# Canada: a nuisance neighbour



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2005)

Here is a lengthy but interesting article from today's _National Post_.  I think Prof. Sapolsky's view is somewhat slanted but, on the facts (rather than some of his opinions) he is, largely accurate.

Harvey M. Sapolsky is not some fly-by-night right wing extremist.  He is a tenured professor at MIT, a recognized _expert_ in defence policy issues.  See: http://web.mit.edu/polisci/faculty/H.Sapolsky.html  What he says matters in Washington, and it should matter in Ottawa, too.

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=0426ecf8-ea82-4b86-ac93-74a7a1f218bd 


> A nuisance neighbour
> 
> Harvey M. Sapolsky
> National Post
> ...



I wonder if Carolyn Parrish reads the _National Post_.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Jul 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> I wonder if Carolyn Parrish reads the _National Post_.



I'm still trying to figure out if she can read at all....


----------



## Britney Spears (27 Jul 2005)

This is a little overblown. lone oddballs like Ms. Parrish do not represent the popular setiment of the entire Canadian population. Some of the guy's examples are meaningless. Canada is "Anti-American" because we didn't support the war in Iraq? Well I got news for you Ms. Coulter, NOBODY supports the war in Iraq,  maybe you should try convincing the 40% (at the very least) of AMERICANS who opposed the war first before pointing fingers?  Most of the other stuff is just greedy politicians and a stupid, shortsighted defence policy, not anti-Americanism.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (27 Jul 2005)

This is the quote that got me:



> Hundreds of Canadian officers and enlisted personnel are embedded in American units, given training at American military facilities and exposed to American military staff planning procedures. Canadian ships often sail as part of U.S. battle groups. Canadian air force squadrons make exchange flights to U.S. bases. The deputy commander of the North American Aerospace Defence Command is a Canadian general, but so, too, is the deputy commander of the U.S. Army's III Corps. Ironically, even though Canada opposes our role in Iraq, III Corps recently deployed to Iraq with the Canadian general still serving as the deputy commander and issuing orders to American forces.



Frankly, I'm not sure where this comes from, given that there are Americans up here, taking training at Canadian military facilities and being exposed to Canadian planning procedures.  For such a weak, ineffectual military we seem to be doing pretty well, judging by this list.  I don't see many other foreigners actually commanding US forces.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (27 Jul 2005)

He`s full of $hit - a paper I did a while back for a counter view http://www.donlowconcrete.com/USA/

And extract

We ... have been and still are an engaged partner notwithstanding the Chretien downturn. We infer that although the US might like us to modernize our forces and participate in expeditionary operations with them, alluding to consequences if we do not, this is likely a hollow threat since the US alone spends over 43% of international defence budgets[x] that is aided by our economic relationship with them. Our trade relationship with the USA over shadows the defence arena. Our military has declined due to government neglect such that we have lost our ability to assist in quickly influencing international events by the presence of armed Canadian troops. In this we rank far behind the USA, Japan, the UK. France and China[xi]. Naval and air patrol capabilities are our strongest links, but the army reflects more starkly government under funding that also mark the other two services. 

If our defence forces slip beyond the point of economic maintenance and require major re-investment, which the government seems loath to even contemplate, then there may be real risks to Canadian freedom of action. Potential consequences range from little or no consultation on US policy that may affect Canadian relations with the rest of the world. Yet â â€œ given the levels of American investment in Canada, an impartial observer may ask why does it even matter? It matters, in theory, because we are neighbors but the neighborhood is no longer European NATO or North America. It has become global â â€œ at the same time traditional multi-lateral organizations like the UN have shown themselves unwilling to accede to one country`s leadership. 

All are indicators of a generalised lack of influence related to the decline in national investments that can be used outside of the country. There is no end to this story, just as one commentator suggested â â€œ a series of episodes.[xii] Business will probably lead the charge in the North American playing fields as they did in 1917 in capturing American business.[xiii] Until we actually contract out the fighting troops to hired guns our defence partnerships remain part of the mandate given to the government by the Canadian voter.


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Jul 2005)

The author has some valid points:
1. weak on defense
2. pro-European foreign policy

My concern with Canada is that it has become closer to the EU than the US, politically. At present the EU is soft on terrorism because of their large muslim minorities which color their foreign policy. Right now Europe favors appeasement with regard to Islamic fundamentalism. Until the bombings in London the UK was in this camp as well. They had an informal truce with the fundamentalists which used London as a base. Now it seem's that the truce is over. But there seem's a similar truce exits in Canada and the terrorists may have decided that a base in Canada is preferable to one in London. For the moment I think we will see Canada used as a logistics base and conduit to support terror cells in the US. So in that regard Canada's hands off approach to fundamentalists does pose a threat to the US, which the US is countering with stricter border policies.


----------



## paracowboy (27 Jul 2005)

Mr. Sapolsky makes a lot of sense to me.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (27 Jul 2005)

A few points of contention here - but alls in good spirit - my comments preceded by asterisks *

1. weak on defense **** been that way for over 50 years 

2. pro-European foreign policy *** I wouldn`t say pro Europe - I would say anti everything - if its touchy feely thats for us! 

My concern with Canada is that it has become closer to the EU than the US, politically. (read this link http://www.cda-cdai.ca/presentations/natos_new_frontiers.htm - note the ref to post modern based vs accountability outlook)

* We have been diverging since 1914 and 1939 when we would not take Lend Lease loans from the US

* We are Closer to MExico - we are a one party state

At present the EU is soft on terrorism because of their large muslim minorities which color their foreign policy. Right now Europe favors appeasement with regard to Islamic fundamentalism. 

 * Thats pretty broad without facts.

Until the bombings in London the UK was in this camp as well. 

 * Whew! How did they catch the pics if they were sleeping at the switch?

They had an informal truce with the fundamentalists which used London as a base. Now it seem's that the truce is over. 

