Canada's "Secret" Contribution to the War in Iraq
By Richard Sanders
The breaking story today (March 27, 2003) is that a few Canadian troops are
fighting on the ground in Iraq. This, however, is only the tip of the
iceberg. The truth is that Canada stands as the third strongest contributor
to US forces in the Iraq war, after Britain and Australia.
Isn't it amazing how Canada can contribute so much to this war without even
Earlier this week (March 25), the US Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci,
told the Economic Club in Toronto that he was "disappointed" that Canada
failed to join in the US-led war against Iraq. His was one of a huge chorus
of voices critiquing Canada for refusing to participate in the "Coalition
of the Willing." (This was not the first time a US Ambassador to Canada
meddled in our affairs. See the note at the end of this email about the
US-backed regime change in Canada 40 years ago.)
The most significant statement in Ambassador Cellucci's speech was his
observation that Canada is currently giving more military support to the US
for its war against Iraq than most of the nations that are officially
supporting the war!
He said: "Ironically, the Canadians indirectly provide more support for us
in Iraq than most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting us. It's
kind of an odd situation."
Yes, Paul, it is a kind of odd isn't it? Ironic indeed! Or is it? Perhaps
this is exactly what we should always expect from the Liberal
government. After all, the Liberals have always done as much as they
possibly can to promote war and profit from it, while simultaneously
working to create the appearance that they stand for peace.
In the House of Commons on March 21, the Bloc and the NDP once again did an
excellent job of condemning the Liberals in very loud and very strong
terms. They denounced the government for allowing Canada's multibillion
dollar warships to protect US aircraft carriers in the Gulf. Canada's help
is ensuring that these US aircraft carriers can "safely" launch hundreds of
aerial bombing missions against the people of Iraq. Protecting US
warplanes so they can carry out their missions is one of Canada's biggest
roles in this particular war. Make no mistake, this is a VERY important
military role. Please be aware... Canada IS involved. We are very involved.
In response to the strong NDP and Bloc criticism, the minister responsible
for war, John McCallum, expressed his pride that Canada is "leading" (yes,
"leading"!) the multinational naval task force currently in the Persian
Gulf. Canada is commanding the task force of naval forces that are charged
with the crucial responsibility of protecting US aircraft carriers from
"terrorist" attacks! This was also Canada's role in 1999 when we "led"
NATO's naval force during the war against Yugoslavia. Back in 1991, when
Canadian warplanes took part in a few token bombing attacks against Iraqi
targets, our airforce had an even more important function. Canadian CF-18s
were "escorting" US fighter and bomber aircraft on their sorties, to
protect them from enemy fire so that they could carry out the wholesale
destruction of Iraq's civilian infrastructure, particularly electrical
plants, and water and sewage treatement facilities. (This was the
beginning of the end for hundreds of thousands of children who died from
epidemics that then spread across Iraq.)
Thanks to the mainstream media, the lie that Canada is NOT involved in this
war has spread like wildfire through Canada. It has also spread through the
US as well, at least as much as any information about Canada can permeate
into American consciousness.
This is yet another example of a successful media campaign conducted by the
Canadian government to perpetuate the underlying myth that Canada is a
world-class peacemaker. Chrétien kept Canadians on the edge of their seats
for months. Everyone was wondering whether the Liberals would support the
war or not? The litmus test used to determine the answer to this question
was rigged. It was made to look as if the question of Canada's support was
hinged on whether we'd send land troops and warplanes into this war. When
Canada didn't contribute in those two particular ways, it was broadcast
wide and far across the nation and the world that Canada didn't endorse the
The fact, of course, is that Canada IS aiding and abetting this criminal
war, albeit not in the specific ways that the litmus test was designed to
detect. Canada IS very deeply complicit, and -- as confirmed by Paul
Cellucci this week Canada is MORE complicit most. Compared to most others
in the gang that have gathered around the US bully, Canada is acting above
and beyond the call of duty. The only condition of our participation is
that the US plays along with Canada's desire to keep our role very
hush-hush. While publicly, the Canadian government is pretending to have
taken the moral high ground by opposing this war, simultaneously -- behind
the scenes -- it is doing everything it possibly can to give as much
support as possible to aid and abet this illegal US war.
