# Canada's decision not to join the war in Iraq (essay)



## GO!!! (16 Sep 2005)

Explain the decision of the Canadian government not to join the coalition in the war against Iraq.

	The decision of the Canadian government not to participate in the American - led "coalition of the willing" that was intended to remove the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein from power, was an easy one. There were a wide variety of reasons, in the political, economic and strategic arenas for the Canadian spectator status, any one of which would have precluded a similar nation with similar characteristics and commitments from participating. Having said this, while Canada may not have been capable of, or willing to make a massive commitment to this war, a token military element, and political recognition of the wars' necessity and legitimacy could have been extended, but was not. Canada not only declined to join the coalition, but also questioned the reasons for the very existence of it, the accuracy of the most comprehensive security and intelligence apparatus in history, and exactly which aims the coalition was hoping to achieve in the long run. The Canadian federal political leadership did all of this with a federal election looming, two major trade disputes with the US ongoing, and world energy prices setting all time highs, setting the stage for a drastic cooling of both the Canadian and American economies. The decision of the Canadian government not to join the coalition in the war against Iraq was made for many reasons, and ultimately was supported by the majority of the voting blocs in Canada, validating this course of action.
	The reasons for the Canadian government not participating in the Iraq war can most easily be separated into the two areas of political and strategic/military. Political reasons for the lack of participation are by nature, the most subjective, and prone to misinterpretation. Strategic and military motives are not as subjective, and easily quantifiable, if just as easily concealed, especially in the name of "national security". Additionally, the question of why Canadians chose not to support the war in Iraq, even if they did not participate in it is valid, especially since support for the war would have had significant benefits, must be asked.
Domestic Politics
 Political reasons for the Canadian government choosing not to participate in the Iraq war were centered on one major feature. The majority of the Canadian public, from the time that the war became a possibility until it began, opposed Canadian participation in it. The Canadian government acted in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the electorate.    Although this acting in accordance with the wishes of the electorate could be seen as a sign of a healthy democracy, there were other significant political factors, which precluded a move towards war, and were in the interests of the liberal government of then Prime Minister Jean Chretien, as well. The first of these reasons was the very survival of the liberal party of Canada as the ruling party. There was a federal election on the horizon when the possibility of war in Iraq became an issue. Both of the plausible choices for a controlling percentage of the vote immediately established their position on the matter, with the Conservatives, led by Stephen Harper strongly supporting a pro-war stance. The Liberals, led by the Prime Minister with his successor, Paul Martin waiting in the wings, were against the war on the basis that it (the anti war stance) was "consistent with decades of Canadian policy"   The National Democratic Party (NDP), the fledgling Green Party and the Bloc Quebecquois all aligned themselves with the left leaning liberals. The failure of the Conservatives lay primarily in their assertations that Canada should support the US because of their status as a strong and faithful ally of Canada. The left countered that the looming war would be fought on false pretences, as the head UN weapons inspector, and head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Hans Blix, was unable to find any evidence of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that the US justified the invasion with. The whole conflict was colored by the suspicion held by people all over the world that the US was only invading Iraq to gain control of the considerable petroleum reserves it had, and strategically placed bases close to more of the same. If need be, neighbouring countries with more oil would be "liberated" to solidify US control of a market it no longer dominated. As Iraq has approximately 112.5 billion barrels of oil underneath it , the fifth largest reserves in the world, this was not an unreasonable suspicion. 
United Nations - United in Opposition
Another significant political stumbling block to Canadian participation in the Iraq war was the lack of UN sanction for such an event. Although Iraq had been embargoed by the UN since the end of hostilities in the Gulf war of 1990-91, violations of the embargo had been ongoing and blatant, with some of the most active violators being members of the UN security council, namely France and Russia. Both of these nations were firmly opposed to the US invasion of Iraq, mostly due to the fact that Saddam Hussein's regime owed them billions of dollars for already-delivered arms and nuclear technology. A regime change would undoubtedly cause the country to default on these loans. China (also a permanent member of the security council) was also staunchly opposed to the US invasion, with allegations that the Chinese had been promised for sale at less than world prices all of the oil produced in the Kirkuk oil fields for a period of time in exchange for military equipment, political support and desperately needed cash. Canada's slavish adherence to UN resolutions prevented the government from viewing the possibility of these biases as influencing the UN position on the matter though, and one of the major reasons for Canada (and Canadians in general) opposing the war was the lack of UN support.   It should be noted however, that the lack of UN support for the US invasion of Iraq was based upon the failure of the IAEA President and chief weapons inspector in Iraq, Hans Blix, to discover any of the WMD that the Americans alleged Iraq had, to attack Iraq in order to defend themselves from future aggression. That the US knew Iraq possessed WMD, particularly certain biological agents, namely anthrax, was a non - issue, as the US had given anthrax spores to Iraq when it was at war with another erstwhile US ally, Iran, in the 1980s. 
Anti-War Reasons - Real and Created
There are aspects of the Canadian political picture that were less tangible at the same time (early 2003) that the US was preparing for war. First and most importantly, it is very popular policy in Ottawa and most of Canada to refuse to do the bidding of the United States, or join it in various excursions around the globe. Canadian politicians have always enjoyed popularity (in the short term) for opposing the US publicly, as both John Diefenbaker and Pierre Trudeau demonstrated. The Iraq war was no different, with Prime Minister Chretien waffling on the issue of sending troops, before finally deciding that his reasoning was that the UN had not authorised the invasion, which was therefore illegal under international law. There was also the issue that Canada had already contributed a significant number of troops and resources to the Afghan war to unseat the Taliban in 2002, and regarded this military commitment as long term and ongoing. Chretien may have wished to make Canada's sole contribution to the "War Against Terrorism" as Bush called it, to Afghanistan. This was an expedient solution for the Liberals as the mission in Afghanistan could be spun as "Peacekeeping" or "Stabilization" operations, which are much more palatable to the Canadian public. With a federal election looming, the possibility of Canadian troops coming home in body bags fighting a war in Iraq was unacceptable when a relatively safe Afghan mission could be undertaken instead. The Canadian public is generally supportive of military activity that can be construed as anything other than offensive combat operations. In the end, this action was taken, with Canada claiming (somewhat truthfully) that the nation was not capable of committing to the Iraq war due to commitments in Afghanistan. As a result, the practice of "deflecting" the Canadian Forces to an area where the Americans are not asking for them, but that is far less dangerous, and less likely to fail than the riskier American areas of responsibility continues. The final, and perhaps most influential aspect of the Canadian political climate in early 2003 was that there was not a great deal of goodwill towards the United States of America, or her president. The post September 11 2001 international outpouring of sympathy had abated. Canada had gone to war in Afghanistan for the first time since the Korean War on the basis that an ally had been attacked, with strong public support. The friendly-fire incident of April 2002, which killed four Canadian soldiers and wounded eight more was still fresh in the minds of many, as was the lack of punishment for the US pilot who bombed them. The ongoing softwood lumber dispute, which was devastating parts of the British Columbian lumber industry was far more important to many Canadians, as were the ongoing trade disputes over water rights and environmental issues that the United States seemed to dismiss in light of the far more pressing need for allies in the coming war. The Canadian public was wary of committing lives and money to a war in which the US had yet to provide any reason for. Canadians seemed to regard George Bush as a warmonger, and ignorant of the rest of the world and their priorities . In addition to this, the Canadian public was suspicious of US claims of WMD in Iraq, and consistently requested better evidence, which the UN and their investigators could not produce. This suspicion was eventually borne out when the American State Department admitted in 2004 that some of their pre-war intelligence regarding WMD in Iraq was "shaky".   Finally, the general public did not view the US as a good neighbour. Many Canadians believed that US influence in Canada was already too great, and to do US bidding in committing troops was not a popular choice. Canada signing up to fight an American war on dubious pretences in this political climate was simply unacceptable. The Canadian public simply did not want to be dictated to by the US, and the Canadian government, with an election so near, heeded the electorate.
Military and Strategic Realities
While Canadian participation in what came to be termed "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was debated from the beginning as a partnership of equals between powerful national militaries, all but the most delusional followers of Canadian politics were painfully aware of the lack of Canadian military might available to undertake such a mission. The strategic realities that undoubtedly had an impact on the government's willingness to wage war on Iraq can be most easily divided into two areas. The first area is that of the "not possible", that is, practical factors which would have posed insurmountable obstacles to any Canadian military deployment. The second area is that of the "not willing", or factors which would have had surmountable obstacles, but unpleasant consequences to them. Both of these areas played important factors in the lack of Canadian participation, and must be considered alone and in conjunction with the political realities at the time.
Not Possible
There were several problems that the Canadian Forces (CF) would have to overcome in order to participate in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The first was getting there. The CF has no long-range heavy lift capability, by air or sea, and as a result relies upon civilian contractors to move Canadian military equipment around the world. This has led to a few embarrassing mishaps, one in which a civilian transport loaded with military vehicles and munitions had to be boarded by the Canadian Navy in order to compel it to return to Canada after the CF did not pay the bill!   More seriously, the CF is not able to project ground force outside of Canada without the co-operation of properly equipped allies. In addition to this, the medium lift aircraft capability of the CF was already completely overwhelmed by the sustainment requirements of Operations Apollo and Athena, the Canadian commitments to Afghanistan. While the US or Britain probably would have been willing to transport Canadian troops to Iraq, the capabilities of the CF present a definite problem when the nation wishes to act in the manner of a wealthy, powerful nation, but only has the military equipment of a poor, weak one. There is also the problem of supplying and maintaining those soldiers, even if they were deployed. Canada does simply not have the capability, and commercial transport is expensive and unreliable.
Out-Gunned
Even if the Canadian military were able to reach Iraq with a motley collection of civilian transport and assistance from her allies, the Canadian Forces, most notably the army, would be unable to take a leading role anyway. The equipment of many of the Iraqi army units that Canadian troops may have faced is superior to that of the Canadian army!    There is a real danger that Canadian Mechanised units may have lost decisively had they been engaged by some of the better Iraqi units, namely the Republican Guard Divisions and the Special Republican Guard. This is compounded by the lack of air superiority that the Canadian army has come to expect on operations. While there is little doubt that the Canadian Military is, as a group better trained than the Iraqis, the fact of the matter is that most modern armoured fighting vehicles, even of Russian/Federation of Independent States (FIS) design have eclipsed the capabilities of Canadian military equipment, in terms of speed, range of weapons, effectiveness of those weapons and targeting capabilities. Russia and the FIS are the primary arms suppliers of Iraq. In short, if Canadian troops were deployed to Iraq with the intent of undertaking a combat role, it is entirely possible that they may have sustained very high casualties or even been defeated in battle by the better equipped Iraqis. To mitigate this, they would have undoubtedly been employed in rear areas, doing primarily administrative duties, as they were in the Gulf War of 1991.   Since the Canadian Government was unwilling to contribute troops in the first place, this was an unlikely scenario.
Troop Shortage
Even before the end of the Cold War in 1992, the Canadian Governments, Conservative and Liberal alike, have been drastically cutting the size of the uniformed side of the Department of National Defence, mostly as cost savings measures. This continual cutting of the defence budget has continued under various banners, first as the collection of the "peace dividend" in the immediate post Cold War years, then under the aegis of "Internationalist" thought, under which a powerful, or even respectable military seemed to be out of style, and an admission of the failure of diplomacy. Throughout this period (1984-1999) however, the CF took on twenty-two new missions at the government's behest, with capabilities and resources being taxed brutally in the process. The end result of this was that the CF had been reduced to three effective Brigade Groups (approximately five thousand strong each) by the end of 1994, and each of these relied upon the other two for specialised equipment and ammunition for which to train with for any upcoming deployments. The total strength of the CF (army, navy and air force) numbered a tiny sixty thousand by the end of 1998 .   In addition to this, there was only enough air transport to supply one of these Brigades beyond our borders! The end result of this vigorous budget cutting and regular clawbacks, was that the Canadian Forces was incapable of supporting both an ongoing commitment of 700 - 2000 troops in Afghanistan, and any commitment of any size in Iraq. There were simply not enough troops to go around.
Not Willing
Although this essay has outlined the lack of political will associated with the possibility of combat in Iraq, there was also hesitation on the part of the Canadian Forces to go to Iraq as well. These reasons are easily divided into three areas of concern. The first is that a real "shooting war" is incredibly expensive. Transportation, fuel, rations, munitions and spare parts are far more expensive than any comparable civilian equipment. To make matters worse, the military is also tied into restrictive, politically influenced and slow procurement methods, which hamstring their efforts to supply themselves. The CF had no significant "war stocks" in early 2003, with which to sustain a formation in the field, and no funding was available to replenish them in a timely manner.   The second reason is that the CF was concerned about entering an open-ended conflict, which would have years of low intensity conflict ahead. This would mean a serious drain on the manpower of all three services, and with little political support at home, the likelihood of the proper funding for such an adventure was slight. The third, and perhaps most influential reason that the CF was wary of participation in the Iraq war is that it would have brought into the spotlight not only the effects of years of government neglect, but the woeful unreadiness of the CF itself. The possibility that the Canadian public may have found out that the Canadian Forces does not have the capability to move even a single tank and crew to Iraq without the help of civilian transport ships, and even if they did, could not have fed the crew or maintained that tank, may have been too much for Canada's Generals. Even if a single brigade had been deployed, it would have required the "borrowing" of all of the operational vehicles in Canada, in the hopes that one in three could be used.   In short, the Canadian Forces was not ready for a deployment to Iraq, and would have been ineffective almost immediately upon arriving there. The leadership of the CF knew this, and opposed the possible deployment.
Support the War?
The vast majority of the nations who comprised the "Coalition of the willing" in the invasion of Iraq did not actually participate in the invasion at all. There were thirty such nations, plus an unidentified number of Arab nations and Israel, who chose to be excluded from the list, for domestic political reasons.   Only Spain, Australia, the United Kingdom and the US committed troops for the initial invasion, with some of the other nations contributing once the war was over and "stabilization" efforts had begun. But the question remains. If Canada was not prepared to participate in the war, could the nation not at least voice her support for it? The answer, both in the press and in the area of popular opinion was a resounding "no".   Most Canadians, although more in eastern Canada than in the west and especially in Quebec, opposed the war, although a majority were willing to consider participation if the UN sanctioned action against Saddam Hussein's regime. The interesting point here is that the terms "support" and "participate" seemed to be used interchangeably. The fact that both of these terms have very different meanings, and courses of action for any sovereign nation seemed to go unnoticed. The Canadian public seemed to revel in the chance to refuse to do the bidding of the US, or even to accept their reasons for war at face value. There seemed to be a deep cynicism of the American motives, and those of President Bush. Interestingly, none of these cynicisms were linked to Canadian consumer behaviour, or were detrimental to cross border trade, suggesting that this was simply a childish fit of anti-Americanism, and not a very prudent one at that. Considering that Canada and Canadian Corporations could have profited handsomely from the war, as many had done in the first Gulf war in 1991, the fact that so many Canadians and the federal government chose to condemn the US for the war seems to be unwise. (Canada was specifically excluded from eligibility for application for lucrative contracts to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure) Nevertheless, the Canadian government, while not condemning the Iraq war, refused to offer any helpful words to the US, other than to state that thirty-one exchange officers   presently employed in the American armed forces would not be recalled. The end result was that the Canadian government was unwilling to take a position on the Iraq war unless the UN did first, and the Canadian public supported them in this aspect. 
End Result
The end result of this chapter of Canadian history was that Canada did not commit any ground troops to the Iraq war, other than those exchange officers who were already committed to US units being deployed. Canada did however, fulfill her NATO obligations of the use of Canadian airspace, continued the commitments of ground troops in Afghanistan, and also continued the operations of ships of the Canadian Navy in the Persian Gulf in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, which is ongoing. So while the Canadian Government chose not to support this particular theatre of the American War against Terrorism, they acted in direct support of other theatres, freeing up US troops and materiel for use elsewhere. While this was undoubtedly beneficial to the US, the support of an ally with which they have more in common than any other nation is what the US was primarily interested in. The support, if not direct participation of Canada would have lent a veneer of credibility to the Iraq war, which is probably precisely why it was withheld, and why Canada was correct in doing so. The unflinching support of a war which was fought on false pretences, (as it appears to have been) would not have been a positive event for Canada or Canadian aims on the world stage, and would have damaged Canadian diplomatic credibility. This would have made Canada appear to be only an American colony, with little choice in the execution of domestic or international affairs.
The decision of the Canadian government not to go to war in Iraq was indeed an easy one. Canadians did not support the war, or Canadian participation in it. In fact, there was a great deal of animosity towards the US for the actions that took place against the regime of Saddam Hussein. This animosity extended towards the President and his party, widely regarded as elitist warmongers. The Canadian government responded to this groundswell of popular opposition and refused to contribute a land component to the war. The decision not to go to war was made even easier by the short handed and ill-equipped CF, which was tottering under the strain of modest commitments to Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia. That the Canadian Forces could have even made a meaningful contribution is doubtful, and even if they had, would have "cleared the shelves" of money, manpower and equipment, which successive governments in recent history refuse to pay to replace. In conclusion, the Canadian government did not participate in the war in Iraq because the Canadian public did not want them to, and Canada did not have a credible contribution to make in terms of military might even if they had.


