Acorn,
Having re-read my post today after a 3 day absence from this board, I can see where my earlier comments directed specifically towards nNUL were of an inappropriately personal nature. In that regard, I am quite prepared to offer him a public apology. Aside from that however, I stand behind the essence of my earlier post.
nULL,
I don't really care whether you were truly playing â Å“Devil's advocateâ ?, or were simply â Å“fishingâ ? for views in the absence of a personal stand on the subject. That is entirely your business. You asked for opinions regarding the viability of pacifism as a means of avoiding the attack that our nation's enemy has repeatedly promised, so I gave you my experience-based views. Where I made a fundamental mistake was in directing my comments specifically towards you, rather than speaking in general terms to the forum audience at large. In that regard, I apologize for the inflammatory nature of my personal comments at the beginning and end of my earlier post.
With one notable exception, I stand fully behind the remainder of my comments. The exception would be my mis-worded contention that â Å“Canada was never attacked during the Second World Warâ ?. I was well aware (as others before you had pointed out in this very thread) that Canada experienced direct hostile action during the Battle of the Atlantic, as well as along the Pacific Coast. Nothwithsanding my â Å“brain-to-keyboard disconnectâ ?, what I intended to emphasize in my earlier post is the fact that Canada was not directly attacked (nor threatened) PRIOR to declaring war on Germany. We declared war in 1939. The seaborne threats to Canada's coast did not materialize until 1942.
My point in raising this observation was to illustrate that throughout the 20th Century, Canada never once waited for a direct attack (nor even an imminent threat) to materialize against our nation prior to mobilizing and taking proactive military action abroad. We didn't wait in 1914, and we didn't wait in 1939. We can debate the reasons for Canada's commitment to either World War, but the fundamental point remains that throughout the 20th Century Canadians and their Government have never waited for a fight to come to us. Instead, we have consistently carried the fight to our perceived enemies in concert with our Allies. Post WW II, we proactively deployed substantive forces into hostile situations around the globe as part of our international obligations (Korea), or simply to fulfill our perceived â Å“dutyâ ? to assist less fortunate nations. Even our stationing of credible NATO forces in Germany from the 1950's to the late 1980s constituted a â Å“pre-emptiveâ ? deployment to deter potential Soviet aggression.
Based on that historical precedent, I contend that our current lack of a credible military response to international terrorism constitutes nothing less than a complete reversal of long-standing national policy. A policy characterized by decisive and proactive military action in concert with our allies, to counter collective enemy threats. For the past 2.5 years Canada has been faced with what is arguably the most horrifying and â Å“directâ ? threat that have ever encountered â “ an impending attack directed specifically against our non-combatant civilian population, our economy, and our way of life. And despite the irrefutable nature of the revolutionary Islamist threat, we as a nation are largely passive, unwilling, and ill-prepared to take military action in our own defence. Aside from Canada's initial (and very modest) contribution to Operation Enduring Freedom, we have done remarkably little to preemptively deter, disrupt, or destroy a terrorist organization that has specifically stated its intention to attack us. Hello? What has become of our nation? How can any informed and responsible Canadian citizen even CONTEMPLATE adopting a â Å“strategyâ ? of weak-kneed passivity and appeasement when the past actions of our enemy confirm that he will simply exploit such weakness? It boggles my (admittedly simple) mind.....
The bottom line is that Canada's current â Å“cop-outâ ? in the face of our most significant collective threat in a generation is entirely inconsistent with our national history. That is the point I was attempting to make with my WW II â Å“directly attackedâ ? comment. Clearly, I did a less than adequate job of that the first time around....
Moving on to your next point nULL, I won't dwell on our disagreement regarding Canada's primary reason for declaring war against Germany on 10 September 1939. I will simply reiterate that most of the historical accounts I have read suggest that our residual loyalty to Britain as a Dominion within the Commonwealth was the driving force behind Canada's â Å“near-reflexiveâ ? declaration of war. A declaration which followed a mere 7 days behind Britain's, and which was announced by the British Monarch. At that point, Germany had commenced its invasion of Poland 9 days prior. The German conquest of Denmark and Norway would not occur for another seven months (April 1940).
Based on the above timeline and what I have read elsewhere, I find it difficult to agree with your contention that Canada's declaration of war against Germany was motivated primarily by a concern that German aggression would (eventually) pose a physically threat to our nation. Indeed, at that point Germany had demonstrated aggression against a single European neighbor (Poland). Notwithstanding Hitler's pre-war rantings, there was no immediate threat to justify Canada's rapid declaration of war. Hence the widespread contention that Canada's swift entry into the war was little more than a â Å“reflexiveâ ? action based on residual deference and loyalty to the head of the Commonwealth.
