NOW HEAR THIS, AFGHAN VETS: THE TORY BOTTOM-LINE TRUMPS YOUR INTERESTS

      

      YOU MAY REMEMBER, back in the day, a helmeted, flak-jacketed Stephen Harper on your TV screen, visiting "Canada's brave men and women in uniform" in Afghanistan, and praising their service in the pursuit of freedom and democracy, etc. etc.,  for that benighted part of the world.

      What he was doing was, of course, quite normal for a Canadian prime minister in such circumstances. A political leader's duty includes showing his or her commitment to the nation's military, members of which are where they are to "defend" Canada, and to pursue her international policies and objectives.

      I don't recall any serving military people coming right out and saying so, but I would have to assume our soldiers were dedicating themselves to the principle of my-country-right-or-wrong, as they answered "the call to the colors" and went into combat (described by realistic observers as "the butchery of war"). Perhaps some of our soldiers may not have used such graphic words to describe what they were doing, but, formally and officially, they had said what amounts to the same thing by taking the military oath of loyalty upon signing up.

      They were putting their lives on the line for Queen and country. And, in the end, some 160 Canadians did lose their lives serving in Afghanistan (depending on whose statistics you accept), and thousands more suffered physical and psychological wounds and injuries they likely will have to live with for years to come.

      MY PURPOSE IN THE FOREGOING is to draw a contrast between then and now.
      The "then" part can be summarized by saying that those who served did so willingly and patriotically, and, I must emphasize, were highly praised for doing so by the powers-that-be in our nation's capital and elsewhere.
       But the "now" is, at best, not pretty, and, at worst, shameful -- shame on the Government of Canada. It is as if our soldiers were considered wonderful and heroic by the politicians when they were going through the stresses and strains and agonies of war, but when the survivors came home our government was looking elsewhere, preoccupied with other more important matters (such as catering to the wealthy -- primarily, that is, to the benefactors of the Conservative Party).

      FOR VETERANS,  THE NEWS IS RATHER RAW:  It's about the Harper government telling our veterans to more or less get lost, when it comes to honoring the government's obligation in the matter of veteran disability benefits, for wounds and traumas suffered in the Afghanistan war.
      The deal is this: No more lifetime disability payments for Afghan veterans, just a single lump-sum "buyout." This, the veterans feel, amounts to their being short-changed, and has brought about a legal battle over just what the rights of veterans are, and over unilateral changes made by the government in the Veterans Charter. Furthermore, as if that were not enough, the government also has spent, or is spending, serious money in battling the veterans -- reportedly close to $700,000 in legal expenses.

      BUT THIS ISN'T THE WHOLE STORY -- the government also has expressed support for a charity that would raise funds in aid of veterans, an outfit that covers itself in a patriotic label, borrowing the term "The True North" from our national anthem, so that the government can shirk its own responsibilities for veterans.
       This "True North" thing seems to be modeled on an American organization named "The Wounded Warrior Project," again designed to transfer government responsibility for veterans to the shifting sands of private charity.
       Yes, friends, the American obsession with charity-promotion as opposed to necessary government action and support is quickly filtering into the Canadian political culture. But, then, it's what Canadians probably should expect from a prime minister whose economic background and seasoning is heavily American. (I have heard cynics actually call Mr. Harper "an American agent.")

      THE PECULIAR, EVEN AMAZING THING about the veteran-charity concept is that the government seems to have no shame about it at all. Making veterans (who, I repeat, put their lives on the line) dependent upon charity to any degree in the aftermath of their military service is, to my mind, about as shameful as it can get.
      This is even more grating for those who believe, as I do, that the Stephen Harpers of this world are not the kind of people one might expect to flock to the colors and risk their necks in military service.  No, sir. My take on their mind-set is that they believe themselves to be of a special species, and far above all that "common man" stuff. They are of the political boss class, and they, folks, are the ones who decide whether our nation will or won't go to war.
      But they are rarely, if ever, going to sign up for action and don any military uniform, or do any of the things, especially risk their lives, that our brave men and women must do.

      WELL, I SAY THIS CAN AND SHOULD CHANGE, AND HERE'S HOW:
      In future, any time Canada decides it would be a good thing to send our military forces into action, certain conditions must be met by Parliament. And the conditions I propose are the following.
      1st -- The prime minister must make regular visits to the war front, at least monthly, in order to see first hand the consequences of his power to engage Canada in war.
      2nd -- Five members of the federal cabinet must be given leave of absence, without pay, and sworn-in to the military forces (army, navy, air force, it's their choice) and accept assignment, at the rank of private, to regions of conflict at military pay rates.
      3rd --  Thirty members of the House of Commons, chosen by lot, are to be given leave of absence from the Commons, without pay, in order to serve in the military at military pay rates, at the equivalent of a private's pay rate.
      4th -- Thirty members of the Senate are also to be given leave and must serve in the Canadian forces under the same conditions of rank and pay as the aforementioned for MPs.

      I THINK SUCH MEASURES would go far in ensuring that any future military actions taken in foreign wars by Canada forces really are just and necessary.
      It also would give our elected leaders a chance to provide true leadership, and to demonstrate the genuine commitment they demand of our military and of our citizenry. Perhaps some would be on the front line shouting, "Follow me, men!" Say, now we're talking leadership, right?

      WITH THE WAR CLOUDS THAT ARE GATHERING, as a matter of fact, I'm guessing that  Canada is going to need larger fighting forces, considerably more than the estimated 60,000 that we now have under arms.
      "War clouds?" you may well ask.  Sure -- for a start just think about Ukraine-Russia, U.S.-Russia, and the Middle East-Canada and U.S.
      If the past is any indicator, our current government in Ottawa (an undemocratically elected government, by the way, and I'll deal with that in another blog soon) is bound to put us into any such conflicts. And, so, I'm confident that my suggestions and conclusions are timely, and worthy of serious consideration by both the Canadian political classes and our citizenry in general.
      The way it looks to me, we can expect to have many future veterans of military service. And they're going to need much more support than what appears to be the case under the present chintzy Conservative Canadian government.
                                                                 ---------------