Thoughts after the president's trip to London

Nov. 21 - Note: any of you ever start a post that had a mind of it's own? Well, this is one. I've improved and tinkered so much I'm not even sure if it makes any sense, but I have to go to work, which is a mercy for anyone who wades through this!

Despite the many intellectual discussions about the President's trip to London weighing the pros and cons, I initially supported this visit for a very personal and very emotional reason.

I wanted Pres. Bush to be able to thank Queen Elizabeth II in person on behalf of the American people for her loving action on Sept. 11 when she requested the Star Spangled Banner be played at Buckingham Palace.

Further, the Queen herself extended the invitation to the President, and it would have been churlish to refuse. Some of us hapen to believe in honour and gratitude, and I'm glad the President went. The possibility that it would be a public relations disaster counted for less than the opportunity, no, obligation rather, to acknowledge and embrace our good friends and allies in the UK, at least to my simple mind, just as the President did when he went to Australia.

If it seems odd, if not downright contradictory, that this proud American would have affection and reverence for the descendant of a monarchy which my own ancestors disavowed, well, it's my paradox and I accept it, as do millions of Americans.

Of course, there are other, more compelling reasons to support the visit including the opportunity to show resolve as well as gratitude and to state (again) the goals of this struggle.

In High Noon, Will Kane's mentor, Martin Howe, says: People gotta talk themselves into law and order before they do anything about it. Maybe because down deep they don't care. They just don't care. I don't agree with the they don't care part, but I do believe it can take a long time before most people realize, however reluctantly, that they must take action and the themes of that movie ran through my mind as I read this:

The slogan "war against terrorism" told only half the story. Bush's idea of putting the spread of democracy at the top of the agenda tells the other half. Now the average Briton knows that he is not asked to fight only against something, but also for something. (Original emphasis)

This is from today's NY Post THE GREAT DIVIDE by Amer Taheri, an insightful analysis of the growing unease in the anti-war movement as reality intrudes on the ideals of that movement. Read the whole thing.

Note I said ideals. I understand those ideals, and in my younger days I embraced them. My world view is more mature now, and today I understand that the drives of greed, lust for power and corruption are universal problem not limited to the US, so I must weigh my opinions and values against something other than reflexive anti-establishmentarianism. Or rebelliousness.

That's why people like me saw the anti-war's Halliburton with TotalFinaElf, and raised them one Oil-For-Palaces program. The butchery of Saddam didn't enter too much because we lacked evidence that would be acceptable to the world community at large, and now we have much more than we could ever have imagined in our worst predictions.

Please believe me when I say it's not so much that those who honestly wished for peace were wrong: those who wish for peace are never wrong, in the strictest sense of the word, but they did choose the wrong fight to oppose. Bringing up WMD now is a fool's game; nobody dismissed the intelligence from every agency in the world including that of the UN regarding WMD, but the anti-war crowd did dismiss claims by Iraqi refugees in favour of the claims by George Galloway, Scott Ritter, et alia.

It happens. We all make judgements about who to believe, and there are far worse crimes than believing the wrong people. Although the claims about WMD in Iraq remain an open book, the claims of the Iraqis who charged Saddam was a butcher have been proven to be true, and, because we left him in power after Gulf War I, it was our duty to remove him however belatedly. This I firmly believe.

To those on the right who continue to denounce the inactions of the Clinton Administration, I have to wonder if they really and truly believe the American people would have supported war after the first WTC bombing, the bombing of the African embassies or the attack on the Cole. I don't. Maybe it's to our credit in the long term that we are slow to anger and slower to war, or maybe it's more reflective of our naivete, patience or optimistim. Take your pick.

It. Doesn't. Matter. It's time to come together, and make decisions about who Americans are.

It's time to be honest, and to look within ourselves instead of trying to conform to this stereotype or that one, and to stop rebelling against this stereotype or that one.

It's time to Grow Up.

That means that the ongoing debate about the use of American force cannot, must not be reduced to a we were right and you were wrong exchange, for if we can't allow ourselves to change our minds based on new evidence, then we aren't rational humans and should stop pretending we are.

