We Will Remember Them

Just what do we remember on Remembrance Day? Certainly, we recall that at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918, the armistice was reached to end The Great War, as World War One was known. All wars did not end with that consuming conflict, as had been hoped, and successive generations have stood against tyranny to preserve our freedom. In the words of British Major John Etty-Leal, “For your tomorrow, we gave our today.”

But what, exactly, comes to mind with almost a century of war and peace gone by?

Author and veteran George Orwell averred, “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” That is true, so far as it goes, but many of those whom we honour on November 11 are neither rough nor men, and they stand guard for the best interests of their fellow human beings, regardless of faction. Western militaries in modern times are an amalgam of destructive power, engineering genius and humanitarian outreach unmatched in history.

Whether they carry a gun, or a tool kit, or a doctor’s bag, these are real people in unreal situations. And, in today’s all-volunteer force, they are there by choice.

Ray Wiss, a Canadian Forces doctor and author of A Line in the Sand about his tours in Afghanistan, says that it is not enough to “support our troops” in the parlance of some who are unsure about the cause. Go further, he instructs, and, “Support our mission.”

If you differ from the surrounding politics – for which civilians, not our military, are responsible – pick some portion of their mission you can support, and do so with strength and pride. Perhaps it is allowing girls to go to school, or protecting them from rape and mutilation. Maybe it is bringing medical care and supplies to people who have known only brutality and hardship. Or perhaps it is just the telling humanity of our military doctors that wounded enemies are given the same treatment as our own injured troops.

The Great Lexicographer, Samuel Johnson, opined, “Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier.” This bespeaks the monumental courage of those who face and return fire, but also the spirit of sacrifice evinced by those who sign up to serve. Most of us lack one or both of these towering qualities.

In honouring that spirit of sacrifice, we remember above all those who did not return, who died far from home in defense of the best things we know. As has been understood since the dawn of our culture, “Greater love hath no man than this – that he lay down his life for his friends.”

Although they answered a higher calling, these were people just as we are. Canadian Army surgeon and In Flanders Fields poet John McCrae captured this commonality by reminding us, “Short days ago we lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, loved, and were loved.”

And so, on November 11, consider that each name on a wall is a life that was lived. With a thankful heart for those who serve, and a thoughtful prayer for those who are lost, we heed the declaration of Laurence Binyon’s immortal verses: “We will remember them.”

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Remember the Morning

Nine years ago today, our world changed. On the morning of September 11, 2001, four hijacked airliners crashed into targets in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, killing 3,000 innocent people. The reasons and consequences would emerge in the weeks that followed – indeed, they are still unfolding in theatres of war around the world – but on that fateful day, the most we knew was that tragedy had struck and life would never be the same.

Everyone has images they recall of 9/11. Perhaps it is the planes hitting the World Trade Center, or flames rising from the Pentagon, or people clinging to the glass outside smoldering skyscrapers, or leaping to their deaths hand in hand.

For me, the image that keeps returning is a man in a dark suit, maybe 100 floors up, hanging from the outside of one of the World Trade towers. He has what appears to be an umbrella, which he hooks to the frame of a shattered window as he tries to swing from a burning office to the floor below. It is a pitiful scene – a desperate man with inadequate tools, unprepared for his final moments. He loses his grip and departs this life.

I wonder, as he fell, did he curse, or pray? Did he think of his children, if he had any? We can never know.

1,616 death certificates were issued without a body at the World Trade Center site. Of the approximately 20,000 body parts collected there, among the most affecting was a man’s large fist, clenched around a tiny hand.

Today, and in years to come, how will we mark this date? Will we don black arm bands and read the names of the dead? Will we observe moments of silence and prayer? Perhaps, and rightly so.

Some will want to discuss political, cultural, and historical matters of varied importance – foreign wars, recrimination for past acts, and so on – but today is about those who died on September 11, 2001. In what way should we honour them?

Maybe we should remember how survivors and citizens behaved on 9/11, in contrast to the manner in which the innocent were taken from us.

The victims of 9/11 were not killed by accident. They were murdered. And everyone who died that day was the most important person in the world to someone.

How can we contemplate and counter so great an evil, that would bring such death and pain to so many people?

As then-New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani observed at the time, “We have met the worst of humanity with the best of humanity.” That is the strongest legacy of this tragic date.

Examples of 9/11 heroism abound, from firefighters and police who ran into burning buildings, even as others were running out, to the passengers of United Flight 93, who crashed their hijacked plane into a field in Pennsylvania, rather than let it strike some target or civilian-populated area in Washington, DC.

As for humanity, there are countless instances, large and small, of people reaching out to one another – from strangers offering their homes to stranded travelers, to those who ensured their co-workers were safe before evacuating, to people watching the news and simply appreciating their loved ones a little more.

