What Do Canadians Want?

I ask this sincerely and beseechingly, without hope of a meaningful reply. On the surface, this country seems placid and serene, but underneath, maelstroms lurk.

Take Afghanistan. The recent statement by Foreign Affairs Minister David Emerson that we'll probably be increasing our troop strength in that country by about ten percent has reaped a whirlwind of scorn, if the comments on cbc.ca are indicative.

Almost everyone in Canada claims to support our troops. Nobody seems to support what our troops are doing. This is a clear example of 'love the sinner, hate the sin' thinking that sets me on edge whenever I find it. It's hypocritical in the extreme.

I don't blindly support soldiers. Atrocities beyond the scope of war (which is an atrocity in itself) are perpetrated by each side in any given conflict, and they should be denounced. But there is a real colonel of truth (ha-ha) in Nathan Jessup's speech from A Few Good Men:

Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You?...I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep...and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know...my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall...

There are many Canadians who take the NDP's stance, that all problems can be solved by mouthing platitudes at each other, and there's never a need for a show (let alone the use) of weapons. While this is undoubtedly a comforting mindset, it's pitifully naive: the sheer number of people fighting each other in the world today proves it.
As does, when you think about it, the polarization of Canadians (and Americans) on any issue you'd care to name. Never mind being openminded enough to admit you're wrong: how many people on either side of any argument these days are even willing to consider that the other side may have some valid points? The only difference between us and them is that we're not willing to kill for our beliefs. Many cultures see this as a fatal weakness. Hell, I see it that way on occasion...like when we welcome known terrorists into our country...and when we insist, not that these people adopt Canadian views, but that they don't.

There are many people who believe the war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with the Taliban or the oppression of the Afghan people, but is instead merely an exercise in securing oil for 'Cheney and his henchmen'. These people tend to characterize our Prime Minister as one of those henchmen, ignoring the fact that it was the Liberals who sent us into Afghanistan in the first place.
This mode of thinking is something I'm often guilty of myself in other contexts: 'either/or' versus 'both/and'. In other words, black/white instead of shades of grey. Of course the war is about oil...partially. It's also about removing a bunch of thugs from power, restoring freedom to women from whom it has been stolen, combating militant Islamism (and it must be remembered, that faction wants us dead whether we're in their country or not)...and there's probably a multiplicity of motives I'm ignoring. All countries act, at least in part, for their own benefit on the world stage. If they don't, they soon cease to be countries. Canada's only able to aspire to the sort of altruism it does by virtue of being blessed with an abundance of space and natural resources...and because we're protected by Uncle Sam.
The last time I brought up that uncomfortable truth (in the context of decrying the typical Canadian disdain for all things Yank, even as we expect them to pay for our security), somebody took me to task on it. "Of course we're protected by America," he said, "when we live next door. They're only protecting us out of their own self-interest." The implication being, we shouldn't have to pay a dime for it. Now who's being selfish?

Back to Afghanistan. The typical Canadian attitude, when you get right down to it, is that we shouldn't be killing people, even if they're trying to kill us. Perhaps especially if they're trying to kill us. If they want us gone that badly, what the hell are we doing there?
Building schools. Repairing bridges. Making sure communities have potable water. Trying to make life just a mite less miserable. You know, noble things like that. Hard as it is to believe, there are people who don't want to see new schools, in fear of what they might teach and to whom they might teach it. Likewise, these people have a deep distrust of any 'improvement' a foreigner makes, lest the have-nots appreciate it and move out from under their thumbs.

The overwhelming consensus is that we should be out of Afghanistan. If I didn't know better, I'd think it was because the Americans are recognizing the peril there: Obama wants a goodly portion of the American forces in Iraq relocated to Afghanistan as soon as possible, and even McCain is acknowledging the wisdom in that idea. Best skedaddle before those Yankees show up in force, eh?

But there's a split in opinion when it comes to what should be done with our troops once they're out. Many people are rightly concerned about other hotspots the globe over--Darfur springs immediately to mind--and say that there's where our troops belong. This support for action in Darfur would evaporate were our soldiers ever to actually show up there and start fighting, because inevitably some of them would be killed. That's the nature of soldiering, and every soldier who enlists knows it and accepts it. But we think we know better, don't we?
Then there are those in the Trudeau school whose belief seems to be that Canada does not belong in any foreign war. That our military should basically be gutted and mothballed, because who would attack stodgy Canada? And more to the point, why would the United States allow it?

I'm positive there are those in Washington just hoping for a wee little terrorist attack on Ottawa or Toronto. Just a little poke, to wake us up. The bitter irony is, we're so far gone that were the unthinkable to happen, we'd immediately blame it on George Bush and Stephen Harper--if we weren't fighting your dirty little war, this wouldn't have happened.

We're long past due for a debate in this country on what our military is for and what it should accomplish. But we're past due on a lot of debates...and with the passage of time, everyone has grabbed a position and dug in. We'd like to say debate solves everything, but in reality, it usually does jack squat...