I want to pen my support for the next Governor General. I want to tell her that her work is important, and I also want to tell her why. More than that, I want to tell her detractors to take note, because they are prone to simple arguments, and I think they often miss the point when they dismiss the need for a Governor General.

Her role is rooted in the past and future of this nation, and in many ways she is helping to hold these realms together. Let me tell you why that’s a good thing.

I’m not a nostalgic person, but there is a simple fact that is irrevocable for all Canadians. We all share the burden of this nation’s history as much as we share the burden of its future. As new Canadians, or those having lived here for several generations, we are attached to the lived reality of Canada past and Canada future. Take a moment to think about that … the notion of a living history. That is how I am approaching this topic.

Our nation cannot sever ties to the colonial past; rather it is our burden to reform and reshape our colonial dimensions – to make them relevant for the present. This is the process of Canada’s living history. I call it a burden, because it often is, but it is also a unique opportunity; and one I believe is emblematic in the changing faces of the Governor General. Her role should be to remind us that our country is a work in progress – to remind us that traditions, which cease to adapt, will become irrelevant. Does Michaëlle Jean’s appointment live up to these expectations? I would argue yes, but to do so I’ll have to deal with the detractors (against the role of Governor General and of Ms. Jean).

The nay-Sayers say: She’s not elected. She wastes taxpayers’ money. She does nothing useful. She’s been appointed to curry Liberal support. She’s a token appointment.

Let me deal with these comments in stride, and I think I should be able to make my point.

No, she’s not elected. And that’s ok. Appointments provide opportunities that electoral politics do not. Ask yourself: who would fight an election to be Governor General? Not the current appointee that’s for sure. Which strikes me as a unique opportunity for Canada – not a problem. Reforming the appointment of the Governor General to accommodate an electoral scheme may at some point be necessary – remember I said: traditions that cease to adapt become irrelevant – but that’s hardly a reasonable argument for doing away with the Governor General.

She does not waste taxpayers’ money. First of all, the Governor General’s 17 million dollar budget is very modest in comparison to the range of annual government expenditures. Second, this is an investment in promoting Canada and causes for Canadians. It is money well spent because it can be freely attached to projects without a political champion in the party system. Which brings me to my next point.

The Governor General does a lot for Canadians, but the benefits are not the same as those gained from party politics. Her outcomes are not tangible policy outcomes, which has led many to declare her role, and her actions, frivolous or useless. This is a shamefully myopic perspective. There is so much more to the national political landscape than governing. The Governor General is free to act on issues and ideas that are not the favor of electoral (party) politics. Adrienne Clarkson’s trade mission to Northern States in Scandinavia would have never been a strong political proposition – but that’s the point. Does it make it useless? No.

Some have suggested that the appointment process makes the Governor General very much a part of party politics; that her appointment is decided to score political points for the incumbent Prime Minister, and that this makes the successful candidate biased (or presumably an agent of the sponsoring party). Some have even accused that Paul Martin’s recent appointment of a former CBC journalist was, by design, a move to keep the national media ingratiated to the Liberal Party. Or, that by appointing a black, Haitian immigrant, the Prime Minister was actively courting ethnic votes, particularly the Haitian Diaspora of Montreal.

While I can appreciate these efforts to unmask political strategy, and to reread moments in Canadian politics with a partisan lens, let’s not get carried away. These arguments are, at best a singular objection to partisan politics and not the role of the Governor General – I might add they are somewhat naive. (I refuse to waste time here debating patronage, and the appointment system that pervades Canadian politics – yes, pervades – in so many more ways than most are able to acknowledge.) To wage a speculative blow at the significant appointment of someone who does, in fact, personify groups sorely unaccounted for in the House of Commons, is not only naïve, it’s counterintuitive to the reality of Canadian life. Basically, it is to say: “Paul Martin is panhandling for votes, by doing something to empower and inspire a group of Canadians.”

This kind of backwards thinking runs too deep. Recently, articles in the Hill Times called attention to the scarce number of blacks in the House of Commons, Senate, and the Parliamentary Press Gallery. Late last week, when it came time to welcome our new Governor General, the headlines churning forth out of this same Press Gallery declared that Ms. Jean was a political slam-dunk for Paul Martin. They could have said that her appointment was a political slam-dunk for a lot of people. But they didn’t.