Canada's Support for the War
Canada is by far the leading member of that group of nations that secretly
support the "Coalition of the Willing" but who wish to remain nameless.
Here are a few examples of Canada's role in this unsanctioned war:
Providing War Planners:
Canadian military "war planners" have been working with US Central Command
for months. Canada had planners working with US Central Command when it
was located at MacDill Air Force Base, Tampa, Florida. USCENTCOM is
masterminding the entire war against Iraq. Then, on February 11, 2003,
Canada disclosed that it had transferred about 25 of our "military
planners" from MacDill to the U.S. military's forward command post in
Qatar, in the Persian Gulf. This is now the "command-and-control
headquarters" for the war. Having Canadian war planners helping to set up,
prepare and organize this war for months leading up to its launch is a far
more significant role than having a few soldiers fighting on the
ground. Canada has helped to determine the whole strategy for fighting
this war. We are continuing to help run this war from the inside. Canada
is part of the brains behind the whole operation. It is unlikely that very
many of the nations that are officially recognized as part of the
"Coalition of the Willing" are part of the strategic and logistical
planning effort coordinated by CENTCOM that has created the schedule for
this war and is now pulling all the strings from behind the scenes.
Commanding the Multinational Naval Force:
Canada is leading a multinational naval taskforce in the Persian Gulf. We
currently have about 1300 troops on three frigates that are protecting US
aircraft carriers. These Canadian frigates have accompanied US warships
through the Persian Gulf right up to Kuwait. From there, these warships
are serving as "platforms" from which to launch the air war against Iraq.
This is all part of Operation Apollo, which originally began as Canada's
contribution to the war in Afghanistan, but which has now conveniently
mutated into a major Canadian contribution to the US War against Iraq.
Canada admits having 31 "exchange troops" engaged in the war against
Iraq. Although Chrétien has denied that any are engaged in fighting on the
ground in Iraq, Daniel Leblanc says that "Six Canadian Forces members on
exchange programs with coalition troops are serving in battle zones in
Iraq, despite Ottawa's official policy of staying out of the war" (Globe
and Mail, March 27, 2003). "At least
one of the Canadians.is with the British 7th Armoured Brigade, a unit now
taking part in heavy fighting near Basra" (David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen,
March 27, 2003).
These Canadian "exchange troops" under the command of US and British armed
forces are serving with combat troops on the ground in Iraq. This "exchange
program" with the US and UK has been going on for many decades. It has
allowed Canadian navy, air force and army personnel to engage in foreign
wars that are not officially sanctioned by the Canadian government. It has
also ensured that when Canadian troops are officially at war, they have the
guidance and support of US troops in their midst.
Airborne Warning and Control System:
Canadian Forces members are also part of crews on Airborne Warning and
Control System (AWACS) aircraft. These state of the art aircraft are
essential to modern air war battles. They are the nerve centres that
"safely" guide fighter jets and bombers into battle so that they can
"deliver" their destructive "payloads." Chrétien rationalized that the
Canadians are on AWACS that oversee more than just Iraq or any single
country. "The people who are involved in flying in AWACS claim they are
covering many countries in their surveillance, not only one country." he
said. (Daniel Leblanc, March 27, 2003)
Freeing Up US Troops in Afghanistan:
In an article in the the Globe and Mail on February 5, 2003, Brian Tobin
urged Canada to fulfill its obligations to the UN and to the US. He stated
"The U.S. needs to free up key logistical and military assets on the ground
in Afghanistan for the coming campaign in Iraq. Canada can, and should,
offer to fill the gap." This is exactly what Canada did when it announced a
week later that a "sizeable contribution" of Canadian troops (between 1000
and 2000) would free up US troops in Afghanistan., making them available
for fighting in Iraq.