----------



## GO!!! (16 Sep 2005)

Sources for all claims available from me on request - send a PM.

I'm looking for some constructive criticism here, all those who feel compelled to respond, thank you in advance!

GO!!


----------



## Spr.Earl (16 Sep 2005)

For one we would be like a cows tail if we had and still be there.


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Sep 2005)

Even the Japanese SDF are there (Engineers), yes and armed too, yet the ADF has been tasked to protect them.

Even though should Canada ever commit to this, every little bit counts, even being the cows tail  

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## KevinB (16 Sep 2005)

Hmm, damn Liberal ....   ;D


One issue, WRT the boarding of the GTS Katie, the Gov't claims to have paid the contractor - who then failed to pay the sub-contactor.
and
[ quote]The Foreign Affairs Department said Wednesday it obtained permission to board the cargo ship from the government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, a small Caribbean state being used as a flag of convenience for the ship. 

A spokesperson for the U.S. State Department said the U.S. government doesn't regard this as an illegal action[/quote]
* The company that owns the ship is US based.


 Second issue I understood very shortly prior to the war the Cdn public was 51% For and 40% Against.   But that might have been a Kevin invented poll...


 Good consise, logical argument though.

Cheers


----------



## GO!!! (16 Sep 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Hmm, darn Liberal ....   ;D
> 
> 
> One issue, WRT the boarding of the GTS Katie, the Gov't claims to have paid the contractor - who then failed to pay the sub-contactor.
> ...



Thanks Kev. 

