Soldiers hello

Realigned wrote:

  

I'm surprised to read about the aliban eradicating the poppies. As far as I knew they were still big on cultivating them for opium, I wonder how accurate that fact is.

 

Prior to 9-11, the US government had a good working relationship with the Taliban - including significant payments in exchange for the Taliban pursuing a no-cultivation policy.

Unionist wrote:

Incidentally, Realigned, I certainly don't "hate soldiers in Afghanistan". I have consistently reported their deaths over the years and expressed my sympathies for their families.

I know, and no one has said here, ever, that they hate soldiers, not in this conversation, nor  in any other that I have ever read here regarding Afghanistan. But apparently, if you do not believe in the "nobleness" of their actions, nor with the notion that there is "honour" in their being there, or even disagreeing with Canadian military personal being in Aghanistan as a combat mission, and are expressing non-complince in the false belief of "hero'", it is played to their minds, that anti-colonial occupation equals 'hate' the soldiers.  It is a propganada use of "othering" and it allows the playing of victim, in order to justify something that they need to have justified to themselves. Plus it is also  useful propaganda plank for other reasons.

What some millitary personel, that come here, and others that I have met before, fail to realize is that you can't be both hero and victim at the same time, it sets up a internal cognative dissonance, that plays out negatively in personal actions. As such, expressions of "hate" arise, because people are failing to play the game they so want them to play, which is that of honouring the "rescuing hero". If they do not have the mindset afforded by the conceptual framework of "hero" then they have to actually look at their actions, and what they are really doing to Afghans, Afghanistan and indeed their own families here in Canada. And to a lesser extent, all of Canadians.

The "hero" role allows them to escape the reality of what they are doing and what the implications and ramifications of what immoral colonial/occupationl war actions are. It is pure hedonistic escapism that allows them to avoid introspection of themselves and their actions and from realizing how they are being exploited. And for those who cannot swallow the "hero" bull shit propaganda, they escape their actions through drug and alcohol use.

Though of course there are those who just "like" war, for what war situations allow them to do, that they could not do in normal society without retribution and consequences.

Another role that "hero" propaganda factors into, is that in the class based society of the military, the infrantry, is considered to be the lowet rung. They are the pawns that get thrown out first. Or the "grunts" as they are called in the military ranks. So it suits military propaganda purposes, to play up the role of "brave hero". It keeps those "grunts"  coming forward and then paying the heaviest price, out of all the other ranks.

Quote:

But a soldier in Afghanistan who goes around justifying Canada's presence there is as repugnant as any other warmongering propagandist, perhaps more so.

I agree and that sentiment too, does not equal hate. It equals disrespect of actions.

Quote:

It is Stephen Harper and your commanding officers who "hate soldiers in Afghanistan". They place them in harm's way in an evil cause. And every time another young person is maimed or killed, they shed crocodile tears and pledge to redouble their evil efforts.

I do not know if they hate them so much as consider them to be dixie cup people, to use and expend, as beings who are worth less than themselves. It is definitley class contempt at work, both within the military ranks, and externally by the Harper 'pinkie and the brain' types.

Though nowadays, they restrain themselves from throwing so many lives away, in order to keep public, and indeed military personal, sentiment against such immoral missions relatively low. It is not like the warfare from the good old days when they could waste 100's and 1000's of lives, in just a few minutes.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

What a great post remind.

Has anyone read or observed first-hand how poppy crops are exported out of Afghanistan? I would think that in an occupied country with unidentified airplanes spotted and shot at, that route has to operate with at least the approval if not outright participation of the occupying forces. I have heard that U.S. military planes were involved in that transport, but can't offer a reference.

 

"Prior to 9-11, the US government had a good working relationship with the Taliban - including significant payments in exchange for the Taliban pursuing a no-cultivation policy. "

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And prior to that they supplied the Mujahedeen with ground to air missiles that killed Russian soldiers who had had a field day killing Afghans from helicopters.

And Graeme Smith tells us, this morning, that Highway No. 1 to the west out of Kandahar city, where Canadians are dying, is coming to be controlled by the Taliban, and "Elders say the most alarming sign of the insurgents' strength in Senjaray, only 10 kilometres outside the city, was a peaceful display of audacity. Well-known figures in the Taliban movement attended public prayers at Senjaray's mosque during the Eid alo-Fitr holiday two months ago, and repeated the performance during Eid al-Adha last week."

 

That prayer groups are probably thee safest place for Taliban during Eid.

Taliban on the other hand are not so concerned with that kinda stuff. After those last 3 Canadian soldiers died a couple of days ago the Taliban realized the next day we would "most probably" hold a ramp ceremoney and send the soldiers home. Ramp ceremonies mean lots of people out in the open. Istead of the random harassingrocket or two the Taliban launched probably over half a dozen hoping to get a lucky shot in.

Clever of them in anycase.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly different rules of engagement.

