Support Our Troops

One thing that just burns me incessantly is the amount of bandwagon jumpers who purport to be peace-loving activists, all of the sudden coming out of the woodwork. You see it in the poll numbers which seem to show continuing disapproval of the war in Afghanistan and, particularly Iraq. You see it in political debates in U.S. and Canadian politics. You see it in the amount of demonstrations and what not, denouncing the war and pressuring politicians to bring the troops home. This may well be the key issue of the U.S. 2008 elections, who knows.

The problem I have with all these bandwagon jumpers is that they tend to feed off each other as far as their emotions and factual accuracy goes. Ever notice that the people who complain the most about soldiers being in Iraq are non-military people who don't even live or have been to Iraq? They argue about soldiers going overseas to serve in dangerous conditions, but they don't seem to voice equal concern about people dying in our own countries at the hands of one another. I think much of this is either for political gain or to cast oneself into the spotlight to show that they are somehow more enlightened, advanced, and educated.

I was talking with a lady in a supermarket recently, whose nephew is serving in Afghanistan in the Canadian army (he's an equipment engineer of some sort). What she told me is the other side that no one seems to be promoting in the news and general media. I started chatting with her when I saw that she was wearing a "Support Our Troops" t-shirt, and as I passed her with my shopping cart, I said, "that's awesome that you are wearing that." (she was an older lady, so don't get any ideas as to what I meant by that, people). She asked if I was a military man (probably knowing full well that I am not, since my physique is not really built for action), and I said no, but I do want to thank her nephew for serving on behalf of citizens like myself, and putting them in harm's way. I much appreciate it, and the least I can do is to say thanks whenever I come across anyone who is serving or knows someone who is.

We started chatting a bit in the soup aisle. Anyhow, it's interesting what she told me. She said that most people have it wrong, that the soldiers are not constantly aggressively shooting at Afghans or in firefights. She said that while combat is definitely a factor in the troop activity there, there are many units who have non-combat roles - they would help repair infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.), train local Afghan soldiers, help construct schools and hospitals, and there are a bunch of army engineeers who work to establish things like water supplies, shelters, etc. These soldiers are making a difference, and helping the local communities there become self-sufficient. And as a result of seeing the difference they are making, they believe in what they are doing. No question, it's a dangerous job, so we should be very grateful that they are there instead of us. But no, some of us seem to want to gripe and complain that unless there's a pullout, there will likely be more casualties. This is probably true, but I think these troops know that but are committed to help the Afghan people, even if it costs them their lives. That's why I think it is so important that we back home give them our support in that we do not criticize them, and that we show our appreciation, in sending cards, emails, etc., thanking any soldiers or families of soldiers that you may come across in your travels.

Regardless of what you may think about whether Canada, The U.S., Britain, Australia, and their partnering countries should be in Iraq and Afghanistan, the fact of the matter is, they are there now, and they are making a difference for the local people there. Anti-war propagandists would like you to believe, by providing you graphic photos of people being blown up and what not, that the soldiers are there in vain and that all they do is fight, and even then, it is a losing battle. I wonder how many of them have talked to these soldiers' families, to get a more informed and balanced view, rather visiting Michael Moore websites? Logically, do you think that if the soldiers weren't contributing in a positive way, we would be hearing griping from many soldiers as well?

I know the whole war is complex, and it's not my desire, nor my place to comment on military decisions when I am not privy to military operations. But I do know how civil wars work, and if the allied countries were to pull out now, they would leave Iraq and Afghanistan in complete turmoil, and those countries would just descend into chaos, as there is political and governmental stability, no infrastructure stability, no stability in general. Our troops are there to do what they can to empower those countries to become more self-sufficient and independent. What they are doing there is inherently a good thing, so they deserve our support and encouragement.

Overcoming Bullying...The Old Fashioned Way

Is it me, or has there seemed to be a general pre-occupation with bullying in schools, for the past number of years now? It is amazing how many ideas are generated by the leftist education system, to try to combat this supposed increasing problem. Bullying has always been there in schools, but I believe it is to where it is right now, because traditional effective solutions in handling bully are not being considered, since society as a whole seems far more preoccupied with talking about things rather than doing.