 * Read Understanding Terror Networks by Marc Sageman

But there seem's a similar truce exits in Canada and the terrorists may have decided that a base in Canada is preferable to one in London. 

* Seems = you have no facts

For the moment I think we will see Canada used as a logistics base and conduit to support terror cells in the US. 

* There will be a lot of dead terrorists here before they get down there.

So in that regard Canada's hands off approach to fundamentalists does pose a threat to the US, which the US is countering with stricter border policies.

* The border policy of the USA (my country also via dual Citizenship) is country wide not just norther norder based


----------



## mjohnston39 (28 Jul 2005)

A large portion of article is pointless. He basically states that Canada is a security threat because it supports two treaties that _may _ put American troops at risk. Oh but wait Prof. Sapolsky, America doesn't recognize and hasn't ratified those two treaties, so guess what Prof. Sapolsky, they don't apply to Americans, so in this case it doesn't really matter what Canada/Canadians think or what treaties we support. 

Prof. Saplosky also appears to suggest that the defense of North America against terrorism requires a strong military...



> We are going to protect the continent with or without Canada's help. We are going to fight wars whether or not Canadian forces accompany our own. Given the likely effect of another terrorist attack on the nearly indistinguishable Canadian and U.S. economies, Canada can have no problem in working co-operatively with U.S. authorities to prevent infiltration by al-Qaeda members.



I would hope that someone with Prof. Saplosky's credentials and position would realize that stopping terrorists from entering Canada, and ultimately America, is more a security, intelligence and police matter than a military one. Maybe you should let your own government know that outing CIA NOCs and their cover companies isn't acceptable when the county is at â Å“warâ ?.

Prof. Saplosky appears contradicts himself by stating that Canada is freeloading on defense but also doesn't really need a large military and America gets everything it needs from Canada anyway...



> Canada's freeriding is both impossible to stop and ultimately limited.





> Canada does not have to spend much on its military, and it knows it, but Canada also is not suicidal. From a physical security/military assistance perspective, we have what we need from Canada and always will.



If Prof. Salposky wants Canada to spend more on defense, make the case for it, it's easy any many Canadians support it. If Prof. Salposky wants a more secure Northern border, make the case, but make sure you also cast a critical eye at the absimal job your own government has done in enhancing security. Don't use the rational that Canada should spend more on defense so we can join America on it's expeditionary wars and enhance contential defense, that doesn't fly...

Mike


----------



## sgt_mandal (28 Jul 2005)

This really bugged me....


> Canada is so weak, militarily and culturally



Canada, weak culturally in relation to the US.....I'm sorry but I really cannot see to which aspects he is reffering.....


----------



## beltfeedPaul (28 Jul 2005)

I agree wholeheartedly with Prof. Sapolsky, we have been on a free ride since the early 60's. What could we field now? 9 understrength regular infantry battalions? Frigates that are tied up because there are not enough hard sea trade sailors to man them? Maybe 50 airworthy CF 18's? No heavy air transport(except rented Antonovs), Hercs that are literally falling apart, Reservists who get maybe 20 man days a year to train, with next to no ammunition? We suck, ladies and gentleman, and we are a burden.


----------



## paracowboy (28 Jul 2005)

WO2_mandal said:
			
		

> This really bugged me....
> Canada, weak culturally in relation to the US.....I'm sorry but I really cannot see to which aspects he is reffering.....


the fact that we have adopted a culture of being "Not American". Canadian Intelligentsia have become so obsessed with 'not being American' that they have no identity. When all you do is compare yourself to another, whether favourably or not, then your identity is simply part of whomever you compare yourself to.
The average Canadian is far too busy to concern themselves with this sort of intellectual inferiority complex, this mental flagellation. But our press, and our fearful leaders have very little else to do when there isn't an election to rig.


----------



## Britney Spears (28 Jul 2005)

> the fact that we have adopted a culture of being "Not American". Canadian Intelligentsia have become so obsessed with 'not being American' that they have no identity. When all you do is compare yourself to another, whether favourably or not, then your identity is simply part of whomever you compare yourself to.
> The average Canadian is far too busy to concern themselves with this sort of intellectual inferiority complex, this mental flagellation. But our press, and our fearful leaders have very little else to do when there isn't an election to rig.



I think you've got it backwards. The "not American" style of thought is generally prevailent amongst the less knowledgable and the easily exited, the ones who run around with "Canada Kicks Ass" T-shirts. 

People who do study Canadian history and culture are more likely to have heard of Vimy and Oratona, and thus have a more reasonable appreciation of both American contributions to western civilization (incalculable) and our own heritage, more so  than the "average Canadian" who sits mesmerizied in front of the idiot box and it's Californian brand of western culture, while clinging desperately to the little maple leaf on their backpacks wailing "I am Canadian" or some other Madison Ave. drivel in helpless ignorance. 

They don't call us the "INTELLIGENTsia" for nothing.


----------



## paracowboy (28 Jul 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> I think you've got it backwards. The "not American" style of thought is generally prevailent amongst the less knowledgable and the easily exited, the ones who run around with "Canada Kicks ***" T-shirts.
> 
> People who do study Canadian history and culture are more likely to have heard of Vimy and Oratona, and thus have a more reasonable appreciation of both American contributions to western civilization (incalculable) and our own heritage, more so   than the "average Canadian" who sits mesmerizied in front of the idiot box and it's Californian brand of western culture, while clinging desperately to the little maple leaf on their backpacks wailing "I am Canadian" or some other Madison Ave. drivel in helpless ignorance.
> 
> They don't call us the "INTELLIGENTsia" for nothing.


no Brits, with "the average Canadian," I'm referring to truck drivers, loggers, doctors, fishermen, elementary school teachers, etc. People who have more important things to worry about than whether they have a 'Canadian Identity'. They were born in Canada. They love their country. They pay their taxes. They have mortgages, their kids need braces or glasses or new shoes, they have a deadline coming up, that patient in 204 has complications, ad infinitum. They don't bother over-thinking it. They don't have to.