It should also be noted that Ms. Jean is part of a mixed race marriage; that she persevered poverty, that she has had a tremendously successful career, and that she is brave enough to have adopted a child from her native Haiti. I suppose Paul Martin will also reap the benefits of these inspiring qualities at the ballot box?

She’s a token appointment – hardly. If you are one of the few out there who is seriously concerned with the Governor General being an appeasement to affirmative action, then you need to give your head a shake. She is not, and never will be, a sufficient replacement for the elected representation of women, blacks, or new Canadians in the House of Commons. She can inspire Canadians, and perhaps remind us that we are evolving too slowly in some respects. As I said, the function of the Governor General is to remind Canadians that our country is a work in progress – and that change is always needed.

In this sense, the Governor General is not an anachronism. Her role is far from obsolete. Although her duties are largely defined in the conventions of parliament (a language that is dead to most Canadians), her relevance is not taken from her official duties to the process of Canadian government. The argument against the need for a Governor General in Canada often misses this point.

Please do something inspiring Ms. Jean, or I may be eating my words.

He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious – Sun Tzu

Yesterday I watched a video shot by someone with US troops in Iraq that was fondly posted on an internet site I occasionally visit to get a handle on how right-wing Americans really feel. (Discourse there runs from intelligent to “turn the desert into glass”.) The brief clip was from a battle in Mosul in December of last year and was shot using night-vision technology. It showed a surreal green-and-black scene with confusing lights and a menacing green searchlight that scanned the battlefield ahead (US forces use infra-red search lights for people using night-vision).

“Here they come,” a calm voice announces, and then there is a sickening spray of cannon fire from what must be a helicopter that is behind and above the person filming. The tracers in the cannon fire appear as bright green globs, but it’s the sound that is the most disturbing. This isn’t the “rat-tat-tat” you’re accustomed to from World War 2 or Vietnam footage, or from action movies. Modern cannons fire literally thousands of rounds per minute, creating an appalling continuous screaming noise, like a macabre buzz-saw. This spew of molten metal is punctuated by several rocket salvos from the same aircraft.

The action stops as suddenly as it began. The green search light, invisible to anyone without night vision (like their targets, presumably) reaches out again like the sickly finger of death. The clip ends. The responses on the site are the usual: “Dang, night vision owns”, “Sweet”, “OMG that is wicked”. It’s another display of overwhelming American firepower – the invincible might of American arms.

Except that the improvised devices used by Iraqi insurgents are proving no less deadly, and their guerilla tactics are rendering the American military ineffective. Fourteen American soldiers were killed today in a roadside bomb explosion. Seven others were killed two days ago in an ambush. The insurgents are picking the times and the places. They seek to avoid situations such as the one in the video clip I described above, because they have increasing awareness of when they can fight and when they cannot.

They are also increasingly sophisticated (according to US intelligence they are more resilient and have better tactics than a year ago), increasingly adept (according to media reports, they are now designing and using shaped charges in their roadside bombs to increase their power and effectiveness), and increasingly bold and persistent (there were 50% more attacks against US troops this July than in last July). Insurgents as well as common criminals have also infiltrated many Iraqi police and army units.

The bottom-line is, they’re winning. Every single independent news source from Iraq paints a very different picture from what the US administration – and the mainstream US media – would have you believe. The country daily descends further into chaos and bloodshed. There are constant and deadly suicide attacks, with bombings on the scale of the ones in London occurring once every few days. Baghdad shakes regularly with massive detonations. Violence between Iraqi factions – such as militant Sunnis and Shi’ites – is on the rise, and civil war is not out of the question.

Worse, from a Western perspective, is what this means for our long-term future. It’s not just an unstable Iraq and an unstable Middle East that we have to worry about. Insurgents in Iraq are learning first-hand how to build car bombs and suicide bomber belts, how to perform assassinations, the tactics and strategies of urban combat. The war itself is radicalizing Muslims in nearby countries, many of whom are travelling to Iraq to take part in the conflict. This is knowledge and willingness to kill and die for a cause that will spread well beyond Iraq. The violence there seems remote, but the Middle East is just a plane flight away from London, Paris, Tokyo, New York, Toronto.

So we see a century of promise turn into yet another century of instability and bloodshed as another legacy of violence is built in Iraq. It was supposed to be a necessary war. It wasn’t. It was supposed to be an easy war. It isn’t. Reminding one of another famous quote, from approximately 30 BC:

The outcome corresponds less to expectations in war than in any other case whatsoever – Livy