As the squandering of American and Canadian lives and resources in Iraq and Afghanistan reach continued levels of excess, the announcement has been made that the waste will be increased, not decreased, as troop levels in Afghanistan are to be surged. This goes to demonstrate the government’s lack of respect for the families and friends of our Canadian soldiers who are the ones that can most clearly see that the obvious way to support our troops at this point is to bring them home.
Canada’s role in Afghanistan has been created by NATO, defined by the government, and played out in the sand by the military, despite the objections of the majority of Canadians themselves in opinion poll after poll. The most recent numbers, produced by an Environics survey, indicate that 56% of Canadians disapprove of Canada’s role in Afghanistan versus 41% who support it. 34% strongly disapprove of the mission versus only 14% who strongly approve. Most blatant is 65% of Canadians who predict that the “mission” will end in failure, meaning the deaths of Canadian soldiers and spending of 200 million dollars per month of taxpayer’s money will have been wasted in vain.
The media in Canada itself is perhaps the biggest cheerleader for continued aggression in foreign lands and as the poll numbers show, the term “mainstream” to define the major media falsely implies that these outlets represent the main lines of thinking and opinion for the majority of Canadians. In fact, a Russian veteran of the Soviet Union’s aggression in Afghanistan during the 1980s has compared Canada’s current media coverage to that of the Soviet Politburo’s mouthpiece Pravda, quietly censoring dissent and presenting little to no anti-war viewpoints or spokespeople.
The most hypocritical aspect of the entire exercise is the continued war-mongering enforced by this self-stream media who have reached new levels of hyperbole in comparing the next targets on the hit list, Pakistan, Iran, China to Hitler’s Germany.
What is most interesting is that a closer examination of the facts and reality on the ground compared with the lessons of history, can lead us to conclude that it is the actions of NATO members and Canada in particular that are much closer to the actual actions of Hitler and the rise of Nazism in Germany.
On March 23, 1933, figurehead German President Paul Von Hindenburg abided by a request from newly elected chancellor Adolf Hitler, who had been elected with a minority government in the last election, and dissolved the Reichstag, the German Parliament, through the signing of the Enabling Act.
On December 3, 2008, figurehead Governor-General Michelle Jean abided by a request from newly elected Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who had been elected with a minority government in the last election, and dissolved Canadian Parliament through the signing of the Prorogue Act.
The similarities don’t end there. The most recent extension of the Afghanistan mission, from 2009 until 2011, was enabled by the Dion Liberals voting to support the Conservative proposal to stay on in the sandbox, and it was the Liberals, with Conservative support, that were the party that put us there in the first place. The Liberals, under Jean Chretian, Paul Martin and most recently Stephane Dion have extended the timeline for departure from Afghanistan four times, and have given Canadians absolutely no reason to trust them when they now tell us 2011 will be the final withdrawal date.
Most important is the fact that it is becoming increasingly clear that Canada as a country is not going to be able to afford to maintain this mission until 2011, just like Nazi Germany was not able to afford its imperialist pipedreams and eventually collapsed, taking the welfare of its citizens with it. The money being spent halfway across the world, in a country that 60% of Canadians cannot find on a map, is needed here, in this country, and needed now.
Perhaps the most inexplicable result of Canada’s excursion into Afghanistan is the cost of this imperialism to the Canadian taxpayer. At a time when all economic sectors at home are struggling, some requiring financial bailouts from the federal government, and at a time when every penny must be accounted for to ensure that Canada does not fall into deficit or worse, the federal government is spending 200 million dollars a month to play in the sandbox.
This exposes Canada to a similar situation that the United States government faced through its inability to respond to the crisis of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans while they were spending 14 billion dollars a month in Iraq, and the same situation the Nazis faced in the 1940s when they were unable to address the daily needs of German citizens at home because they were spending upwards of 80-90% of their national budget on military conquest. Just ask anyone living on Vancouver’s East Side, homeless in Winnipeg or struggling on an Indian reservation where Canada’s government could start making better use of the 200 million dollars per month of our tax money. And that is just to start with.
To continue with the comparisons between Canada’s current government, security forces and those of Hitler in Germany, a direct line can be drawn between the current government in Canada since the United States declared the “War on Terror” in 2001 and the Vichy government in France under German occupation during the 1940s.
After France was defeated by the Germans in June of 1940, the authoritarian and collaborationist Vichy regime was installed under Prime Minister Petain to cooperate with the Nazis, imprisoning over 200 thousand people while deporting over 700 thousand more. Since Canada accepted to enter into Afghanistan and allow the Americans a free hand to invade Iraq, Canada’s foreign and domestic policies have become virtually dictated by US desire, while at the same time this country’s security forces, the RCMP and CSIS, have become overrun by American dictates, collaborating more closely with US security agencies in monitoring and limiting domestic political dissent.
One of the major reasons for Hitler’s push for the Enabling Act was to clear any legal restrictions to the power of his office and that of his security forces, the SA or “assault forces” at home in Germany. The Enabling Act as signed in 1933 was originally slated to be in temporary effect for four years, and was to expire in 1937. Hitler twice extended the powers granted to himself and the secret service through the Enabling Act, in both 1937 and 1941. In 1943 Adolf Hitler gave the act permanent status despite the objections of the German citizens who realized that he was destroying Germany through military excess and despite the fact that almost the entire world was committed to stopping him.
On October 26, 2001, George Bush in his capacity as President of the United States, the leading NATO state and policy maker, effectively signed into law the Patriot Act, which authorized the indefinite detention of immigrants; allowed the FBI, the American secret service, to search telephone, email and financial records without a court order or search warrant; and gave expanded access to law enforcement agencies to seize business records, including library and financial records, again without a court order or search warrant.
One of the major reasons for Bush’s push for the Patriot Act was to clear any legal restrictions to the power of his office and that of his security forces, the FBI and CIA at home in the United States. The Patriot Act as signed in 2001 was originally slated to be in temporary effect for four years. Bush extended the powers granted to himself and the secret service through the Patriot Act in 2006.
Despite numerous court challenges that have determined that some of the provisions in the Patriot Act are unconstitutional, on March 9, 2006 George Bush gave the act permanent status despite the objections of Senators and Congressmen from both parties and despite the fact that the original Patriot Act was supposed to expire on December 31, 2005.
One of the major war cries of the self-stream media here in Canada is that we have to prevent the world from ever experiencing another Hitler. What that statement always fails to take into account or consider is that all the historical facts point to the undeniable conclusion that it is the acts of NATO led by the United States that are most emulating those of Hitler and it is the acts of NATO partners such as Canada that are most emulating the collaborative Vichy government in France during the 1940s.
The mainstream of Canadian public opinion is comprised of many concerned citizens who want to see a correction made to societies, such as Canada’s, that have become dependent on war, force and coercion to implement their ideas upon the world. The mainstream of Canadian public opinion is not made up or defined by what is called “mainstream” media.
If there is true value in the ideas that a society is attempting to share, then there would be no need for bombs, guns or threats based on the creation of fear to enact them. In fact, an argument can be made that by using force to impose our ideas of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, we not only undermine the credibility of what we claim to be doing there, but we actually strengthen the credibility of the Taliban, warlords and militias, who have been using force to implement their ideas for centuries.