What we talk about when we
talk about War
By Noah Richler
Goose Lane Editions,
Copyright 2012 by Noah
Richler
370 pages
I did not expect to be
disappointed by Noah Richler's book “What we talk about when we talk about
War”. I expected to be challenged, aggravated, and possibly even infuriated by
finding myself in disagreement with someone obviously more knowledgeable then
myself. (A not uncommon occurrence)
I expected to find myself
forced to look at events from a new and enlightening point of view. I did not
expect to be told the Conservative government was the source of all our
contemporary ills. I did not expect to learn that under Liberal governments Canada had been
approaching some form of earthly paradise.
Amazon.com describes the book
as:
“A provocative examination of how
communications has shaped the language of the media, and vice versa, and how
rhetoric shapes how Canadians thinks of themselves as a nation and Canada’s
engagement in peacekeeping, war, and on the international stage. According to
Richler, each phase of engagement in Afghanistan has been shaped not
only by rhetoric but an overarching narrative structure. This topic is very
much in discussion at the moment. With the withdrawal of Canadian troops (at
least in part) from Afghanistan,
it becomes clear there had been a rhetorical cycle. Where once Canada wielded
the myth of itself as a peacekeeping nation, the past decade has seen a marked
shift away from this, emphasizing the Canadian soldier as warrior. Yet now, as
the country withdraws, the oratorical language we use steps away from heroes,
able warriors, and sacrifice and back towards a more comfortable vision of Canada in a
peacekeeping/training role. In recent years, Canada has made large financial
investments in the apparatus of war — in a manner it hasn’t in a very long time
— and as the realities of war are brought home (the losses, the tragedies, the
atrocities, the lasting repercussions that come home with the soldiers who were
on the front lines), Richler contends that it’s crucial we understand our
national perspective on war — how we have framed it, how we continue to frame
it. Using recent events to bolster his arguments, including the shooting of
American congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the earthquake in Haiti, Richler
argues that very possibly the epic narrative of Canada is winding back down to
that of the novel as we slowly regain our peacekeeping agenda”.
Using a variety of devices,
for example the concept of the national binding myth story called “foundation”
or “creation” myths, or distinguishing between the concepts of epic behavior and “the lofty, empathetic
assumptions of the novel” Richler
suggests that much of what he finds disreputable in current Canadian life is
all the fault of the “Harper Conservative Government”
At the same time as he
criticizes the ‘Harper Government’ for using these techniques to shape the
discussion on our participation in the Afghan war, Richler uses them to make
his points. He can not seem to bring himself to look at why the creation myths
that Canadians tell themselves were not enough for all Canadians, apparently
they were enough for him. He sees the conflict between those who supported the
war and those who didn’t in epic terms. Needless to say, subtleties of
difference and motivation are not necessary to investigate when one is battling
for truth, justice and the Canadian way (of peacekeeping).
Richler does suggest
alternatives. Unfortunately they aren’t very good ones. The idea of a Peace
Operations Regiment is not a practical one. I’m not sure if the author knows
what a regiment actually is (although to be fair even the lengthy definition to
be found in Donald E. Grave’s “Century of Service: The History of the South
Alberta Light Horse” is admitted by the author to be incomplete) but I am sure
that he doesn’t understand the consequences of having a military unit that is
not equipped, at least mentally, for war. Sure to be misused either be
politicians or by Generals, it would eventually be sacrificed on the twin
alters of expediency and need. As he appears to understand the constabulary
nature of these duties it is not clear why he didn’t recommend a dedicated RCMP
unit of some kind. His suggestions for University level peace studies and a
Canadian Peace Corps are not accompanied by any kind of recommendations for
funding. Somehow, as with all utopian schemes it seems that the money will just
appear.
Perhaps Richler is right,
perhaps the Conservatives have been so successful at shaping the conversation
that even their opponents are forced to use the same terms and devices. If so
it is a loss as I think there is a need for a nuanced view of Canada’s role in Afghanistan. We already have enough
polemics.