WRT to the Katie, the Feds paid the DND, who then neglected/forgot/did'nt forward the cash. The money left the TB, but the contractor claims not to have recieved it, and incidentally, it's still in court!  :

WRT to the polls immediately pre - war, there are a whole hockey sock full of them that point every way imaginable, and it is a very hard area to quantify anyway. "Lies, damn lies and statistics" comes to mind. I took a number of them, and chose one that seemed to reflect the greatest number of the others. Check out the IPSOS - Reid website if you are interested.


----------



## KevinB (16 Sep 2005)

Seen, I knew you had a large amount of research, the Katie seems to be a nightmare.

Cheers


----------



## Genetk44 (17 Sep 2005)

I started reading the original post but gave up....because it was way too long IMHO. 
 The Canadian government decided not to go to war because it decided, for its own reasons, that this was the correct decision at the time. Period. What the motives,reasons or rationale of those in power, who made the decision are, will never be known. Why? because we can't read the minds of others, especially they that are politicians...and they will never give us( the average Canadian) an honest answer. So we are left to sift the bits and pieces to try and find the answer that we ,each, as an individual, can live with.
 Was our governments' position the correct one? I believe it was...for a number of reasons....but it's my opinion and my reasons and they satisfy me. History will decide if this war was justified....and if I was correct or incorrect in my opinion...by which time I will probably be long gone and not care wether I was right or George W. Bush was. 
In the meantime the world has been handed the situation as it now exists, so we just have to deal with it.
Cheers
Gene


----------



## holman (17 Sep 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Sorry about sending your 'notes' with a response. You are misleading people by stating that Canada isn't participating in the was in Iraq. With 1000 soldiers in Afghanistan we are participating because, among other things, it frees up US military personnel to go to Iraq.
> Explain the decision of the Canadian government not to join the coalition in the war against Iraq.
> 
> The decision of the Canadian government not to participate in the American - led "coalition of the willing" that was intended to remove the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein from power, was an easy one. There were a wide variety of reasons, in the political, economic and strategic arenas for the Canadian spectator status, any one of which would have precluded a similar nation with similar characteristics and commitments from participating. Having said this, while Canada may not have been capable of, or willing to make a massive commitment to this war, a token military element, and political recognition of the wars' necessity and legitimacy could have been extended, but was not. Canada not only declined to join the coalition, but also questioned the reasons for the very existence of it, the accuracy of the most comprehensive security and intelligence apparatus in history, and exactly which aims the coalition was hoping to achieve in the long run. The Canadian federal political leadership did all of this with a federal election looming, two major trade disputes with the US ongoing, and world energy prices setting all time highs, setting the stage for a drastic cooling of both the Canadian and American economies. The decision of the Canadian government not to join the coalition in the war against Iraq was made for many reasons, and ultimately was supported by the majority of the voting blocs in Canada, validating this course of action.
> ...


----------



## KevinB (17 Sep 2005)

Dude - was it REALLY necessary to quote all of GO!!!'s Essay?

Secondly I'm glad your not his prof, since he addressed that issue.  However since you twig on that - Think about how many US pers are deployed and that ~1000 man Btl Gp real means anything to them in the term of manpower relaxed...



> As a result of the January 2005 Iraqi elections, the deployment of a number of units taking part in OIF 2 was extended in a manner similar to units which took part in OIF 1; this time in order to boost the number of troops in Iraq in time for the elections. The extension combined with regularly scheduled deployments and reinforcements boosted the US force in Iraq from 17 to 20 brigades and to an official and approximate figure of 153, 000 troops. That number is expected to dwindle down to 135,000, as units get rotated out of Iraq, including units whose tour had been extended


*www.globalsecurity.org

So I don't think we shoudl be basking in any illusions of support.


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Sep 2005)

Yup just like I said, a cows tail,on the bum for all kinds of support! 
If we had a decent sized Military with all Arms support, I would have said yes but we don't so it's a for gone conclusion and a mute question.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Sep 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> The decision of the Canadian government not to participate in the American - led "coalition of the willing" that was intended to remove the Iraqi dictator, ...
> The reasons for the Canadian government not participating in the Iraq war can most easily be separated into the two areas of political and strategic/military. Political reasons for the lack of participation are by nature, the most subjective, and prone to misinterpretation. Strategic and military motives are not as subjective, and easily quantifiable, if just as easily concealed, especially in the name of "national security". Additionally, the question of why Canadians chose not to support the war in Iraq, even if they did not participate in it is valid, especially since support for the war would have had significant benefits, must be asked.



Think you missed a comma in the last sentence, it's awkward to read.  



> The first of these reasons was the very survival of the liberal party of Canada as the ruling party. There was a federal election on the horizon when the possibility of war in Iraq became an issue. Both of the plausible choices for a controlling percentage of the vote immediately established their position on the matter, with the Conservatives, led by Stephen Harper strongly supporting a pro-war stance. The Liberals, led by the Prime Minister with his successor, Paul Martin waiting in the wings, were against the war on the basis that it (the anti war stance) was "consistent with decades of Canadian policy"



Was this untrue?  We didn't participate in Vietnam or the Falklands and our role in the Gulf War I was extremely limited.  As it stood, we did send observers to Gulf War II, including highly placed senior officers (wasn't one Canadian second in command of an entire Corps?)



> It should be noted however, that the lack of UN support for the US invasion of Iraq was based upon the failure of the IAEA President and chief weapons inspector in Iraq, Hans Blix, to discover any of the WMD that the Americans alleged Iraq had, to attack Iraq in order to defend themselves from future aggression. That the US knew Iraq possessed WMD, particularly certain biological agents, namely anthrax, was a non - issue, as the US had given anthrax spores to Iraq when it was at war with another erstwhile US ally, Iran, in the 1980s.



Is there reason to believe they still had anthrax capability?  To date no proof has been provided.  So how could the US "know"?



> Anti-War Reasons - Real and Created
> There are aspects of the Canadian political picture that were less tangible at the same time (early 2003) that the US was preparing for war. First and most importantly, it is very popular policy in Ottawa and most of Canada to refuse to do the bidding of the United States, or join it in various excursions around the globe. Canadian politicians have always enjoyed popularity (in the short term) for opposing the US publicly,



Short term?  How many years have the Liberals been in power now?


> Finally, the general public did not view the US as a good neighbour. Many Canadians believed that US influence in Canada was already too great, and to do US bidding in committing troops was not a popular choice. Canada signing up to fight an American war on dubious pretences in this political climate was simply unacceptable. The Canadian public simply did not want to be dictated to by the US, and the Canadian government, with an election so near, heeded the electorate.



Too strong.  I would say "The Canadian public simpy _did not want to be seen as being dictated_ etc."



> There were several problems that the Canadian Forces (CF) would have to overcome in order to participate in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The first was getting there. The CF has no long-range heavy lift capability, by air or sea, and as a result relies upon civilian contractors to move Canadian military equipment around the world. This has led to a few embarrassing mishaps, one in which a civilian transport loaded with military vehicles and munitions had to be boarded by the Canadian Navy in order to compel it to return to Canada after the CF did not pay the bill!  More seriously, the CF is not able to project ground force outside of Canada without the co-operation of properly equipped allies. In addition to this, the medium lift aircraft capability of the CF was already completely overwhelmed by the sustainment requirements of Operations Apollo and Athena, the Canadian commitments to Afghanistan. While the US or Britain probably would have been willing to transport Canadian troops to Iraq, the capabilities of the CF present a definite problem when the nation wishes to act in the manner of a wealthy, powerful nation, but only has the military equipment of a poor, weak one. There is also the problem of supplying and maintaining those soldiers, even if they were deployed. Canada does simply not have the capability, and commercial transport is expensive and unreliable.



I say "so what" to all of this.  How did Canadian soldiers get to and from Korea?  US ships.  How did Canadian soldiers get to and from the World Wars?  British and American ships.  That's what allies are for.  Did it really play a part in our not going to war, or are you just grinding a private axe here?



> Out-Gunned
> Even if the Canadian military were able to reach Iraq with a motley collection of civilian transport and assistance from her allies,



Not very impartial; would the Americans really not have provided decent transport if we had provided a battalion or a brigade of combat troops?



> the Canadian Forces, most notably the army, would be unable to take a leading role anyway. The equipment of many of the Iraqi army units that Canadian troops may have faced is superior to that of the Canadian army!   There is a real danger that Canadian Mechanised units may have lost decisively had they been engaged by some of the better Iraqi units, namely the Republican Guard Divisions and the Special Republican Guard. This is compounded by the lack of air superiority that the Canadian army has come to expect on operations.



Could we not operate with the US Air Force?  If not, you should mention it here.  



> While there is little doubt that the Canadian Military is, as a group better trained than the Iraqis, the fact of the matter is that most modern armoured fighting vehicles, even of Russian/Federation of Independent States (FIS) design have eclipsed the capabilities of Canadian military equipment, in terms of speed, range of weapons, effectiveness of those weapons and targeting capabilities. Russia and the FIS are the primary arms suppliers of Iraq. In short, if Canadian troops were deployed to Iraq with the intent of undertaking a combat role, it is entirely possible that they may have sustained very high casualties or even been defeated in battle by the better equipped Iraqis. To mitigate this, they would have undoubtedly been employed in rear areas, doing primarily administrative duties, as they were in the Gulf War of 1991.  Since the Canadian Government was unwilling to contribute troops in the first place, this was an unlikely scenario.



How do you know how the Americans would have employed them?  Wouldn't it have depended on what type of units were being sent?  A laundry and bath unit no doubt would have languished in the rear - how do you know the Americans wouldn't have combat employed a mechanized battalion (had we actually sent one)?