A banner on one of the myriad 9/11 remembrance websites shows an image of the September sky, emblazoned with the words, “Remember the morning.” To be sure, this is a call to remember each precious life lost. But it also reminds us of the things people did and felt as the tragedy unfolded.

The nobility of the human spirit rose above the rubble, even before the sun had set that day. 9/11 will always be with us, and to honour the dead, we embrace courage and compassion. Most of all, we hold fast to hope. Even in our darkest moments, when we stare deep into the face of fear and recognize the smirk of evil, we can know that there is still good in the world. For that, we may be thankful, and remember the morning.



theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

What Does Victory Look Like?

Sixty-five years ago today, World War II officially came to an end. On September 2, 1945, Japanese Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu boarded the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay and signed the Instrument of Surrender in front of American General Douglas MacArthur.

It was a formal and solemn ceremony, coming weeks after atomic bombs had been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, concluding six years of warfare, with some 70 nations fighting on three continents.

Today, we find ourselves in another global conflict, and it is broadly understood that there will be no such official declaration if and when we win.

Who would sign the surrender, and where? Would Osama bin Laden apply his imprimatur to some document at Ground Zero, perhaps in the Great Hall of Faisal Abdul Rauf’s planned “community center”?

In 1945, Japan’s leaders, like countless signatories to surrenders of centuries past, were agreeing on behalf of an entire population that hostilities would cease. In today’s war, where terrorist cells attack civilian and military targets all over the world, no leader is empowered to make that peace, even if he cared to.

Without a surrender, how will we know when we have won? Victory will take years, if we can manage it, but what will it look like and how do we achieve it?

Military might alone cannot win this war. And so, the adage goes, we will conquer by the strength of our ideas. Swell – but what’s that mean?

Often, the delineation of “our ideas” takes one of two forms. First, there are people like me, banging on about “freedom,” whatever that might be. Or, we are told, standing up for “our ideas” means making some absurd concession to antagonistic forces, in hopes our good intentions and intellectual bio-diversity will green the souls and stay the hands of our enemies (Mayor Bloomberg, call your office).

Political correctness is no match for radical Islam. The latter has shown its commitment, time and again in locations around the world, to winning this conflict. The former, meanwhile, is a tiresome modern reflex, whereby poseurs take a quick assessment of common sense, then put all their energy behind the contrary view. This tic can manifest itself in straightforward fashion – as in, when people aver it is offensive to erect a nativity display at Christmastime – or abstractly – such as, you demonstrate how a cut in capital gains tax rates spurs the economy, then someone calls you a racist.

In either case, this is no way to win a war.

That brings us back to freedom. But the question remains: Just what would the victory of “freedom” mean to us? Would we breathe a little easier? Would the Kabuki dance of airport security be curtailed? Most important, would the brave members of our armed forces be spared from injury and death on foreign soil?

Intelligent and experienced people have struggled to define victory in Iraq, where the US combat mission has just ended, and Afghanistan, where human rights abuses abound and military casualties continue – to say nothing of the almost-nuclear, terror-sponsoring Iran. What does “freedom” look like for Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians, and others?

There will be no top-hats and ceremonies when this war ends. And so I put the question to you, gentle readers – what does victory in the war on terror look like?

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Hearts and Minds

A young couple died a cruel death last week. According to BBC News: “A man and a woman who allegedly had an adulterous affair have been stoned and killed in the northern Afghan province of Kunduz.”

The pair, both in their 20’s, were hauled into a crowded marketplace and murdered. The woman, named Sadiqa, was brought out first. Taliban thugs threw rocks at her for half an hour, at which time the man, named Qayum, was pulled into the bazaar to suffer the same fate.

Apparently, the couple had run away together. Sadiqa had been betrothed to someone else, while Qayum was already married. This dreadful story conjures a number of thoughts.

First, there is the sheer horror of the scene. Consider, if you can, what it would be like for you and the person you love most to be in such a circumstance. Your own torturous death is compounded by the inability to protect someone you adore.

Next, there is the frequency with which Taliban forces are inflicting brutality in areas of Afghanistan that fall under their control. I wrote recently of Aisha, an 18-year-old girl whose nose and ears were cut off on the order of Taliban authorities for the crime of running away from her husband. There are reports that the Taliban flogged and killed a pregnant widow in the western province of Badghis this month.

In early August, ten medical aid workers were lined up and shot, one at a time, by Taliban terrorists in the northern province of Badakhshan. The chief crime for which these noble souls were tried and executed on the spot was, “preaching Christianity.”

