the emperor has no clothes

Scribbled down on August 8th, 2006 by she
Posted in Those Who Volunteered

Earlier today, I came across a Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute article titled “Deprogramming the cult of peace” and written by Mark Entwistle. While I’d encourage everyone to read the complete article, I think particular attention needs to be paid to the following paragraph:

The idea of peace is dangerous because it is an enabler. It allows us to underestimate the hard work required to earn success in confronting conflict, and a safe haven to hide from reality. It is a distraction because it leads us to false conclusions on the basis of something that does not exist. While we wait for peace, conflict steeps. The greatest threat to any chance of managing our way out of conflict is the idea that peace just happens by willing it.

As I wrote previously, anytime a member of the CF dies in Afghanistan lately, someone – often a politician – is given media time and attention where they decry the combat role of our troops. While I suspect that combat isn’t exactly what Mr. Entwistle has in mind when he writes of the need for conflict management on a global scale, I don’t think the increasing calls for pulling out of the current mission in Afghanistan or a shift to the traditional peacekeeping activities (as understood by members of the general public) is in the best interests of Canada.

Which makes me wonder why questions aren’t being asked of those clamouring for a return to the glory days of Canadian peacekeeping or the removal of troops from Afghanistan? Why isn’t anyone focusing on how these recent calls for peace, peacekeeping or removal of Canadian troops from theatre have not been accompanied by any sort of suggestion or roadmap for obtaining this elusive “peace”? Who in these groups have an outline for how one can possibly mount a successful peacekeeping mission in the midst of an armed conflict?

If they’ve got a better plan, I’d love to see it. If it’s logical, I’d likely support it. However, if we don’t have any plans in place and jump willy-nilly onto the “Canadian soldiers are peacekeepers” bandwagon, we’re back to deluding ourselves.

I’ll admit I do tend to rant a bit about the fact that some Canadians seem to be willing to don their rose coloured glasses and chant the mantra of “Canada, the dedicated peacekeeper and referee on a world stage”. People seem to bandy statements of this nature around in newspapers and opinion pieces, but in recent years this has been a far cry from an accurate representation of the facts. Even worse, Canadians have been known to sit back on a high horse and judge other countries and cultures harshly without being willing to look closely at ourselves. It’s time to remind ourselves that those sitting in glass houses shouldn’t be throwing stones…

It’s time to reconsider Canada’s place in the world stage and our impression of ourselves. Many citizens of recent generations are – to borrow a phrase from Top Gun – writing cheques we can’t cash on bank accounts started by Canadian soldiers in the first and second world wars. If we’re not willing to support the current mission in Afghanistan, maybe it’s time for Canada and our “peace loving citizens” to take a step forward and finally (publically) acknowledge our growing lack of relevance and moral superiority on the world stage.

h/t owed to Darcy over at Dust My Broom for pointing out Marc Entwistle’s article.

Technorati Tags: ,


You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.


2 Responses to “the emperor has no clothes”

  1. I agree that soldiers are for combat and that “peacekeeping” requires enforcement first, such as the operation in Afghanistan.

    Part of the responsibility for Canadians’ perceptions that our soldiers are primarily peacekeepers lies with previous military commanders, PR flacks, and politicians. In the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s we built up this myth of peacekeeping, and officers from the CDS on down jumped at accepting any UN missions in order to stay relevant with our political masters. Few leaders between JayDex and Hillier actually talked about combat in a meaningful way to the Canadian public. The CF is now paying for that lack of public education.

    On another note though, I think that the debate about why we have troops in Afghanistan should continue:
    Does the mission contribute to our foreign policy (not that we have a clear policy anyway)?
    Is this the best use of our limited military resources?

    I have no doubt that the Patricias’s Battle Group is doing an excellent job in Afghanistan. However, it is up to the Canadian public to continue to engage our elected officials in a real debate about where we should use military force (not just because it’s UN-sanctioned) and what size and type of a force we need to maintain.

    Neither blindly supporting our troops nor blindly waving the peacekeeping flag will help us or our soldiers in the long run. Soldiers and civilians must clearly understand what we are fighting for and how it is in our national interest. There’s a lot of learning left to do.

  2. I was going to quickly comment on what you had to say Harold, but it evolved into this lengthy diatribe that I felt should be posted as a new entry. Thanks for the bone to chew on this morning.

    Someday soon I’ll get off this soapbox and put my informal learning hat back on.  You’ve given me a lot to think about there as well…

Leave a Reply