Skip to main content

Five Reasons Ottawa Should Not Extend Iraq Mission

Daryl Copeland gives a concise overview of why Canada needs to end its military involvement in Iraq and not extend it into Syria (“Five reasons Ottawa shouldn’t extend Iraq mission,” Toronto Star,  23 March 2015): -  Reposted on 

1. It doesn’t work.
2. It plays into the hands of Islamic State strategists
3. It spoils Canada’s brand:
4. It reinforces the gross imbalance in the distribution of international policy resources
5. It is militarily insignificant and wasteful.

Copeland points out that Western military action has proven ineffective in defeating extremists; it destabilizes the nation and leads to the creation of groups like the Islamic State; bombing Iraq and Syria is exactly what the Islamic State wants the West to do; it plays directly into the propaganda that the West is at war with Islam; it destroys Canada's previous reputation as a force for peace; it emphasizes the military as a tool of foreign policy rather than diplomacy and development; Canada’s contribution is purely symbolic and a waste of resources.

What we should do is get out and vote for the NDP or the Greens, write letters to our MP's, educate ourselves through discussion groups. Fill the leadership void with civic literacy. Educate friends and neighbours. Be compassionate - it's not pretty dealing with our own vulnerability against centralized power.


  1. How the Conservative mind works:
    1. It doesn’t work.
    2. It plays into the hands of Islamic State strategists
    3. It spoils Canada’s brand:
    4. It reinforces the gross imbalance in the distribution of international policy resources
    5. It is militarily insignificant and wasteful.

    Therefore, we will expand our mission.

  2. Thanks Bob. How do we reach the mind that doesn't work? Is our spiralling towards disaster a sign that our species has become a virus?


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Ultimate Goal of Patriarchy is the End of Life

I want to clarify the line between men in general and patriarchal values propagated and imposed on human society.

In order for patriarchy to succeed, it had to kill more efficiently than the nine months gestation it took for a woman to give birth.  So the craft of war  became more than simply defending territory. It became the ritualized erasure of our human nature for the rule of centralized power. 

And no, it hasn't succeeded in diminishing the human population on this planet but it has succeeded in sustaining an ideology of what it means to be a man. 

Civilizations built on myths of great conquerors. Histories about the exploits of the greatest killers. Inventions of race, religious ideology and ritual that transformed the teachings of thoughtful prophets into crusades. Endless games of winning and losing.
Men who celebrate life through medicine, science, education, art, philosophy and poetry must be dismissed as soft, shamed as effeminate. 

Men who have been raised with love, love …

Anonymous Sources

Where does "Greatness" come from? The imagination? Facts? Confidence? A willing suspension of disbelief in a slogan that makes us happy? A capacity to judge well? An ability to observe and find solutions that benefit most if not all? Taking responsibility for the community? A masters degree from Oxford or Yale?

Let me offer the opinion that greatness comes from extraordinary effort or talent.  Greatness as it may exist in our anonymous ambitions does not win fame except in isolated circumstances.  That is to say, fame is not a realistic goal for an individual.

Greatness is like a dove in the imagination, an angel, a temporary insight, a fleeting epiphany. Something aspired to in the privacy of our minds.

Greatness was an ambition I held when I was a teen and had no proof that I was good at anything or useful to the world at all. After repeated criticism and dismissal from the community around me where I attempted to win something, anything, like a medal, a competition, or a…

Torturing Youth is Okay with us?

“More than two-thirds of Canadians feel Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made the wrong choice in awarding a $10.5 million settlement to Omar Khadr, according to a new poll by the Angus Reid Institute.” CBC News
But we don’t see the survey questions in this article. How was the poll actually worded? Reading one article might make us believe we are well informed, but how does a single poll actually tell us how people feel?  
“And while the survey shows that a majority of Liberals and New Democrats are opposed to the government's decision, how the numbers compare to previous polling suggests that views on Khadr have hardened over the last decade — and that he remains a divisive figure.”
How can a single poll tell whether Khadr is a divisive figure or not? What information do respondents have to make such a claim? 
The article then switches to a former US special force soldier who was blinded in one eye during the 2002 firefight in Afghanistan involving Khadr.  Of course he would be critica…