Ed did you post that just to her or the papers as well?
Just to her; to her staffers in both her Ottawa and Mississauga offices, really.
The papers have been full of well considered objections; another isn't necessary.
She has, I'm sure, been bombarded with mail - probably more pro than con, truth to tell, in response to the number of contrary opinions expressed in editorials and letters in most papers and, I think, on radio and TV.
I think we need to remember that Parrish is popular in Canada and the
peacekeeping mythology is deeply ingrained in the national consciousness. (See, e.g:
â ?Peacekeeping is awesome and I totally agree with it ...â ? in
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,33074.msg246413.html#msg246413 ) I'm not trying to insult
Oshawakid who, in his inaugural post told us he is 19 years old and wants to join, but what is it about peacekeeping that he finds so
"awesomeâ ??
For
most of the past 35+ years the Government of Canada (regardless of political stripe) has propagated an
image of Canada in the world - the pictures at the bottom of the page pretty well sum it up. Now and again - briefly in the mid-late '80s/very early '90s and again, just recently, the government-of-the-day has stepped out of the
peacekeeping shadows and actually told Canadians that it will send forces into battle. Mostly however, as in the Balkans in the '90s, when the government-of-day uses the CF in combat it studiously avoids telling Canadians about it. The message - in the media and in our schools - is relentless:
good, kind, gentle Canadians go around the world, without guns and bombs, and feed babies. Awesome, indeed. (The un-stated but loud and clear counterpoint is that
hard, cruel Americans go around killing innocents.) This policy, which became explicit in 1969 when the Trudeau government formally disavowed St. Laurent's engaged, activist
leading middle power policy and Pearson's
helpful fixer mode, was, and remains highly popular.
It must be remembered that the generation which supported this policy was the one which fought World War II; it shared, with the
intelligentsia, strong anti-capitalist sentiments and a hope, perhaps a conviction that it must be possible to build and sustain a
caring and sharing society. This generation came of age during the great depression - a searing social event which demanded villains, and greedy Wall Street (and, if you lived on the prairies, Chicago Board of Trade) capitalists filled the bill.
By the mid '60s the million men (mostly men) who fought World War II were prospering - beyond the dreams they might have held in 1935. They were, also, imbued with a new nationalism as Canada approached its centennial. They were, rightfully, proud of their country and its new, active, leadership role in the world and leading the way in the UN - including
peacekeeping - was one of the things in which they took pride. Canadians really did want a
third way - the
million men (in uniform, in 1945) had chafed at being thought to be British by too many Americans and being thought to be
colonials by too many British. They wanted an independent Canada - but one with
values created by the great depression (a mean, niggardly, penny pinching view of the world) and by the explosion of American mass, popular culture (envy of whatever
celebrity appears on the US stage and a desire to have a Canadian this and Canadian that). They, and their children, were ripe for the Pierre Trudeau/Ivan Head
revolution in foreign policy. It wasn't what most of the
million men wanted, not at all, but by the time they woke up and saw the shape of the new Canada their children - now teen-agers and young adults, were firmly
on side. The children of the
million men are, of course, the
boomers - and they run Canada.
I don't expect Ms. Parrish to read, much less acknowledge my letter; I expect her staff to add it to the smaller, contrarian pile. I expect her staff to reassure Ms. Parrish that:
"¢ Most Canadians are on her side - confirmed by their own letter/e-mail count and by the detailed, expert polling which Liberal Party of Canada officials still share with Ms. Parrish; and
"¢ Although she may not be welcomed back into the Liberal Party she will still get all the perquisites and benefits including pork-barrel projects and a
rope-a-dope, sacrificial lamb, official Liberal opponent in the next general election.
Awesome is an interesting word - one I would apply to very large, very bight things (like nuclear explosions) but never, ever to a military sideshow which tries to prop up a failed foreign policy.
</rant>