But, the Intelligentsia, those people boldly leading us into a future that they can't see because their blinders are blocking most of the view, have nothing else to concern themselves with, it appears. Possibly because they are still living in Mom's basement, spending Dad's cash on pizza pops and dope in the dorm, or suckling at the rapidly draining teat of the bureaucracy.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (28 Jul 2005)

beltfeedPaul said:
			
		

> I We suck, ladies and gentleman, and we are a burden.



It would would be a mistake for anyone to take this personally - we suck because of poltical choices made by elected officials who bribe the gullible voter and give him no external protection and fractured internal security. Joe soldier knows wooden nickels - and our elected offiials spit them out of their butt$.


----------



## on guard for thee (28 Jul 2005)

Joe soldier knows wooden nickels - and our elected offiials spit them out of their butt$.

Is that what keeps going into my bank account???????

Is that what they're paying you guys with too?????


----------



## Lazy W (28 Jul 2005)

"When Canada calls for a ban on the instruments of warfare or wants to put in criminal jeopardy those who fight, it knowingly handicaps American action."

The UK, the 3rd lagest in the 'Coalition of the Willing' in Iraq (only next to private security companies and the US) and the US' closest ally, also happens to have signed and ratified both the Ottawa Treaty and the Rome Statute on the ICC... as have a large portion of the rest of the world.


----------



## Britney Spears (28 Jul 2005)

> Possibly because they are still living in Mom's basement, spending Dad's cash on pizza pops and dope in the dorm, or suckling at the rapidly draining teat of the bureaucracy.



Huh, you and I have rather different definitions of "Intelligentsia" then. You think people who do any of the above things are destined to become our future leaders? Certainly I would not associate Paul Martin with any of those images.


----------



## coors (28 Jul 2005)

The Mine Ban Treaty has more than enough support including France and the UK. Accusing Canada of undermining US military capability is ludicrous in terms of our support of banning a weapon that have been of questionable strategic use in many recent conflicts (I just wrote a paper on the topic and will gladly post it if someone can inform me how via PM [it is 9 pages though]) The author does raise some valid issues but marres them with obvious prejudices. Attacking us as culturally weak is absurd our identity is not based on universal health care. How about loyalist how on rejection of the American Revolution moved north to Canada, I personal hold our historical ties to Britain dear to heart and I believe many Candians do as well. Our universal health care is not a source of identity but rather a product of Canada's overridding belief in the commonwealth or common good as more important than individual rights which is a significant difference ideologically from the US. We are culturally tied to the US and will always be economically and strategically tied to them but it is far more than healthcare that differentiates us from our brothers to the south.


----------



## paracowboy (29 Jul 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Huh, you and I have rather different definitions of "Intelligentsia" then. You think people who do any of the above things are destined to become our future leaders? Certainly I would not associate Paul Martin with any of those images.


I use the term 'intelligentsia' as an insult for those who think that they think.
And I do not associate Paul Martin with intelligence. Merely lack of honour.


----------



## sgt_mandal (29 Jul 2005)

on guard for thee said:
			
		

> Joe soldier knows wooden nickels - and our elected offiials spit them out of their butt$.


but they are not the ones that feel the splinters....


----------



## Monsoon (29 Jul 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> the fact that we have adopted a culture of being "Not American". Canadian Intelligentsia have become so obsessed with 'not being American' that they have no identity. When all you do is compare yourself to another, whether favourably or not, then your identity is simply part of whomever you compare yourself to.
> The average Canadian is far too busy to concern themselves with this sort of intellectual inferiority complex, this mental flagellation. But our press, and our fearful leaders have very little else to do when there isn't an election to rig.



Ah, "the intelligentsia", those long-suffering strawmen who are carted out everytime a "real person" needs to pillory someone.  Fact is, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone in this country who is actually and wholly anti-American, and if you were able to find one odds are it would come from among those rough-and-tumble farmers, firemen and other real people who don't have much time to give thought to the subject.  However, if you define anti-American as meaning someone who is critical of the current U.S. administration's foreign policy, or who would like to see Canadian books and productions promoted within Canada and abroad, or who is more or less happy with a publicly-funded health care system, or who suspects that post-colonial involvement in third world countries may seed the resentment that leads to terrorism, or who is reasonably proud to be Canadian and would like to see Canada get ahead, then by all means the country is rife with the devils.

Just remember, the first thing every communist revolution in history has done is to kill off the intelligentsia - that's why those countries are all in such great shape today!


----------



## S McKee (29 Jul 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Ah, "the intelligentsia", those long-suffering strawmen who are carted out everytime a "real person" needs to pillory someone.   Fact is, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone in this country who is actually and wholly anti-American, and if you were able to find one odds are it would come from among those rough-and-tumble farmers, firemen and other real people who don't have much time to give thought to the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Monsoon (30 Jul 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> Nah, probably the latte- mocha sipping, black beret, goatee wearin' types that frequent the cafes in the centre of the Canadian Universe. Don't forget Carolyn! "Those Bastards"


I think maybe you're mistaking talking heads for intelligentsia - Carolyn Parrish is posturing for the benefit of the voters in her (predominately blue-collar, as it turns out) riding.  Ignatieff/Trudeauites/etc = intelligentsia.  Parrish/David Frum/newspaper columnists = talking heads.  It's important to recognize the difference.



			
				Jumper said:
			
		

> It's great to be critical of another countrie's foreign policy, maybe we should develop our own first.


Isn't that sort of the point?  As long as the criticism is intended to serve the goal of developing our own distinct policy, then it is constructive and not anti-American.  There are those who believe that any effort on the part of Canada to develop an independent foreign policy is inherently "anti-American", and that's just nonsense.



