Socialism, Jack Layton, and Left-Wing Defeatists

Perhaps the heat and boredom the Canadian summer has finally fried the few remaining brain cells in the head of reputed NDP Leader Jack Layton's head. How else can he (or any other alleged homosapien) explain his comment that he wants to see the upcomoing five byeelections in Canada as a 'referendum' on our continuing military presence in Afghanistan ("Layton wants byelections to focus on Afghan mission" - Calgary Herald July 4 2007).

In case Mr Layton has forgotten, the reason why Canada got invovled in that part of the world is because of the the events of 9/11. This is not Iraq, nor is it "George W. Bush's War," it's Canada's contribution to the NATO Alliance's decision, for the first time in its history, to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which states: "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

Hence the decision to put Canadian soldiers into combat was a result of a NATO decision to, effectively, declare war on Taliban-ruled Afghanistan and the Al Qaeda terrorist network that vile regime was sheltering. This made complete sense because the terrorist attacks represented not just a tragic losss of life in North America alone, but because the perpetrators of those attacks are still at large and continue to pose a threat to all allied democratic states.

Like Germany's attack on Poland in 1939, which sparked World War II, 9/11 represented more than just hatred from one group of fanatics against the greatest military power on earth. It actually represented the start of a world war against all that we value and cherish; freedom, peace, and respect for different values and beliefs.

To my knowledge, this war has not been won yet; both the Taliban and Osama bin Laden are still active in that poor and tragic country. Until they are crushed, until the freedom and stability of the Afghan people are fully secured, ours won't be either.

That, unfortunately, may take years and cost the lives of both our soldiers and many civilians as well. I guess, though, that that's why they call it a "war"and not a garden party, something Mr. Layton just might have missed. It's tragic and it's unfortunte, but so was WWII and every war before or since. Yet Canadians fought in those conflicts and, though we paid a great price, we also secured both our liberty and the liberty of generatoins then yet unborn; including mine and Jack Laytons' also.

For him to now even suggest that we turn out backs on our allies and the poor unfortunate people of Afghanistan, just because he fears 'an escalating war' (or, more accurately, because he just doesn't like President Bush) won't bring us peace or liberty. It will only prolong the suffering of the Afghan people, and encourage our enemies even more. It will also represent a betrayal of all the good that Canada stands for.

I pray, then, that those people voting in these upcomming byelections will see through the latest batch of Left-wing hogwash being spewed out by Layton and elect those people who support not 'war' per se but understand the reason we are fighting it in the first place. I hate war too and grieve over the loss of life, both Canadians, Afghans and allies. But I grieve even more that people like Jack Layton have learned nothing from the events of 1939.

Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses