It's hard to follow her reasoning. Early on she tells us war is part of human nature, apparently because she read some bunker graffiti somewhere Afghanistan.
My appendix was a vestigial bit and it nearly did me in a couple of years ago. Nuclear weapons might well do us all. . The difference is that the construction of my appendix is encoded in my DNA; the creation of nuclear weapons, and all wars and weapons before and since the first proto-human raised a club to smash another, are not. The latter is a choice. Those who believe otherwise tend to be the ones who start wars.“War is in your blood. It’s who you are . . . God is never going to make that go away."...War is part of the human condition, a vestigial tic. It will never be erased from our DNA, despite conflict resolution classes for school yard squabbles and UN mediation diplomacy for combatant states. As long as there’s a bully with an army or an oppressed constituency yearning for freedom, kinetic confrontation is inevitable.
The rest of the op-ed involves an incoherent and sneering dismissal of any of the anti-war or more humanitarian sentiments of this country in relation to Afghanistan. You can read on the link because I won't have that much drivel polluting my post. Near the end though, she engages in a such a contortion of moral reflection that I really do believe she wrote this with her head actually jammed in her colon.
Disaster is still as likely as success in Kandahar, even in the narrowed area of operations, Panjwaii, where Canadians have effectively focused their counter-insurgency efforts since 2009. This last Roto conducted 3,000 patrols, 130 operations, 900 shuras, found 300 weapon caches and 250 IEDs.DiManno breathlessly declares the war questionable and mismanaged but also tell us this isn't really important. What is of such esteem according to her, is that all that our apparently "honourable" past of international peacekeeping was too metro for
Americans have now swarmed into that terrain, assuming responsibility for all of Kandahar province. But it’s alarming to hear Gen. David Petraeus, as he takes leave of the Afghanistan overall command, talk about a shift eastward in the coming months, from Taliban strongholds in the south to the lawless border where insurgents have close ties to Al Qaeda and other militant organizations, in what is an undeclared but intensifying war with Pakistan.
Some have snidely opined that Canada has tried to put a veneer of victory on its operations in Kandahar, just as the Americans are now doing to justify Obama’s drawdown of troops. Yet it’s even more mendacious to proclaim a veneer of defeat.
Further, the equation is not only what did Canada do for Afghanistan but what did Afghanistan do for Canada?
Off the top it laid to rest, forever, the dewy-eyed concept of peacekeeping. A blue beret military had its place, an honourable one, in history. But that era has passed, unlikely ever to return.
From the ashes of tacit demobilization, a robust Canadian Forces arose, Phoenix-like — a military fit to stand on guard for righteous wars in distant lands.
Something that was lost has been found.
They are soldiers.
I'll tell you what's soft, Ms. DiManno. Soft is a country with a soil untouched by war for 65 years. Soft is a country suffering little hardship yet increasing its material wealth to a point unseen in history. Soft-headed is a country that feels it must send its youth to distant lands to kill and be killed so newspaper columnists and rightwing partisans who've grown-up in such a lucky place can find meaning in their flaccid little lives of Don Cherry and beer.
If this is what passes for comment on the draw down of Canadian combat units in Afghanistan from the national press, then participation in that war has made us ugly and wretched.