Providing Billions in Weapons and Military Equipment:
Canada is selling billions of dollars worth of military equipment to the
US. US orders for Canadian military equipment are guaranteed to increase
because of the war. Knowing, as we do, that the US is Canada's biggest
military customer and that Canadian military production is thoroughly
integrated into the US war machine, we can assume that virtually every
major US weapons system, and weapons delivery system, includes at least
some Canadian components. Many major components, like aircraft engines for
warplanes, are made in Canada. Although Canada claims to have one of the
world's strictest sets of guidelines to stop the export of our military
goods, Canada has absolutely no restrictions whatsoever on any of our
military exports to the US. No Canadian government permits are
required. Canada's guidelines state that military exports to countries at
war, or preparing for war, are "closely controlled." However, in the case
of the US-led war against Iraq, Canada's military exports will show a
"closely controlled" increase. No doubt, officials in Industry Canada, the
Department of Foreign Affiars and International Trade, the Canadian
Commercial Corporation and Export development Canada will be working
overtime these days to help Canadian military-related corporations keep up
with the increased demand for products that are required for this war..
As Prime Minister Chrétien appears to waffle between opposition and
encouragement for the war, he periodically makes very strong statements
that lend strong diplomatic support for the US campaign against Iraq. On
March 20, in his first public statement after the air war officially began,
Chrétien said in the House of Commons that:
(1) "It was the Americans' privilege and right to make the decision that
they made. We respect that. Of course, I hope that the Americans will do as
well as possible."
(2) "At this point, I think there is no use debating the reasons why some
people think war is necessary and some people think it is not. We should
not say anything that would comfort Saddam Hussein." (Since Chrétien is
against debating the war, imagine how opposed he must be to those who
actually hit the street to protest against it!)
Overflights of US Air Force:
Many US warplanes enroute to Iraq are flying through Canadian air
space. This may not seem significant but its is one of the things that the
US has specifically requested from members to be counted among the
"Coalition of the Willing." Some countries have gained entry into the gang
merely for letting the US to fly over.
Refueling US Military Aircraft:
US aircraft carrying many thousands troops to Iraq are being allowed to
stop in St. John's and Stephenville, Newfoundland for refueling and crew
changes. "In recent weeks, as the U.S. has used Newfoundland as a refueling
stop for military flights en route to the Middle East. 'We've been getting
roughly 2 or 3 U.S. flights a day, with probably 1000 troops coming through
each day,' said Gary Vey, CEO of the Gander Airport Authority" (Ottawa
Citizen, March 22).
These are just nine of the many concrete ways that Canada is currently
supporting the US war against Iraq. There are many other more systemic,
practical means by which the Canadian government constantly proves its
allegiance to US militarism. Just to cite a few of many examples, our
government continues to:
* Let US warplanes to test their weapons in Canadian air space,
* Let US pilots to train in Canadian air space,
* Let US submarines to test their torpedoes in Canadian waters,
* Let the Canadian Pension Plan to continue to pour our hard earned dollars
into Canadian, US and overseas military companies,
* Gives billions in loans, subsidies and other forms of welfare in Canada's
top military exporters,
* Gives money to encourage military R&D efforts that directly benefit the
On the other side of the coin, the Liberal Party continues to accept large
donations from Canada's war industries. If they really had even a thread
of any moral fibre within them wouldn't they refuse to accept such blood
money into their war chest?
On the Praising of Liberal Hypocrisy
How are those who want to promote the truth about this war, and Canada's
role in it, supposed to deal with this troubling situation? There are many
Canadians, including some peace activists, who now feel that we should
praise and congratulate our government for not committing troops. They
quickly add that we should follow our tribute to the Liberals with comments
about how the government should go even further to support peace. Their
approach is to say that the government should take some additional steps
along the path of not cooperating with the US war.
However, we have to worry that this approach will feed into the prevailing
myth and give comfort and support to Chrétien and his party. The problem
is NOT that our government is proceeding with baby steps towards peace and
that we need only encourage them to keep going in that basic direction and
to perhaps take some bigger steps. The reality is that the direction in
which our government is heading is towards supporting the war while
pretending to stand for peace. It's not that the government just needs to
tweak its policy a bit and to therefore improve an already existing peace
policy that is generally aligned to our way of thinking. What our
government really needs is to do is to take an about-face turn away from
their almost full-fledged (albeit, still largely hidden) support for US
I think that if we are going to congratulate Chrétien and the Liberals for
anything having to do with this war, we should be recognize them for the
absolutely fantastic propaganda campaign that they've carried out. They
have miraculously managed to con the majority of Canadians into thinking
that this country is NOT involved in the US war against Iraq when, as we've
seen, Canada IS very deeply involved, more involved in fact than most of
America's "Coalition of the Willing."
