Peaceniks Try Direct Mail on Vandoos Destined for AFG

[geo]

Attached is a PDF document of a letter issued by the Cmdr of LFQA to the families of our serving members....

 

[Greymatters]

I cant believe Im actually checking to see if V2007 has written anything back...what is the world coming to... 

 

[a_majoor]

Although Valcartier2007 says "they" are in solidarity with the people of Afghanistan, it is a very strange sort of solidarity when they essentially advocate abandoning the people of that nation to the wolves.

Indeed, given their claim that the Coalition Forces are committing "war crimes", it seems odd that they are pushing for a situation where they themselves will be explicitly cupable of committing crimes against humanity. Calling for Canadian and ISAF withdrawal is no sin of omission, and people who make that call must be held accountable for the consequences.

If they were to be successful, will Valcartier2007 be prepared to defend their actions at the ICC in the Hague?

 

[bjr]

In a nutshell: your comment is very unfair. We wrote clearly saying we don't intend to jeer average soldiers, but focus our protest on the politicians and senior officers. Moreover, we may try to talk to people, as well as offer people flyers. We even shared a chant: "Ramenez l'armée, envoyez les députés!" That's not a "plan to harrass the troops." That's democracy.

Valcartier2007:

I'm not even close to a soldier. (Far from it -- I'm a bespecled, skinny-yet-flabby student who lives vicariously through the army.ca forums when I'm insominatic and curious about the military.) But I think you're missing part of the reason people in the CF have reacted so strongly to your information campaign. I think it's a simple clash of values: Military discipline meets anarchist crap-stirring. Whether or not you're actually jeering individual soldiers during protests, to honourable soldiers, your letters are the next worst thing. They're an insulting implication that, given a page full of propaganda, a soldier could be convinced to disobey orders and desert his buddies. To people in the military, this isn't even up for debate. One of the highest virtues to a soldier is loyalty, and you're suggesting they abandon this virtue. It's their equivalent of being asked to cross a picket line and work as a scab -- it's a non-option. The decision to go to Afghanistan was made in the political sphere, and once that decision was made, CF members were obligated by their code -- both their formal legal code of discipline and their informal code of conduct -- to follow that order. By suggesting that they should abandon their core beliefs, you're suggesting they give up their identity.

I know suggesting that some values might be subordinate to free thinking is probably anathema to an anarchist, and I'd usually agree that freedom of conscience is nearly an absolute right. But the Canadian Forces is one of the very few spheres of Canadian society where this isn't the case. "That's democracy"? A military isn't a democracy. It is a hierarchy, and when the people up the hierarchy give an order, it isn't put to a vote. As citizens, CF members are free to write letters to the editor, protest government decisions in the street, and vote. But as soldiers, they must follow all lawful orders. If those orders send them to Afghanistan, so be it. If they were not willing to limit their freedom of conscience in such a way, presumably they wouldn't have joined the CF.

Naturally, there are limits to this logic. I hope that no Canadian soldier would participate in, say, ethnic cleansing, simply because it was a lawful order in some hypothetical bizzaro Canada. But to most members of the CF (and most Canadian citizens), the Afghanistan mission is so vastly removed from this scenario that desertion isn't even on the radar screen. This was a political decision that some may agree with, and others, such as yourself, may disagree with. But if we're going to have a Canadian military, we can't have a Canadian military that sees large numbers of members leave every time they don't support all aspects of a mission. And try as you might, I don't think your histrionics about evil empires cruelly imposing neocolonial systems on Afghans holds much water. While it is debatable whether the 2001 invasion has improved the conditions of the Afghan people, I don't think it debatable that NATO countries are operating with the long-term interests of the Afghans at heart. Yes, there are multiple reasons why the 1st world is in Afghanistan, some of which might not be so altruistic. But those reasons are still within the sphere of lawful orders that soldiers are obligated to accept.

Finally, I think you're being disingenuous when you suggest this is merely an attempt to enter into a dialogue with soldiers. I suspect that you're well aware that you're not going to convince a meaningful number of CF members to disobey orders and desert. I also suspect you're acquainted with the concept of "earned media," and know how to work the press. Congratulations -- it has worked. But as your 15 minutes comes to an end, I'd like you to admit two things: (1) That your primary goal was getting noticed by the media, *not* influencing the grass roots of the CF; and (2) You were motivated, at least in part, by an attempt to either become a legal test case yourself (by being prosecuted for incitement to mutiny) or by finding a CF martyr to be prosecuted in your place, with an eye at all times to maximizing your media exposure.