> The possibility that the Canadian public may have found out that the Canadian Forces does not have the capability to move even a single tank and crew to Iraq without the help of civilian transport ships, and even if they did, could not have fed the crew or maintained that tank, may have been too much for Canada's Generals. Even if a single brigade had been deployed, it would have required the "borrowing" of all of the operational vehicles in Canada, in the hopes that one in three could be used.  In short, the Canadian Forces was not ready for a deployment to Iraq, and would have been ineffective almost immediately upon arriving there. The leadership of the CF knew this, and opposed the possible deployment.



You should probably provide evidence here of what "the leadership of the CF knew".


> The Canadian public seemed to revel in the chance to refuse to do the bidding of the US, or even to accept their reasons for war at face value.



Is this fair?  How do you substantiate what the Canadian public wanted?  I personally opposed the invasion on the grounds that it wasn't sanctioned by the UN - had nothing to do with thumbing my nose at the States.  I'm glad they went in, just wish it had been done above board.



> There seemed to be a deep cynicism of the American motives, and those of President Bush. Interestingly, none of these cynicisms were linked to Canadian consumer behaviour, or were detrimental to cross border trade, suggesting that this was simply a childish fit of anti-Americanism, and not a very prudent one at that.



Your bias is showing. I'd remove "childish fit".



> Considering that Canada and Canadian Corporations could have profited handsomely from the war, as many had done in the first Gulf war in 1991, the fact that so many Canadians and the federal government chose to condemn the US for the war seems to be unwise.



Or ethical - refusing to profit from war seems noble to me; you illustrate it as a failing.



> (Canada was specifically excluded from eligibility for application for lucrative contracts to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure) Nevertheless, the Canadian government, while not condemning the Iraq war, refused to offer any helpful words to the US, other than to state that thirty-one exchange officers  presently employed in the American armed forces would not be recalled. The end result was that the Canadian government was unwilling to take a position on the Iraq war unless the UN did first, and the Canadian public supported them in this aspect.



Isn't that how the UN is supposed to work?


> End Result
> The end result of this chapter of Canadian history was that Canada did not commit any ground troops to the Iraq war, other than those exchange officers who were already committed to US units being deployed. Canada did however, fulfill her NATO obligations of the use of Canadian airspace, continued the commitments of ground troops in Afghanistan, and also continued the operations of ships of the Canadian Navy in the Persian Gulf in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, which is ongoing. So while the Canadian Government chose not to support this particular theatre of the American War against Terrorism, they acted in direct support of other theatres, freeing up US troops and materiel for use elsewhere. While this was undoubtedly beneficial to the US, the support of an ally with which they have more in common than any other nation is what the US was primarily interested in. The support, if not direct participation of Canada would have lent a veneer of credibility to the Iraq war, which is probably precisely why it was withheld, and why Canada was correct in doing so. The unflinching support of a war which was fought on false pretences, (as it appears to have been) would not have been a positive event for Canada or Canadian aims on the world stage, and would have damaged Canadian diplomatic credibility. This would have made Canada appear to be only an American colony, with little choice in the execution of domestic or international affairs.



I agree with most of this, but I don't think supporting the US in the invasion would have made us look like "a colony" - we're well past that stage, I hope.  This is Canadian identity crisis talking.  I don't think Australia is a US satellite for sending their SAS.



> The decision of the Canadian government not to go to war in Iraq was indeed an easy one. Canadians did not support the war, or Canadian participation in it. In fact, there was a great deal of animosity towards the US for the actions that took place against the regime of Saddam Hussein. This animosity extended towards the President and his party, widely regarded as elitist warmongers. The Canadian government responded to this groundswell of popular opposition and refused to contribute a land component to the war. The decision not to go to war was made even easier by the short handed and ill-equipped CF, which was tottering under the strain of modest commitments to Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia. That the Canadian Forces could have even made a meaningful contribution is doubtful, and even if they had, would have "cleared the shelves" of money, manpower and equipment, which successive governments in recent history refuse to pay to replace. In conclusion, the Canadian government did not participate in the war in Iraq because the Canadian public did not want them to, and Canada did not have a credible contribution to make in terms of military might even if they had.



Succinct conclusion; well written article.  I'd say your thesis is proven based on the facts you provided.




[/quote]


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Sep 2005)

"Explain the decision of the Canadian government not to join the coalition in the war against Iraq."

IF polls_are_favourable
THEN invade_Iraq
ELSE stay_home


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Sep 2005)

My opinion at the time was that the government got us "stuck in" to Afghanistan so that CF overstretch would provide a plausible excuse for begging off on Iraq.  Different order of cart and horse, IMHO.


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Sep 2005)

Yes but we can't still hold our own i.e. Air support and all the rest that goes with supporting our own.
We are still on the bum which is shamefull for a Military Force.
The only thing that saves our honour is the performance of our Forces working with nothing and doing miracles.


----------



## Michael Shannon (17 Sep 2005)

What miracles? $ 14 billion a year & 75,000 people to put an ad hoc battalion supported by a handful of aircraft and a couple of ships in the field is indeed miraculous but not in the sense I think you mean.


----------



## GO!!! (17 Sep 2005)

Genetk44 said:
			
		

> I started reading the original post but gave up....because it was way too long IMHO.



It's an essay - intended for readers with an adult attention span.


> The Canadian government decided not to go to war because it decided, for its own reasons, that this was the correct decision at the time. Period. What the motives,reasons or rationale of those in power, who made the decision are, will never be known. Why? because we can't read the minds of others, especially they that are politicians...and they will never give us( the average Canadian) an honest answer. So we are left to sift the bits and pieces to try and find the answer that we ,each, as an individual, can live with.



That is kind of the point of this essay, to compile and make sense of available information - what is your suggestion to improve it?


> Was our governments' position the correct one? I believe it was...for a number of reasons....but it's my opinion and my reasons and they satisfy me. History will decide if this war was justified....and if I was correct or incorrect in my opinion...by which time I will probably be long gone and not care wether I was right or George W. Bush was.
> In the meantime the world has been handed the situation as it now exists, so we just have to deal with it.
> Cheers
> Gene



Then you write an essay, and I'll give you a half - baked response about how we can't change anything and the government is an amorphous identity proceeding on a set course, both of which we are powerless to change. 

WE elected the government, and we can elect a new one.

I asked for constructive criticism, not a rambling monologue, so if you don't like politics, or the discussion of it, try the little "X" in the top right hand corner of your browser.

Any points for improvement you may have are more than welcome.


----------



## paracowboy (17 Sep 2005)

Michael's points are well-said, GO!!! It sounds more like one of my semi-paranoid, seditious rants in a couple places than an essay should. Your points are excellent, but you may want to choose other words/phrases, as he recommended. More a quesion of terminology and linguistic semantics, than anything, I think.
Other than that, well done.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (19 Sep 2005)

FOR GO - These are comments and are meant to be constructive. The topic is COMPLICATED and many poeple will hit on you for the smallest error of fact. Have a look at the comments then post the re-worked paper as necessary with FOOTNOTES

Note to Readers - This paper needs more work as in any course I have seen as he does not use footnotes -  as many see the material flashing by it may appear relevant but I disagree. Its an early draft - my prof calls these (a jumble of statements glued together by ideas vs traceable facts)


Explain the decision of the Canadian government not to join the coalition in the war against Iraq.

The decision of the Canadian government not to participate in the American - led "coalition of the willing" ............., was an easy one. 

There were a wide variety of reasons, in the political, economic and strategic arenas for the Canadian spectator status, any one of which would have precluded a similar nation with similar characteristics and commitments from participating. STATEMENT LEADS NO WHERE

Having said this, while Canada may not have been capable of, or willing to make a massive commitment to this war, a token military element, and political recognition of the wars' necessity and legitimacy could have been extended, but was not. THEY WENT FOR UN COMMITMENT - US DID NOT

Canada not only declined to join the coalition, but also questioned the reasons for the very existence of it, ___ DETAIL?

the accuracy of the most comprehensive security and intelligence apparatus in history, ____ DETAIL

and exactly which aims the coalition was hoping to achieve in the long run. DETAIL

The Canadian federal political leadership did all of this with a federal election looming, two major trade disputes with the US ongoing, and world energy prices setting all time highs, setting the stage for a drastic cooling of both the Canadian and American economies.......................

YOU DON`T SUPPORT THIS CONCLUSION WITH ANY FACTS OTHER THAN YOUR MANY REASONS

     The reasons for the Canadian government not participating in the Iraq war can most easily be separated into the two areas of political and strategic/military................. Additionally, the question of why Canadians chose not to support the war in Iraq, even if they did not participate in it is valid, especially since support for the war would (MIGHT) have had significant benefits, must be asked. (HAVE THERE BEEN NEGATIVES FOR NOT SUPPORTING IT?)

