Dehumanizing the troops

A couple of articles today discuss the death of Canadian reservist Tony Boneca and his family's resulting reaction. But underlying both is an utterly unwarranted, if perhaps not unexpected, attitude that any Canadian soldier who dares to question his or her mission must be a failure for doing so.

Let's start with CanWest's coverage, which starts off with a view in the headline that Boneca's father was "defending" his son in suggesting that Boneca had no problem with the Afghanistan mission. And lest that be put solely at the feet of the headline writer, the article isn't much better:

In a statement drafted with the help of military officials, the father of Canada's latest war casualty Tuesday took aim at recent portrayals of his son as a poorly trained reservist who was bitterly unhappy in Afghanistan and who questioned Canada's role in that country...

"My son volunteered to go to Afghanistan," Boneca said in the five-paragraph statement issued on military letterhead. "Certainly, Anthony wanted to come home, but I ask what soldier wouldn't in that situation?"

In recent days, people close to Boneca have said the reservist from Thunder Bay, Ont., hated his work in Afghanistan and questioned the military's preparedness for the mission. One friend, Dylan Bulloch, said the young man known for his boundless energy had lately complained of being overworked, telling him "no one wants to be there and no one knows exactly why they're there."...

"In all my conversations with my son, there was never any mention of him not being well enough or fit enough to carry out his military duties," he wrote.

"Anthony knew he was part of a group that stuck together to do what they were sent to do. He said it was difficult to cope with the weather, the sand, and the situation the young children (in Afghanistan) endured. He was proud to make a difference in their lives ..."

Note that the problem doesn't appear to lie in Antonio Boneca's letter, which doesn't dispute for a second that Tony Boneca had concerns about the mission. Indeed, the letter notes that it's only natural for a soldier to want to come home "in that situation" (which itself could indicate some agreement as to some problems surrounding the mission), while at the same time viewing the mission as having some positive impact.

But rather than recognizing the legitimate concern (whether presented by Tony or by Antonio), the article and headline both suggest that any implication that Tony Boneca had doubts about the mission must be an attack on him personally. In turn, the consequent "defence" involves unquestioning acceptance of all aspects of the Afghanistan mission.

While that assumption is unstated in the CanWest article, it's far less so in Lorrie Goldstein's column, which begins with the "ethical" question of whether a soldier who has questioned his mission deserves as much respect as one who hasn't:

(H)ow should we treat the combat death of Cpl. Anthony Boneca, 21, compared to the other 16 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat who have died there, and who have all been portrayed as doing what they loved?

The ethical answer is that while Boneca's death raises legitimate concerns about whether our soldiers, particularly reservists, understand what it means to volunteer for the military today, Boneca merits all the respect accorded his fallen comrades.

Granted, Goldstein reaches the right answer to the question. But it hardly needs to be pointed out that none of the previous deaths in Afghanistan gave rise to similar questions as to whether the latest casualty should be valued as highly as the previous ones. And it can only be taken as an act of disrespect to the intelligence of Canada's soliders that the mere act of wondering about one's mission should be considered a reasonable basis for drawing that kind of distinction.

Goldstein closes by posing what are indeed important questions:

Do young people signing up for our military today fully understand what the changed role of our armed forces from being "peacekeepers" to peacemakers means for them? Will we in the media, wherever we stand on Afghanistan, examine these issues in a way that respects our fallen soldiers and all who serve?

I hope so. But I wouldn't count on it.

It would indeed be for the best if the current media coverage recognized and respected the humanity of our troops: as with participants in any job or career, some will doubt the mission at times, and some will look forward to that mission coming to an end. But in light of the current conventional wisdom that any doubt about a controversial mission should be taken as a basis for criticism and devaluation, it doesn't seem likely that any due respect is going to become commonplace in the future.