I'm not suggesting that this makes your message wrong or worthless. (Hey, you need some way to get your message out.) I just think, as I indicated, that it is disingenuous to come on army.ca and pretend this is a battle for the hearts and minds of rank-and-file CF members.

 

[RatCatcher]

Well said BJR, truly well said. I believe you may have taken words out many of our mouths. 

 

[Juvat]

Bravo!  Nicely said and well put together BJR.  So when are you joining?

 

[Long in the tooth]

BJR - a fine piece of writing.  Almost brought tears to my eyes!

 

[MarkOttawa]

More on the "dialogue":
http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/RTGAM.20070618.wdoos0618/BNStory/National/home

Anti-war protesters will confront Afghanistan-bound troops on Friday in Quebec City as a sign of the tension in Canada's most anti-war province.

Organizers of the protest plan a counter-march to oppose what is intended to be a high-profile send-off parade by the Royal 22nd Regiment at Canadian Forces Base Valcartier.

More than 2,000 uniformed soldiers of the Vandoos and other regiments are scheduled to take part in a support-the-troops parade as part of a public-relations offensive by the Armed Forces to try to win the hearts of Quebeckers, who consistently show the lowest level of support for the Afghan mission in Canada.

But not everyone has been persuaded. Last week, anti-war protesters sent 3,000 letters to Valcartier military families, urging soldiers to reject their deployment and resist becoming “cannon fodder” for the war. On Friday, the demonstrators will protest along a parallel route to the soldiers.

“We are not aiming for confrontation, but you can't predict what every individual will do [emphasis added],” said Mathilde Forest-Rivière, a spokeswoman for the War on War Coalition...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

An opinion from the Vancouver Sun that relates:

Unrestrained disrespect for troops, families
 
Amanda Baye
Special to the Sun


Tuesday, June 19, 2007


Upon hearing the news that the War on War Coalition sent out letters to military personnel for their forthcoming tour in Afghanistan, my heart sank.

I was stunned by the coalition's audacity and angered at its unrestrained disrespect for our troops and their families.

In February, my husband, a reservist based in Vancouver, was deployed for his first Afghanistan tour. The months leading up to his deployment were stressful and emotional. I was dealing with countless uncertainties.

I dreaded the worst-case scenarios, and feared for his safety. I could not imagine receiving a letter from the War on War Coalition stating that my husband was nothing more than "cannon fodder" during an already distressing time.

My husband's decision to go to Afghanistan was not based on a whim, nor made with ease; rather it was debated and carefully considered.

However, once he made his choice, he was firm. There was no way a tacky letter issued by "WOW" would have changed his mind. He considered this opportunity to serve his country alongside other resolute and devoted men and women an honour.

I may not believe in this war, but I believe in my husband and respect his decision. It is a shame that the War on War Coalition cannot do the same.

Amanda Baye lives in Vancouver.

 

[Trogdor]

It's up to every individual to decide for themselves what is worth fighting for and what isn't (or decide if fighting is ever justified). 

I've made my decision and those in the anti movement have made theirs.  Nuff said.

Civilian deaths in war are a horrible eventuality.  They are never justified in any sense, even if they are accidental.  However what those in the anti-war movement fail to realise is that by withdrawing our support for the Afghan government there will continue to be civilian deaths and most likely on a larger scale.  The Taliban killed innocents in the name of their Whabbi ideology before the invasion, they have continued to target them over the past 7 years and unless we defeat them they will go on killing civilians long after we leave. 

My single question to the perpetrators of this sad and pointless mailing is if you claim to "care" about the average Afghan then what alternative course of action do you offer to ending the Taliban's campaign of targetting civilians, keeping in mind that this has been going on for over a decade before NATO and US led forces arrived?  Would you just leave them to fend for themselves against the Taliban?

 

[Bzzliteyr]

Um...hello??  Hello?  Valcartier2007???  Bonjour??  YOO HOOooo.....

Guess they're gone.. oh well, it was fun while it lasted..

Oh, about 15 minutes.. go figure.. hehe

 

[RatCatcher]

I'm starting to look forward to friday! I hope to see these guys; maybe when they look into our eyes and see that their ideology, however misguided by the whole "wrongs" of the world, will not stop us from completing a mission that we beleive in. I truly believe that the people of Quebec will come out en masse to support us

 

[Greymatters]

BJR had a nice post there.  +1

The problem with V2007 and groups of their ilk is that they use faulty logic and construe opinion as fact.  Anyone can be convinced of the truth by a good argument if you:
a) use the truth
b) have verifiable facts
c) back up opinions with fact
d) dont delve into 'known truths' that are not accepted as 'known truths' by the rest of the world.
But they dont.  Before you know it, its suddenly all about the US-imperialist-total-globalization-big-brother-defence-industrialist plot and no longer about the original topic. 