Much of the thanks for this con job must go to the mainstream media. It is
doing a fine job of perpetuating the lie that the Canadian government is
not involved. They surely don't need any additional help from the peace
movement in promoting this deception. Surely, the peace movement should
not do anything at all to assist the media or the government in spreading
the myth even further that Canada has taken a stand for peace against this
war. This now-prevailing myth can be heard on the lips of radio and TV
anchors, hosts and interviewers. It is now the commonly accepted reality.
It is rapidly becoming entrenched in the Canadian pysche. This chapter in
the "Canada is a Peacemaker" myth, will go down in our history as one of
the most dazzling examples of hypocrisy. I fear that even years from now,
many Canadians will look back at this war and remember it as the one that
Canada didn't participate in. The Canadian government is receiving kudos
from many peace-loving Canadians and organizations, as if it was some great
force for world peace, when the reality is that our government is once
again deeply complicit in an US-led, illegal war.
The question that faces us is this mess is: do we want to help the media,
the government, the military and various right-wing elements in this
country who are propagating the predominating mythology that Canada is not
involved in the war, or, do we want to try our best to expose this lie for
what it is?
First, let's be clear about our situation. A massive war crime is now
underway in Iraq. By aiding and abetting the US, Canada is a major
contributing partner in this array of international crimes. Perhaps that,
in part, is also why they are trying desperately to hide their complicity.
Canadians are being duped into believing that our government and military
are not involved in this crime.
Once we've seen through the government's public relations propaganda, one
thing that we can do is talk to our allies in the peace movement who seem
somehow to have fallen for the old Liberal scam. We can also express our
opposition to those in the mainstream media that are continuously repeating
phrases that reveal their underlying, naive assumption that Canada is not
involved in this war.
We can point out that the pretence of posing as peacemakers while profiting
from war is practically what defines classic, Liberal-style, peace
politics. Remember the old saying about the Liberals that they run their
campaigns from the left, but govern from the right? There is the same
dichotomy between what they say and what they do, i.e., they talk like
lefty humanitarians but rule like right-wing warmongers.
While on the subject of sayings, I am reminded of one of my favourite
"Bushisms." On September 17, 2002, while visiting Nashville, Tennessee,
"President" George Bush said: "There's an old saying in Tennessee I know
it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, fool me once, shame
on shame on you. Fool me you can't get fooled again."
So, as we approach April Fools Day, we should recall that Liberal trickery
is not just evidenced in their approach to peace issues. It runs the whole
gamut of their political platform. The Liberals have viciously slashed
funding for housing, health, education, the environment and overseas
development, while at the same time they are always presenting themselves
as the righteous champions of all these programs. This is, after all,
really what defines the Liberal Party. This is what distinguishes them
from the openly, right-wing parties that more or less unashamedly crush
social programs on the basis that they are too expensive, or could be done
more efficiently if privatized, or simply because less government is
better, i.e., the "get the government off our backs" approach.
The power brokers within the Liberal Party -- the cabinet and the backroom
PR boys that manipulate the public's perception about what Liberals stand
for -- are essentially right-wingers who are smart enough to know that to
maintain votes they must appear to be opposed to blatant rightwing politics.
Should we praise them when they make proud statements extolling social
programs while at the same time they inflict death blows to the very
programs that they claim to protect? Should we praise them for peace
initiatives when they are meanwhile profiting from war?
