• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Militarism on rise in Conservative Canada

GAP

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
24
Points
380
Strange.....this was not even in the Star......but biased nonetheless......

Militarism on rise in Conservative Canada
By Yves Engler | Jul 27, 2012
Article Link

Six and half years into Harper’s Conservative government Canada has become so militaristic that the head of the armed forces can demand a new war and few bat an eye.

Two weeks ago the Chief of the Defence Staff Walter Natynczyk told the Canadian Press “We have some men and women who have had two, three and four tours and what they’re telling me is ‘Sir, we’ve got that bumper sticker. Can we go somewhere else now?’” The General added that “you also have the young sailors, soldiers, airmen and women who have just finished basic training and they want to go somewhere and in their minds it was going to be Afghanistan. So if not Afghanistan, where’s it going to be? They all want to serve.”

It is not surprising that the head of the military would want to go to war (that’s his job after all). What’s troubling is that Natynczyk felt comfortable saying so in public and that neither the opposition parties nor any mainstream commentators criticized his call to arms.

The Chief of the Defence Staff’s warmongering is the logical outgrowth of the Conservatives’ bid to make Canadian society more militaristic. During the Conservatives’ first six years in office the military budget increased from $15 billion to $23 billion and the number of troops rose by about one quarter to 95,000. The special forces, which Ottawa can deploy abroad in total secrecy, more than doubled.

An increase in the size and strength of the military makes war more likely. In a recent article leading foreign policy journalist Lee Berthiaume reported that the Harper government’s 2007 decision to acquire four massive C-17 Globemaster military transport planes spurred the plan to establish bases around the world. “The decision to acquire four C-17s (CC177) for strategic airlift indicates the government’s intention to utilize the CF [Canadian Forces] more extensively off continent,” read a May 2010 briefing note signed by Natynczyk, initiating the international base plan. Dubbed Operational Support Hub, the goal is to set up permanent bases in up to seven countries.

In recent months Canada has signed an agreement to house soldiers and equipment in Kuwait, Jamaica and Germany and is negotiating to set up bases in Singapore, South Korea, Tanzania, Senegal and Kenya. According to a military briefing note obtained by Postmedia, the bases are designed to improve the Canadian Forces’ “ability to project combat power/security assistance and Canadian influence rapidly and flexibly anywhere in the world.” Publically, defense minister Peter MacKay called the base initiative part of expanding “our capability for expeditionary participation in international missions….We are big players in NATO.”

By setting up overseas bases and increasing the military’s size, the Conservatives are preparing for future wars. They’ve also built the cultural and ideological foundation for constant war. In one of innumerable examples, the updated 2011 citizenship handbook Discover Canada: the Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship praised this country’s military history with more than a dozen photos depicting war or armed forces personnel.

Similarly, over the past few years soldiers have regularly appeared at major sporting events rappelling down from the rafters or in sombre moments of silence for the fallen. Incredibly, reports Embassy, the Canadian Forces admit to having spent $353.6 million and directed 661 staff members to promoting their work in 2010-11.

The Conservatives’ militarism is unrelenting. After waging war in Libya they organized an $850,000 nationally televised celebration for Canada’s “military heroes”, which included flyovers from a dozen military aircraft. Harper told the 300 military personnel brought in from four bases: “We are celebrating a great military success. Soldier for soldier, sailor for sailor, airman for airman, the Canadian Armed Forces are the best in the world.”
More on link
 
GAP said:
In a recent article leading foreign policy journalist Lee Berthiaume reported that the Harper government’s 2007 decision to acquire four massive C-17 Globemaster military transport planes spurred the plan to establish bases around the world.

Who's decision to buy C-17s ?

::)

 
Just consider the source ... this is from the same iPolitics website as the original article:

Yves Engler is the author of a number of books on Canadian foreign policy. His forthcoming book, The Ugly Canadian: Stephen Harper’s foreign policy, will be published in October. Dubbed “Canada’s version of Noam Chomsky” (Georgia Straight), “one of the most important voices on the Canadian Left today” (Briarpatch), “in the mould of I. F. Stone” (Globe and Mail), “ever-insightful” (rabble.ca) and a “Leftist gadfly” (Ottawa Citizen), Yves Engler’s six books have been praised by Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, William Blum, Rick Salutin and many others.

This is par for the hand wringing and childish foot stamping that passes for analysis on the 'left.' They are, by and large, bloody juveniles, albeit 40, 50 and 60 year old juveniles.

tantrum.gif

The Canadian 'left' at its intellectual best
 
Similarly, over the past few years soldiers have regularly appeared at major sporting events rappelling down from the rafters or in sombre moments of silence for the fallen

:eek:

"ipolitics" huh.  Good ol' apple ripoff.
 