But do you disagree with Graeme's point? He has for some time been presenting evidence about an emboldened Taliban building up strength.(And I guess you are yourself not yet plugged into his work?)

 

martin dufresne wrote:

Realigned, is your participation here part of your duties? I don't mean whether you are happy or proud to defend what Canadians do in Afghanistan, but whether you are in any way mandated to write here, in some public affairs role for instance. What is your Military Occupation?

I believe that would imply a specific intent, such as trolling, or covertly mining the threads for public opinion research.  I also believe it is of no concern whatsoever as to what an individual's occupation is.  Military Public affairs are not good at asking questions, they are trained to provide scripted answers for our consumption.

martin dufresne wrote:

What is your Military Occupation?

Try looking at the opening post.  

Slumberjack wrote:

Occasional displays of utter contempt could mistakenly lead to that conclusion.

Then that would be the mistake of the receiver to equate their personal being with that of  their conditioned actions. And it would also seem that the receiver, is perhaps perceiving it thusly, as that is what they themselves perceive about others and indeed are perhaps ascribing that internal belief of theirs to those who disagree with their actions.  A state of being which you bascially say below.

Quote:

As to the second snippet, I've always felt that elitism on either side of the spectrum might lead to the same thing, a capacity to view other beings as less than themselves.

In my world, there is no lesser or greater peoples, just differing ones. And one can feel contempt for actions, but one can still care about them deeply.

The ideology of only be able to see things in an either or framework, without a sliding scale of reality, is a falsely generated, or fostered, perception, IMV. It affords propagandists lines of division and control of segments the population, as people in their sphere of influence, are then reacting emotionally, as opposed to critical thinking. As critical thinking is deadened by the insertion of propaganda stress and entrenched systems of societal control.

We can see this playing out across Canada, in respect to the framing of non-confidence in parliament as being anti-democratic. Such propaganda plays on the lack of understanding of the populace and inserts negative emotions or conditions that people react to, instead of looking for truth and information. People believe their generated emotions against "others" are real feelings from within, when in fact they are being told that is what they should feel emotion wise, so they do.

This has played out throughout history and it is why the most heinious dictators on their way to a dictatorship get rid of the "thinking" segments of the population first. The thinker is dangerous to their end goal. Now, I am not saying that the non-thinkers are less than the thinkers, I am saying that there are many reasons why people do not think critically, until there is no other option available to them, in some cases.

In this instance, I am reminded of a girl friend I had long ago, who would get annoyed with her 3 year old son, because he asked why about everything. She would actually berate him when he asked why. Thus he became a non-critical thinker, and a follower, as critical thinking and questioning of why brought out unpleasant historical feeling of hurt and perhaps even feelings of being  unworthy, or stupid, because he did not somehow know the why, or how to, of things automatically.

Being not allowed to ask "why", in all of its dynamics, such as blind belief, is a facet of patriarchy, race and class control. The foundation of the manufacturing of non-critical thinking is being conditioned to believe/perceive through historically entrenched systems of conceptual authortarian frames. We are told from birth that there is always someone who "knows" more than we do. Once this conceptual frame is established, then it is a short step to relying upon those "others" that know more than we do, as we have been told, to tell us what to think, not think, be, and do.

It is very difficult to step out of this merry-go- round of conditioned inadequacy, in respect to self, and self-perceptions of "others". To do so often, if not always, means one gets slapped back into line. However, in order for social change to happen, people need to be jolted out of the entrenched conceptual frame that they hold. And sometimes the jolting required is not so pleasant, but required nonetheless. (not setting myself apart from this needed dynamic at all)

 

Quote:

I thought you made valid observations throughout your post.

Thanks!

 

And thanks too, unionist and Stargazer. I was at the Legion Christmas party last evening before I wrote that, and had watched the class, rank and worth dynamics play out before me, while I participated within it, too. One thing good about small towns, is if one is a social scientist, one can see all the dynamics of society in micro.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Thank you for coming here Realigned. I'm not going to lie and say I am a fan of the military institution, but I have a healthy fear of its coercive nature and have many friends who are currently training (we're all in our early 20s, so none have seen duty in Afghanistan...yet). I have to say that I respect your coming here to discuss with us a side of the story that we don't get to hear. You're speaking openly and honestly about your experiences as a soldier, without an anti- or pro-war spin, without layers of media meddling, nor an ideological line with which to bludgeon people. That said, I must confess that I was originally rather supportive of the Afghan mission. I'd been misled to believe that we were there for people, rather than a geostrategic position in the heart of C. Asia and the ideological drive of elites in Washington, Ottawa, London, and countless other capitals seeking to show themselves that their theories are correct.

