On Canada’s military contribution to the campaign against Islamic state, Peggy Mason of the Rideau Institute said:
"We’re playing a symbolic military role, [within the context of ] a very short-sighted military strategy, when what we could be doing is playing a much more meaningful role in the broader political strategy that must be put in place if we are going to have anything other than a very long conflict, a quagmire."
Why would that be? Why would the federal government want to play a "symbolic" role instead of attempting to bring peace in such a dangerous area. How would we or the government of Canada benefit by this? What are we trying to attain?
William Astore in The Nation lists seven reasons why America will not be ending war anytime soon. That is to say that Washington intends to keep the war going on for as long as it can.
The reasons given in this article, are the privatization of war, embrace of the national security state by both major parties, "Support Our Troops” as a substitute for thought, fighting a redacted war, threat inflation, defining the world as a global battlefield, and the new "normal" in America is war.
We have seen how our federal government is eager to support Washington wherever it can.
The purpose of war is not to defend the people of a nation but simply to enable the war industry to get rich while the citizens, or taxpayers, pay for it with money and the lives of their children.
Andrew Bacevich writes in Tom Dispatch from his book How Washington Rules:
"By temperament and upbringing, I had always taken comfort in orthodoxy. In a life spent subject to authority, deference had become a deeply ingrained habit. I found assurance in conventional wisdom. Now, I started, however hesitantly, to suspect that orthodoxy might be a sham. I began to appreciate that authentic truth is never simple and that any version of truth handed down from on high -- whether by presidents, prime ministers, or archbishops -- is inherently suspect. The powerful, I came to see, reveal truth only to the extent that it suits them. Even then, the truths to which they testify come wrapped in a nearly invisible filament of dissembling, deception, and duplicity. The exercise of power necessarily involves manipulation and is antithetical to candor."
The purpose of war is not to defend the people of a nation but simply to enable the war industry to get rich while the citizens, or taxpayers, pay for it with money and the lives of their children.
Andrew Bacevich writes in Tom Dispatch from his book How Washington Rules:
"By temperament and upbringing, I had always taken comfort in orthodoxy. In a life spent subject to authority, deference had become a deeply ingrained habit. I found assurance in conventional wisdom. Now, I started, however hesitantly, to suspect that orthodoxy might be a sham. I began to appreciate that authentic truth is never simple and that any version of truth handed down from on high -- whether by presidents, prime ministers, or archbishops -- is inherently suspect. The powerful, I came to see, reveal truth only to the extent that it suits them. Even then, the truths to which they testify come wrapped in a nearly invisible filament of dissembling, deception, and duplicity. The exercise of power necessarily involves manipulation and is antithetical to candor."
Rather than a global threat Peggy Mason reminds us that we are fighting civil wars in other nations and: "The way you end these civil wars [is] not through a military victory …[but] through the negotiation table. There is no solution here without dealing with Assad, and the only way to deal with Assad is to negotiate with him."
Which do we want? For the future of our children and the future of our planet? Peace or the threat of oppression by the centralized power of the arms industry.
