Unfortunately, there seems to alot of support in Canada for Dion’s position. It seems that many Canadians consider Afghanistan to be a US war and thus want to have nothing to do with it. IMHO, it is this belief coupled with the fact that it is a military operation as opposed to peacekeeping that has garnered so much opposition in Canada. Of course, such opposition ignores the fact that Canada and the US are strong allies, and also ignores the threat of terrorism, because many believe that terrorism is the US’ problem (who cares if Afghanistan goes all to hell, it’s the US’ problem anyway).

Many Canadians think they can just be a peacekeeping nation forever and leave the heavy lifting to others (namely the US). Unfortunately, so many of the US’ allies think the same way while trying to distance themselves from the actions of the ‘bully’ (if we just keep our heads down and criticize the bully, then any enemies will ignore us and hit the bully instead-they deserve it anyway). We enjoy the freedoms and protection that come from the US military umbrella while publicly and privately ridiculing and hating the provider of that umbrella.

If we aren’t interested in helping out our allies, what’s the use of NATO? It seems that so many want a UN-led world in which everyone cooperates, until it comes to military action, then nobody wants to do anything. Cooperation through inaction (the bully will take care of it).

The criticism of Canada by Snow reminds me of the speech by US Col. Jessep in ‘A few good men’:

we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it?

But US President Reagan famously wanted walls torn down – the Canadian attitude perhaps:

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

IJ, that’s not the Canadian attitude. Funny how you completely misread everything I wrote. I just happen to think that my point of view makes alot of sense for Canada.

As I said, a common Canadian attitude is to let someone else (the US) do the heavy lifting. Military matters have become increasingly distasteful to the point that many Canadians have no problem with a peanut sized military. I believe that if Canada wants to have a real voice in the world to back up their economic power, they need a strong and effective military. This doesn’t mean jumping into military conflicts all over the place, it just means being able to provide support or take the lead when deemed necessary by the country’s leaders.

How can we expect to hold independent positions vis a vis the US when we rely so heavily on their military umbrella? Canada needs a more independent stance that a relatively strong military would provide, I can’t see what this has to do with building walls. If we believe that a strong NATO is in our best interests, we have to support it, instead of undermining it. And yes, Reagan was all into tearing down walls, backed by a strong military.

Thanks, IJ. I read your post on Burma, very interesting. As for your comments here, maybe I missed something, but I don’t know where you’re getting the ideas about surrendering sovereignty to the US, or the points about tax and all. Supporting NATO has nothing to do with these things, at least not directly. I believe that Canada should continue to be involved in Afghanistan because its in the best interests of Canada (important in the fight against terrorism, which, if left unchecked will certainly affect Canada in the future). Likewise with a strong military (important to be able to have an independent stance in world affairs as a military power). I believe these things are in Canada’s interests, first and foremost, and if they align with the interests of the US, that’s fine (just because those interests may coincide or be similar doesn’t mean we should avoid them for fear of being insulted as the US’ poodle or whatever). The US is an important ally, but Canada must act in its own interests.

IJ, I still don’t know what you’re talking about surrendering sovereignty and foreign policy to the US. That is not, in essence, what I said. You seem to be implying that NATO is little more than an instrument of US foreign policy. If so, and the member countries don’t feel that it acts in their best interests, why are they involved in the first place? If NATO is not operating in the interests of the members, either change it or leave it.

IJ, thanks for the link. I heard about the article but haven’t read it yet. I don’t mind the US taking the lead in world affairs (if anyone is to take the lead, I would prefer it be the US rather than the Chinese), but I’m not so keen on the idea of surrendering alot of sovereignty to make it happen. The article does sound intriguing, though. Thanks.

Also, IJ, you ignore all the positives about NATO membership. What’s with that? You have a very simplistic concept of what NATO is and what it does… an almost Chomsky-esque simplicity.

To help any debate along, see The rise of the Pacific alliance.

The potential for military alliances is mentioned in the feedback on September 9th, at 4.01PM.

Snow, the extent of Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan – indeed any other country’s involvement in Afghanistan – really hinges on the broader security framework. I’m unaware of much debate on this vital subject so far.

Stopping the spread of narcotics is one aim, according to NATO. This seems also to be an aim of the CSTO and SCO. Why is there no alliance?

Snow, on such a vital matter I hope nobody is stopping an effective alliance being built. It’ll no doubt be difficult – Canada is not the only country suffering meantime in Afghanistan.