As I thumbed through the Los Angeles Times today, the handsome young face of Staff Sgt Jason L. Paton of Poway (CA), stared up at me from the obituary section of the newspaper.
Paton, 25, was among 14 soldiers killed on August 22nd when a Black Hawk helicopter crashed in Multaka, Iraq, North of Baghdad.
At the end of his tour of duty, the army ranger planned to marry his pretty fiancee Nikki Palmer, then move to Georgia to serve as a training officer in the military.
Instead, he was cut down in the prime of life, never to experience the bliss of matrimony, the joy of a young child in his arms, peace in our time.
I count my blessings.
The draft was not compulsory when I was of military age in Canada.
Nor was I packed up and shipped off to some foreign shore to fight for God and Country, oil, or democracy plain upon its face.
North of the border, our inclination is to remain neutral in world conflicts.
After all, it is our sincere belief that cooler heads will prevail, given the chance.
In spite of our pacifist approach to human conflicts, on the other hand, Canucks don't idly sit by when threatened at home, either.
For instance, when the FLQ crisis erupted in Quebec a few decades ago and a couple of politicians were kidnapped by the extremist political organization, Prime Minister Trudeau took a stance which was swift and severe.
"The Government", he assured the Canadian people, "would not negotiate with terrorists".
Within a few short hours, Trudeau ordered Martial Law, and the streets were filled with troops to secure the status quo.
To protect one's borders - or to eliminate the enemy within - is obviously a battle worth fighting for.
But in the instance of Iraq - where the issues have been murky - shouldn't there be a sincere effort to disarm, and likewise, send the troops home?
After all, a number of mistakes were made from the offset which warrant action.
For instance, the conflict started on the premise that Iraq posed a nuclear threat.
In spite of the fact the allegations were later proven to be untrue, the U.S. maintained its military stance against Iraq.
In retrospect, many theorize the charges were just a clever ruse to attack, with the ultimate aim of ousting Saddam Hussein and his corrupt evil regime.
Even so, in spite of the fact Saddam was captured and prosecuted and punished for his war crimes, the U.S. continued with its surge willy-nilly.
Instead, Mr. Bush should have set a time-line for the occupation, stabilized the region within the confines of a specific game-plan, then ordered an exit.
However, the U.S. presence remained long after the first assault, in spite of protestations that the unwarranted attack on Iraq was about "oil" and the second-largest reserves in the region.
Thereafter, the Government wrung its hands about the endless unstoppable uprisings.
And, cast a blind eye to the senseless killing of young American boys on hostile foreign soil, for no rhyme or reason.
Why, oh why, must the U.S. continue to strive to be the Supercop of all Nations?
Frankly, in my estimation, it's time to withdraw from Iraq.
If the Government falters in the middle-eastern region, then a League of Nations should organize a multi-national army to stabilize the area, until Iraq is capable of handling the stewardship of its own independence.
Like Gandhi before me, I'm a peace-nik.From his hallowed grave, I hear his voice:
"Aggression, armed conflict and violence are not the answer."
The Global community cries out for an effective peaceful means for the resolution of world conflicts among Nations.
The U.S. military presence in Iraq continues to hinder those efforts on the planet.
Imperialist military occupation of foreign countries must cease and desist.
Mr. Bush, given the opportunity, the United Nations will fulfill their mandate.
In part:
"To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of Nations large and small."
"To establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained."
"To practice tolerance and to live together in peace with one another as good neighbours."
"To unite our strength to maintain international peace and security and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples."
And to these ends:
"To save succeeding generations from the scourge of World War, which at least twice in our lifetime, has brought untold sorrow to mankind."
No comments:
Post a Comment