Supporting The Troops ... Harper Style

Since Harper and his gang of thugs are so big on the "Support the Troops" meme, we should take a moment to consider the Harper government's lack of response when one of our soldiers died in Lebanon.

The report, released Jan. 31, blamed the Israeli Defence Forces for the incident, but also found the Israeli military refused to provide documents other than a summary of its own internal investigation, "which lacked sufficient detail to explore certain issues to their fullest extent." The report said the UN also refused to provide documents requested for the investigation.

Hmmm. I see. At the time, PM "Israel's response is Measured" Harper said this:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said shortly after the attack that he did not believe Israel deliberately targeted the UN post, but would ask Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert "for his full co-operation in getting to the bottom of this."

Clearly, Harper hasn't pushed all that hard. In fact, I'd wager that he's hoping that this issue will quietly go away. Of course, when the soldier in question was reporting some not so pleasant things about Israel's actions in Lebanon:

"Obviously they were unhappy with what they were observing. Maybe that post was in the way as well," she said. "I know my husband was reporting war crimes. And I guess they don't want to deal with that."

Uh huh.

Problems With Ribbon Campains

"Ribbon Campaigns" have become the required fashion symbol for a variety of causes.

While I generally respect, possibly even actively support, the original cause that these ribbons are designed for, they are also more than somewhat problematic.

There's two key problems with ribbon campaigns - commercialization and distortion.

As the CBC points out, you can't always know how much of that "ribboned purchase" actually goes to the charity involved. Even phrases like "100% of proceeds" are ambiguous because "proceeds" itself is not clear. Do they mean 100% of the purchase price? or perhaps the "profit"? (and just how is "profit" defined - what "costs" are being tacked onto the cost of purchasing the raw merchandise? Lists including staff, floorspace and coffee in the back room come to mind as ways that cynical accounting can whittle away at what most people would assume is "the donation" part of their purchase. ("Entertainment Coupon" books make me similarly uneasy for the same reasons)

Thanks, but in such a situation, I'll quietly just write the charity involved a cheque - it's easier, and at least I know how much went to the foundation in question. What they do with it is another issue - but at least _I_ know that the amount I intended actually arrived there.

The other kind of subversion that happens is when the campaign takes on a life and meaning of its own. This is what has happened with the now irritating "support the troops" campaign running around Canada. I've commented on the politics surrounding this campaign before, but I think it's important to recognize that there are those who choose to twist the meaning of those little yellow and black decals to their own ends.

Why does this happen? Because the decal itself is fundamentally devoid of any real meaning. What does the phrase "Support the Troops" mean? It doesn't mean anything in itself - consequently it takes on an arbitrary meaning. The notion of "supporting the troops" means different things to different people. In my opinion, "supporting the troops" means getting them out of involvement in an unnecessary and ethically dubious war in Afghanistan (until that happens, it also means that we do what we can to ensure they are equipped to defend themselves effectively while they are there, and have access to the psychiatric treatments that many will need after spending a few tours of duty in a war zone). For others, it means that we should endorse the mission they are on.

Similarly, other "ribbon campaigns" suffer from a degree of ambiguity - the pink ribbon breast cancer campaign is admirable in its own right, but ambiguous as well. Because the pink ribbon campaign has a discrete group behind it, the message is a little more consistent - and I think most people would love to see us be able to cure cancers. But the ribbon itself doesn't actually tell us what action we should take. Yes, the Breast Cancer foundation would like us to donate money, but really without a clear message behind it, that same pink ribbon could quickly turn into a dozen other meanings in popular culture - and some of them not very nice.

The "Support the Troops" meme (it's not a campaign per se - it's never really been in anybody's control) is all the more troubling for that very reason. There is no message to it - instead a few people have seized the notion for their own reasons - whether that is to make political points, or to make a few bucks selling paper graffiti for your car.

Although ribbons make a wonderful visual to build a campaign around (they are simple, easily identified, etc.), I think they have also run their course as an effective marketing tool. There's too many of them out there, and some of them are utterly arbitrary - devoid of meaning or coherence - diluting the significance of the real campaigns.

City Council and the "Yellow Ribbon" Campaigns

I've commented before on my objections to having City of Calgary vehicles festooned with "Support The Troops" decals.

I know that candidates like McIver are going to try and parlay this into something they can feed on for the coming civic elections, but that's another issue.

Today, The Globe and Mail commentary has it pretty much right:

But as he has identified, sporting the yellow ribbon is widely per-

ceived not just as an abstract form of well-wishing but as a highly charged political statement. That is not how it was originally intended, but in the United States, where it originated, it has since the Persian Gulf war of 1991 - and especially in the continuing war in Iraq - come to be seen as support for conflicts themselves. In this instance, to many Canadians that means a tacit endorsement of the decision to keep troops in Afghanistan.

Which is precisely my objection to splattering it all over city vehicles in the first place. As the Globe and Mail points out, civic governments have no say in the matter, and the image itself has been abused and misconstrued by those who would equate support for the troops with support for the mission they are carrying out.

Few and far between are the Canadians who don't support our troops, insofar as they wish them to return home safely. While roughly half the country opposes the mission in Afghanistan, only those on the furthest fringes fail to recognize the sacrifice our men and women make by serving there. And Mr. Bronconnier, who initiated a project to sell stickers to the public to raise funds for military families, can hardly be accused of indifference toward Canada's soldiers.

In short, there are those whose support for the troops does not extend to supporting the mission ... and thick-headed verbal bullies like Richard Evans keep claiming you must. (and he's of the "left wingers want to control your thinking crowd" ... oh the irony)

City Hall Gets This One Right

I'll be the first to admit that I haven't been impressed with Calgary's City Council these past few years. One local columnist has dubbed them "Silly Hall", and on the overall measure, I'd have to say he's right.