			
				Jumper said:
			
		

> Forget about the corrupt governments and dictators that run those third world countries "it's our fault" always has been, always will be, forever and ever amen.


Who built those countries' infrastructures and then cleared out leaving the strong men in charge?  Who backs the corrupt dictators that serve their foreign policy?  The problem isn't one that can be solved by more democracy - the cultures involved simply aren't well served by any sort of central government, but it serves our purposes for there to be one in place in those countries.


----------



## S McKee (31 Jul 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I think maybe you're mistaking talking heads for intelligentsia - Carolyn Parrish is posturing for the benefit of the voters in her (predominately blue-collar, as it turns out) riding.  Ignatieff/Trudeauites/etc = intelligentsia.  Parrish/David Frum/newspaper columnists = talking heads.  It's important to recognize the difference.



And what do you think the "Ignatieff/Trudeauites intelligentsia" would say about US foreign policy today?



> Isn't that sort of the point?  As long as the criticism is intended to serve the goal of developing our own distinct policy, then it is constructive and not anti-American.  There are those who believe that any effort on the part of Canada to develop an independent foreign policy is inherently "anti-American", and that's just nonsense.



The point is we have no discernable foreign policy of our own (apart from harping about the US ). Canada contributes little on the world stage, and our government is purely reactionary to world events , making the odd condemning statement about this and that. Given these factors I don't believe that we have the moral authority to criticize the Americans who are dying in droves to secure the western world from the threat of Islamic Terrorism. Agree or disagree with US foreign policy, you cannot deny the fact that they shoulder more than their fair share. 




> Who built those countries' infrastructures and then cleared out leaving the strong men in charge?  Who backs the corrupt dictators that serve their foreign policy?  The problem isn't one that can be solved by more democracy - the cultures involved simply aren't well served by any sort of central government, but it serves our purposes for there to be one in place in those countries.



Maybe we should have ingrained the ideals of democracy alittle more forcibly before we "cleared out". What would you suggest?


----------



## Monsoon (1 Aug 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> And what do you think the "Ignatieff/Trudeauites intelligentsia" would say about US foreign policy today?


Nothing especially inflammatory, as it turns out.  They certainly seem to agree that it's not the right foreign policy for Canada, but we're a country with very different circumstances.  Ignatieff's stuff is widely available on the Internet, if you're interested.



			
				Jumper said:
			
		

> The point is we have no discernable foreign policy of our own (apart from harping about the US ). Canada contributes little on the world stage, and our government is purely reactionary to world events , making the odd condemning statement about this and that. Given these factors I don't believe that we have the moral authority to criticize the Americans who are dying in droves to secure the western world from the threat of Islamic Terrorism. Agree or disagree with US foreign policy, you cannot deny the fact that they shoulder more than their fair share.


I don't know that using the U.S. as a basis of comparison for how a country of 30 million with an export-based economy should act is really a good idea.  Canada certainly continues to "punch above its weight", despite claims to the contrary - we have far more influnece on the world stage than (say) Australia.  Our foreign policy is reactionary because it wouldn't serve us well to be interventionary.  Canada's greatest foreign policy threats are threats to our sovereignty - mimicing US foreign policy to please the likes of Prof. Sapolsky doesn't seem like a sensible exercise of that sovereignty.



			
				Jumper said:
			
		

> Maybe we should have ingrained the ideals of democracy alittle more forcibly before we "cleared out". What would you suggest?


Clearly.  In any case, I think recognizing the fact that securing an oil supply from the Middle East means disenfranchizing a huge number of people is hardly earth-shattering news.  You can argue about whether or not it's the best long-term solution for the U.S, but the argument that one hasn't lead directly to the other simply doesn't exist.  The question is whether or not it's profitable to continue doing things as before, or to change directions.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (1 Aug 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> You can argue about whether or not it's the best long-term solution for the U.S, but the argument that one hasn't lead directly to the other simply doesn't exist.   The question is whether or not it's profitable to continue doing things as before, or to change directions.




The bit about dis-enfranchising is off the mark - it may have been OK when the camel caravan rolled into town very other week....... who knew any better? Now - with even basic education and Internet or CNN or whatever the local flavour young people see the world - want something better than the same old noz about know your place and then the great pull between unmet needs to set your own course vs some 1 party rep in the local mudhutville or the local priest starts grating on your nerves --------------> potential recruit for violent changes.

It is in the wests best interest to show the local governments that having a say is more important than telling them to have a nice cup of shut the F--K up, and that process takes a very long time.

Did I mention all should read Max Boot`s Savage Wars of Peace?


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Aug 2005)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> 1.	Canada certainly continues to "punch above its weight", despite claims to the contrary - we have far more influnece on the world stage than (say) Australia.
> 
> ...



The first point is highly debatable.  We remain, to be sure, one of the world's _top ten_ nations by most fair measures of power but we are, and we have been, in a steady, sometimes precipitous decline since the fall of 1968.  We remain in e.g. the G8 because, and only because, it suits the US to have a lapdog.  We have not, in my view, _punched at our weight_, much less above it, since 1967; for most of the past 38 years we have, as John Manly put it, acted like the fellow who always retires to the wash room when the bill is presented.

The second point is valid, most of the time, so long as you accept that Pierre Trudeau and Ivan Head actually understood something, anything at all, about foreign policy. They did not.  Trudeau was a fool, a petty, pumped up, provincial, pseudo-intellectual, driven by sophomoric anti-capitalism; Head was a one-note, North/South, wonder.  Our 1969 foreign policy was a piece of monumental stupidity which failed, miserably, but which drove foreign affairs for a decade â â€œ doing serious damage day-after-day, month-after-month and year-after-year.