However, I'd like to take this away from our current war and ask you a few questions about what you think regarding Canada's current procurement agenda. I'd be hardpressed to find anyone against replacing the Sea King helicopters (as they are a distinct danger to our coastal workers and other service people), excluding the awfully large amount of political wrangling that goes along with new systems acquisitions. Right now we're sitting on, I think, about 100 Leopard 2s that we got from the Netherlands. What do you think of the models that we received, do you think that they are offering our troops a functional advantage in our current engagements, or do you think that acquiring lighter, more mobile, and less threatening vehicles would be a good idea? Their positioning in Afghanistan, a mountainous country where massive steel husks moving about the landscape isn't particularly praticle, is necessity - I think. Given the need for new Canadian tanks and, at the time, the lack of heavy armour to protect our troops, are they fulfilling such a role? Also, as a service person what are your thoughts on the new ships that are coming for our Maritime services - the JSS project?

Loretta wrote:

Looks like you've got your work cut out for you, Realigned. 

When we get mad at a media outlet like CTV -- which I can barely watch -- we have to remember not to get mad at working journalists there, who may be just as annoyed at some editorial edicts as we are. (Remember the definition of an editor: someone who thinks it tastes better after he's peed in it. Is there a similar definition of a general?)

There might, similarly, be a few babblers who assume that a working soldier shares the outlook of the brass. That's human nature, but not a good political work style.

I would say your final sentence is correct George, given the amount of spin happening here lately.

___________________________________________________________

"watching the tide roll away"

Quote:

 When we get mad at a media outlet like CTV -- which I can barely watch -- we have to remember not to get mad at working journalists there, who may be just as annoyed at some editorial edicts as we are.

 

 

Those journalists choose to do that. They can be embedded and file "double-double" stories, or they can venture out. That they don't do so speaks to a lack of moral courage that they'd rather repeat DND talking points and keep their job, or abide by journalistic standards and lose it.

Same with soldiers. They can refuse. They don't because they lack the moral courage. They'd rather the Afghan people pay the price for their cowardice. Usually, a soldier will complain about everything, but all I've seen are soldiers eager and willing to kill Afghans for whatever reason the government tells them to. Their willingness is complicity, and their complicity ensures this occupation continues. 

Realigned wrote:

Thanks dude.

Dudette, actually. I would bat my eyes right now but it doesn't go well with my combat boots....um, might be the wrong analogy for this discussion! ;)

Realigned:

"I've heard this from him too. I wonder what it's based on. It seems like activty is down.  Graeme Smith seems to have a good inside view of what's going on, he seems checked out.  Do you mean UN forces or NATO though? I ask because I have seen UN guys here too but not in an intervention role.

I think the US is sending an additional 20 thousand soldiers? I know their making a huge base out near Helmand. I wonder if he is suggesting the 20'000 additional soldiers will cause more problems here?

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the questions presented to the three dozen Taliban front-line fellas that Graeme had interviewed and videotaped (faces hidden), was "why" they were fighting. A very  large proportion said that relatives had been killed by bombs.

I believe that is why there would be a certain nervousness generated by the pending arrival of 20,000 Americans. Is it called increased "tactical" support? And, of course, they would be there for the duration (after Canada's - and probably some other NATO - forces depart). As Allan Greenspan said in his autobiography, the U.S.presence in the Middle East is ALL about oil. The former U.S. federal reserve chief said that one honest thing.

As for the tactics of occupying forces in Alexander's time ( he probably got some mileage posing as an immortal) Masters found near his Gurkha batallion's summer home in India - at intervals on a line of hills descending down to the plains - small clusters of date palms growing where any military commander, then or now, would place observation posts. The date palms were a Mediterranean variety. Alexander didn't go farther into India, and he certainly had to be watchful.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, yes, Canada's third ocean coastline will be open in summer in another decade. We'll have to face down God knows how many navies  pursuing territorial claims. Then, I think, we will have to depend on UN (not NATO) forces to intervene. There should be lots of volunteers from the equatorial regions by then.

 

 

"Canada's third ocean coastline will be open in summer in another
decade. We'll have to face down God knows how many navies  pursuing
territorial claims."

I can almost hear the rustle of a DND talking points guidebook...

Quote:

Sure but you gotta tell me what that picture is of/represents.

It is a Darwin fish. 

"We are trying to teach [a] culture built on revenge (eye fo ran eye) no[t] to harm prisoners who may have really hurt a lot of people."

You do realize that the official reason for invading Afghanistan was to seek revenge for the 9/11 attack? For the 3000 people killed in the WTO our own culture built on revenge have murdered more than 13 000 people in Afghanistan and more than 700 000 people in Iraq. That doesn't even come close to eye-for-an-eye.

You're either hopelessly naive or wilfully ignorant. As much as some people are all about some kind of love in with soldier boy, there are other CFers on this board who contribute to the conversations without being apologists for the heinous crime in Afghanistan.

Worth a read

Realigned, I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for your service. Whatever the disagreements here, you seem to have good intentions and want to work to help the people of Afghanistan.