How Many is Too Many?

As of today, 2,695 soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen from the United States-led coalition in Iraq have been killed. Of these 2,471 were American servicemen or servicewomen.

373 soldiers, marines and airmen from the coalition have died in Afghanistan. Of these, 292 wee American and 16 were Canadian servicemen and servicewomen.

For every one of those who have died, there is a life cut short and ended in confusion, pain and fear. It begs the question how long this must continue.

I am conscious that many people have urged us to "stay the course" and not "cut and run" in the "War on Terror". Everytime Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper publishes a story on a success in these campaigns, the armchair generals post comments which are remarkable both for the vigour of their invective and the singularity of their spelling and grammar. These comments are often hateful, racist and xenophobic. They celebrate the violent and painful deaths of those who fight the Coalition forces, and purport to never understand the motives that drive young people to join al qaeda in the first place.

When the Globe publishes a report critical of the United States Government's policies or actions, these same warriors lambaste the editorial policy of the newspaper, criticizing it for aiding America's enemies and displaying a too "liberal" or "bleeding heart" approach to the news. These paragons of legal procedure refuse to admit any wrongdoing by American forces which is not proven in court proceedings. This is, of course, in stark contrast to their attitude towards enemy combatants who are detained without charge and denied the basic protections of the Geneva Convention.

Most of the people who say these things do it from their computers in the comfort and safety of their homes and offices. They seldom include their real names, and never their addresses. They speak from the comfort of anonymity, like the proverbial sociopath who shouts "fire!" in a dark and crowded theatre. They know that they will never need to answer for the consequences of their opinions. It is a logical fallacy to answer these peoples' arguments with a criticism of their character, but their inconsistency does reflect on their credibility. More chilling is the idea that these sorts of thoughts motivate their day-to-day relationships and activities, such as voting in elections.

I understand that a certain portion of the population of the United States will support American military action no matter why or against whom it is undertaken. In other words, if the United States military decided to bomb Denmark for the purposes of testing a new weapons system on live human beings, a portion of the American population would support this decision. The common denominator appears to be that the American military is killing foreign people, and that is good.

I have long suspected that some of the more illiberal elements of Canada's population have become that way because of the strong influence of American mores. Given the attitudes one commonly finds in the comments pages of the Globe and Mail website, there appears to be a significant element in Canada for whom foreigners exist to be killed, imprisoned or deported, and who would not extend basic human rights to anyone who was not born in Canada. That is a sad comment on the state of Canadian society.

The Siege of Stephen Harper

In military history, there are few examples of warriors who have compelled their enemies to beseige them. Generally, it is the other way around. One general holds a piece of topography so important that he is compelled to dig in and defend it while another general surrounds him, cuts him off from supplies, and waits for the food to run out.

Stephen Harper is not a general, but few would disagree that a government fights a campaign against its opponents. Mr. Harper's campaign has scarcely been mobilized, but he is already starting to act like he is under seige.

Witness the stubborn refusal to allow members of his caucus to speak in public. Witness his efforts to prevent journalists from speaking to his cabinet members as they enter and leave cabinet meetings. Witness his earnest refusal to admit that -- in Canada -- there is a long tradition of politicians answering questions from the news media.

As an aside, let us not forget just how fortunate we are to have such a professional news media in Canada. The flagship is the CBC, a news organization so professional that foreign broadcasters come to Canada to learn how they can improve their services. CBC reporters have, in the past, been rather strident in their reporting (witness Susan Harada's one-person campaign to destroy the Canadian Airborne Regiment in the early 1990s). However, as a whole the CBC seems to take its role very seriously and does a fantastic job reporting the news in an objective way. There are many who would disagree with my opinion on this, but I ask them to compare the CBC's the National with Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN or just about anything on Fox News in the United States.

So why does Stephen Harper dislike the media so much? It could be because they have been very suspicious about who Stephen Harper really is. We know that he is a politician, but before that he was the leader of the National Citizens' Coalition. This was a lobby group which wrote letters to the editor of national newspapers and provided talking heads for media interviews. Their main focus seems to have been to persuade Canadians that income and other taxes should be lowered in order to bring prosperity through Milton Friedman-style "trickle down economics". They were closely allied with Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution in Ontario, and many people are suspicious of their links to the oil industry in Alberta. We shall never know, because Mr. Harper has gone out of his way to avoid disclosing much about the N.C.C. or his role in it.

Stephen Harper may also dislike the media because he fears public debate about some of his fundamental beliefs. What does he really think about abortion? What are his views about how Canada should treat native Canadians? What are his plans for Canadian foreign policy in the Middle East? After all, for a law and order advocate he sure shut down the long-gun registry quite quickly and in the face of opposition from all of the major police forces in Canada. Something like that would be pretty hard to defend against a news reporter who was determined to ask the question and would not take an evasion for an answer.

Remember when Paul Martin carved pumpkins with Rick Mercer on his show, the Mercer Report? Contrived as that photo-opportunity was, I do not think Mr. Mercer will be trick-or-treating at 22 Sussex Drive this October.

The problem with pretending the media does not exist, as Richard Nixon found out, is that after a while the media comes to resent you. In the absence of material, they start to cast about for stories. Once the NDP and the Liberals get organized again, guess whose faces will be all over the National every night? Once that happens, the NDP and the Liberals will be setting the agenda for public debate in Canada, and Stephen Harper will be wishing he had never circled the wagons.

P.S. - for more information about the National Citizens' Coalition, I recommend an article published by the National Union of Public and General Employees at www.nupge.ca/news_2005/n07se05a.htm.