To further illustrate my point, I offer you a brief quote from the Veterans Affairs Canada web-site which supports my understanding of Canada's reasons for declaring war:
â Å“The Second World War began at dawn on September 1, 1939 as the German armies swept into Polandâ ?.... â Å“Britain and France, honouring their pledge to Poland, declared war on Germany on September 3. Although not automatically committed by Britain's declaration of war as in 1914, there was little doubt that Canada would quickly follow. On September 7 Parliament met in special session; on September 9 it approved support to Britain and France; on September 10 King George VI announced that Canada had declared war.â ?
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=history/secondwar/Canada2
Seems pretty straight-forward to me....no mention of Canadian concerns over German global domination, nor physical threats to Canada. But historical accounts vary, and you can choose to believe whatever you like. All I ask is that you not automatically discount substantiated views which differ from your own.
It's hard to respond to your post without honouring your belief that the war in Iraq is directly linked to the war on terror, something that's already been debated upon by people alot smarter than you or I. Of course, with the recent influx of religously motivated foreign fighters, it might very well be.
I fail to see where I inferred within my earlier post that the U.S.-led Coalition invasion of Iraq was directly related to the international war on terrorism. In fact, I believe that any linkages between Iraq and revolutionary Islamist terrorism were tenuous at best before the invasion, and have been largely debunked since. There is no direct evidence of collusion between the former Iraqi leadership and Al Qaida. However, as you pointed out there can be no doubt that there we now see the direct involvement of AQ and its supporters in the anti-coalition insurgency campaign. Whether the U.S. and its Coalition allies were right to invade a sovereign nation whose leadership flaunted international sanctions for 12 years and systematically tortured and subjugated large portions of its population is not the issue here. Whether the U.S.-led invasion was responsible for attracting an influx of Islamist terrorists to fan the flames of the current insurgency in Iraq, is also largely moot. However, the fact that Islamist terrorists are now striking civilian targets within Iraq as well as Coalition nations abroad is VERY relevant. If you fail to see the distinction between a military insurgency and terrorist attacks conducted against Iraqi and Coalition civilians, then there is little point in my attempting to convince you otherwise.
The BBC's Paul Wood reports from Baghdad that the French campaign to save the two men has won unprecedented support throughout the Arab and Muslim world, largely because France is not part of the military coalition in Iraq.
I am not the least bit surprised that the ongoing French efforts to have their citizens released has garnered support throughout the Arab and Muslim world. A great many mainstream Arabs and Muslims do not agree with the Coalition invasion of Iraq, and therefore bear no particular ill-will towards France. However, to presume that this â Å“unprecedentedâ ? mainstream support will have any impact whatsoever on the terrorist faction holding the hostages, is a dubious proposition at best. The mainstream Arabs and Muslims supporting the French hostage release campaign do not speak for, nor do they represent radical Islamist terrorists. Indeed, â Å“true Muslimsâ ? will be the first to tell you that they abhor terrorism in general and the terror campaign based on beheading of foreign hostages in particular. Unfortunately, the beliefs of mainstream Arabs and Muslims hold little influence over the actions of radical Islamist terrorist factions. All of that to say, the â Å“unprecedented support of the Arab and Muslim worldâ ? doesn't amount to much in the way of meaningful influence where the fates of the French hostages are concerned......
And closet experts in international terrorism like you will keep telling everybody how unsafe we are. If you're suggesting that I place my trust in the hands of CSIS over hand-wringers, yes, that is correct.
Hmmm â “ a tad dismissive and insulting aren't we? No worries â “ you owed me at least one â Å“cheap shotâ ? for the personal comments in my earlier post. Nowithstanding my "tiresome flair for drama" (earlier cheap shot), I don't consider myself to be a â ?closet expertâ ? on any subject, let alone international terrorism. Indeed, I view the term â Å“expertâ ? with a great deal of suspicion. I am simply a serving soldier who has undertaken considerable study on the subject of terrorism over the past 23 years. My studies have significantly intensified over the past 3 years in direct relation to my military duties, and my service has given me access to a broad range of open and classified information sources. The latter are by far the most disconcerting when it comes to evaluating the immediacy of the threat to Canada, but we won't go there for OPSEC reasons. Backing up my academic study is 6 months of practical experience planning and participating in combat operations to disrupt and destroy Al Quida and Taliban terrorists as a senior member of 3 PPCLI Battlegroup in Afghanistan. All things considered, I would humbly suggest that I have sufficient knowledge and first-hand experience with the subject matter to offer some informed opinions. And at the end of the day, that is all I provide on this forum â “ opinions, which you are free to agree or disagree with. Now, having â Å“called me outâ ? with your â Å“Closet expertâ ? jibe, turn-around is fair play. Please share with us YOUR personal credentials for speaking with any degree of authority on the subject of revolutionary Islamist terrorism.....
