It’s often noted that each death of a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan erodes public support for the war. What is infrequently noted is the way, with each death, the Canadian media seems to ratchet up its support for the war.

On one level, the media’s approach seems understandable. Canadians are deeply moved by these deaths, and the media accurately records this grief.

But something else happens in the process. There’s an almost irresistible inclination to suggest that the death hasn’t been in vain.

Late last month, Canadian soldiers Mario Mercier and Christian Duchesne were killed in Afghanistan. Both men were fathers of three children, making their deaths particularly heartbreaking.

The only possible comfort is the notion the men died for a worthy cause. To suggest otherwise seems to dishonour them.

The agony of each death can only be tolerated if it’s deemed to be for a cause worthy enough to send more soldiers to their deaths.

The problem is that each killing then provides fresh momentum for continuing the war.

In order to honour the dead, the war is elevated to a noble cause; criticism of the war is discouraged.

This partly explains how the US stayed in Vietnam until some 57,000 American soldiers were killed.

A similar process is underway in Iraq.

One way to prevent this pro-war momentum from setting in here would be for us to demand that the casualties we inflict on Afghans also be treated with some attention and respect.

Instead, our government and media celebrate the number of “Taliban” we kill, without any understanding of who these individuals are and whether they are simply local villagers fighting — as Afghans have done throughout their history — to resist foreign armies. Whether we admit it or not, we are a part of a foreign army over there.

More surprising is the disrespectful way our government and media treat even Afghan civilian casualties.

There’s been minimal coverage here of the repeated pleas from Afghans — including President Hamid Karzai — for an end to the US and NATO bombings that have killed countless Afghan civilians. (And they are literally countless; we don’t bother counting them.)

As part of the NATO force over there, Canada is surely complicit in these war deaths.

Yet our media tend to make short shrift of them, even raising doubts about whether they really take place. Last week, the CBC reported that Afghan elders “alleged” that up to 18 civilians were killed by coalition troops in Helmand province.

The CBC quoted a NATO spokesperson who charged that the civilian casualties were being deliberately exaggerated by the Taliban for propaganda purposes.

But how do we know NATO isn’t playing down the casualties for propaganda purposes? How does NATO even know who’s being killed in its bombing raids?

Incidentally, that same day the New York Times reported that in a telephone interview, Afghan elder Hajji Agha Muhammad said the air strikes had killed 12 civilians, including six children ages 3 to 6 (and injured an additional 12).

Surely, this is not a story to be passed over quickly — as the CBC did — with a brisk denial from NATO. If true — and why should we assume that “Afghan elders” are lying? — it is a story of immense importance, and not only because it raises questions about the prospects of us ever winning popular support in Afghanistan.

More importantly, it raises questions about whether what we’re doing over there is really all that noble — or even justifiable.

Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and commentator. She is the author of All You Can Eat, It’s the Crude, Dude, and her latest book, Holding the Bully’s Coat: Canada and the US Empire. You can reach her at her eddress below.

lmcquaig@sympatico.ca
www.lindamcquaig.com

 


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.

Donate
Donate
Leave A Reply

Subscribe

All the latest from Z, directly to your inbox.

Institute for Social and Cultural Communications, Inc. is a 501(c)3 non-profit.

Our EIN# is #22-2959506. Your donation is tax-deductible to the extent allowable by law.

We do not accept funding from advertising or corporate sponsors.  We rely on donors like you to do our work.

ZNetwork: Left News, Analysis, Vision & Strategy

Subscribe

All the latest from Z, directly to your inbox.

This is your article this month.

We’re glad you keep coming back. If Z’s work has informed, challenged, or inspired you, that’s no accident: there are no paywalls, no ads, and no billionaire owners here, and there never will be. Independent media survives because readers choose to support it.

Billionaires fund their own media. We fund ours. Help us reach 1,000 sustaining donors:

Number of donors685
Our goal1,000

Sustainers at $9/month or more receive the digital Z Magazine.

Already a sustainer? Click here and we won’t ask again. Thank you!

Your reading count is stored only in your browser and is never sent to us.

Sound is muted by default.  Tap 🔊 for the full experience

CRITICAL ACTION

Critical Action is a longtime friend of Z and a music and storytelling project grounded in liberation, solidarity, and resistance to authoritarian power. Through music, narrative, and multimedia, the project engages the same political realities and movement traditions that guide and motivate Z’s work.

If this project resonates with you, you can learn more about it and find ways to support the work using the link below.

Independent media is not disappearing because the ideas are weak.

It is disappearing because platforms reward speed, outrage, and algorithmic visibility over thoughtful analysis.

More than 100,000 people read Z every month, free of paywalls, ads, and billionaire owners. It takes fewer than 1 in 100 of them to fund all of it: 1,000 donors who keep Z independent, for everyone, and build what comes next.

Number of donors685
Our goal1,000

Sustainers at $9/month or more receive the digital Z Magazine.

Subscribe

Join the Z Community – receive event invites, announcements, a Weekly Digest, and opportunities to engage.

Exit mobile version