That said I am particularily put out by these kinds of comments:  “We are not aiming for confrontation, but you can't predict what every individual will do [emphasis added],” said Mathilde Forest-Rivière, a spokeswoman for the War on War Coalition."  Thats prettyy much foreshadowing for a ****-disturber, and is merely said to deny any accountability or responsibility on their part.  Its the same tactics used by a lot of unions.

 

[Valcartier 2007]

Um...hello??   Hello?   Valcartier2007???   Bonjour??  YOO HOOooo.....

Guess they're gone.. oh well, it was fun while it lasted..

Oh, about 15 minutes.. go figure.. hehe

Nope, we're still here. And we will be vigilant about participating in the debate on this forum, don't worry about that. But, just because we're absent from the forum for a day, or two, doesn't mean we've gone away. As long as folks here are open to debate and discussion, so are we!

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059

 

[Valcartier 2007]

I cant believe Im actually checking to see if V2007 has written anything back...what is the world coming to...   

GreyMatter -- you're jonesing for a fix! Here's something to tide you over:


We address some of the so-called "argumentative errors" that GreyMatter has outlined below ...

“The corrupt and mafia government of Mr. Karzai…” statement – V2007 treats it as a fact.  It’s not a fact, it’s a statement made any another person, thus is no more valid than anyone else’s opinion.  How are they corrupt and a mafia, or at least any different from any other government?

Our quote is from RAWA (http://www.rawa.org), a feminist Afghan organization. The members of RAWA are truly courageous in their sustained opposition to fundamentalist forces in their country. They have been consistent in their opposition to all fundamentalist forces, and not hypocritically and self-servingly choosing certain warlords to be allies, and others to be enemies. We assert that their point of view is a valid one to share, and has a high degree of credibility. How is sharing this view of the Karzai government (widely acknowledged to include warlords) an “argumentative error”?

“Canada cannot separate itself from its US allies, the key foreign force in Afghanistan.”  statement.  Again, opinion. 
“Canada’s role is inseparable from the NATO role. NATO soldiers are killing Afghan civilians in increasing numbers.” Statement.  V2007 implies that NATO soldiers are killing Afghan citizens therefore Canada as part of NATO is killing Afghan citizens.  Political rhetoric, and false logic that falls under the category “if you pull off all four legs, the frog goes deaf” logic.

We've addressed both these interpretations (interpretations made from facts) in our previous posts, most recently here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579738.html#msg579738
Moreover, our original letter – yes, the letter that started this whole thread (http://www.valcartier2007.ca/openletter.htm) – clearly provided examples of civilians killed by Canadian soldiers. Those examples stand unrefuted on this forum (despite RecceProfessor's attempt).

“Actually, our Open Letter was based on the reverse assumption: it is because we believe that soldiers can be autonomous and free thinking (and we know soldiers who are free-thinking) that we’ve decided to try to dialogue directly with you.” statement.  A backhanded complement.  We ’can be’ free-thinking’, and they ‘know soldiers who are freethinking’…but the phrasing indicates we are not included in that group.

We appreciate the openness by many on this forum to engage our ideas and debate. Moreover, we were responding to the assertion by one person on this forum than somehow we stereotypically dismissed all soldiers as non-thinking robots. We don't believe that to be the case. The entire premise of our mailout to more than 2000 soldiers proves we don't think soldiers are monolithic in their thinking. Why assume the worst in our intentions?

“Gordon O'Connor is Canada's Donald Rumsfeld” statement.  A V2007 opinion, not a fact.

Yes, our opinion, based on how O'Connor bungled the prisoner torture scandal, and his links to companies and PR firms in the military-industrial complex. But how is this an “error”. You might disagree with our opinion, but where’s the “error”.

“In the same speech, he stated: ‘Every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you.’”   Statement.  V2007 makes a series of interpreted logic from a selected statement that is obviously not a fact, but may be the Generals personal opinion. 

We posted a reply about General Leslie's logic: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579737.html#msg579737

No one has responded to that yet.

Others have agreed with Leslie’s comments, as do we: when you kill fighters in an insurgency, you don’t necessarily eliminate the insurgency, but you create the basis for a sustained insurgency (or, as Leslie put it, ‘Every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you.’).

Again, where’s the “argumentative error”, aside from GreyMatter just saying so?

“Canada's role in Afghanistan sounds like a plan for disaster, mainly for the people of Afghanistan. No wonder that "reconstruction" and "development" are being used as cover for Canada's "killing"; and no wonder Canada's military is being used as cover for American-led imperialism in the Middle East” statement.   Imaginative use of the words ‘sounds like’ and ‘being used as a cover’.  These are not facts these are opinions. 

Under COIN doctrine (both US and the new Canadian COIN policy), reconstruction and development are necessary to fight insurgency; they're cover for the real point of COIN, which is killing insurgents. This is a pretty straightforward assertion. Read the COIN manuals; we have.

“Franciso Juarez is not our poster boy. We simply cite him as a clear example of someone who objected to Canada’s role in Afghanistan, and suffered the consequences.” statement.   Denial of alternate perceptions of the events involving Juarez is not logic, its bias. 

We've addressed this point at length in a previous post here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578958.html#msg578958

“Plus, let’s be practical here: ISAF is a smokescreen (kind of like the “coalition of the willing” in Iraq); you soldiers know just as well as us anti-war activists that the Afghan mission is led by the United States, thru NATO, with Canadian, British, German and other soldiers playing specific supporting roles. The US leads this thing via NATO.” Opinion.

Again, do folks seriously think the US is not the main force in deciding what happens in Afghanistan? And, GreyMatter, how is asserting this view (call it an opinion), an “argumentative error.”

“You ask for evidence for the Canadian military being used as a smokescreen for American-led imperialism in the Middle East. 2500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan, as part of the US “War on Terror,” gives credibility to that war. Do people seriously think otherwise?” statement.  Opinion again, despite implying they would give evidence.

“Evidence”. For the sake of argument, how about a counter-fact: 2500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan does NOT lend credibility to the US-led “War on Terror”. Not sure why we would have to prove on an army forum that the use of Canadian forces in a US-led conflict lends credibility in the eyes of international opinion, and not the opposite. But if you’re suggesting that Canada’s invovlement does not lend credibility, so be it. We disagree.

“Again, development and reconstruction are useful smokescreens. It’s what’s done under modern-day COIN doctrine.” statement.  Development and reconstruction projects are developed and run by foreign affairs departments and NGO’s, not the military. This is not just opinion and bias, its paranoia.   
Edit - This used to be a pretty solid rule up until last year.  The line is probably a lot murkier now.

Under COIN doctrine, development and reconstruction are part of a broader counter-insurgency strategy. You might disagree about the “smokescreen” remark, but where’s the paranoia? Again, read the COIN manuals.

“The Taliban is the "blowback" of those previous (US) policies.”    While many of the world’s errors could be attributed to the USA, it’s a pretty big reach here.  It’s the same as saying that the US was responsible for the fall of the USSR.  It ignores a million other factors that contributed to the situation.  More ‘deaf frog’ logic.

The US (and Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia) providing money and arms into Afghanistan in the 1980s directly contributed to the strength of fundamentalist militias and warlords. In some cases, the militias were created by those outside funders. That is an incontrovertible fact. Does anyone on this forum seriously want to take issue with the fact that the US crucially contributed to the creation of fundamentalist warlords and militias in the 1980s? And now, in the 2000s, you’re fighting the blowback of that policy (the Taliban) while allying with other fundamentalist warlords whose own atrocities you ignore.

“Here's how Block the Empire-Montreal is self-described: Block the Empire-Montreal is an anti-authoritarian, direct-action collective opposed to war and militarization, and their roots and manifestations: colonialism, imperialism and capitalism.” followed by “One war, for example, that many of us would support…” and even later admit that they are willing to be violent ("we are not all pacifists") and “willing to fight for what they believe in”.  Isn’t this counter to anarchist anti-war ideology?  Or is it a case of ‘the end justifies the means’?

Finally, an argumentative error ... but by GreyMatter. How does saying “we are not all pacifists” mean “we are willing to be violent”. About supporting or not supporting wars: we oppose all wars undertaken to further a capitalist, colonialist or imperialist agenda. Supporting the fight against fascism by Franco (or the fight against Nazi occupation by Jewish partisans, or the maquis against Vichy and the Nazis) does not make us violent.

Sidenote:  Army Vern notes that the V2007 crew are logging on as guest rather than by account.  It may be that they are at a workplace where the company has a policy against non-work-related Internet use… or they just thought they were being covert.

We already explained this elsewhere: it’s not about “company policy” or about “being covert”. And, from ArmyVern’s response to us, she was helpfully pointing out the advantages to being logged in more regularly, rather than reading as a guest. Not sure what GreyMatter is trying to imply about our motives here.