To counteract the prevailing propaganda of this war, Canadian peace
activists need to point out however and wherever we can that applauding the
Canadian government for staying out of this war is not only inaccurate
(because Canada IS in fact supporting the war with troops, warships,
weapons, diplomatic support, etc.) but that it is also dangerous for our
movement in the long run because it will help to prolong the reign of the
If the Alliance Party was in power now are we so sure that Canada's actual,
concrete commitment to this war would be all that different from the way it
is? Perhaps under the reigns of the Alliance, Canada's commitment to this
war would have looked more like the 1991 Iraq war when the Conservative
Party was in power. They did contribute some warplanes in 1991. But
remember that eight years later, Canada's contribution -- under the Liberal
government -- to the US-led war against Yugoslavia, was much more vicious
thanour role in 1991. Canada was responsible for a large percentage of the
bombing sorties in Yugoslavia.
I would argue that if the Alliance was in power, Canada's contribution to
the war would not be very different from the current Liberal contribution,
at least in terms of the actual physical contribution to the fight. The
real big difference would be in all the Alliance verbiage about their
contribution to the fight. The Alliance would be much more up-front and
honest about their contribution. In fact, they would take the list of ways
that they were contributing (much the same list as what the Liberals are
contributing) and they would puff up the public appearance of each and
every item. The Alliance would have officially joined the "Coalition of
the Willing," not pretended that they weren't even involved. They would
have bragged about all of the many ways that they were supporting their
American friends in this war, not pretending to be opposed to it.
I'm not saying I'd prefer an Alliance government but I am saying that it
would be easier for us to oppose it. The Liberals create such a smoke
screen and dodge around so much, that their policy on this war has take on
the appearance of a neutron dancing around the nucleus of an atom. It is
impossible to know exactly where they stand. The Hiezenberg uncertainty
principal of atomic physics certainly applies to Liberal policies.
Depending on who these chameleons are talking to, the position of their
spots is sure to change.
Another thing that peace activists would be wise to consider in deciding
whether to heap praise on the Liberals for their thoroughly ambiguous war
policies, is the fact that public perception of the peace movement is
largely filtered through the mainstream media. The media always summarizes
and condenses our messages. It packages them into short sound bites and
images. Prefacing our statements about the war by lauding the government
runs the terrible risk that the media will present us as generally
supporting this warmongering government. Is that worth the risk? I think not.
We also have to remember that even if the media airs both our dual message
of praise and critique of the Liberal policy, then many within the audience
may only retain the former message. Our caveats about naval forces, the
international arms trade and other matters may dissipate into the media
whirl. The basic message that may get through is that the peace movement
has praised the government for not being involved in the war.
I think we have to be very careful to avoid presenting even the appearance
that we are going along with the Liberals. If we seem to be accepting the
charade that Canada isn't involved in this war, then the basic underlying
line of reasoning that we are getting across to the public is something
(1) the peace movement is praising the government's peace policy (with some
(2) the peace movement therefore generally supports the Liberal Party's
Many Canadians who are now opposed to this war (but who don't receive much
information beyond what they get from the mainstream media), will retain
only the underlying pro-Liberal message. It will become implanted along
with all of the other messages that reinforce the idea that the Liberals
stand for peace, and that Canada is not involved in this war. When the
next election rolls around these people will be operating under the basic
assumption that "Liberals = Peace." Because these Canadians generally
believe in peace they will reason that if they want to achieve peace it
will be safe for them to vote Liberal. They will fall for the ruse that the
Liberal Party can be trusted, in the end, albeit after much discussion and
debate, to finally come around to taking a pro-peace/anti-war stance.
Another related danger of the "praising the government for peace" line of
approach is that some Canadians will now become complacent. Now that people
are starting to absorb the mistaken idea that we have won the struggle,
this will undermine the incredible strides that we have taken in building
such strong opposition to the war. The lie that is now spreading across
Canada that our government is not really involved means that we may now see
people sliding away from participation in protests. The number of
participants at Canadian protests will likely now diminish. Many feel that
a major function of these events is to send a message to our own
government. Now that the Canadian government has supposedly decided to
embrace peace, it will seem as if there is no longer such a pressing need
to join anti-war protests.
Therefore, in the protests that do occur, and in the publicity and public
education work that will continue during and after this war peace activists
will need to work very hard to draw people's attention toward the many
examples of our government's involvement in this war. We cannot generally
rely upon the mainstream media to promote that information. Some reporters
will pursue that story but most air time will studiously ignore the
subject, and in effect cover up information that conflicts with the
prevailing myth that Canada is a global peacemaker.