Despite what such luminaries as Allan Gotlieb and Jennifer Walsh contend, I think St. Laurent was right in the 1940s and is still right today.  Perhaps the _leading middle power_ role is out of our current reach, but, there are middle powers, still, and we are one of them â â€œ and we will remain so, even after China and India take their rightful places amongst the great and super powers.  The remaining, generally Western, middle powers are willing to be led, can be led and are being led, today, by e.g. Australia, Netherlands and Norway.  There ought to be room for Canada on that list.

Regarding the third point: There are real threats to our sovereignty and they do, mainly â â€œ for now, stem from the US.  They will not go away unless and until we take strong, active measures to _assert_ and _maintain_ our _positive control_ over all of out territory and the contiguous waters â â€œ out to 200 nautical miles â â€œ including the sea bed, and the airspace over both.  This is a hugely expensive proposition  - one which is repugnant to policy planners and taxpayers alike; it is, also, an absolutely necessary proposition if, big IF, we want to maintain sovereignty over all that which we claim.  It is not only sovereignty which ought to concern us.  The other big aim of our foreign and defence policies ought to be to *protect and promote our vital interests around the world.*

There is some room for discussion about vital interests but I will repeat myself (see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/17947/post-182791.html#msg182791 ) and contend that we can use shorthand and summarize Canada's vital interest as: peace and prosperity.  Protecting and promoting both may require a bit of unilateralism, especially if we want to lead.  Given that we have only 30 million people and a finite budget it stands to reason that we do need help which we are unlikely to get unless we take the lead.  We do not need to _mimic_ American policies but we may wish to _[mimic_ some of the ways they go about things: making a proposition, forming a team and leading it.


----------



## S McKee (1 Aug 2005)

Good points Edward I agree!


----------



## mdh (1 Aug 2005)

> The second point is valid, most of the time, so long as you accept that Pierre Trudeau and Ivan Head actually understood something, anything at all, about foreign policy. They did not.   Trudeau was a fool, a petty, pumped up, provincial, pseudo-intellectual, driven by sophomoric anti-capitalism; Head was a one-note, North/South, wonder.   Our 1969 foreign policy was a piece of monumental stupidity which failed, miserably, but which drove foreign affairs for a decade â â€œ doing serious damage day-after-day, month-after-month and year-after-year.



Edward C. you may have heard of this story.

According to Peter Brimelow's book on Canadian nationalism called The Patriot Game, when Trudeau came to power several drafts of the new foreign policy were repeatedly rejected because it was not considered "scientific enough" - until one foreign policy mandarin - in frustrated desperation no doubt - found some pseudo-scientific management jargon in various publications, sat down with a bottle of scotch, and redrafted the whole thing with charts and graphs and larded it with abstruse and abstract language - and presto! a new foreign policy - needless to say Trudeau loved it and released it in a box set - when reporters asked why the new policy said nothing about Canada's relationship with the US - Trudeau said that was coming in the next installment.


----------



## Monsoon (1 Aug 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> The first point is highly debatable.  We remain, to be sure, one of the world's _top ten_ nations by most fair measures of power but we are, and we have been, in a steady, sometimes precipitous decline since the fall of 1968.  We remain in e.g. the G8 because, and only because, it suits the US to have a lapdog.  We have not, in my view, _punched at our weight_, much less above it, since 1967; for most of the past 38 years we have, as John Manly put it, acted like the fellow who always retires to the wash room when the bill is presented.


I guess it's a matter of deciding what you think our weight is - I categorize us with countries of comparable population that are not the largest power in their region.  By that standard, just being in the top ten is a feat that shows we're punching above our weight: we're certainly not the tenth-largest country in the world.  In a category that includes Spain, South Africa, Australia, Italy, Austria, Argentina and others, we have performed the best in just about every measurable sense.  If you consider them to be "our weight" then we're certainly above it.



			
				Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> The second point is valid, most of the time, so long as you accept that Pierre Trudeau and Ivan Head actually understood something, anything at all, about foreign policy. They did not.  Trudeau was a fool, a petty, pumped up, provincial, pseudo-intellectual, driven by sophomoric anti-capitalism; Head was a one-note, North/South, wonder.  Our 1969 foreign policy was a piece of monumental stupidity which failed, miserably, but which drove foreign affairs for a decade â â€œ doing serious damage day-after-day, month-after-month and year-after-year.


I'm no great fan of Trudeau, but I think you'll agree with my point that he and his more literate adherents belong to a different category than the media chaff that fills the newspapers.  One is intelligentsia, the other is not.



			
				Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Despite what such luminaries as Allan Gotlieb and Jennifer Walsh contend, I think St. Laurent was right in the 1940s and is still right today.  Perhaps the _leading middle power_ role is out of our current reach, but, there are middle powers, still, and we are one of them â â€œ and we will remain so, even after China and India take their rightful places amongst the great and super powers.  The remaining, generally Western, middle powers are willing to be led, can be led and are being led, today, by e.g. Australia, Netherlands and Norway.  There ought to be room for Canada on that list.


I think if anyone occupies the position of "leading middle power" it is still certainly us. I also think that that role just doesn't mean very much in a modern context.  In 1967 Great Britain was well into its decline and the US hadn't yet taken its place as the uncontested Western power as it did in the early eighties: there was still a place for someone to corral the middle powers.  Today the middle powers take their cue from either the US or the EU - to try to assume a place of leadership among them is to contest the existing leaders.  Wouldn't that make us even more of a "nuisance neighbour"?  Or should we just lead them to do what the US wants?