Let's face it, bullies exist because they need someone who is either weaker or more vulnerable to push around in order to vitalize their own need for domination and control. What educators seem to think is that bullies need to be reasoned with, since they are humans too, and as a result, let's all go into our idealistic focus group to formulate solutions that will not hurt anyone's self-esteem or view of self-worth. Now, I know what you will say - many schools have zero-tolerance policies towards bullying. That point I will concede; however, what I will object to is what constitutes as a consequence of violating the aforementioned school's zero-tolerance policy. At its extreme, it may result in expulsion, and if there were any criminality in the bully's actions, possibly the involvement of law enforcement. But this, in my view, is treating only the symptom, not the root cause. If you kick a bully out of your school, he/she will find another environment in which they will play their trade of intimidation and fear.

So what's my solution? Actually, I don't need to propose a solution per se, but instead, I will refer back to the way parents used to help their kids to deal with bullies - that is, teach them a good old fashioned dose of self-defence. Yeah, yeah, I know in this age of politically correct thinking, self-defence is viewed as a last resort rather than a first, since there seems to be some form of aggression associated with it. Just like anything else, that may happen, but if properly taught, self-defence not only will help end a situation in a very short time period, but it will teach the bully that they may not wish to trouble themselves in dealing with you. And this is not just for kids you know... I just finished a mandatory (meaning I had no choice) company required reading on harrassment in the workplace. Some of the principles I sort of agree with (and I emphasize "some" and "sort of"), but I left thinking it would be so much easier if people were taught to stand up for themselves rather than go to other people.

Yes, I know...it may be dangerous to confront people, just like confronting a schoolyard bully. Nonsense. By bringing other people in, you are essentially showing that you do not have the stones to stand up for yourself. The bully or harrasser gets a reprimand (which usually is constituted as a slap on the wrist-type of penalty) and they continue to operate, not really deterred, but are simply suppressed, until they find their next victim.

Imagine this scenario. Someone picks on my boy in school. Obviously, I teach him never to retaliate in anger, so I would expect him to provide his harrasser with a verbal warning. If it continues, and he is unable to walk away due to being cornered by the bully, I will give him full license to mete out self-defence by clocking the aforementioned bully right in the schnauz. That sends a far greater message to the bully to think twice before picking on my boy again. And for those psychologically touchy-touchy feely-feely types out there, let me allay your fears by suggesting that by proceeding with this course of action, they are empowering their child towards developing confidence, and yes, self-esteem. You are essentially teaching them that they have value as people and that value transcends to their right to exist in an environment that is devoid of fear. It teaches them to think fast on their feet, and to exercise independence, rather than rely on the help of others all the time (notice we have much more people on government assistance these days than we used to?)

Dads used to spend countless hours helping train their kids in the basement with a punching bag and weights. These dads did not train their kids to be bullies, or aggressive people, but they smartly recognized that they kids would inevitably be faced with people who will try to push them around, and if they were worth their salt as fathers, they would impart the need to defend oneself without hesitation, using their God-given skills and abilities. It is ironic that these days such training would be considered aggressive and even borderline vigilantism, since the overwhelming consensus in reasoning this out is that if you are only teaching them a violent solution to problem-solving. I don't believe that to be true at all, and in fact, by fathers not teaching their kids (boys in particular) these skills, they are essentially instructing their sons that every problem can be talked out. You can see this view prevalent in society, especially nowadays by the large amount of band-wagon jumpers that oppose the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. These people simply oppose war, even though war is never the first solution for governments in today's age, but those smart enough to recognize that diplomacy is not the be all and end all to conflict resolution, will recognize the need to resort to violence as a justifiable means towards a noble end (of course, this is not always the case, but I believe that it can and should be an option, since wars are not really all that different, from a deep-rooted conflict perspective, than kids bullying one another or someone harrassing someone else. I don't think that there are that many people out there who will say that they enjoy being in a fight, but sometimes fighting is needed in order to
ensure that you don't get hurt, and even so you don't get killed.

I want to make it abundantly clear that I am not in favour, nor am I advocating initiating aggressive behaviour or spitful retaliation I believe that a warning should always be issued to an aggressor, and one has to carefully weigh whether their situation will be improved by bringing others in. Sometimes it won't and in those cases, you need to simply resort to defending yourself the old fashioned way, and showing that you won't substantiate the threats and intimidation.