Drifting even further
ff topic: ...
I have a couple of concerns right now, things about which I am, possibly, rethinking my
established positions:
First: the very nature of the nation state, itself.
OGBD talks about the "sanctity of borders," a concept that, in the West, dates, really, from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and it is a concept that
is, indeed, enshrined in the UN Charter. I'm not so sure that the "sanctity" of borders is something that we must or even can defend. Look, just for example, at what Russia did to Ukraine. What
would have happened to the borders of the UK is Scotland had voted 'Yes,' or to Canada's in QC voted 'Oui,' for that matter? What is happening to the borders of Iraq and Syria right now?
Second: the nature of war. We have, again since the 17th century, come to perceive 'war' as being symmetrical: one 'side' against another; friend and foe; we and they and so on. It now
appears to me that war is between several 'sides' and allies might be both very, very temporary and ever changing, as might enemies. We do not,
it seems to me, always know
which side we are on.
Third: the 'language' of war. It also
seems to me that we, and China, for example, speak two different languages of war: ours comes to us from Clausewitz and was, perhaps, best spoken by Roosevelt
and George C Marshall. In our language 'war' is, eventually, a clash of forces and one side always wins. China does not appear to have believed Clausewitz and they still think Sun Tzu was right:
'war'
might involve fighting and destruction but one's war aims can be achieved without fighting. I
believe that China
thinks that it is fighting World War IV right now. China doesn't want, ever,
to engage the US in physical battles but it is happy to 'engage' in every other sphere. My
guess is that China is 'happy' with the way the
war is going; it hasn't won all the
battles but it
thinks
that it is winning enough of the important battles to, eventually, win the
war. I am also
guessing that IS** war aims are less that Clausewitzian.
So, I wonder: what should Canada be doing? We have,
I believe,
vital interests beyond our borders and we need the capacity promote and protect those interests, independent of the interests and views of others. My own, traditional response to my own concern is to demand that we have bigger, better armed forces. But, is that, really, the best use of our resources?