In other words, if we really care about ourselves and our future, the true debate is only beginning. Both sides have evidence now whereas before we entered Iraq we mostly had conjecture, and we must evaluate that evidence according to American standards, not the bankrupt ones of those we have good reason to distrust.

Only one year ago, the numbers of Americans and British who supported the action in Iraq was very small. Many were hoping renewed UN resolve would settle the Iraq issue without bloodshed, only a few of us were willing to accept that war was likely. Why?

Maybe because some of us learned a hard lesson from the bloody repression of the uprising in Iraq after Gulf War I, and in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Rwanda. I don't blame those who have avoided thinking about genocides that we didn't prevent in favour of those we did, but the harsh reality of the UN is that it did not play a role in stopping genocide anywhere. That fact must be confronted. The looming war in Iraq again clarified the need for the UN to assert itself, its resolutions, and even its existence, yet the UN agencies that have fled Iraq and Afghanistan would seem to make it clear that no people can rely on that feckless body to protect them.

Sadly, the UN has, in traditional bureaurcratic fashion, come to represent maintaining the status quo which too often means protecting dictatorships like that formerly in Iraq and today in Zimbabwe, Syria and Cuba, rather than representing a bright future for oppressed peoples. So if the UN is willing to content itself with providing food and shelter for those in desperate straits so long as these people are already in secure areas, so be it. That is not an unworthy goal unless they pretend they should be more without making an effort to do more.

I remain an optimist. The UN was created by mere humans, and can be adapted or replaced by mere humans.

Change is in the air. Only observe how quickly war sentiment changed, both in the US and the UK if not in the UN, relative to events in the last century. Look at the European countries that joined the coalition, exchange Italy and Spain for France and Canada, and the alignment is hardly unfamiliar. (And note that the Iraq question is hardly settled among Canadians despite the Federal government's stance. Canadian troops are in harm's way in Afghanistan. That fact demands respect by both Americans and Canadians. They didn't run away after two soldiers were killed last month. They are still the bold Canadians many remember from WWII and Korea.)

We went to WWI with "Remember the Lusitania" but overlook the fact that the Lusitania was sunk in 1915 at the cost of 128 American lives and the US did not enter the war until 2 years later in 1917. Five other ships were torpedoed during those two years. That delay reflected to some degree the large number of immigrants with conflicting loyalties to their former homes as well as the political debate around whether the USA fit into a worldview, a view which we now take for granted but which events already have begun to demand we alter. Other options were weighed, including arming merchant ships. That march to war was slow, but the debates that preceeded it were an essential part of understanding the notion of being American regardless of birthplace into the American pscyhe.

Canada is wrestling with that internal contradiction even today. Give it time, and let them find a Canadian solution.

WWII was forced by the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, but even then the declaration of war on Germany was disputed, and some of the fears about a German Fifth Column were proven true and the fears about a Japanese Fifth Column were proven false. We learned from that experience which is why, however intolerable some may find it, it is right to trust Muslims in the US (and Canada) until and if they betray that trust.

Ironically, an argument posed today by some Canadians against alliance with the US in Iraq was the delay by the US in entering WWII. I never got the rationale for that: by offering it now, does that mean these Canadians retroactively endorse and approve of the delay? I think that unlikely, but to promote that argument for Canadian opposition to the war in Iraq is perplexing unless they actively desire revenge for events of over 60 years ago, and that doesn't really fit in with what I know about Canadians.

Rather, I believe Canadian reluctance to join the US may be due in part to contrariness more than an approval of the Canadian PM's alliance with France. Canadians don't want to feel they are at the beck and call of the US. But how can any American or Brit condemn Canadian contrariness when, in fact, it is another shared value which we rarely acknowledge but must honestly (if laughingly) admit?

There is another factor as well in the Canadian psyche, namely the deaths of 4 Canadian soldiers in the friendly-fire incident of May, 2002, in Afghanistan. That is never far from the Canadian mind, and although it would be fair to charge that the press has fanned that sentiment for all its worth, the sense of useless loss is real.

Clearly, much patience is still required to continue to promote, discuss and debate the vision articulated during the president's visit to London and historic speech at Whitehall (text here) and I fervently hope that those Euopeans and British who read that speech recognize that it signals a change: can the soft left and soft right finally get to a point wherein we debate the need to take a firm stand against tyranny? Please?