“We don’t presume to have a full understanding of any geopolitical situation (who can?), but don’t take us for naïve” statement.    Admitting you are ignorant of a full understanding doesnt mean your limited knowledge makes you right.  It means that you havent looked at both sides of a conflict and that you have only a half-full understanding of the situation.  Its not about being naive, its about not being informed.  (Especially when you blame Harper for our being in Afghanistan despite the fact that Chretien and the Liberals approved our intervention there.)

We also opposed the Chretien Liberals and their policy on Afghanistan, and we’re fully aware that there’s a continuity between the Liberals and Conservatives.

But again, where’s the “argumentative error” that GreyMatter said he would prove?

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059

 

[1feral1]

The letter tells soldiers that if they go to Afghanistan they will be complicit in war crimes and torture.

These people believe their cause is right and just, just like child molsters beleive what they do is NOT wrong.

As a democracy, we just have to respect their thoughts. I don't agree with their tactics, but as long as there is war, there will always be protesters. They come from all walks of life, just read below.

I knew a guy for 25 yrs, he went through Cadets, the Militia, on to the Regular Force Did CCUNCYP and UNPROFOR, was a rebel and a top bloke, a defender of the faith and keeper of the relm. Because of my time in Iraq he now refers to me as a war criminal and a murderer, and he is totally SERIOUS. he never wants to hear from me again, and says peace is the only way, and the US is evil, destroying everything it touches.

He emailed me when I was in theatre after I sent a group UNCLAS 'eSITREP'.

I don't know what twisted him up or who/she/what influenced him, but he was written off. It bugs me too, but life rolls on. There goes 25 yrs, pissed down the toilet.

Personally I now think he is a few tracer rds shy of a full belt, but I respect his opinion.

Regards,

Wes

 

[Valcartier 2007]

Quote from: milnewstbay on June 11, 2007, 12:30:44
The letter tells soldiers that if they go to Afghanistan they will be complicit in war crimes and torture.

What our letter (available at: http://www.valcartier2007.ca/openletter.htm) exactly says on this topic is:

"Your deployment in Afghanistan means complicity with the civilian deaths and other activities – like the transfer of prisoners to potential torture and death – that are tantamount to war crimes;"

We were quite deliberate in our wording: "tantamount to war crimes".

We do believe that if you hand over prisoners knowing they stand a strong likelihood of being tortured, killed and otherwise deprived of basic human dignity, then yes, that's tantamount to war crimes.

And, if you kill civilians, by putting into practice rules of engagement (whether the US ROE or Canadian ROE), that permits shooting at civilians -- or airstrikes that kill civilians -- that too could be construed as "tantamount to war crimes."

It's a question of taking responsibility: Don't blame us, or our letter, for reminding soldiers of the possibility of their complicity in war crimes, and for urging soldiers who don't want to be put into that position to refuse and resist.

 

[McG]

....  by putting into practice rules of engagement (whether the US ROE or Canadian ROE) ...

Do you understand that Canadian & US ROE are different (by virtue of having been written by different governments) and that Canadian soldiers do not operate under US ROE?  This is not a pick or choose situation and your implication that our soldiers are operating under another nations ROE is just plain wrong (as are any inferences & conclusions you draw from this).


... still waiting on answers to these questions too.
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579438.html#msg579438
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579717.html#msg579717

 

[Valcartier 2007]

Do you understand that Canadian & US ROE are different (by virtue of having been written by different governments) and that Canadian soldiers do not operate under US ROE?  This is not a pick or choose situation and your implication that our soldiers are operating under another nations ROE is just plain wrong (as are any inferences & conclusions you draw from this).


... still waiting on answers to those questions too.

Yes, fully aware of that. That's why we referred to "US ROE or Canadian ROE". That would imply two rules, no?

But, we pointed out that under Canadian ROE, Afghan prisoners have been handed over to forces that engage in torture, or worse. Canadian ROE has not prevented other prisoners from being handed over to US Forces (who operate the despicable Guantanamo system, as well as engaging in torture at Bagram). And, under Canadian ROE, Afghan civilians have been shot and killed.

 

[Valcartier 2007]

Going offline for the night. But, again, that doesn't mean we're not going to respond or participate in this debate. We'll be back soon.

Before going, wanted to draw your attention to an opinion piece in the Ottawa Citizen that makes some useful points, in our view, about the Afghan mission. It's titled "Afghan tragedy and farce" and it's linked at:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=cc309ac0-4571-40e9-9856-06da0089030b

Good night.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059