Domestic Politics

 Political reasons .......... The Canadian government acted in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the electorate. (THEY ACT ON PARTY LINES)   Although this acting in accordance with the wishes of the electorate (RUN ON SENTENCE - YOU JUST SAID THIS) could be seen as a sign of a healthy democracy, there were other significant political factors, which precluded a move towards war, and were in the interests of the liberal government of then Prime Minister Jean Chretien, as well. The first of these reasons was the very survival of the liberal party of Canada as the ruling party. There was a federal election on the horizon when the possibility of war in Iraq became an issue. (CURIOUS HOW GENE DODGED THE ELECTION AND IT DIDN`T COME UNTIL 2004) Both of the plausible choices for a controlling percentage of the vote immediately established their position on the matter, with the Conservatives, led by Stephen Harper strongly supporting a pro-war stance. The Liberals, led by the Prime Minister with his successor, Paul Martin waiting in the wings, were against the war on the basis that it (the anti war stance) was "consistent with decades of Canadian policy"   ----- DECADES OF POLICY 1948 - 1969 - ARMED TO THE TEETH WITH NUKES --- To 1988 - SUPPORT FIRST USE OF NUKES ---- "SO THE POLICY YOU REFER TO WAS 1989 - PRESENT"

The National Democratic Party (NDP), --- NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY (WHERE ARE YOU LOCATED - ALL CDN LEFTIES KNOW THIS STUFF) the fledgling Green Party and the Bloc Quebecquois all aligned themselves with the left leaning liberals. The failure of the Conservatives lay primarily in their assertations that Canada should support the US because of their status as a strong and faithful ally of Canada. (I DON`T THINK THE BLOC SAID GO FOR WAR) The left (WHICH LEFT _ SPECIFY) countered that the looming war would be fought on false pretences, as the head UN weapons inspector, and head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Hans Blix, ................The whole conflict was colored by the suspicion held by people all over the world that the US was only invading Iraq to gain control of the considerable petroleum reserves it had, and strategically placed bases close to more of the same. (USA DOES NOT NEED IRAQUI OIL - ITS MID EAST OILS WAS COMING FROM SAUDI) 

If need be, neighbouring countries with more oil would be "liberated" to solidify US control of a market it no longer dominated. (US HAS BNEVER DOMINATED THIS MARKET HAS IT?) As Iraq has approximately 112.5 billion barrels of oil underneath it , the fifth largest reserves in the world, this was not an unreasonable suspicion. - (UNDOCUMENTED SUSPICION - AND PRETTY BOLD SINCE THEIR OIL HAS NOT COME ON THE MARKET IN ENOUGH QTY TO PAY IRAQUI COSTS LET ALONE MAKE A PROFIT OFF THE WAR)

United Nations - United in Opposition

Another significant political stumbling block to Canadian participation in the Iraq war was the lack of UN sanction for such an event. .................................... Both of these nations were firmly opposed to the US invasion of Iraq, mostly due to the fact that Saddam Hussein's regime owed them billions of dollars for already-delivered arms and nuclear technology. --- (WHAT ABOUT THE OIL THAT WENT TO EUROPE VIA FRENCH OIL COMPANIES ) A regime change would undoubtedly cause the country to default on these loans. (THATS ONE OUTCOME - OTHERS ARE THEY PAY THEIR BILLS) China (also a permanent member of the security council) was also staunchly opposed to the US invasion, with allegations that the Chinese had been promised for sale (BECAUSE CHINA NEEDS OIL) at less than world prices (WHAT`S LESS THAN WORLD PRICES LEAD TO? )all of the oil produced in the Kirkuk oil fields for a period of time (HOW LONG OR IS THIS SUPPOSITION) in exchange for military equipment, political support and desperately needed cash. (CASH FOR PEOPLE OR THE REGIME?) Canada's slavish (YOUR SLAVISH BIAS IS COMING THEROUGH NOW) adherence to UN resolutions prevented the government from viewing the possibility of these biases as influencing the UN position (PRETTY BOLD STATEMENT - WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS) on the matter though, and one of the major reasons for Canada (and Canadians in general) opposing the war was the lack of UN support. (UN IS A darn CESSPOOL - AND SOMALIA WAS WELL MANAGED BY THEM - BOSNIA - EAST TIMOR) It should be noted however, that the lack of UN support for the US invasion of Iraq was based upon the failure of the IAEA President and chief weapons inspector in Iraq, Hans Blix, to discover any of the WMD that the Americans alleged Iraq had, to attack Iraq in order to defend themselves from future aggression. (THERE WERE CONCERNS IN THE POPULAR PRESS - IF THIS IS TRUE THEN HOW TO EXPLAIN THE MIS-MANAGEMENT IN OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM?) 

That the US knew Iraq possessed WMD, particularly certain biological agents, namely anthrax, was a non - issue, as the US had given anthrax spores to Iraq when it was at war with another erstwhile US ally, Iran, in the 1980s. (WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENT - WHICH IS - UN says NO WAR BECASUE NO WMD)

Anti-War Reasons - Real and Created

There are aspects of the Canadian political picture that were less tangible at the same time (early 2003) that the US was preparing for war. First and most importantly, it is very popular policy in Ottawa and most of Canada to refuse to do the bidding of the United States, or join it in various excursions around the globe. BOSNIA AIR WAR - NO UN RESOLUTION, GROUND TROOPS WITH THE CLINTON COALITION - RESCUE OF REFUGEES AND HOUSING THEM IN CANADA---- COMMITMENT BY CDNS HAS BEEN POPULAR WITH CDNS

Canadian politicians have always enjoyed popularity (in the short term) for opposing the US publicly, as both John Diefenbaker and Pierre Trudeau demonstrated. The Iraq war was no different,

YOU`VE SKIPPED OUR AIR WING IN 1991 DOING TIME OVERSEAS IN shhhhhhhhhhhhh THE SKIES OVER IRAQ

 with Prime Minister Chretien waffling on the issue of sending troops, before finally deciding that his reasoning was that the UN had not authorised the invasion, which was therefore illegal under international law. MAY HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE REASONS - CDN FORCES UNDER GENE GENE THE STEALING MACHINE WERE TOTALLY TAPPED OUT AS WAS SHOWN BY THE 2 YEAR MORATORIUM ON DEPLOYMENTS INSTITUTED BY THIS STAND OFFISH GOVERNMENT WHICH YOUR SLAM JOB ON CDNS TRIES TO ATTACK

There was also the issue that Canada had already contributed a significant number of troops and resources to the Afghan war to unseat the Taliban in 2002, and regarded this military commitment as long term and ongoing. .................... 

TRY THE 3 PPCLI IN SHA I KOT - SOUNDS LIKE WAR FIGHTING TO ME

With a federal election looming, the possibility of Canadian troops coming home in body bags fighting a war in Iraq was unacceptable when a relatively safe Afghan mission could be undertaken instead. WELL THEY WERE IN IT UP TO THEIR NECKS WEREN`T THEY? SO WHERE DOES YOUR RELATIBELY SAFE MISSION COME IN?

The Canadian public is generally supportive of military activity that can be construed as anything other than offensive combat operations. 1989 - 2003 HAS SEEN THE ACTIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE PLUS 2 PPCLI in THE MEDAC POCKET --- SEEMS MOST DEPLOYMENTS HAVE CARRIED REAL RISK OF HEAVY CALIBRE WEAPONS LANDING INSIDE CDN PERIMETER

In the end, this action was taken, with Canada claiming (somewhat truthfully) that the nation was not capable of committing to the Iraq war due to commitments in Afghanistan. BUT YOU HAVE NOT PROVED AN IOTA YET

As a result, the practice of "deflecting" the Canadian Forces to an area where the Americans are not asking for them, but that is far less dangerous, and less likely to fail than the riskier American areas of responsibility continues. SEEMS THE CDS SPOKE OF SCUMBAGS RECENTLY AND RISK OF BATTLE CASUALTIES

The final, and perhaps most influential aspect of the Canadian political climate in early 2003 was that there was not a great deal of goodwill towards the United States of America, or her president. IS THE PRESIDENT HER PRESIDENT - AMERICANS I KNOW CALL HIM THE PRESIDENT OR THEIR PRESIDENT

The post September 11 2001 international outpouring of sympathy had abated. CAN THE JOURNALISTIC MISH MAH

Canada had gone to war (WHICH IS IT - NO RISK SITUATION YOU DESCRIBE OR WAR) in Afghanistan for the first time since the Korean War on the basis that an ally had been attacked, with strong public support. The friendly-fire incident of April 2002, ........................ the lack of punishment for the US pilot who bombed them. THAT PILOT IS ON THE WAY OUT - AND HE HAS PAID A HEAVY PRICE

The ongoing softwood lumber dispute, which was devastating parts (HOW ABOUT DELETE PARTS) of the British Columbian lumber industry was far more important to many Canadians, ....... in light of the far more pressing need for allies in the coming war. WOOD I CAN SEE - THE REST IS AN RUN ON SENTENCE

The Canadian public was wary of committing lives and money to a war in which the US had yet to provide any reason for. WHICH WAR - WE WERE/ARE ALREADY IN AFGHANISTAN AT THIS POINT IN YOUR PAPER

Canadians seemed to regard George Bush as a warmonger, and ignorant of the rest of the world and their priorities. THIS ALSO FITS WELL WITH CANADIANS AND WHAT THEY GET OUT OF THEIR POLITICIANS

 In addition to this, the Canadian public was suspicious of US claims of WMD in Iraq................... This suspicion was eventually borne out when the American State Department admitted in 2004 that some of their pre-war intelligence regarding WMD in Iraq was "shaky".   YOU CAN`T MIX PRE_WAR AND POST WAR KNOWLEDGE TO ACHIEVE YOUR AIM - ONE SHOULD PROVE THE OTHER

Finally, the general public did not view the US as a good neighbour. 

