One of the most satisfying aspects of inhabiting a nation that belongs to a class of nations that look down their noses at the rest of the world is that contradiction, hypocrisy, and even stupidity are entirely excusable, even praised in some circles. If the Pope makes untoward comments about Islam, the backlash against those comments only furthers popularly distorted views of that religion while the responsibility that the Pope bears in initially making them dissipates beneath it. The same goes for the Prime Minister’s recent comments that the deaths of four more Canadian soldiers, and the wounding of numerous others, is proof that the Canadian military’s roll in Afghanistan is justified. Mr. Harper claimed that we are fighting an evil in Afghanistan, which is, of course, the most common justification given in human history for undertaking a military action, be it true or not. I am not suggesting that the Taliban isn’t a repressive group that, prior to late 2001, ruled parts of Afghanistan with little regard for the human rights of the citizenry. But that is also not to say that there aren’t those that would claim the protection of such rights sacred and yet, through calculated collusion, cause their reduction not only on domestic levels, but also on an international scale.

Take, for example, the recent vindication of Maher Arar, who was rendered to Syria in 2002, where he was imprisoned and tortured for a year because the RCMP forwarded information to US authorities that he was on a suspected terrorist watch list. There is no questioning that what happened to Arar was highly illegal, but in the case of the RCMP it demonstrates not only unethical and unprofessional behavior, but the fact that racial profiling most probably occurred following September 11th, and that the Canadian intelligence community was bending over backwards for what we now know was an immensely confused American intelligence apparatus, most of which was engaged in unprecedented levels of infighting. Our role in Afghanistan, like that of the Canadian intelligence community post 9/11, has more to do with conciliatory issues regarding the United States than anything else.

Canadian military leadership has recently boasted that were the enemy to come out into the open, and confront our troops like men, then their demise would be assured. I find such statements incredibly troubling given the fact that we’ve known full well the entire time we’ve been in Afghanistan that we’re basically facing steadily growing and reforming guerilla resistance, and that that obviously implies the use of unorthodox tactics to achieve results. Were the Afghans to have fought the Soviets in the 80’s like men, Afghanistan would have remained a Soviet satellite state. Instead, they implemented combat techniques that provided them advantages and a way to effectively combat the Soviet’s superior firepower and technologies. And, as we’re all now aware, they succeeded.

The same song was sung during the Vietnam war by Westmorland’s command, whose inability to comprehend that the extreme level of personal dedication that common NVA and Vietcong foot soldiers possessed was not merely significantly greater than that of his own men, but beyond American understanding, led to a policy of inflated body counts and wildly inaccurate statements of achievement. Like the Taliban, the Vietnamese also employed suicide bombers at times, especially during the Tết Offensive, which was actually, on paper, a disaster for the North. But the psychological effects that it had on both US military morale, and the American public, was considerable. The same holds true for the use of suicide attacks against Western troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. And the fact that such attacks are claiming the lives of innocent civilians besides should be something of considerable concern to our military leadership. Populist movements can usually only succeed with the support of the lower classes, but in the case of Afghanistan, tribal factionalism overrides this concern, allowing a convolution of intent to exist that is, in my opinion, almost impossible to combat without casting off the restrains of moral warfare and indiscriminately eradicating not only enemy combatants, but their civilian support infrastructures.

Like Vietnam, Afghanistan is a nation that has been perpetually at war for a considerable amount of time. To have ever thought that by holding show elections and propping up a government that has absolutely no effective control over the country was done for anything besides US domestic political uses is obviously naïve. Unfortunately, Canadians are paying for such uses with their lives, and it’s simply not something that the people of this country should tolerate.

The 2010 Winter Games

In 1970, Denver won the bid to host the winter Olympics. In 1972, because of financial and environmental concerns, the city voted against hosting them, and handed them back to the IOC.

Vancouver should do the same.

Whether the people of Vancouver like it or not, it is simply not capable of hosting the 2010 games without acquiring an enormous debt. And while those who could seemingly care less about the actual ramifications that the Olympics will have on those in lower and middle income brackets after the fact (maybe even before, given how money seems to be evaporating), the inevitable results will most certainly be felt at every level in this city when all is said and done.

Forbes’ Tom Van Riper put it best when he wrote from Torino earlier this year…

“Does it pay to host the world’s biggest party? It depends on whether your house is already big enough, or if you need to scramble and spend to add on.

When it comes to the Olympics, host cities around the world typically spend billions on venues, infrastructure, security and other assorted necessities for the privilege of bringing in tens of thousands of guests for 17 days.�

If you’ve lived in this city for more than a week you know that it’s a transportation nightmare – and that’s just for the people who currently live here. Geography has a lot to do with it, as does the speed at which Vancouver has grown over the last decade. But to think that these problems can all be solved in the next four years without it creating a legacy of debt and doing considerable damage to the environment is simply ludicrous. It’s currently estimated that the 2010 games will cost taxpayers 3-4 billion dollars, and that doesn’t even include transportation expansions, such as the widening of the Sea To Sky Highway and the RAV. Then there are the enormous security costs to consider, not to mention the fact that the city will most assuredly undergo a mass gentrification, which does not mean that those with nothing will suddenly be provided decent jobs and new homes or apartments. It means that, as occurred in 1986 during Expo, the embarrassing elements of our fair city will be pushed East down the Hastings corridor as if by a gigantic, magic broom.

Now, maybe you’re one of those Vancouverites that view only specific parts of Vancouver acceptable, including the class of people that inhabits them. Perhaps you could care less what happens to those less fortunate than yourself, or enjoy pretending that you do in between shooing panhandlers away from your table on some trendy patio whilst employing pseudo intellectualisms in an attempt to disguise the fact that you’re actually from the Valley (or some impossibly small town in Ontario) and not a full blooded member of the Spelling family. Maybe you could care less what sort of damage the Olympics will ultimately do to this city and its residents. And to that I have no real position other to say that it’s shame that we can’t vote to give you back to the IOC.

Must I actually mention what an infusion of 3 to 4 billion dollars would do to, for example, the social welfare system? How about healthcare? How about affordable housing for low income families who, given the current real estate climate in this town, basically only have a choice of what colour car their going to live in?

This year, thirty years after the fact, the city of Montreal is expected to finally pay off its Olympic debt. It’s a big relief to know that I might still be paying for the Sea To Sky expansion when I’m 65. Maybe by then, in 2036, we can all get together and bust out our Olympic memorabilia and have a little party at, well, one of the hundreds of decaying glass towers that will, no doubt, still be polluting the Vancouver skyline.