Knock the war, but support the troops

A September 4, 2007 Letter to the Editor in The Hamilton Spectator (Ontario, Canada), was so ill considered and disingenuous, that I felt the strong need to attempt to remove the cancers from it. Unfortunately, after having done so, there was nothing good or healthy that could be salvaged from it. No loss, to be sure.

The entire letter ran as follows:

Hey, that's no way to say goodbye (Sep 4, 2007): I was distressed to learn our government has chosen to name a portion of Highway 401 the "Highway of Heroes."

Dictionaries point to both the mythological and mundane definitions of the word. Heroes are both characters of legendary or mythical stature as well as "illustrious warriors" of everyday life. The problem is that Canada's national identity and common life is rooted in neither the myth nor practice of war. The last true "illustrious warriors" this country produced were the citizen soldiers of the Second World War, men and women who made enormous sacrifices to protect the world from oppression in what has since been called the last truly just war.

The conflict in Afghanistan is the creation of a political agenda not of Canada's making. Even though it is sanctioned by the United Nations, it is nevertheless clear that we are involved more as a means of protecting our economic relationship with the United States than protecting the world from oppression. As heinous as the Taliban were, they were principally a threat to their own people and were meant to have been dealt with locally.

Scholars have pointed recently to the frightening dimensions of militarization that have overtaken so many aspects of America's political and social identity and life. America has a truly professional military, a corps of people who have freely chosen to enlist themselves on behalf of their nation's political agenda. Let us make no mistake, in the modern world soldiering is a profession, and even if those who enlist are not paid
handsomely, they are nevertheless paid to further that agenda. One can only assume that they truly believe in it.

Canada's military is professional as well. If men and women enlist and put their lives at risk for what they believe in, that is their choice. However, their choice would not be my choice, and their sacrifices do not make them illustrious nor does it make them heroes in my eyes.

Therefore, the naming of even a portion of a major highway in such an eponymous manner disturbs me in as much as it points to Canada's own willingness to embrace the military myth.

First, the letter-writer proves to be quite selective in his use of the dictionary definition of ‘hero’. Yes, "[H]eroes are both characters of legendary or mythical stature as well as ‘illustrious warriors’ of everyday life." However, along with this pair of definitions, Merriam Webster’s also defines ‘hero’ as "one that shows great courage" and "an object of extreme admiration and devotion." (It appears that the letter-writer used Webster’s for his definition.)

Second, he states that "Canada’s national identity and common life is rooted in neither the myth nor practice of war." Has he never heard of the battle at Vimy Ridge, which countless academics have cited as the event which put Canada on the map? What of our reputation as peacekeeper, which is done not by peacekeepers, per se, but by heavily trained, armed fighting men and women? And why do we wear poppies on our lapels each November if what he says is true? Even if we accept what he says as fact, can it not, then, be argued that it’s all the better to name the section of the 401 "Highway of Heroes"? After all, if we rarely take part in war, should we not take special measures to recognize those Canadians who die in one when we do?

Third, he states that "The conflict in Afghanistan is the creation of a political agenda not of Canada’s making. Even though it is sanctioned by the United Nations, it is nevertheless clear that we are involved more as a means of protecting our economic relationship with the United States than protecting the world from oppression." He is correct. The conflict in Afghanistan is the creation of a political agenda not of Canada’s making; it was of al Qaeda and the Taliban’s making (and not of the United States’, if that’s what he is implying).

Next, it is somewhat irrelevant that the action has been sanctioned by the UN. Though this is helpful to Canada, we have chosen to take part in the action in Afghanistan because the coordinated attack of September 11, 2001 triggered Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty which states that ''an armed attack against one or more of them [members] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all." Canada takes great pride in the role it has played in the world’s key multilateral organizations, with NATO being one of them. Further, if we are in Afghanistan to protect our economic relationship with the U.S. why, then, did Canada not contribute at least something – even just token - to the war in Iraq?

Finally, the letter-writer states: "America has a truly professional military, a corps of people who have freely chosen to enlist themselves on behalf of their nation's political agenda. Let us make no mistake, in the modern world soldiering is a profession, and even if those who enlist are not paid handsomely, they are nevertheless paid to further that agenda. One can only assume that they truly believe in it. Canada's military is professional as well. If men and women enlist and put their lives at risk for what they believe in, that is their choice. However, their choice would not be my choice, and their sacrifices do not make them illustrious nor does it make them heroes in my eyes."

It is doubtful that individuals join a nation’s armed forces with the express understanding that they are doing so to further their country’s political agenda. People join because the lifestyle appeals to them, because they don’t wish to sit behind a computer the rest of their working lives, because they wish to see the world, because they wish to help people, because they have few options due to poverty and lack of education etc. What’s more, several pieces of research (including my own) indicate that soldiers fight, not for God and country and not even for a given cause. They fight for those to the left and the right of them; they fight for their comrades. If the writer is implying that soldiers join the armed forces merely to become an implementer of governmental policy, that they know what they are getting themselves into and, thus, are not heroes; he is way off the mark. Could his viewpoint not be carried over to, say, policing and firefighting? Aren’t members of those professions paid professionals who make a choice to go into those lines of work? Can we not say that because of this, they are not illustrious or heroes?

For all his disingenuous and flawed thinking, the writer could just as much have argued that the relevant portion of highway 401 should not be named for a kind of sandwich.