things would be in a right fine pickle, wouldn't they?

Seriously, as I've indicated before, I personally don't know what to believe on this subject, so please accept my lack of acquiesence as a sign of confusion not disrespect.
At 9:01 a.m., Bathroom Hippo said...: As long as you've been exposed to both sides of the discussion...that's all that matters to me, Mentos.

I have two friends in the military. They go to school here. They've both been to Iraq and they're pissed off at this talk of leaving. They can't stand the media, and they really hate John Kerry, Murtha, and a bunch of morons here in the U.S. who want to abandon the mission.
At 12:30 p.m., FiL said...: Ah yes, as Johnny Rotten sang, "two sides to every story..."

I hear your points, Hippo, and I certainly do not mean to disrespect them or you. But I still think the Iraq war was a tragic geopolitical error that was avoidable.

Regarding the intel, even before the war it was suspect. Much came from single sources that were of questionable reliability. That's not from any spooky source of mine, that's a matter that was known then, and is now of public record.

One can therefore say the intelligence community failed. And there's a lot of truth to that. But the fact is the Bush Administration was predisposed to a military campaign to oust Saddam. Indeed, the British Ambassador to the US in his memoirs reports a conversation between Bush & Blair nine days after 9/11 where Bush was pushing for the removal of Saddam's regime. Yes, even the "cheese-eating surrender monkey" French believed Saddam had WMD (sidebar: Hans Blix, ex-head UN weapons inspector, didn't believe the intel). But only the US pushed for a half-baked, unnecessary war in the absence of any immediate threat to world security.

As for UN sanctions/inspections, backed by US-led deterrence/containment, the fact is they worked. Iraq abandoned large-scale WMD production in 1991. Would Saddam have sought to restart a program? Perhaps. But then back to deterrence and containment.

As for the execution of the war, I recall having conversations back in early 2003 with friends who work extensively with the Pentagon. They relayed almost universal dismay among the officer corps at what they saw as insufficient preparation for the campaign.

And as for Afghanistan, the maths show 39,000 troops deployed, versus 137,000 in Iraq. The Afghan security situation is deteriorating, but the Iraq commitment has restricted US options.

On the moral question, that's an interesting one. Clearly Saddam's regime was cruel and barbarous. As a sidebar, don't forget that Saddam was using chemical weapons as early as 1983 against Iran, at a time when the US was actively supplying intelligence to the Iraqi Army. There seemed to be little concern about WMD then. And if you look at it now, the body count in Iraq is comparable to that under Saddam. Yes, that's largely due to terrorist activity, but US actions have led, however unintentionally, to a situation where such activity breeds.

As Mentok alludes to, how do you decide the moral imperative is overwhelming? Why not attack Sudan over Darfur? Or remove the Burmese junta? How about any one of the despotic Central Asian regimes?

Let me step back for a moment and take a deep breath. That we disagree, Hippo, on whether the US should have done what it did in Iraq, is clear. But for all my hot air, I think at this point in time we actually agree: for the US to cut and run now would be disastrous for Iraq and for global security. It's a funny old world, isn't it?

Captain Mentok, out of curiosity, am I Bones or Spock?
At 12:31 p.m., FiL said...: Goodness, that was a long comment...
At 1:37 p.m., Mentok said...: Whoa! Why didn't you guys warn me you were both foreign policy geeks? Even though it happens so often, I don't like it when I'm not the smartest guy in the room ;-)

"Captain Mentok, out of curiosity, am I Bones or Spock"

Oh no, I'm not falling in that trap again. Guys always end up fighting over who gets to be Spock. I try to tell them "There's no shame in being Bones. He was a smart guy, a doctor. Saved Kirk and Spock a buncha times. Got regular action from Majel Barret, which is a lot better than Spock's once-every-seven-years semi-virginity."

But, oh no, everybody wants to be Spock.

So let me rephrase that: one of you is Spock and one of you is that hunk stunkleton Vulcan dude that Spock's bimbo fiance left him for in Amok Time. That should be an easier choice to deal handle.
At 1:50 p.m., FiL said...: Er, actually I don't like plomeek soup. And my ears aren't all that pointy.
At 4:52 p.m., Rachel said...: I just saw this last night...Errr.

Although after Fil's response I don't think I have much to add.

But man I tell you...

*sigh*
At 8:46 p.m., Bathroom Hippo said...: I don't think Iraq was an error. I think it's more like an un-correographed play. Some of this can be excused due to the fact that with terrorism there is no front line. But ultimately when a strategy isn't working...you're supposed to change strategies.

In hindsight...yes the international community as a whole had faulty intelligence. But at the time...it was truthfully a "slam dunk." Hans Blix had is own agenda. There was absolutely no way on Earth that we could certify whether or not Iraq had WMD WITHOUT Troops on the ground. The weapons inspectors were a bunch of circus freaks with their own agendas...and they were being constantly tricked by Saddam (just as in the past).

The bastard broke 12 resolutions. Sanctions were hurting the Iraqi people and benefitting Saddam via the Oil-for-food scandal where he pocketed billions and bribed certain UN officials. There was no way in hell we could trust the UN...that's why we acted.

Yes our faces are red now. But the fact is Iraq is now a terrorist State (as it was before the war...Al Qaeda was obviously there...training camps...etc.) and we must fight terrorists everywhere.

I do agree with your last statement... you may be a liberal Fil...but at least you're not a cut and run pacifist bastard.
At 9:28 p.m., Bathroom Hippo said...: Woops...

he broke 16...possibly more...but I counted 16. Sorry for the error.
At 9:45 p.m., FiL said...: Thank you Hippo, that's the nicest thing anyone's said to me all day!

Fingers crossed old patterns can be broken and an equitable, mindful, lasting solution can be found. It will not be easy...

P.S. Do you want to be Spock or McCoy?
At 9:55 p.m., Bathroom Hippo said...: I choose William Shatner playing the part of Spock.

"Beam......
me....up, Scotty!"

Okay so I never actually watched Star Trek...I'm a Star Wars junky.
At 1:40 a.m., FiL said...: Oh Hippo, so am I. But truth be told, only Episodes IV to VI. Episodes I to III disappointed me terribly.
At 4:58 a.m., Bathroom Hippo said...: Episode II was alright with me. But I and III sucked.
At 10:34 a.m., Grumps said...: Hippo - what movie were you were watching. Episode II was easily the worst of the bunch. It could have ran for half an hour after taking out all the crap between Anakin and Amadillah. Not that it matters, because, all Lucas did with the prequel trilogy was prove how brilliant he is as a technical producer and how horrible he is as a writer director. If someone else had helmed any of these three they might have had a chance to live up to the sheer genius of the original three.
At 11:11 a.m., Bathroom Hippo said...: I just like seeing peoples heads chopped off.
At 11:24 a.m., Mentok said...: I too have always had a macabre fascination with people getting their heads chopped off. What does that feel like? Does the brain remain conscious for awhile until the oxygen runs out, or does the lack of blood flow shut it down immediately? Would you be able to see your headless body in your final moments? Would you still be able to control the nerves in your face to try to mouth a final message?

On second thought, I don't really wnat to know. It's too horrifying to think about.

How did we get on decaptitation again?
At 12:31 p.m., FiL said...: Mentok, I think this post and you, as its compere, win the 2006 Eclectica award...

Mentok the Mind-taker

Site menu:

Remembrance Day

31 Comments:

About Me

Active Links

Powered By