Writer P.J. O’Rourke, having just returned from Afghanistan, quotes a female MP who says Taliban forces make a simple demand of villagers they subjugate: “Son or money.”

The reaction of Afghanistan’s government to the stoning deaths of Sadiqa and Qayum is disconcerting. Waheed Omar, a spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai, is quoted as saying, "Even in Islam this [stoning] has to be done through proper judicial systems.”

While Omar suggests the government would condemn the incident, his comments imply that their chief objection would be that the Taliban did not complete Form Z-914B Rock-Hurling Requisition in triplicate before proceeding.

This raises the much larger concern of the Karzai government in general. Western forces are forever picking the wrong allies in regions they don’t understand, then clinging to them like grim death.

Finally, one wonders about the 150 or so people in that marketplace who watched as Sadiqa and Qayum were slowly killed. Those are 150 of the “hearts and minds” we hear so much about. Reports are that the Taliban did the actual stoning (they finished Qayum off with bullets), while villagers were made to observe and contemplate the fate of those who behave in “un-Islamic” ways.

Those villagers have seen the face of evil. And as human beings, they must want something better for themselves and their families. One has to think that in this battle for hearts and minds, forces of freedom and dignity can outdo the stone-throwers, nose-cutters and son-snatchers.

For the sake of those people – and for Sadiqa and Qayum and for every person in Afghanistan who does not share our good fortune – let us show them a better way.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Ashtiani Has Confessed

Sakineh Ashtiani has confessed. Ashtiani is the Iranian woman who was sentenced to death by stoning for the crime of “adultery,” and whose cause was championed by people around the globe. Owing to public outcry, Iran’s mullahs, in their mercy, commuted her sentence to death by hanging. But this week, Ashtiani appeared on Iranian television, where she confessed to various charges, including being an accessory to the murder of her husband.

Ashtiani’s lawyer advises that she was tortured for two days before she appeared on television. This is not the first time Iranian authorities have broadcast a forced confession from someone they seek to condemn. And using history as a guide, fears are mounting that Ashtiani’s execution – by whatever method – could come at any time.

The mullahs’ move, it seems, is to paint Ashtiani as a murderer – indeed, it was an investigation of her husband’s death that started Ashtiani’s ordeal back in 2006 – and execute her, just as other countries, including the United States, do to killers in their midst. The absurdity of the regime’s ploy is twofold – first, that they would attempt it; second, that they would expect anyone to believe it.

Originally cleared of involvement in her husband’s death, that investigation uncovered Ashtiani’s apparent “adultery,” for which she received 99 lashes in front of her teenage son. A re-opening of the murder case led religious authorities to determine that penalty had been insufficient, and they decreed she should be stoned to death.

Now, exposed as the fanatical monsters they are, Iran’s leaders want to tack the murder charge back on, and do away with this inconvenient person. This cannot be allowed to happen.

Even Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva – a sometime ally of Iran and no snuggly-bear on human rights – has offered to give Ashtiani asylum in his country. Iran has declined. To sweeten the deal, I’ll even take her place. No doubt, Ashtiani is a far finer person than I am, and I have shattered any number of God’s laws in my time. Come and get me, mullahs, and I will confess to any crime you care to name – adultery, regicide, coveting my neighbour’s ass – if you’ll let Ashtiani go free.

But this isn’t about crime, or even a country. It is a perverse prescription for the entire planet. In the words of the founder of Iran’s Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini: "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

Given their druthers, Iran’s rulers would murder Ashtiani, and me, and you who are reading along, in order to realize their vision. This poor woman is one of countless thousands caught up in a twisted experiment.

It bears mentioning that the Iranian people, 60 percent of whom are under age 30, are not on board with this madness. During and after their stolen elections of last year, the citizens of Iran did what they could to bring about change. It is to the shame of free nations that we did not do more to help them.

But here, in the person of Sakineh Ashtiani, we have another chance. Let us keep her hope alive.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Democrats Dread November

WASHINGTON, DC – Democrats are already nervous about November’s congressional elections. The bad news for them – and good news for America – is that their defeat may be even worse than they think.

In 1994, Democrats knew the midterm elections would be tough. First-year President Bill Clinton had reversed course from campaign promises and announced the largest middle-class tax hike in American history. He took on, and booted, divisive issues like gays in the military, and tasked his wife with constructing a schmozzle of a health-care package.

Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich’s Republicans offered the country a concise alternative in their ten-point “Contract with America.”

The result, when voters went to the polls that November, was more dramatic than people expected. Republicans captured both chambers of Congress in a nationwide sweep.