Can we finally arrive in the US at a point at which invoking Monicagate and Floridagate are discarded as irrelevant because this is a new era, and we have to take our stands on whether we believe the yearning for freedom beats in all hearts and drop red herrings which detract from honest debate?

And can we begin to apply Godwin's Law, that most excellent Usenet formula which declared an argument won once the opposition has been reduced to comparisons with Hitler and the Nazis since reason and logic have clearly left the building?

This debate must be non-partisan in the US and undertaken without reference to the US in Canada because more is at stake than mud-slinging and who can make the better (or more bitter) wisecracks.

Who are we? In what do we believe? How far are we willing to go to support those beliefs? Sheesh, this isn't the first time in history people have had to make those judgements so stop f***ing around and get to it.

These are weighty issues, and the ultimate stance taken by countries will determine who and what the peoples of these countries believe about themselves and each other. Some allies, like Syria, have been proven to be false. Some allies, like Canada, have proven to be reluctant but should not be ruled out.

How do we need to do to elevate the issues to an honest debate on the world scene?

Primarily, I think it means getting past prejudice against the United States. Is that simplified? Damned right it is, because when we read anti-war positions both in the media and on websites and listen to the rhetoric of the agitators, what they appeal to is paranoia, which is by definition irrational, and that enables them to bypass the real issue, which is human rights in the Mid-East, starting with Iraq, and extending to the brutality which sees Canadians tortured in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran. The debate is whether countries which extol the virtues of human rights really believe in them and what they are willing to do about it.

I lived for too long during the Cold War and I understood the President's sentiments when he pointed out that we often allied ourselves with less than savoury characters in order to maintain balance with the Soviet bloc. (It would be nice for Pres. Putin to make the same observation about the USSR, but I'm not holding my breath.)

I remember the feeling of elation during the Prague Spring, and the sense of outrage and helplessness during the Soviet invasion in 1968, and many more people remember Tianianmen Square.

Is it too idealistic to hope I never have to endure those times again? Or at least that repression in one country can be counter-balanced with liberation in another? I know we can't take on every country, but the powers of example and determination can do a great deal to persuade otherwise intractable people once they realize that bringing democracy to their nations is better than the alternative.

It's not so much whether you are for the United States as it is whether you believe that all humans deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and those who yearn for a return of Saddam and the Taliban are manifestly against human rights.

In many ways, I feel that the United States is finally living up to the beliefs enshrined in the Declaration of Independence because it affirmed inherent rights for all men (and women). Think about it: it could well have read "all Englishmen" or "all Americans" yet didn't, and that was by design.

I first read the Taheri column in toto at Italian Girl's promoting ideas of democracy via Expat Yank, and hopped over to the NY Post in hopes that they too published it and would have the requisite permalink.Thanks to both posters for pointing the way.

Posted by: Debbye at 08:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2536 words, total size 15 kb.

Remembrance Day, but what do they remember?

Nov. 12 - This is a bit of a ramble. These thoughts have been swirling for a few days, and I'm trying to give them coherence and form. I'll probably read this tomorrow and wish I had said things differently or said more or less.

I found it very hard to post yesterday. A couple of Paul's posts had really hit a nerve with me. There was, contained in this post about the CIBC bank, Ikea and other companies who initially refused to allow poppy sales for Remembrance Day the fact there isn't a single Canadian war movie, which, given the well-deserved reputation of Canadian courage and steadfastness in battle, is an appalling lapse.

Sheesh, I learned about the Canadian army's courage at Vimy Ridge and Dieppe in high school in the US, and the current Minister of Defence, John McCallum, didn't know the difference between Vimy [Ridge] and Vichy [government.] The steadfast determination of the Canadian armed forces is such that every Canadian can hold their head high with pride, and I don't get why we would deprive our children of that legacy.

In yesterday's sole entry, I mentioned a hockey rink Canadian soldiers in Korea built which they called Imjin Gardens and the reason the story tickled my fancy was because it reminded me of a MASH episode in which Cpl. Klinger traded food items (fruit cocktail?) with a Canadian soldier and in parting mentioned a future trade involving hockey pucks. I didn't mention it in the original post because it seemed out of place on Remembrance Day, but in retrospect I maybe should have because it was a telling piece of history about Canada and how Canadian soldiers bring bits of home with them that made it into pop culture.