Many Canadians believed that US influence in Canada was already too great, WE LAP UP US MEDIA - US VACATIONS - US CARS - US ACCESS TO THEIR MARKETS ----- I THINK YOU`RE BS METER IS GLOWING RED NOW

and to do US bidding ---- WHY NOT ADD IN SLAVISH US BIDDING WHILE YOU`RE AT IT? - NOTE WE HARBORED THEIR INBOUND COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS ON 9 / 11 -- NORAD AIR DEFENCE WATCH --- YOU CONFUSE TREATIES AND NEIGHBORLY ACTIONS AS THEIR BIDDING in committing troops was not a popular choice. Canada signing up to fight an American war on dubious pretences in this political climate was simply unacceptable. YOU`VE NOT MENTIONED PROETCTING THE KURDS YET - A SPINOFF OF AN AMERICAN WAR - WHY? NOR THE STABILISING EFFECT OF THE NO FLY ZONES FROM 1991 - 2003 - WHY?

The Canadian public simply did not want to be dictated to by the US, and the Canadian government, with an election so near, heeded the electorate. 

AND YOU`VE COMPLETELY MISSED THE SIGNIFIUCANT SHIP BORNE FORCE IN OP APOLLO - A THOUSAND PLUS SAILORS ARMED TO THE TEETH IS HARDLY NOT CONTRIBUTING

Military and Strategic Realities

While Canadian participation in what came to be termed "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was debated from the beginning ....................

AS I SAID - YOU MISSED THE NAVY - GLUG GLUG GLUG YOUR ARGUMENT SEEMS TO HAVE SPRUNG A MAJOR LEAK 

The strategic realities that undoubtedly had an impact ...............


----------



## 54/102 CEF (19 Sep 2005)

IE A LAND COMMITMENT IN IRAQ - ONE POINT SO FAR

The second area is that of the "not willing", .......................

Not Possible

There were several problems that the Canadian Forces (CF) would have to overcome in order to participate in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The first was getting there. The CF has no long-range heavy lift capability, by air or sea, and as a result relies upon civilian contractors .....................................
GTS KATY? TALK IS CHEAP - WE TOOK ACTION.

More seriously, the CF is not able to project ground force outside of Canada without the co-operation of properly equipped allies. 

I SEEM TO REMEMBER US AIRLIFT OF 3 PPCLI - RIGHT? ANYONE?

In addition to this, the medium lift aircraft capability of the CF was already completely overwhelmed by the sustainment requirements of Operations Apollo and Athena, the Canadian commitments to Afghanistan. 

APOLLO WAS NAVY

While the US or Britain probably would have been willing to transport Canadian troops to Iraq, .....................but only has the military equipment of a poor, weak one. 

DELETE POOR WEAK - INSERT PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT

There is also the problem of supplying and maintaining those soldiers, even if they were deployed. Canada does simply not have the capability, and commercial transport is expensive and unreliable.

COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT IS EXPENSIVE AND RELIABLE

Out-Gunned

Even if the Canadian military were able to reach Iraq with a motley collection of civilian transport and assistance from her allies, 

FROM THE COMMERCIAL MARKET WHICH IS ALWAYS AVAILABLE

the Canadian Forces, most notably the army, would be unable to take a leading role anyway. The equipment of many of the Iraqi army units that Canadian troops may have faced is superior to that of the Canadian army!  

NOT THAT WE`VE SEEN SO FAR AND CERTAINLY NOT MANNED BY COMPETANT SOLDIERS

 There is a real danger that Canadian Mechanised units may have lost decisively had they been engaged by some of the better Iraqi units, namely the Republican Guard Divisions and the Special Republican Guard. 

CDS HAS SAID THAT THE UNITS EMPLOYED USED CDN EQPT - CAN YOU SAY ADVANCED AVGP FAMILY?

This is compounded by the lack of air superiority that the Canadian army has come to expect on operations. 

SAYS WHO? 

While there is little doubt that the Canadian Military is, as a group better trained than the Iraqis, .................... design have eclipsed the capabilities of Canadian military equipment, in terms of speed, range of weapons, effectiveness of those weapons and targeting capabilities. 

MAYBE ON A PARKING LOT

Russia and the FIS are the primary arms suppliers of Iraq. In short, if Canadian troops were deployed to Iraq with the intent of undertaking a combat role, it is entirely possible that they may have sustained very high casualties or even been defeated in battle by the better equipped Iraqis. 

BUT THERE ARE OTHER OUTCOMES AS IN COALITION TAKES THESE FORCES OUT OR BLINDS THEM AND THEN THEY FACE THE "UNDEREQUIPPED CDN FORCES"

To mitigate this, they would have undoubtedly been employed in rear areas, doing primarily administrative duties, as they were in the Gulf War of 1991.  

YOU MISS THE AIR WING AGAIN - MINUS ONE POINT 

Since the Canadian Government was unwilling to contribute troops in the first place, this was an unlikely scenario.

Troop Shortage
Even before the end of the Cold War in 1992, the Canadian Governments, Conservative and Liberal alike, have been drastically cutting the size of the uniformed side of the Department of National Defence, mostly as cost savings measures. This continual cutting of the defence budget ............... 

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FALL 2002 AND SPRING 2003 SO A HISTORY LESSON DOES NOT HELP YOUR ARGUMENT

and each of these relied upon the other two for specialised equipment and ammunition for which to train with for any upcoming deployments. The total strength of the CF (army, navy and air force) numbered a tiny sixty thousand by the end of 1998. 

NO RELATION TO DEPLOY TROOPS

 In addition to this, there was only enough air transport to supply one of these Brigades beyond our borders! 

WE ACT WITH A COALITION

The end result of this vigorous budget cutting and regular clawbacks, was that the Canadian Forces was incapable of supporting both an ongoing commitment of 700 - 2000 troops in Afghanistan, and any commitment of any size in Iraq. There were simply not enough troops to go around.

A BETTER ANSWER IS - WE COULD MAKE MORE OF A CONTRIBUTION WHERE WE WENT - 

Not Willing

Although this essay has outlined the lack of political will associated with the possibility of combat in Iraq, there was also hesitation on the part of the Canadian Forces to go to Iraq as well. ...........

To make matters worse, the military is also tied into restrictive, politically influenced and slow procurement methods, which hamstring their efforts to supply themselves. AS IN A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY MAKES CHOICES

The CF had no significant "war stocks" in early 2003, ................

The third, and perhaps most influential reason ................. but the woeful unreadiness of the CF itself. 

IRAQ WASN`T EUROPE 1914 - THERE WAS NO TRIGGER AGREEMENT TO TIP US IN. THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLS THE DEPLOYMENTS - TEH STOCKING AND LINES OF COMMUNICATIONS ISSUES YOU REFER TO WERE VERY WELL KNOWN TO ALL - INCLUSING NATO - US WHO URGED US TO INCREASE THROUGHOUT 1989 - 2003

The possibility that the Canadian public may have found out that the Canadian Forces does not have the capability to move even a single tank ............may have been too much for Canada's Generals. 

BY NOW ITS PAINFUL - THEY ALL KNEW HOW UN EQUIPPED THEY WERE. THE GENERALS WILL GO WHERE THE GOVT TELLS THEM TO GO OR RESIGN. THE GENS FEED BACK THAT THEY CANT GET TO POINT X BECAUSE THE GOVT UNDERFUNDS THEM. WELL KNOWN FACTS VS SUPPOSITIONS.

Even if a single brigade had been deployed, it would have required the "borrowing" of all of the operational vehicles in Canada, in the hopes that one in three could be used...........

CANT IMAGINE THEM EVEN GOING THAT FAR

Support the War?

The vast majority of the nations who comprised the "Coalition of the willing" in the invasion of Iraq did not actually participate in the invasion at all. There were thirty such nations .................................

If Canada was not prepared to participate in the war, could the nation not at least voice her support for it? The answer, both in the press and in the area of popular opinion was a resounding "no".  

THE PRESS REFLECTS POPULAR OPINION

Most Canadians, although more in eastern Canada than in the west and especially in Quebec, opposed the war, ( NOTE YOU SAY THE BLOC ENDORSED IT ABOVE) although a majority were willing to consider participation if the UN sanctioned action against Saddam Hussein's regime. The interesting point here is that the terms "support" and "participate" seemed to be used interchangeably. The fact that both of these terms have very different meanings, 

A NEW ONE - EXPLAIN MORE

and courses of action for any sovereign nation seemed to go unnoticed. The Canadian public seemed to revel in the chance to refuse to do the bidding of the US, or even to accept their reasons for war at face value. 

I DOUBT IT - THE GOVERNMENT HAD A COMMITMENT WHICH IS NOT BIG BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THEY GAVE WHAT THEY COULD

There seemed to be a deep cynicism of the American motives, and those of President Bush. 

THEY LIKE HIS CARS AND SUN 

Interestingly, none of these cynicisms were linked to Canadian consumer behaviour, or were detrimental to cross border trade, suggesting that this was simply a childish fit of anti-Americanism, and not a very prudent one at that. 

POLITICS ACHIEVES ENDS - ONE KEY END IS NO INCREASE IN THE POSTED STRENGTH OF THE FORCES - THE GOVERNMENT MAY HAVE BEEN OUT OF STEP WITH A PRO-AMERICAN PROVINCE BUT IT GETS FEW VOTES FROM THESE SEGMENT OF THE  VOTING PUBLIC

Considering that Canada and Canadian Corporations could have profited handsomely from the war, .......................... 

YOU`VE BROUGHT THIS STUFF IN TOO LATE

Nevertheless, the Canadian government, while not condemning the Iraq war............other than to state that thirty-one exchange officers  presently employed in the American armed forces would not be recalled. 

ANY FIGURES ON HOW MANY WENT OVER WOULD BE GOOD

The end result was that the Canadian government was unwilling to take a position on the Iraq war unless the UN did first, and the Canadian public supported them in this aspect. 

