Don't like this generalization? Here, try another one!

Over Celestial Junk there's much head scratching. It seems Mr. Junk's step-son submitted a paper on Islamic terrorism and the outcome was not quite what was hoped:

"The essay came back with a lower mark that his other submissions, despite the fact that it was likely my step-son’s most thoughtful and best structured so far. The professor made a number of structural suggestions; but in conclusion, he stated that one cannot blame terrorism on a religion … period."

Okay, first off, it's curious that he thinks this is his step-son's "best structured" essay and yet part of the low mark was a result of the professor needing to make "structural suggestions." Of course all parents are delusional when speaking of their children, mine think I'm good looking! But of course the essay structure is not the real problem, the real problem is that this academic is proving resistant to gross over-generalizations:

"So, look what we have. We have a university political science professor who is unwilling … ever … to consider the effect of religion on any given population. He will blame every conceivable thing on Jihad, except religion."

I think Mr. Junk got the last bit backwards, but okay, I get his point. But if you're talking about the effect of a religion, it's difficult to explain why millions of Muslims seem to be able to lead peaceful, productive lives without blowing shit up. But this isn't just a problem with one misguided prof, this is a problem with all "liberals" and "progressives." To Mr. Junk they are all self-hating anti-Westerners who inexplicably hang around in that most Western of institutions, the academy.

The roots of terrorism are complicated, and this frustration on the part of Mr. Junk over the inability of more reflective people to jump on the Islamofascism bandwagon reminds me of H.L. Mencken's words:

"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong."

Really Poor Reasons to Stay in Afghanistan

Right-wing blog, Celestial Junk argues that we should be in Afghanistan because the soldiers like doing the work there.

Well, that's good for the soldiers. No seriously, I mean it, it's reassuring to know that we have a well-trained military that has recruited people who are well-suited to soldiering and that they are able to function under tough conditions.

As long as we live in a world that seems to require nation states and their attendant militaries, it's nice to know that ours can do its job.

That does not stand as a reason though that we ought to be in Afghanistan. You see what Mr. Junk has done is contrast "soldiers" with "whining" Canadians. Soldiers don't mind being in Afghanistan, but their work is threatened if the great bulk of this country wants to pull out.

Guess what, that is as it ought to be. We do not, despite Hillier's fantasies, live in a military dictatorship. If the majority of Canadians take the "whining" position then it's too bad for the military, we'll bring 'em home. Civilian oversight, that's how it works. Of course soldiers like to be in the field, that's what they've been trained for, but the rest of us decide when they are needed to do that.

A final thought, I have read stories (can't find a link) suggesting that the Canadian military really wanted to go to Iraq in 2003 too. Good thing we didn't go along with that idea, eh?