Canada, as does the United States, offers a very unique heritage to her citizens: by virtue of being here, everyone, regardless of birthplace, is entitled to take as their own the past, present and future of this wonderful country. It is by no means mandatory that one should do so, but the offer is there for everyone.

So when I say the same blood flows through all Canadians' veins as flowed on Vimy Ridge and at Dieppe I mean exactly that: it isn't the heritage of a blood line but of a philosphical and heartfelt line, and that can be a very powerful thing simply because it is taken voluntarily.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the National War Memorial was vandalised in the early morning hours of Remembrance Day, but it still burns. It is beyond cliche to say that our soldiers fight so that others can protest against the government of the day without fear of reprisal, but to deface a monument dedicated to the brave men and women who were willing to sacrifice all so that we could have cozy, pseduo-intellectual debates about war requires a special kind of arrogance and smugness that I hope I never encounter in the flesh.

Nevertheless, that act of disrespect saddened me beyond any of the memorials that day because it is a danger sign that signifies disrespect not only to those who have served their country but to this country itself, and that is an outrage. In fact, it was almost an act of self-hated.

Freedom is not just another word for nothing left to lose, it's the name we give for everything that is worth fighting for, and once we lose our freedom, we've lost everthing. Canadians have known this in the past, and I believe they know that today. It's just a matter of finding the Canadian way to express it.

Freedom of spirit and of mind are such great gifts, and the thousands that flood our shores every year prove that.

One of my referrals was someone wanting to know how Americans feel about US soldiers who are still in Iraq. Words cannot convey how I feel -- humble, grateful, awed, fearful for them, fiercely proud of them, and all the love and support I can direct towards those who are not my children but are as my children because they are both future and present and every one of them possesses a calling and purpose that makes me feel insignificant. They proceed from a line unbroken before Valley Forge and are a part of me.

I could ask how Canadians feel about their soldiers still in Afghanistan, but I think I know. I think Canadians are far greater and better than the prattling of the mainstream press here would indicate, and I think the Liberal elite that rules Canada is not worthy of her.

I alway try to post whatever I can glean about the Canadian military in Afghanistan and the other coalition forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq because I think it matters.

I think that some day, maybe not tomorrow but some day, our kids and grandkids will demand to know what we did and thought during this historical period and I think we'll all want to be able to answer that we did our best.

In many ways, Canada is in far more a transitional period than the US. I knew what the US would do because I know my people and I know how we think, but I was way off the mark in predicting what Canada would do.

I had thought that, given the history of the FLQ and how many people in Canada today have come as refugees from terrorism, that Canada would stand squarely against allowing terrorism to take root in North America. Then Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley had made some very strong remarks shortly after Sept. 11 but was then demoted up and the fence-sitting began.

But the government's dithering did not affect the Canadian people, and despite what Americans may read in the Canadian media and what Canadian politicians may say, I think that Canadians, like their American brethren, are re-evaluating a great many things including their military, patriotism, political correctness, immigration and judicial systems and, the biggest question of all, asking "What kind of people are we?"

Neither Americans nor Canadians want to lose what they are. We're both just trying to clarify matters a little. Most Americans might reply that we are the same, only more so.

I don't know the answers for Canadians, but I am pretty sure that it will be "Made In Canada" and maybe, finally, it won't be prefaced with "unlike Americans" because it needn't be.

You are all so much better than you realize. There is so much heart and courage in you, and anyone who doubts that should take an honest look at how Canadians play and love hockey, because it's all there: holding the line, heads-up gamesmanship, fierce competitiveness, endurance, taking it to the boards, and never quitting. If Mario Lemieux gets cross-checked, you just know that some gloves will be coming off.

Is it really a surprise that the usual "Canadians aren't flag wavers" mantra is always discarded for Olympic and World Cup hockey events? I think not!

My kids were born and raised in Canada, and my dearest wish for them is to love and revere this wonderful country. That is my wish for all Canadians, because you deserve no less.

Posted by: Debbye at 04:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1222 words, total size 7 kb.