I WOULD SAY THE PUBLIC DIDN`T SUPPORT THEM - POLLS MAY HAVE BEEN TAKEN BUT NO VOTES WERE RISKED AND THE ON GOING MANDATE IS THAT WE SUPPORT OUR ALLIANCES

End Result
The end result of this chapter of Canadian history was that Canada did not commit any ground troops to the Iraq war, other than those exchange officers who were already committed to US units being deployed. 

SO YOU SAY THEY DID - HOW MANY? ELSE TAKE THIS OUT

Canada did however, fulfill her NATO obligations of the use of Canadian airspace, continued the commitments of ground troops in Afghanistan, ....................

YOU BROUGHT THIS IN TOO LATE

So while the Canadian Government chose not to support this particular theatre of the American War against Terrorism, they acted in direct support of other theatres, freeing up US troops and materiel for use elsewhere. 

SHIPS IN THE GULF SAY THEY SUPPORT THAT THEATRE

While this was undoubtedly beneficial to the US, the support of an ally ........................would have lent a veneer of credibility to the Iraq war, 

THEY HAD ENOUGH VENEER AND WE ARE FAR DOWN THE LIST OF INVITEES TO THE PARTY

which is probably precisely why it was withheld, and why Canada was correct in doing so. 

WITHHELD SUPPORT HAS NO EFFECT IN A POSITIVE SENSE

The unflinching support of a war which was fought on false pretences, (as it appears to have been) 

BY THIS TIME YOU SHOULD BE SAYING IT WAS WRONG OR RIGHT ---

would not have been a positive event for Canada or Canadian aims on the world stage, and would have damaged Canadian diplomatic credibility. 

CREDIBILITY WITH SYRIA, THE PLO, AND OTHER ROGUE STATES PERHAPS?

This would have made Canada appear to be only an American colony, with little choice in the execution of domestic or international affairs.

IF YOU LIVE IN A TENT AND GET ALL YOUR NEWS FROM THE LOCAL TALIBAN COMMANDER

The decision of the Canadian government not to go to war in Iraq was indeed an easy one. 

IT WAS PART OF A PROCESS

Canadians did not support the war, or Canadian participation in it. In fact, there was a great deal of animosity towards the US for the actions that took place against the regime of Saddam Hussein. 

DELETE "AGAINST THE REGIME" 
INSERT AGAINST THE "STALINIST MASS MURDERERS OF THE REGIME"

This animosity extended towards the President and his party, widely regarded as elitist warmongers. 

SO NOW WE VOTE DEMOCRAT UP HERE?

The Canadian government responded to this groundswell of popular opposition and refused to contribute a land component to the war. 

WAR IS AN ALL ARMS THING - YOU FORGOT THE NAVY AGAIN

The decision not to go to war was made even easier by the short handed and ill-equipped CF, which was tottering under the strain of modest commitments to Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia. 

WE WERE OUT OF THERE BY THAT TIME

That the Canadian Forces could have even made a meaningful contribution is doubtful, and even if they had, would have "cleared the shelves" of money, manpower and equipment, .........

IT IS REGRETTED THAT YOUR CONCLUSION IN NO WAY SUPPORTS YOUR PAPER.


----------



## GO!!! (19 Sep 2005)

Hello all,

Thank you for the responses, I will rebut, especially 54/102 CEF. I just got a last minute task to Wx. If I have access there, I'll respond then, if not, next wknd.

Keep em comin!

GO!!!


----------



## 54/102 CEF (19 Sep 2005)

GO

Its not a debate - so don`t rebut

REWRITE it or can it


----------



## Lance Wiebe (19 Sep 2005)

I read it, and all of the responses.  

First off, I personally think that it is a well-written essay.

Secondly, while I don't know why 54/102 CEF seems to think that he is a professor of sorts, most of his arguments and comments are ill thought out, and even contradictory.  

I actually took the time to look up the definition of the word "essay", which is included in the subject line:

" A short literary composition on a single subject, usually presenting the personal view of the author."

The "personal view of the author" does NOT require footnotes, although they must be used if the author in question uses quotes from texts.  I must have missed those.

Michael Dorosh had a few good points.  

Remember, that while an essay is presenting your personal view, the essay is used to define and explain your views, and while doing so, you are trying to get your target audience to accept, maybe even adopt, your point of view.

Looking forward to your revised version!


----------



## 54/102 CEF (19 Sep 2005)

I'm a student not a prof and if you hand this in as is - expect to get flak.

GO has some good ideas - he invited comment on his ideas - but thinking its really good isn't commenting on his ideas. He needs help so he moves ahead on thinking about the complicated problem of why we didn't go into Iraq. The means to break this puzzle down is known as critical analyisis - if you just start writing you will get lots of words that sound good, but you may be way off your target. Critical analysis can be learned by anyone to define their ideas or read someone else's work

GO - keep writing! Feel free to PM me.

Critical Analysis Templates from the Web 

********** = seems to be really relevant


********** http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-thkg.htm

********** http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/coia.htm

********** http://www.onpower.org/history_gulf.html

http://www.naz.edu:9000/~srmurphy/critical_review.htm

http://www.kosmicki.com/102/creview.htm

http://www.bretagdesigns.com/printables/Writing%20a%20Critical%20Analysis.pdf

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/05/design_flaws_wh.html

http://www.catholicrestoration.org/library/ratzinger_dominus.htm

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/langc/skills/conc-det.html

http://www.glam.ac.uk/hass/resources/Psychology/resourcedocs/Critical%20Analysis%20Skills.doc

http://www.memri.de/uebersetzungen_analysen/laender/persischer_golf/saudi_curriculum_critic_09_11_04.pdf

http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/biopharm/critanal.htm

http://mclennan.mbs.edu/nwtoolsguides/nwsubjectbiblioghraphies/CriticalAnalysisPathfinder.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0891415637/103-1641329-8308661?v=glance

********** http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1997/97-0150.pdf

http://www.pitt.edu/~ttwiss/irtf/iraq.html

http://www.csis.org/features/attackoniraq_backgroundcord.pdf

********** http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/coia.htm

********** http://www.onpower.org/history_gulf.html


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Sep 2005)

Someday, someone will write an article about the war in this thread. :


----------



## SpruceTree (21 Sep 2005)

GO,
I don't have time to go into detail, but I'll say one or two things. . 


"The reasons for the Canadian government not participating in the Iraq war can most easily be separated into the two areas of political and strategic/military. " *This is an awkward statement. Reword.*. 


"Political reasons for the lack of participation are by nature, the most subjective, and prone to misinterpretation. Strategic and military motives are not as subjective, and easily quantifiable, if just as easily concealed, especially in the name of "national security"." WATCH OUT FOR RUN_ON SENTENCES- you can break this up and make it easier to read. 

"Additionally, the question of why Canadians chose not to support the war in Iraq, even if they did not participate in it is valid, especially since support for the war would have had significant benefits, must be asked."

I find when writing introductions that clarity is everything. In your intro simply write, "This paper will discuss/argue/posit/propose/portray/pontificate/demonstrate/perambulate/alliterate/attempt to prove/convince the....." or if your prof lets you, " I will argue that the.....can be best understood by....." Tell the reader exactly what your thesis is in the clearest language. Be wary of excess wordiness.


----------



## SpruceTree (21 Sep 2005)

More on your intro:
Briefly summarise the Iraq War origins and such. Something along the the lines of "In 2003 the United States.....Iraq.... Failing to achieve UN support.... WMD inspections...Canada declined participation...." instead of launching into vague statements about Iraq War and Canada. It better informs your reader with the issues at hand and provides the context for your argument. Never assume your audience is knows what you talking about. You are trying to convince them of the merits of your position on a complex issue so you need to ensure they are on the same page as you.


----------



## Glorified Ape (22 Sep 2005)

SpruceTree said:
			
		

> GO,
> I don't have time to go into detail, but I'll say one or two things. .
> 
> 
> ...




"Political reasons for the lack of participation are by nature, the most subjective, and prone to misinterpretation. Strategic and military motives are not as subjective, and easily quantifiable, if just as easily concealed, especially in the name of "national security"."

I don't think this is a run-on sentence; just that the wording/commas should be changed thusly: 

"Political reasons for the lack of participation are, by their nature, the most subjective and prone to misinterpretation. Strategic and military motives are less subjective, more easily quantifiable, and equally as easy to conceal, especially when done so under the auspices of "national security". "

This one is just awkward: 

"Additionally, the question of why Canadians chose not to support the war in Iraq, even if they did not participate in it is valid, especially since support for the war would have had significant benefits, must be asked."

Clearer this way, methinks: 

"Additionally, the question of why Canadians chose not to support the war in Iraq, regardless of non-participation, is a valid inquiry and one that must be explored. The necessity for inquiry is compounded when consideration is given to the fact that such support would have produced substantial benefits. "


----------



## GO!!! (23 Sep 2005)

<back at home>

Thank you to everyone for your contributions to this thread, I did some minor last minute re-workings of a number of awkward and long sentances, and sent the paper off. 

I agree that several of the sentances and statements that Glorified Ape, Spruce, Michael Dorosh and others brought up needed to be re-adjusted. Due to the wonders of e-mail, my essay was marked and returned in 36 hrs, and your combined input was invaluable, as was demonstrated in the final mark - 89%!!

I will try not to make a habit of posting my papers for the purposes of proofreading (it is supposed to be my work) but I had a great deal of difficulty with this one - thanks again!

