Bring Back The Military Draft

A Commentary by Doug Draper

“Canada In Iraq For Long Term, Minister Says,” reads a headline at the top of the front page of the Friday, March 6, 2015 edition of Canada’s national newspaper, The Globe And Mail.

The minister referred to in the headline is Rob Nicholson, the federal Conservative MP for the Niagara Falls, Ontario riding, who has held a number of key cabinet positions for the Stephen Harper government including Justice Minister, Defense Minister and now Minister of Foreign Affairs.

One might very well ask, and some already have, what there is in Nicholson’s resume that has qualified him to serve as head of defense and foreign affairs in Canada when so many of his counterparts who have held those positions in the U.S. have had real experience serving in the military and in some academic or on-the-ground, overseas capacity in foreign affairs. But that’s another whole commentary

For now, let’s get back to the apparent willingness of Harper, Nicholson and company to prolong Canada’s military involvement in war zones in Iraq. 

“Our mandate is until April 7,” Nicholson was quoted saying in the body of that March 6^th Globe story in a passing nod to the date Harper told Canadians last year that we’d join a U.S.-led bombing campaign to “degrade” ISIS forces that have spread like a cancer in that region of the world. “But we’ve indicated that Canada is not a country that stands on the sidelines and we’re looking at ways that we have contributed and what is available for the future,” he continued while wandering, knowingly or not, into what sounds to a number of his government’s critics like “mission creep” territory.

Sgt. Andrew Dorion, the first Canadian soldier to die in the Iraq war zone, and probably not the last.

“As I say,” Nicholson blah-blahed on, almost certainly from the routine talking points, fed to him and other intellectually challenged member of cabinet like Pablum from the prime minister’s office, “I indicated that we’re in this for the longer term t make sure that we do what we can to help.”

Help what?” someone might well ask, not that Nicholson, being the dutiful water boy he has always been for Harper, he would dare ask himself. Let’s remember that this is a Niagara politician who may have been in the best position to prevent the closing down of Canada’s Consulate office in Buffalo, New York, right on the doorsteps of one of Canada’s most important gateways to the U.S. economy, but was quoted in the mainstream media going along with it, like the cowardly lion he is. 

Now here he is again, doing the Dick Cheney, pumped up testosterone, tough guy thing going back to his days as Harper’s justice minister when he whole-heartedly supported throwing more criminals (just so long as they weren’t white collar criminals working on and around Bay Street or the Alberta tar sands) in jail and throwing away the key.

The first thought that came to mind for me is; ‘Wow, this must be like heaven for Harper and company. They were chomping at the bit, while in opposition more than a decade ago, to see Canada join the U.S. Bush/Cheney ‘coalition of the willing’ invading Iraq at that time. Now they finally have their chancThen a few days after Nicholson’s Rambo-like ramblings quoted in The Globe, we learn of the first death of a Canadian soldier – one Sgt. Andrew Doiron from Moncton, New Brunswick – in the Iraq campaign from what has reportedly been called “friendly fire.” 

What a sick term “friendly fire” is. I put it right up there with verbal constructs like “enhanced interrogation techniques” (code for torture) that are designed to make we, in the masses, not have to deal with reality while we are wandering through the shopping malls like zombies.

But let’s get out of the shopping mall and try to face some reality for a moment or two. 

When a government makes a decision to place members of a country’s military forces in a war zone or in harm’s way, chances are some of them are going to be killed. All of the b.s. in the mainstream media since St. Doiron’s death, that Canadians who supported the government’s decision to play a military role in Iraq may now rethink it, is hard to take.

For God’s Sake, more Canadian soldiers were killed every month in the First and Second World Wars than have been killed in any war since, so let’s not see those of us who support Harper’s military escapades get wimpy now.

What should be of more concern is the extent to which those who support Harper, Nicholson and company in their war ventures respond; ‘Wow somebody died?

Of course someone died and there will be more. If you send young people serving in our military forces into a tinder box in the Middle East, what can you expect? And for Canada’s opposition NDP leader Tom Mulcair to politicize the first death of one of our soldiers by saying, and I paraphrase; ‘I thought we sent our troops to function as trainers and advisors, not to fight on the front line.’ 

Well thanks for the b.s. from you too Mr. Mulcair. Don’t, all of a sudden, get so much of your shit in a knot over the fact that Canada finally has a soldier killed over there.

You knew it was going to happen or you never would have questioned participating in this mission in the first place. Anyone who has ever served in combat over there, from accounts any one of us can read, if we care too, has said there is no less chance of getting blown away serving in a so-called second or third line when you are – after all – stationed in a bloody combat zone which, in the case of Iraq and neighbouring Syria, constitutes the entire country.

So let’s not pretend that all of those in Canada, of voting age with anyone in our families of military age, do not have a responsibility here.

If a majority of we Canadians, as many public opinion polls suggest, approve of the Harper government’s engagement in the so-called war against terror or ISIS, or whatever outgrowths from that there may be, then get some skin in the game.

Never mind expecting a small minority of Canadians who volunteer to serve in our armed forces, out of patriotism and also out of a some hope that training they receive in the military might translate into a decent job in civilian life. Then these dedicated young people return home to high jobless rates and veteran services that have been slashed over and over again by the Harper government.

I wonder how many Canadians would be so quick to support the military escapades of Harper and company if the same government that sends our young people in uniform to war-torn regions of the world had the guts to bring back the draft or what was often called conscription during the First and Second World War days? 

It is one thing to say; ‘Yes, let’s do with war against terrorism,’ when only about one percent of Canadians and their families see a loved one sent to a battle zone. It may be quite another if all Canadians, from coast to coast, faced the prospect of opening their mail box to a draft notice, ordering their son or daughter, or grandchildren or other significant others in their family, to report to boot camp. 

And never mind ay of the questionable exemptions or deferments that came in to play during those bloody wars of the last century that, in far too many cases, worked to keep bullets and bombs out of reach for children of the rich and privileged.

This time have a draft that affects everyone. 

I am willing to bet that if a military draft was brought in, that far more Canadians would think two or three times before our government made a decision to involve our young people in uniform in places where there are fire fights. I’ll bet many more Canadians might also care more about how well veterans of military campaigns are treated when they return home. 

Why do we have no one in federal office with the courage to say; ‘Let’s ensure everyone shares in service and sacrifice during war times. Bring back the draft!’

(Niagara At Large invites you to join in the conversation by sharing your views on the content of this post below. For reasons of transparency and promoting civil dialogue, NAL only posts comments from individuals who share their first and last name with their views.)