As early as Nov. 6, 1961, Ass’t. Secretary of Defence John T. McNaughton reported that the U.S.’s reasons for being involved in South Vietnam had degenerated into egoism: “70 percent--to avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat (to our reputation as a counter-subversion guarantor).”
Vietnam had become virtually irrelevant. Whatever the generals said they needed, they got, but without a defensible political objective for the country the military investment, no matter how high, was self-defeating.
What do we get from McKay?—Canada’s commitment is an open question to be determined by Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hiller and others overseeing the mission. The idea that “the mission” should be subject to debate is met contemptuous derision and empty jingoism—a perfect echo of the cognitive dissonance and arrant stupidity that destroyed the Johnson Administration.
Why is Canada in Afghanistan? To rebuild the country after we helped destroy it? To fight Bush’s phony “war on terrorism?” To prop up a U.S. puppet regime run by an ex-oil industry lobbyist and drug-running warlords? Is our military role combat or non-combat?
In 2001, Canada had 750 troops in Afghanistan; now it’s 2,300: What does “in it for the long haul” mean?
Perpetuating a venture out of habit and hiding behind vacuous slogans like “perseverance and resolve” is the surest sign of a government held hostage to its own ego.
In the wake of recent fatalities, Harper has declared that Canada will not “cut and run.” Fair enough, but that is no reason to denigrate the need to articulate a political purpose and set a time limit for the mission.
As the U.S. did in Vietnam, Canada is using a foreign conflict to prop up its own image, and neither Harper nor “Peter Principle” McKay has the education or the political acumen to separate fact from folly.
His Master’s Voices
No sooner does McKay open his mouth on the subject of Hamas, than his boss forces him to eat his words. In an embarrassing flip-flip that betrayed just how much the Israel Lobby dictates foreign policy, McKay had to repudiate his statement that some aid to Hamas would continue. Jeff Sallot in the Globe and Mail painted the perfect picture.
“The Tuesday morning headlines about Canada softening its position on aid to Hamas set off a flurry of phone calls from pro-Israeli groups, asking what happened to the previous policy. Journalists continued to call, seeking clarification…Yesterday, Mr. MacKay was back on script after Jewish and Israeli support groups sought clarification.”
“Script writers” Marc Gold (chairman of the Canada-Israel Committee and Ed Morgan and Victor Goldbloom, (president and national executive chairman of the Canadian Jewish Congress) had a story conference call on Jan. 2 during which time Harper uttered the standard verities.
After McKay’s come-down, we’re back to the zionist double standard: The Palestinian government, but not Israel, must renounce violence; Hamas must recognize Israel, but Israel doesn’t have to recognize Hamas. Although, how a state that doesn’t technically exist can be forced recognize another is just another aspect to this perversity.
McKay’s humiliation is similar to what happened to Bush concerning Israel’s Apartheid Wall. On July 25, 2003, he stated. “the Wall is a problem” and he would speak to Sharon about it. On Sept 19, Israel sent a delegation to Washington to reach a compromise [sic]. On Oct. 24, Bush capitulated and claimed that Israel was justified in building it, even deep into the West Bank.
Zionist scriptwriters don’t allow its actors to ad lib.
If Harper’s government self-destructs sooner rather than later, Gov.–Gen. Michaëlle Jean would have a constitutionally important decision to make. Given the recent election, otherwise known as “Layton’s folly,” it would be unfair to dissolve Parliament to send the public back to the polls. Jean could, and should, invite Liberal Opposition leader Bill Graham to form a government.
Against the Harper Party’s 124 seats the Liberals and NDP have a total of 132. The Bloc Québécois with 51 seats would hold the balance of power, and given the party’s closer affinity for Liberal/NDP policy, this would bode well for governmental stability to say nothing of our national sanity.