			
				Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Regarding the third point: There are real threats to our sovereignty and they do, mainly â â€œ for now, stem from the US.  They will not go away unless and until we take strong, active measures to _assert_ and _maintain_ our _positive control_ over all of out territory and the contiguous waters â â€œ out to 200 nautical miles â â€œ including the sea bed, and the airspace over both.  This is a hugely expensive proposition  - one which is repugnant to policy planners and taxpayers alike; it is, also, an absolutely necessary proposition if, big IF, we want to maintain sovereignty over all that which we claim.  It is not only sovereignty which ought to concern us.  The other big aim of our foreign and defence policies ought to be to *protect and promote our vital interests around the world.*


You'll get no argument from me.  I'm not sure either of these points were raised in the orginating newspaper article, though.



			
				Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> There is some room for discussion about vital interests but I will repeat myself (see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/17947/post-182791.html#msg182791 ) and contend that we can use shorthand and summarize Canada's vital interest as: peace and prosperity.  Protecting and promoting both may require a bit of unilateralism, especially if we want to lead.  Given that we have only 30 million people and a finite budget it stands to reason that we do need help which we are unlikely to get unless we take the lead.  We do not need to _mimic_ American policies but we may wish to _[mimic_ some of the ways they go about things: making a proposition, forming a team and leading it.


Again, no argument.  We need to formulate a foreign policy that serves our interests first and foremost, while recognizing that it can't aggravate our neighbours, even if it ultimately works against them.  And that's not anti-American.


----------



## S McKee (2 Aug 2005)

> [author=hamiltongs link=topic=32954/post-247056#msg247056 date=1122949133]
> I guess it's a matter of deciding what you think our weight is - I categorize us with countries of comparable population that are not the largest power in their region.  By that standard, just being in the top ten is a feat that shows we're punching above our weight: we're certainly not the tenth-largest country in the world.  In a category that includes Spain, South Africa, Australia, Italy, Austria, Argentina and others, we have performed the best in just about every measurable sense.  If you consider them to be "our weight" then we're certainly above it.



I don't know who first started using the term "punching above our weight", but it's one of those catchy little phrases that lefty media pundits and politicians throw around whenever the Canadian Government is criticized by one of our allies about the lack fiscal commitment to the Armed Forces. If you want to put us in a category be realistic: Fly Weight. If you think we "punch above" Australia your dreaming in technicolor. Granted our soldiers are second to none, however when we talk about "punching above our weight" we are not talking about the quality of our personnel we are talking about our actual military capabilities. Maybe the phrases we should be using are "Buddy can you spare a dime?" or "How about a lift?"


----------



## Monsoon (2 Aug 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> I don't know who first started using the term "punching above our weight", but it's one of those catchy little phrases that lefty media pundits and politicians throw around whenever the Canadian Government is criticized by one of our allies about the lack fiscal commitment to the Armed Forces. If you want to put us in a category be realistic: Fly Weight. If you think we "punch above" Australia your dreaming in technicolor. Granted our soldiers are second to none, however when we talk about "punching above our weight" we are not talking about the quality of our personnel we are talking about our actual military capabilities. Maybe the phrases we should be using are "Buddy can you spare a dime?" or "How about a lift?"


Lloyd Axworthy seems to have set off the most recent flurry of uses of the term back when he was Minister of Foreign Affairs, but it's been around for a long while.  It's almost always used to describe our influence in foreign affairs despite our limitations (as in, "we have a small military but punch above our weight internationally").  These days it's usually used by righties trying to make us feel ashamed for not being a world superpower (as in, "we are no longer punching above our weight because our military isn't as large as the US'"). As far as "how about a lift?" goes, if you can name four countries in the world with a strategic airlift capability I'll give you a cookie (hint: there are only two).


----------



## S McKee (2 Aug 2005)

> author=hamiltongs link=topic=32954/post-247312#msg247312 date=1123005857]
> Lloyd Axworthy seems to have set off the most recent flurry of uses of the term back when he was Minister of Foreign Affairs, but it's been around for a long while.  It's almost always used to describe our influence in foreign affairs despite our limitations (as in, "we have a small military but punch above our weight internationally").  These days it's usually used by righties trying to make us feel ashamed for not being a world superpower (as in, "we are no longer punching above our weight because our military isn't as large as the US'"). As far as "how about a lift?" goes, if you can name four countries in the world with a strategic airlift capability I'll give you a cookie (hint: there are only two).



Lloyd (Soft Power) Axworthy isn't much of a "rightie" and I don't need a cookie because I'm on a diet. However if your talking/ comparing strategic airlift and, (I'll use that term again) "punching above our weight", some of the countries that you consider in our league such as Spain and South Africa are set to purchase significant numbers of the A400M which I believe has twice the cargo capacity of the C-130. Moreover, Australia has signed a deal for five A330-200 Multi Role Tanker Transports. Canada is still "debating" the strategic airlift issue especially after the Tsunami fiasco and our inability to deploy DART in a timely manner. I won't even start on naval sealift or fleet sustainability. The Presever can't even make out of Halifax harbour.


----------



## Monsoon (2 Aug 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> Lloyd (Soft Power) Axworthy isn't much of a "rightie"


Think you may have missed my point...



			
				Jumper said:
			
		

> However if your talking/ comparing strategic airlift and, (I'll use that term again) "punching above our weight", some of the countries that you consider in our league such as Spain and South Africa are set to purchase significant numbers of the A400M which I believe has twice the cargo capacity of the C-130. Moreover, Australia has signed a deal for five A330-200 Multi Role Tanker Transports. Canada is still "debating" the strategic airlift issue especially after the Tsunami fiasco and our inability to deploy DART in a timely manner.


No, I'm pretty sure you were the one who suggested that not having strategic airlift meant that we had ask "how about a lift?" so we couldn't "punch above our weight" (I'm getting as tired of that phrase as you, I promise). I don't argue with the need to upgrade our tactical airlift, as long as you're not suggesting we need to blow a colossal pile of cash on strategic airlift so we can compete directly with Russia and the US.  Anyway, this is getting a bit off the original topic.  If you want to talk airlift (and lord knows I don't) I'd recommend starting a separate thread.