When Alderman Ric McIver put forward a motion to slap "support the troops" decals on city vehicles last week (and again this week!), a lot of people looked and wondered what the heck was going on. (Cynically, I think McIver was trying to make some cheezy political points for the coming fall election - and there's one Alderman that's worth replacing!)

Anyhow, it seems that the Office of the Aldermen must have been deluged with e-mails similar to what I sent my Alderman yesterday (and posted a slightly longer version on my blog.), as they collectively slapped McIver's plan into the Bow River.

For once, Bronconnier came up with the most constructive suggestion of the night:

But Mayor Dave Bronconnier said using the stickers would give little tangible support to troops overseas and the city should do something more rather than just a symbolic gesture.

"I don't think the best way to support troops is putting a decal on the back of a garbage truck," he said.

"I think that what we should do to support the troops, the men and women that are fighting for Canada, is to support their families, support the family resource centre."

Bronconnier said the donated stickers should be sold to the public at city facilities for $5 or $10 with the proceeds handed over to the Military Family Resource Centre.

Apparently, like most Bitter Reformer types, McIver didn't like being told "no" (amazing for a man who has been dubbed "Dr. No" by the rest of Council and the media):

While council unanimously backed the mayor's amendment, the debate became heated when a second attempt to use the decals on city vehicles was raised.

Council shot down the move 11-4, with some fearing it's not the city's role to become entangled with Canada's foreign policy by showing any public support.

So...someone proposes a compromise (and one that actually I don't mind at all), and McIver decides to push it further because it's not his grandiose idea of patriotism.

Whines McIver:

The decision left McIver displeased with the lack of resolve on the part of his colleagues.

"There was just four people courageous enough to put their names on city vehicles," he said.

"I would hope the citizens of Calgary engage the mayor and aldermen to be more courageous."

Argh! There are definitely times where I'd be oh-so-happy to slap McIver upside the head. As I pointed out, and obviously others did as well, the "Support the Troops" slogan has been abused by Canada's right wing to imply support for the mission in Afghanistan. Not everybody feels that they can morally (or ethically) make such a statement - and Calgary's city fleet is not a rolling billboard for McIver's personal politics.

As if to make my point that McIver is really grandstanding:

It remains unclear, McIver said, whether the donation, which had been intended only to be used on city vehicles, will still be available to be sold to raise the funds for military families.

Okay, so the supplier (no doubt one of Ric's good buddies through this bunch of "Chandler's Friends"), is willing to donate a bunch of material to a grandstanding effort, but when it is turned to real charity, not so much? Says a great deal, doesn't it.

Dear Alderman McIver:

No, slapping those obnoxious 'I support the troops' stickers all over city vehicles is NOT a good idea.

I don't know where you got that idea, but I'd suggest returning it to its owner and leaving it there.

Here's the problem I have with it. Fundamentally, it's a political statement. City vehicles have no business whatsoever bearing the latest in political slogans.

Stephen Harper and his band of ideologues have corrupted "supporting the troops" to mean "supporting occupation in Afghanistan". It's sort of like having a bumper sticker on there that reads "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?". Not all Calgarians agree with our current Federal government on the matter of Afghanistan, nor should they feel that they have to.

City of Calgary vehicles do not exist for you, or anyone else at City Hall to turn into rolling billboards for your latest in political campaign slogans. You might claim that those "support the troops" stickers are not political, but the reality is that Stephen Harper's own "talking-points only" approach to communication has made it a political statement.

Additionally, not only is it a political statement, the phrase itself is meaningless. How is slapping a cheezy little graphic on the back of a vehicle "supporting" the troops?

The issue is quite simple. All of Calgary taxpayers foot the bill here, regardless of our individual political stripe. What's next? I'm going to find myself denied service or sent to the back of the line at a city facility because I don't have the requisite "support the troops" sticker on my vehicle?

Even our lot of lunks in Ottawa are smart enough to leave political sloganeering off the official government vehicles.

Supporting The Troops

With the Van Doos heading over to Afghanistan, I think it's a good time to go after what has to have become "The Most Annoying Meme on the Planet"(™):

"Support The Troops"

Canada's Con$ have implied repeatedly that opposing PMSH's pseudo-Bushian desire to occupy a foreign country is "not supporting the troops".

Supporting the troops - to me - is about a lot of things. Respecting the fact that they do a job that for a variety of reasons I could not do; lobbying for them to have the tools to do their jobs properly; respecting and honoring the sacrifices that some make as a result of the orders they are carrying out.

However, supporting the troops does not have a blessed thing to do with whether I agree with the orders that they have been given by the politicians.

Therein lies the distinction. As the news has come trickling back from Afghanistan, it becomes increasingly clear that we are a long ways from any kind of reconstruction (at least meaningful). The word "peace" can only be applied on a day by day basis in a region where improvised bombs are commonplace, and as a steady stream of coffins shows, only in the most limited sense.

I have no problem with "peacemaking", as we had to do in Bosnia - this isn't peacemaking - this is providing a garrison force in a war zone. That force is not the "interceding" force, it is the target. Afghanistan is going to devolve into a civil war before it starts to achieve any kind of peace.

The real question we must ask ourselves as Canadians is whether or not our troops are in fact engaged in the kind of mission that we think is achievable? If you frame it as "peacemaking" and "rebuilding", that's one thing, when the reality is that we are the primary target as the foreign occupiers (as is seemingly the case in Afghanistan), that's perhaps something that should give pause for thought.