Exposing the Peace Charlatan's Pys Ops
How does one expose such deeply rooted myths that are so deeply ingrained
in our cultural consciousness that they are completely
invisible? Sometimes it is useful to take the underlying principle that
ones opponent espouses and then point to some acknowledged fact that
directly contradicts the myth. For instance, if someone says "Canada is not
involved in this war," one can reply with information that shows our strong
Another approach is to ask those who think it appropriate to praise the
Liberals, whether they think it would be appropriate for the US peace
movement to praise the Republicans because they have NOT used nuclear
weapons against Iraq? Should US peace activists preface statements against
US foreign policy by first expressing their thanks and appreciation to the
Republicans for demonstrating the restraint and humanitarianism of holding
back on the use of nuclear weapons? Should peace activists say that the
non-use of nuclear weapons proves that the Republicans are basically on the
right track toward a peaceful solution in Iraq and that they just need to
work a bit on changing some of their other secondary policies regarding the
little matter of using conventional weapons?
This is of course ludicrous. One does not extol the virtues of a violent
bully just because he has used a small club instead of a large club to
commit murder. Nor should one congratulate the members of a bully's gang
just because they didn't join in the actual beating. If a gang member
serves the bully by supplying clubs used in the fight, standing around
cheering as the bully crushes his opponent, protects the bully on his way
to the fight from those who would try to stop him, cover for him after the
fight, take a share from the bully in the fight's spoils, say that the
bully had a right to do what he did and tell the other kids not to even
question the bully's actions, then, are we to pay tribute to that gang
member? Are we supposed to eulogize them with praise? Are we to try to
take credit for having influenced them for doing the right thing? Do we
reward the gang member by publicly commending their actions? Do we stand
there and say "We are very proud of you, son, for not smashing the skull of
that little girl?" "We commend you for doing all you possibly could to
ensure the beating was a great success while still maintaining the
appearance of a nice, polite boy with hands left unbloodied by in the
There is always a wide range of actions that any government can take to
wage a war. To be successful, warmongers do not have to engage in ALL of
the choices of weapons that are available to them. Bush has in this case
held back on use of the most extreme weaponry that is available to him.
Bush did not use his nuclear and biological weapons. However, it's worth
remembering that Bush does not HAVE to use every weapon available in order
to win the war. In fact, although dropping a few mini-nukes on Iraq might
help the US military to win the war, by doing so, they would lose the
larger diplomatic war. And, such extreme action would make it even harder
for them to get support the next time they want to wage an unjust war. The
world's population, already largely opposed to this war, would become even
more enraged at the US. Bush would lose even more of his tenuous support.
The US war planners know this know this and they act accordingly.
It's exactly the same sort of situation with Canada's role in this
war. Canada has a range of options available expressing our
involvement. The Liberals ended up choosing to participate in a wide
variety of ways but they decided not to partake in some of the most extreme
forms of participation, i.e., dropping Canadian bombs or having Canadian
armoured divisions racing toward Baghdad in tanks. The Liberals know that
the Canadian public would not support that position. They therefore have
chosen to be involved in a large number of less visible ways. They are
doing their best to hide this involvement.
Perhaps a lot of this debate comes down to whether we trust the Liberal
Party. Are they what they say they are? Are they an ally of the peace
movement or an adversary? An examination of history will show quite clearly
that the Liberals have never really been an ally of the peace movement,
although they have tried to paint themselves into this role on some occasions.
Yes, they have taken some steps to oppose the proliferation of nuclear
weapons and anti-personnel landmines. Unfortunately, however, when one
looks at the larger picture, i.e., at the whole range and context of their
policies, programs and practices with regards to all of the other weapons
systems that they help Canadian companies to produce and export, one sees
that major contradictions always exist in their approach to war and peace.