			
				Jumper said:
			
		

> I won't even start on naval sealift or fleet sustainability. The Presever can't even make out of Halifax harbour.


I don't know what your source on that is, but I assume you're tallking about the problems it had with its Power Generation and Distribution system during sea trials after an extensive refit.  That's what trials are for - it's far from uncommon for problems to crop up after replacing lots of equipment.  In any case, as the JSS project to replace the AORs is well underway there doesn't seem to be much reason to belabour the point about the need for more sealift.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Aug 2005)

> In any case, as the JSS project to replace the AORs is well underway there doesn't seem to be much reason to belabour the point about the need for more sealift



So they have made a selection and actually ordered them?


----------



## S McKee (2 Aug 2005)

> [author=hamiltongs link=topic=32954/post-247385#msg247385 date=1123015190]
> Think you may have missed my point...



Yes I know just kidding....



> No, I'm pretty sure you were the one who suggested that not having strategic airlift meant that we had ask "how about a lift?" so we couldn't "punch above our weight" (I'm getting as tired of that phrase as you, I promise). I don't argue with the need to upgrade our tactical airlift, as long as you're not suggesting we need to blow a colossal pile of cash on strategic airlift so we can compete directly with Russia and the US.   Anyway, this is getting a bit off the original topic.   If you want to talk airlift (and lord knows I don't) I'd recommend starting a separate thread.



Your right however when we talk about the phrase that I won't mention, getting there is half the battle, unfortunately we're going to have to spend a lot of money to have reasonable capability; our geography dictates it. That's if we want to consider ourselves player on the world scene.



> I don't know what your source on that is, but I assume you're tallking about the problems it had with its Power Generation and Distribution system during sea trials after an extensive refit.   That's what trials are for - it's far from uncommon for problems to crop up after replacing lots of equipment.   In any case, as the JSS project to replace the AORs is well underway there doesn't seem to be much reason to belabour the point about the need for more sealift.



Actually I have a pretty good source; my brother sails on her. He told me she has the same problems now as she did when he sailed on her during the Gulf War. Anyway it's always calm seas for you guys in the "stone frigates". Good discussion.


----------



## Monsoon (2 Aug 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> So they have made a selection and actually ordered them?


No, but the interested consortiums have submitted Letters of Interest.  A formal specification will be issued in September and the winning bidder will be selected and the ships ordered in December (notwithstanding any possible change-of-government delays).  I wasn't suggesting that the ships were going to be delivered any time soon (that's why the AORs are being refitted), but once things have gotten this far the byzantine NDHQ acquisition process has been gone through and the project is more or less a _fait accomplis_.  I just wrote a preliminary proposal for the JSS control systems for my civilian employer, so things are far enough along that I could tell you what the MCR consoles will probably look like.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Aug 2005)

The strategic mobility problem for Canada is that, unlike the many, many other countries which do not have anything resembling strategic lift, Canada actually aspires to deploy forces globally - quickly.

This is solely a political aspiration; the Government of Canada wants to play in the _big leagues_, to be seen to _punch above its weight_ whenever the government-of-the-day decides that its political fortunes might benefit from such a rapid, long-distance deployment - see East Timor and the recent Tsunami.  The government is, routinely, surprised when there is no way to get what few troops we have to wherever they are wanted.  The reason is: the cupboard is bare - this too is solely a political matter: the governments, of all stripes, decide to relegate the military and ballet companies to about the same level of _support_.

We are not a _big league_ country - not by any stretch; we never were - not even at the end of World War II when we ranked third or fourth or fifth in absolute combat power.  We are, however, not in the _little leagues_ either - certainly not in our national aspirations (which seem to be shared by the population at large) and not by any sensible measure of _power_ (which, many believe, ought to be accompanied by a responsibility to protect).  We are, I guess, a _Triple A_ country and we ought to have a _Triple A_ military:

"¢	*A*ppropriate for one of the world's top dozen or so nations - a leading _middle power_;

"¢	*A*vailable for operations (up to and including high intensity operations) on short notice, anywhere in the world; and

"¢	*A*daptable - because neither governments nor _strategic planners_ (like MGen Andy Leslie) nor even armchair analysts like me will be able to _get_ the next war _right_.

We might add one more: *A*ffordable.  In my view we can afford 2% of GDP, year-after-year and decade-after-decade, that $20 Billion, right now, which is nearly 150% of the current budget.

Strategic lift is necessary so long as the Government of Canada wants to deploy the CF here, there and everywhere that a fickle, publicity (now celebrity) driven public demands.  Therefore, it must be affordable, too, now.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Aug 2005)

Tactical airlift [helicopters] is a more pressing need. Strategic airlift can be leased on an as needed basis. An air mobile brigade could self deploy within Canada or be a valuable asset in theater.


----------



## onecat (3 Aug 2005)

"We are not a big league country â â€œ not by any stretch; we never were â â€œ not even at the end of World War II when we ranked third or fourth or fifth in absolute combat power."

not to change the subject, but I have to totally disagree with you here.  After WW2, Canada was very much in the leagues, more so than France and to some degree the UK as well. We just decided not to stay there, and down sized very quickly to a medium power.  Its funny how teh government of day always seems to be a Liberal one.  It wasn't that Canada couldn't afford to stay where it was, it just didn't have the will.  Which is a big difference.  I feel its always been a matter of will that kept canada from punch at its weight.  It's also a liberal party thing too, but that's a different matter all together.


----------



## S McKee (4 Aug 2005)

PUBLICATION:  Calgary Herald 
DATE:  2005.08.04 
EDITION:  Final 
SECTION:  News 
PAGE:  A5 
BYLINE:  Kate Gauntlett 
SOURCE:  Calgary Herald 
ILLUSTRATION: Colour Photo: Herald Archive, <Canadian> Press / <Canada'sfleet> of Hercules aircraft needs to be replaced, a new report claims.  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aging Hercs must go: study

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The <Canadian> Forces desperately needs to replace its aging Hercules aircraft fleet so soldiers can be deployed quickly and fulfil <Canada's> foreign policy objectives, said a study released Wednesday. 

