Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding. — Albert Einstein

The Canadian state-run media CBC is portraying an aggressive image of Canadians. Canada has pretty much abandoned its vaunted image as a nation of peace. This is far removed from the day when former Canadian prime minister Pierre Trudeau embarked on a peace initiative to end the Cold War, drawing the ire of Washington.

But Canadian troops shed any pretense to peacekeeping, in 1993, when members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment tortured Somali children and killed 16-year-old Shidane Arone.

Since the Afghanistan “mission” began in 2002, 81 Canadian soldiers and one Canadian diplomat have been killed. The latest fatality has been described as “a committed warrior” by lt.-col. Dave Corbould. Corbould opined, “He was someone we can all emulate. He represented the warrior spirit 100 per cent.”

Is the warrior what Canadians should emulate? One definition of a warrior is “a person habitually engaged in warfare.”. Is Rambo to be emulated over persons committed to peace, such as a Mohandas Gandhi or an Albert Einstein?

Canadian chief of defense [sic] staff, General Rick Hillier weighed in: “I’m a little uncomfortable with the term warrior. I’m even more uncomfortable with the term peacekeeper. I’m neither of those; I’m simply a soldier.”

Hillier is unequivocal about the role of a soldier: “We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people.” [italics added] The job is not to protect people, it is to kill people — not defense.

Of the slain Canadian warrior, regimental sgt.-maj. Brian Semenko said, “He was really dedicated to the idea of serving overseas. He felt the best way to serve was to do it overseas. His idea was not to give candy to children, but to kill insurgents.”

A human who prefers to kill other humans to the non-violent joy of bringing smiles to the faces of children. Is that how Canadians are to serve? By killing?

Brig.-gen. Guy Laroche said, “We have lost a brother and a fine soldier who answered a call of duty one last time.”

Why not hail those people who struggle for peace. Is not the struggle for peace — an end to war and killing — the greater “call of duty”?

Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper lauded the fallen Canadian as “an exceptionally brave soldier who deserves the support and gratitude of all Canadians.”

No mention of Afghan gratitude is made.

Canadians were at one time smug that they could not be saddled with a George W. Bush-type “war president” like their neighbors across the border. However, Harper pursues a neoconservative agenda like Bush. Canadians have no reason to gloat.

Propagandizing Canadians

Hillier spoke of the public speaking training the military gets. “When I was in Afghanistan, we had people from the BBC come in to help us create the right perceptions, because perception is reality.” The CBC reporting plays into the perceptual reality spun by the Department of National Defense [sic].

Hillier sees it as a duty. He declared, “When a soldier steps on foreign soil in a high-risk environment, every single Canadian should be walking with him or her.”

As for walking with soldiers, the pacifist Einstein was quoted:

He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

Canadians and people everywhere need to decide: are they for war or for peace? If people are for peace, then how can they walk with killers?