The basic repeated pattern that emerges time and time again is that the
Liberals are experts at embracing very high profile, very public positions
on single, isolated policies that, when taken completely out of context,
seem to be very commendable. For instance, by denouncing specific types of
weapons, they appear to be standing up against that which we believe
weapons symbolize, i.e., war and militarism. However, it's all a shell
game. By taking such high profile symbolic actions, the Liberals create an
aura around themselves that gives them the superficial appearance of a hero
standing up in a principled way for peace. However, behind all this
elaborately constructed media façade they continue to help in every way
possible to encourage Canadian companies to produce and export the broadest
range of weapons and military equipment possible. They help these
companies to specifically target the world's biggest warmongers and human
rights violators as potential markets for these deadly products.
Such psychological operations (psy ops) have two basic components:
(1) With their left hand the Liberals use the media, and unwitting NGOs, to
grab hold of some particular little glittering jewel of a limited peace
policy/campaign. They then hold that precious prize up into the air as
high as possible for all to see and they wave it around with great flourish
while humbly praising themselves and encouraging everyone to cheer them
on. Their goal in this operation is to gain widespread public attention
and to focus it on one thing that makes them look good to the voters.
(2) Then they use their right hand, which is completely hidden from public
view, to carry on covert activities in alliance with the business community
that runs totally counter to the image that they have created with their
public, left hand. In the case of the classic Liberal "peace sting"
operation, the Liberals rely on the mainstream media to help them to shroud
their behind-the-scenes, right-wing, war-promoting activities by a thick
This is the kind of elaborate ploy that has been used by the Liberals to
mislead the Canadian public for many decades. Many Canadians unfortunately
fall for all the pizzazz, like the unsuspecting audience watching the
magician do card tricks. But at least with magic shows, the crowd knows
that they have been tricked by some illusion, they just don't know how the
showman pulled it off. So, when speaking of such Liberal acts of
deception, we are being charitable in using the metaphor of a magician. It
is much more accurate to compare them to con man who makes his living by
cheating at cards.
The public is repeatedly scammed into supporting the shameless trickster.
Do we never learn? We get caught by the same swindler again and
again. The specifics of the charlatan's game may change, but the basic
pattern of his fraud is repeated. This allows the peace huckster to
continue their career without ever being held accountable for their long
string of crimes.
We cannot afford to continue falling for the same old tricks.
No doubt we will be arguing about this matter for a long time to come. It
is one of those ongoing arguments that has been discussed by progressive
movements for thousands of years.
By writing this article, I hope to inspire people, especially peace
activists to think about these issues and to help get this debate out into
We ignore this debate at our peril because it is deals with a constantly
recurring problem, one that returns to haunt us again and again ... year
after year ... war after war after war.
Richard Sanders is the editor of Press for Conversion! magazine.
Note: US Ambassadors backed Regime Change in Canada
Forty years ago, US Ambassadors to Canada, Livingston Merchant and William
Butterworth, worked closely with key officials from the State Department,
Pentagon, NATO, the CIA, RCAF, selected Canadian media outlets and the
Liberal Party to engineer a "regime change" in Canada. They successfully
ousted Prime Minister John Diefenbaker because he refused to accept US
nuclear weapons into Canada and they replaced him with Lester
B.Pearson. Pierre Trudeau was so disgusted with Pearson that he dubbed him
the "defrocked priest of peace." See the following article, and related
ones, in issue 43 of Press for Conversion!)
Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT)
(A network of individuals and NGOs across Canada and around the world)
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Web: http://www.ncf.ca/coat
Press for Conversion!
Read the Jan. 2003 issue of our quarterly magazine on:
"Going to War: The American use of War Pretext Incidents"
Read the Oct. 2002 issue online: "Real Reasons for the Invasion of Iraq"
Our next issue will focus on U.S.-backed regime changes, wars, military
and CIA operations in the Middle East & North Africa since WWII.
To join our list serve on the Afghan and Iraq wars, the war on terrorism
and the criminalisation of dissent, send the message:
subscribe no_to_nato to <email@example.com>
To see the archives at http://www.flora.org/coat/forum/
Endorse COAT's online Global Appeal/Pledge of Nonviolence. About 17,000
people, from 122 countries have signed so far. The appeal/pledge is
available in 18 languages.
If you'd prefer not to receive emails from COAT,
just respond to this email with REMOVE in the subject line.