The Fraser Institute study comes less than a week after a new team of <Canadian> soldiers set foot in the perilous Kandahar region of Afghanistan, with hundreds more expected to be deployed there in the coming months. 

"If <Canada> is to have a foreign policy worthy of the name, our Armed Forces require strategic lift," said Barry Cooper, the report's co-author and director of the institute's Alberta office. 

"It (the current situation) is not laughable -- it's miserable." 

Cooper said the bulk of <Canada's> CC-130 Hercules fleet is more than 35 years old. 

"The Hercules are very robust and can be maintained. But then, the issue is the maintenance cost versus buying something that actually works and doesn't have to sit on the ground," he said. 

The study rejects lease options and recommends air force needs will best be met by purchasing a mix of C-17 Globemaster III and C-130J Hercules aircraft. 

A commitment to replace auxiliary oiler and replenishment ships was also welcomed, but the right mix of ships would depend on the future direction of <navy> operations, the study said. 

Cooper warned that the costly transport overhaul has to coincide with a boost to troop numbers. 

"If you increase the size of the troops without finding a way to get men and women into any theatre, then what's the point?" Cooper said, adding he was encouraged by Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier's comments on both issues. 

Earlier this year, Hillier outlined a plan to better equip the military, including adding 8,000 soldiers and buying new medium- to heavy-lift helicopters for the air force. However, he suggested leasing aircraft as a replacement for the Hercules. 

This spring's federal budget promised $12.8 billion in new defence spending over five years. 

Defence Department official Stephanie Godin said no one was available Wednesday to comment on the study.


----------



## jmacleod (13 Aug 2005)

The good Professor makes a number of valid points - he is after all, a Tenured Professor at MIT
-not a place for the weak of intellect. There is resentment in a very marginal sector in the US
about Canada and the Iraq War, but for the most part, most American's appear not to have
any opinions about Canada, whatever - it is not something discussed on the back porch of a
home in say, Champlain Illinois. There also is almost total lack of interest about Canada in the
European Union (EU) which has it's own (escalating) problems. Canada, because of Canadian
politics has become irrelevant is many western countries, and is considered a branch plant of
the United States - the GM Stryker was designed and manufactured in Canada by a US 
company, which sold their resources to another American company, General Dynamics -now
referred to as "General Dynamics Canada" - but ultimately the cash goes in an American bank
MacLeod


----------



## Glorified Ape (31 Aug 2005)

So, if I understand the author correctly, by exercising our sovereign right to formulate and participate in treaties and international agreements we're compromising the US and should exercise our sovereign rights more effectively by basing them on what the US wants. We're supposed to, if I understand him correctly, formulate anything and everything that may have an impact on the US with their happiness as the central policy determinant. 

All the while, our quid should be acceptably returned by their quo - characterized by him as "we were going to go ahead whether or not Canada agreed. No one much cared what Canada said or did." Gee, Harv, with that type of sentiment, how can we say no?! I would have expected slightly better than regurgitated Kissinger. From someone who's not supposed to be a right-wing extremist, he sure sounds like one - decrying "anti-Americanism" (read: not kowtowing to the US) while spewing his anti-Canadian tripe. No absurdity there, no sir.


----------



## Jed (1 Sep 2005)

So, Glorified Ape - I appreciate the amusing sarcasm wrt"Anti - Canadian / Anti American " comments. I just would like to point out that as you imply Canada does not wish to blindly follow the US process / doctrine / will of the people, but; to be a free and independent nation, capable of standing on our own, we must assume the costs in money and human resources. Basically, the Nation has to acknowledge the responsibility to meet its defense and projection of power and influence needs to be a relevant country. Or to be a good neighbor for that matter ?


----------



## Glorified Ape (1 Sep 2005)

Jed said:
			
		

> So, Glorified Ape - I appreciate the amusing sarcasm wrt"Anti - Canadian / Anti American " comments. I just would like to point out that as you imply Canada does not wish to blindly follow the US process / doctrine / will of the people, but; to be a free and independent nation, capable of standing on our own, we must assume the costs in money and human resources. Basically, the Nation has to acknowledge the responsibility to meet its defense and projection of power and influence needs to be a relevant country. Or to be a good neighbor for that matter ?



I don't disagree that defense needs more attention and funding but to assert, as the author does, that Canada is a security threat because we enter into/formulate valid international agreements that the US may not like is ridiculous. If, as he seems to, he places such small importance in Canada and other countries' contribution to armed conflict, why is he so upset that our landmine treaty may endanger America's ability to bring, as he calls it "tag-alongs"? After all, we're all so irrelevant in the face of the glorious US, why should he care if little old Canada indirectly complicates America's ability to recruit other irrelevant countries who, in all likelihood, will need a ride just like we do (a fact that appears to annoy him). He wants us to help, but our help is inferior; he doesn't want us to complicate ally recruitment, but the allies are all overwhelmingly (in his mind) tag-along freeloaders. By his logic, we're doing him a favour - fewer allies providing insignificant aid, for whom the US would need to provide transportation. 

EDIT: On top of that, he wants US troops to be unfettered by pesky war crimes/crimes against humanity investigations while they trapse about trying to capture people to charge with such offences. In other words - everyone else should be subject to law but the US; excepting that it's the US charging its own people - the outcome of which we saw quite clearly with the slap on the wrist received by the National Guard pilot who killed four of our troops. I don't recall the US being opposed to war/humanity crimes tribunals after WWII... in fact, if I recall correctly, they were leading the way. Apparently what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. 

That's some fancy MIT thinking he's got there.


----------