As for me being a â Å“hand-wringerâ ?, I will refer you back to the above paragraph. What I have studied and what I have seen first-hand has been sufficient for me as a serving soldier to be extremely concerned about Canada's grossly inadequate response to a direct terrorist threat against our nation. The threat is very real â “ Islamist Terrorists have a proven capacity for wreaking massive death and destruction, and they have promised to specifically strike Canada. They have followed through on their threats to other â Å“targetedâ ? nations, and will not be appeased by a pacifist/non-confrontational posture on our part. If anything, our efforts to avoid confrontation will simply embolden the enemy.
And if you are relying on the efforts of CSIS alone to preempt a terrorist attack? You may wish to check your premise. CSIS does the best that they can with what they have. Unfortunately, what they currently have in terms of capability and resources is extremely limited. Al Qaida have managed to repeatedly thwart the combined intelligence assets of the most sophisticated military and civilian agencies in the world. And you honestly think that CSIS (no doubt working hand-in-glove with that paragon of Canadian efficiency, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration) is going to single-handedly prevent a determined terrorist attack against Canada? Okey Dokey.....
nULL, If what I have to say about Canada's deplorable lack of commitment to our military allies or our pathetic state of domestic preparedness strikes you as impotent â Å“hand-wringingâ ? or "dramatic flair", I could honestly care less. I write in the hope that my reasonably-informed comments will give some members of this board useful food for thought. If so, then I will have achieved my intent. At the end of the day, the world doesn't revolve around you or I. In that context, it is irrelevant whether you have any personal regard for what I have to say. Indeed, you are most cordially invited to completely ignore anything that I post on this discussion board in the future.
At the end of the day, it is my personal view as a serving soldier that those of us who understand the persistent and ever-increasing threat of global terrorism have a duty to challenge the fundamentally flawed â Å“pacifistâ ? view at every opportunity. If we fail to do so, then by virtue of our individual inaction we will share a portion of blame for the inevitable attack on Canada. I realize that I am â Å“preaching to the convertedâ ? to those on this board who possess a modicum of military experience and a basic understanding of the current threat. I nonetheless feel compelled to challenge any suggestion that â Å“terrorist appeasementâ ? or â Å“benign irrelevanceâ ? will somehow prevent the promised attack(s). Even if those suggestions are couched in the form of â Å“Devil's advocacyâ ?.
nULL, I will leave you with a direct quote from a National Post article printed earlier this week. The article concerns an excellent Global Television documentary which aired last night:
â Å“For the global war on terror to be won, peace-loving people the world over will need to be both more self-aware and more vigilant of their everyday surroundings -- and that includes those of us who live here in Canada, according to a new Global News documentary, Know Your Enemy: al-Qaida's Third Wave.
It's a simple message. And when the film's producer, George Browne, decided to make his film -- with Global National anchor Kevin Newman, freelance journalist Jane Kokan, Global's Troy Reeb and National Post Mideast correspondent Stewart Bell -- they chose to convey their message in simple terms, using words and images everyone can understand, without being simple-minded about what is ultimately a complex and thorny subject.
I do feel Canadians are a little complacent," Browne said. "That's why we wanted to put it all together into one large document. Because I don't see that people really understand what is going on. Talking to a lot of friends, showing [the film] to people who are not in the news business, a lot of them say, 'I didn't know that. I had no concept of how widespread this has become'. Canadians are complacent, and they don't know enough about what is going on outside our borders with respect to al-Qaida."
Browne doesn't care to leave it there. Know Your Enemy is part plea, part historical text. Open your eyes, it says, be alert and don't for a moment think it can't or won't happen here.â ?
I must say that it is extremely encouraging to see those with the means to do so, finally spreading word of the immenent threat to Canada through the mass media. I hope to see much more of this type of thing in the near future, although I have my cynical doubts that it will occur.
J Gayson,
To para-phrase George Brown (above), I suspect that the youth perspective you find so prevalent today is largely a function of our young generation not truly understanding what is happening in regards to global terrorism. Indeed, if Brown's observations are valid (and I certainly believe that they are), then this phenomenon is not confined to Canada's youth. The typical Canadian lives in an insulated, molly-coddled society and is spoon-fed a life-time of â Å“cuddlyâ ? socialist and liberal pap.
Unfortunately, the â Å“realâ ? world beyond our borders is a much harsher and unforgiving place that most of our countrymen can fathom. Just ask any Canadian soldier who has experienced a dose of reality first-hand while serving under arms in any of the dozen global crap-holes we've soldiered through over the past 10 years.
What I truly fear, is that Canadian society has reached a point of misguided complacency and apathy so profound that only the biggest of "wake-up calls" will be sufficient to arouse our slumbering nation. And at that point, it will likely be too late to prevent a large-scale loss of Canadian lives.
And on that happy note, I will sign-off on this subject for now. The members of this board who are likely to â Å“get itâ ?, will have already done so. Those who believe that there is hope for a pacifist and non-confrontational solution to the imminent threat of Islamist terrorism are equally free to think whatever they like. Only time will tell us who was ultimately correct.
Have a nice evening,