One more thing, this is the last paper of the semester, and this prof has demanded all along that there be no "fence sitting" or boring papers. He has stated that he wants strong language and an "entertaining" read - that you will never get your message accross with a boring paper. That's why some of it may come accross as a rant.

54/102 CEF - Some of your comments were helpful, but to set the record straight Op Apollo was not only Navy, and I feel somewhat qualified to make statements on what we did and did not do in Afghanistan in 2002 because I was there.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (23 Sep 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> <back at home>
> 
> I agree that several of the sentances and statements that Glorified Ape, Spruce, Michael Dorosh and others brought up needed to be re-adjusted. Due to the wonders of e-mail, my essay was marked and returned in 36 hrs, and your combined input was invaluable, as was demonstrated in the final mark - 89%!!



I agreed with far more than I disagreed, but due to space considerations, most of my "positive" comments had to be edited out.  I am glad your prof agreed with my conclusion, ie that it was a well written article that proved the thesis put forth.  I'd be interested in seeing future papers for proofreading or interest's sake.  Congratulations on the mark; well deserved.


----------



## Danjanou (23 Sep 2005)

Sorry didn't see this until now, although I really doubt the original author needed more advice on where to place his commas.  8)

Good initial essay, and some very good comments, assistance in fine tuning it here. GO sounds like the mark was well earned.

I agree with MD, we do have both a good collection of military academics for want of a better term who are very knowledgeable in a wide variety of areas here ( look at the lenght some of the threads relating to tactics, politics etc have gone to) and a willingness to help each out. Seems like yet another natural use for this place.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Sep 2005)

Canada's decision to side with France-German led opposition placed Canada in the EU camp. It was a political decision that was sure to strain relations with the US. Canada had Chretien wanted to do so could have supported the coalition without providing ground forces similar to the contribution made in Desert Storm. Essentially moral support. However, I think he wanted to show his independence and solidarity with France. My problem is that if allies can pick and chose their fights the alliance isnt worth much. If during WW2 Canada had decided to sit it out, Britian would have felt betrayed. I think an ally has to sign on politically but are free to decide their military participation in any particular enterprise.

It has been reported that in 2002 France offered 18,000 troops but wanted a zone of responsibility covering Baghdad, presumably to cover their dealings with Saddam. This would not have been attractive to the US as the experience with France in Bosnia was not one that we would want to replicate. Had France joined the coalition would Chretien have supported the invasion of Iraq ? I think he would have.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Sep 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Canada's decision to side with France-German led opposition placed Canada in the EU camp. It was a political decision that was sure to strain relations with the US. Canada had Chretien wanted to do so could have supported the coalition without providing ground forces similar to the contribution made in Desert Storm. Essentially moral support. However, I think he wanted to show his independence and solidarity with France. My problem is that if allies can pick and chose their fights the alliance isnt worth much. If during WW2 Canada had decided to sit it out, Britian would have felt betrayed. I think an ally has to sign on politically but are free to decide their military participation in any particular enterprise.



Although this has put us in the "EU Camp", I don't see too many positive consequences for Canada out of this. How much has Canadian trade increased to our new "friends", for example?



> It has been reported that in 2002 France offered 18,000 troops but wanted a zone of responsibility covering Baghdad, presumably to cover their dealings with Saddam. This would not have been attractive to the US as the experience with France in Bosnia was not one that we would want to replicate. Had France joined the coalition would Chretien have supported the invasion of Iraq ? I think he would have.



I wonder. Anti-Americanism is a very potent force in the Canadian body politic, and would most likely have trumped any small and residual Pro-French tendencies. Since France hardly comports herself as a Canadian friend or ally, I don't think French participation would have influenced Canadian public or political decision making in a pro war direction (although this is only speculation on my part).


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Sep 2005)

Actually it was more of a personal relationship between Msrs Chretien and Chirac, rather than a national position. Chretien was more in sync politically/philosophically with Chirac than Washington.


----------



## GO!!! (23 Sep 2005)

Tomahawk,

I'm not trying to start a bunfight here, and my stand on Canadian participation in the war is outlined in my essay, but I can think of a certain nation that "sat out" of the most destructive war in history while selling goods to both sides for how many years? After this nation did decide to participate - which it did zealously - it then proceeded to lend enormous sums of money at high rates of interest to all of the original warring parties, making it the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world.

How is Canada's sitting out of Iraq any less traitorous than the US sitting out of WW2 until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour?


----------



## armyvern (23 Sep 2005)

GO!!

I'm with you on that convenient history lesson. But....blame their politician's and ours for sitting us out on both sides. I know where all the soldier's I know think we should be!! And it ain't here in the snow. :'(


----------



## GO!!! (23 Sep 2005)

armyvern said:
			
		

> GO!!
> 
> I'm with you on that convenient history lesson. But....blame their politician's and ours for sitting us out on both sides. I know where all the soldier's I know think we should be!! And it ain't here in the snow. :'(



True story - I actually want to go somwhere as hot as Iraq - how am I ever going to find out if we are the best?


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Sep 2005)

The rate of interest according to my reading was 2% to begin payments in 1950 in 50 equal payments, but there was a provision for deferrment. The UK deferred 6 times during that period. Yes the US went to war in 1941. But the similarities are close. The US public did not favor going to war. Two the US was not part of an alliance. Canada was part of the Commonwealth which obligated it to help the UK.


----------



## armyvern (23 Sep 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Canada was part of the Commonwealth which obligated it to help the UK.


 

Very true....however; Alliance or not my honourable predecessor's lined up by the hundreds of thousands to volunteer for this "duty." 
Those brave men that were not serving in any Canadian Military capacity and thus were not obligated to do anything made the choice to do so. 
Much the same as your fellow Americans who came North to Canada to assist in this effort prior to 7 Dec 1941.


----------



## Recce41 (24 Sep 2005)

It's not like we have a lot of stuff to give, but I think if the UN would have gave the GTG and not this If your not with us your against us crap  We would have sent a group as a token.
:evil: :tank:.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (24 Sep 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Tomahawk,
> 
> How is Canada's sitting out of Iraq any less traitorous than the US sitting out of WW2 until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour?



Lets not sell USA short here - its well known that US was not politically ready pre-1941 - but industrially it provided a materiel pipeline which was pressurised by UK and FRENCH money to produce the aircraft for a start that went on to expand to the full war industry.

And it wasn`t a money grab - name the coalition partners that have bailed out less fortunate nations for free - anywhere in the past. Anyone?


----------



## GO!!! (24 Sep 2005)

My argument here would to be to draw a paralell between pre - Pearl Harbour US and present day Canada. Your allies are at war, but your nation itself has not been attacked, leading to an apathy on the part of the electorate, and a "wait and see" attitude in the capitals. 

WHEN Canada suffers a major terrorist event, and make no mistake, I am sure it is coming, Canada will take a more active role in TWAT (The War Against Terror). I expect that this will concentrate on domestic measures though, with a token commitment to US - led missions elsewhere.


----------



## GO!!! (25 Sep 2005)

Canadian Foreign and Defence Policy, from the University of Manitoba

Cheers


----------



## Cloud Cover (25 Sep 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Two the US was not part of an alliance. Canada was part of the Commonwealth which obligated it to help the UK.



If you are speaking of WW2, it is not true that Canada entered the war merely on the basis of it's membership in the commonwealth. I'm not sure where that particular notion is propoagated from, but in 1939 the Canadian Parliament elected to go to war as the result of a near unaminmous vote. It is not true that that it would be natural Canada to simply follow orders from Downing street, and it is certainly not true that Canada was somehow bound by some sort of commonwelath treaty.   

That little technicality aside, for practical reasons it would have been unthinkable that Canada wouldn't roll up sleeves and  pick up a rifle. Is there some reason to think that the USA was ready to rise to that level at the time?


----------



## Glorified Ape (4 Oct 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> However, I think he wanted to show his independence and solidarity with France. My problem is that if allies can pick and chose their fights the alliance isnt worth much. If during WW2 Canada had decided to sit it out, Britian would have felt betrayed. I think an ally has to sign on politically but are free to decide their military participation in any particular enterprise.



So the US would sign-on politically if Canada decided to invade Denmark? I doubt it, but I wouldn't characterize that as proof of "the alliance not being worth much". I wouldn't sign-on morally with my buddy if he's clobbering someone and I didn't think it was right - to do so would be the ultimate in pathetic kow-towing and moral hypocrisy. Alliances aren't all-or-nothing, especially since the constituent countries' stances on issues vary substantially. Is the US' alliance with Canada more valuable than its alliance with Denmark vis a vis the war in Iraq? It would have to pick a side but if it picked Denmark's (as I hope it would, given the lack of impetus for Canada to attack the Danish) I certainly wouldn't consider that a "betrayal" given the circumstances. 



> Had France joined the coalition would Chretien have supported the invasion of Iraq ? I think he would have.



I doubt that greatly. If the UN had signed on, I believe he would have supported it. Canada made its position on the war quite clear from Day 1 and I can't see any reason to believe Chretien's decision on something as important as whether or not to take the nation to war would hinge on, of all countries, France. 

Maybe the whole "71% of Canadians back Chretien's decision" thing might have something to do with it. Or the poll results that only 40% of Canadians supported military action as of December of that year. Or maybe it was the shoddy evidence the US was putting out to support the war. Or the UN's refusal to back it, given Canada's seemingly fanatical devotion to the UN. Or Canada's reluctance to get engaged in Iraq when it was already neck-deep in Afghanistan. When one considers those factors, what France is or isn't doing amounts to about as much as a drop of piss in the ocean. Pardon my French.  ;D


----------