It lowers the already low bar of Ipolitics opinion pieces to near satire levels.
 
Since I think about as highly of Noam Chomsky and the rest of that peer group as I do of anyone who assumes every undertaking which involves the military must be "war", his lickspittles and peers have assessed his importance correctly.

I assume the article was posted for amusement.  Certainly it amused me.
 
In reading that piece of drivel I actually felt my IQ drop a few points. ::)
 
Brad Sallows said:
Since I think about as highly of Noam Chomsky and the rest of that peer group as I do of anyone who assumes every undertaking which involves the military must be "war", his lickspittles and peers have assessed his importance correctly.

I assume the article was posted for amusement.  Certainly it amused me.

We can't only look at pieces that celebrate the military genre.....we have to look at the other side also.....
 
GAP said:
We can't only look at pieces that celebrate the military genre.....we have to look at the other side also.....

And there are lots of folks to whom this piece makes perfect sense.
 
Funniest part of this article is this
"By setting up overseas bases and increasing the military’s size, the Conservatives are preparing for future wars."
Isn't that the job of the military, to be prepared for future wars?  :facepalm:
 
One of the downsides to peace is that war demands justification/credibility whereas peace does not; in peacetime lies and exaggerations -- theatrical angst, if you will -- carry very small risk or penalty.

A reality that Mr Engler chooses to ignore, because he safely can behind his computer in tranquil Canada, is that [to steal from Robert Kaplan's The Coming Anarchy], "a large number of people on this planet, to whom the comfort and stability of middle-class life is utterly unknown, find war and a barracks existence a step up rather than a step down."

As much as our existence irritates the left-wing's habitual 'rebel without a clue' types, the military is a necessary evil -- we won't be obsolete any time soon.


And personally, I suspect that Mr Engler and his fellow-travellers would be amongst the first out there, wringing their hands and wailing pathetically if the military wasn't intervening in the globe's more televised catastrophes.
 
Journeyman said:
One of the downsides to peace is that war demands justification/credibility whereas peace does not; in peacetime lies and exaggerations -- theatrical angst, if you will -- carry very small risk or penalty.

A reality that Mr Engler chooses to ignore, because he safely can behind his computer in tranquil Canada, is that [to steal from Robert Kaplan's The Coming Anarchy], "a large number of people on this planet, to whom the comfort and stability of middle-class life is utterly unknown, find war and a barracks existence a step up rather than a step down."

As much as our existence irritates the left-wing's habitual 'rebel without a clue' types, the military is a necessary evil -- we won't be obsolete any time soon.


And personally, I suspect that Mr Engler and his fellow-travellers would be amongst the first out there, wringing their hands and wailing pathetically if the military wasn't intervening in the globe's more televised catastrophes.
After all isn't it the job at least according Mr Enlgler  of the Canadian Military  to make other peoples lives (At least those of whom he currently disapproves of) miserable  so he can feel better about himself.
Of course if said intervention lasts longer then either his attention span or a fortnight  He will then be completely absolutely morally opposed to any intervention any where and at any time........  until the next well televised crisis .
 
Left a comment then had some commenter try to chastise me for it, sigh painful the article and level of thought in her comment.
 
I was just wondering why the critic has to jump right away to the conclusion, "militarism" as if a modern-day Hitler was moulded out of our dearly beloved Harper. Well, if I just would consider it as attempting to meet the demands of security in this ever-frightening world of invasive armies, terrorism and the like. Nothing else can pacify or out-threaten the enemies of our sovereign state but a strong military. Try to see how politically and economically stable America is.
 
elderly2 said:
I was just wondering why the critic has to jump right away to the conclusion, "militarism" as if a modern-day Hitler was moulded out of our dearly beloved Harper.


Because that's the only canard the left has. Invoke Godwin and move on.
 
No doubt that they believe that a "Reichstag fire" will consume the Paraliment buildings as his first step in total domination of Canada.  ::)
 
And the Governor General will die in office and the dread Harper will combine that appointment with Prime Minister.

:sarcasm:

It's all perfectly clear, after all his name starts with the letter H like Hindenberg and Hitler and Hess.

:panic:
 
Or an attempted assassination:
http://www.euronews.com/2011/08/29/back-in-the-day-lenin-survives-kaplans-assassination-attempt/

Mark
Ottawa
 
Waging war in Libya..... That makes sense, unless you realize that the rebels "waged," war on their corrupt dictatorship and now has become the most liberal of all the Arab spring states. Isn't that interesting... The only nation which NATO intervened in is the only one (so far) which the muslim brotherhood has not won.
 
Back
Top