In 2010, indicators for the ruling Democrats are worse than they were 16 years ago. The generic ballot, which polls voters’ preferences of Republican or Democratic congressional candidates, was tied on Election Day in 1994, and the GOP only saw its first, slight, lead that autumn. Today, Republicans are ahead in the generic ballot by 6 points, according to the RealClearPolitics.com average, and have enjoyed leads since June of 2009.

Then, there are the issues. This Democratic Congress actually did pass health-care reform, in a monstrous piece of legislation that they did not read, and which a majority of Americans want to see repealed. Unemployment remains high as businesses groan under massive regulation and impending tax hikes. As federal debt surpasses the nation’s GDP, and trillion-dollar deficits are projected for the next decade, a newly engaged citizenry is taking a look at its elected leaders. They do not like what they see.

As the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi is the most powerful legislator on the planet. She is also ridiculous. One could spend a lifetime outlining the absurdity of Pelosi’s positions and statements on issues from the economy to health-care to immigration to the CIA. But a handier approach is to send folks to, say, YouTube, and invite them to watch a clip of the Speaker – just pick one at random – and suggest they make up their own minds. After watching Pelosi opine on any matter, ask yourself – would you trust this person to work an electric can-opener? Now consider that this is the top lawmaker of the world’s sole superpower.

Consider, also, that Pelosi became Speaker because House Democrats looked around and said, “Yep, she’s the best we’ve got” – and, from a group that includes Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, et al., they may be right.

As for President Obama, Americans are not seeing the brilliant, moderate, outcome-oriented leader they willed him to be, but a hard-left ideologue who wouldn't know the answer to a doorbell if it weren't printed on his teleprompter.

To win the House, Republicans need to pick up 40 seats this November. In 1994, the GOP added 54 but, based on this climate, commentator Bill Kristol calls for Republicans to gain 60 seats or more.

The Senate will be tougher, but political consultant Dick Morris, who helped rescue Clinton’s presidency after the 1994 shellacking, says Republicans should win the 10 seats they need to control that chamber.

A lot can happen between now and November, but welcome change seems on the way.




theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Win This War

I wondered, in last week’s column, whether the war in Afghanistan is still a worthwhile enterprise, nine years on. As American and Canadian governments contemplate withdrawal in 2011, commentators far wiser than I – George Will comes to mind – have opined that it is time for allied forces to pull out. Indeed, I had begun to congratulate myself on my reasonableness and good intellectual company.

Then, I saw the cover of Time magazine. The photo and story are of a young Afghan woman named Aisha, who was apprehended and sentenced to mutilation by Taliban authorities for running away from her husband’s house. As writer Aryn Baker puts it: “Aisha's brother-in-law held her down while her husband pulled out a knife. First he sliced off her ears. Then he started on her nose.” Baker adds, “This didn't happen 10 years ago, when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. It happened last year.”

Afghan President Hamid Karzai and some U.S. policymakers have floated the idea of reconciliation with the Taliban, in hopes of achieving stability and peace. Personally, I prefer freedom and human dignity.

But even if a reconciliation were possible, would we want it?

Have we fought and sacrificed for nine years only to leave Aisha and millions like her to their fate? Afghanistan presents a challenge, in which we are already engaged, and in which the delineation between barbarity and civilization is plain to see. If we cannot see this through, in what way will Western nations, blessed beyond the comprehension of most of the world, stand against evil in our time? By recycling? Driving hybrid cars? Gimme a break.

But let us say we depart, giving a finger-wag to the grinning maniacs left in charge, admonishing, “Now, no terrorist acts! And keep the amputations and honour killings to a minimum. Okay? We’re really, really cereal!”

Would that achieve our humane and practical goals?

Either way, the strategic and humanitarian missions are not mutually exclusive. And to accomplish both, we must win this war.

Often, when the concept of total victory is put forward, people suddenly become military historians. “Ah,” they say, “even the Soviet Union couldn’t win in Afghanistan.” For those who missed the 20th century, there were any number of things the Soviets could not do, including, but not limited to, basic economics and intentional comedy. You’ll excuse me if I don’t use the regime that brought us the collective farm as the benchmark for what can and cannot be done.

Along these lines, accommodation with the Taliban should be akin to Ronald Reagan’s prescription for rapprochement with the USSR: “We win, they lose.”

When he was Canada’s Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier told me, “There is no such thing as a doorstop defence.” That is, no nation can be an oasis to itself and, as we have learned during this decade, darkness from elsewhere in the world comes to find us at home. Lest we forget, we went into Afghanistan to deprive Islamist terrorists of safe haven after they killed thousands of people in North America.

Not only do we have a human obligation to succeed in Afghanistan, but the strategic argument still obtains. As the poet Terence averred, “Nothing that is human is foreign to me.” For Aisha and the people of Afghanistan, let us remember that.



theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.