And now: Syria

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Wolfowitz wrote the basis for this doctrine 13 years ago, before the first Gulf War. At the time, it was considered far to0 outlandish to even be released. Thus, it was swept under the rug of the Capitol for 11 years. However, the Hawks that followed its ideals didn't disappear with it... they grew in number and strength.

And now, post 9/11, nearly post Iraq... Wolfowitz's "doctrine" has been brought up, held up, justified and enacted, almost to the letter. All hail the leaders of the United States of America; PNAC.

Shrub makes a nice chair-warmer in the White House while Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz make the calls. Here are your real leaders, methinks. :unsure:

These people scare the hell outta me.

[Chaerophon]

I had heard of this, but hadn't actually come across it until now. I'll have to look it over in more detail before I can make any real comments, but I'll tell you, that's some frightening sh --- stuff. That's what you call an imperialist docrtine, plain and simple.

In the one piece, they referred to Bush's campaign against the 'Axis' and Iran in particular as a "Liberation theology". And, given that characterization, the American wars in the region, (on such a basis) should they proceed, would be more justified than Islamic terrorism because...? Right, "Don't worry Islamic peoples, this won't be a 'crusade'", it's just an imposition of our ideological preference through force. Of course, just like the crusades of the middle ages, the underlying "secondary" goal will be economic benefit - the difference is that in today's world, economic benefit comes through "friendship", not "conquest". However, if one may be required before the other may be realized, these ass%&*#s seem to think that the ends justify the means, and, well, 'fraid not. The authors of this garbage don't care about 'freeing' anybody. Sounds to me as though they want to colonize them in their own image; a state that the Americans weren't willing to accept back in 1776, but that, no doubt, they will expect to be accepted with full cooperation by their new democratic 'allies'. After all, if a freely elected party comes to power in the region whom they don't like, what's to stop them from going in again? Anyone who was truly concerned with the integrity of 'freedom' in the world would consider this a far too slippery slope to be openly considering.

Sanctions are what created the humanitarian situation in Iraq, but the method of 'freeing' Syria should involve the same sorts of sanctions? It's incoherent imperialist power politics at its worst and methinks that if this is the tact that they are going to take over the next few years, we're going to be seeing dire consequences for their actions before everything is said and done.

[Occhidiangela]

that a sales job needs to be made to Congress, and to others.

In the case of Iraq, probably not that hard.

Syria, on the other hand, while run by folks I would not invite to tea, is its own place with its own set of issues and own set of relationships.


The only basis for a move on Syria, as I understand the linkages that would be attempted, would be on the "War On Terror" footing. The chance of putting together a successful coalition absent 1441, or similar long track record of blatant defiance of such fig leaves as UN decrees would make it an extremely hard sell to nearly anyone other than Israel. :P

So, while Mister Wolfowitz certainly holds some rather 'interference intensive and activist' views, I don't think that 'well we have big momentum, let's strike while the iron is hot' will work.

Why?

Politics.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

So, while Mister Wolfowitz certainly holds some rather 'interference intensive and activist' views, I don't think that 'well we have big momentum, let's strike while the iron is hot' will work.

One could argue that the case against Iraq was that very thing; working off the momentum of the "cleansing" of Afghanistan.

Considering the scope and nations that are mentioned in that doctrine, I'm still seeing the Hawks with their talons in the Presidential chair.

I hope you're right. I don't believe I've ever hoped for "red tape" before in my life; this is a first.

*tips helm*

[Chaerophon]

I don't believe I've ever hoped for "red tape" before in my life

Hehe, indeed. :blink:

[Occhidiangela]

Look at the detail.

Afghanistan and the Taliban had a direct linkage to Bin Laden: indeed, even President Clinton had shot some Tomahawks at Afghanistan in 98 over the Kenya and Tanzania Embassy bombings, at Terrorist Training Camps. OK, 9/11 payback, that one was almost to simple a case.

Iraq: a sustained problem since the Kuwait aggression. An abysmal track record, a demonstrated aggressive policy maker, and a variety of other issues.

It was a much harder case to make, in Congress, and of course as we saw, at the UN. Considering that strategically Afghanistan and Iraq are two completely different animals, no cookie cutter approach could be expected to work, because in each case, the US will, as a matter of policy, not go into it alone. One need not be UN sponsored to be multilateral. US security policy recognizes and dictates that we will do any armed, or even 'short of armed' operation, like peacekeeping or embargo, as part of a coalition. That is policy.

Syria: long track record, like Saddam's, of UN issues? Not really.
An oppressive regime. Yes. But that is not the sole criterion.
Supports terrorists? Absolutely.

Now, that last piece is where anyone who understands how far reaching President Bush's speech can be construed could be concerned. His statement of policy was that Terrorism, not just Al Qaeda, was the enemy. That is an incredibly open ended approach to global security.

Now, is it necessary to 'go after Syria?'

That depends on the quality of President Hassad, the younger, his linkages to a variety of terrorist groups, and his allies. The lines are rather amorphous.

Should a desire to 'go after Syria' come about in Washington, there is still the problem of raising support from credible allies: Italy, Spain, Greece, Turkey, UK, NEtherlands, Germany, etc. There is also the problelm of raising support amongh reasonably friendly Arab nations.

In the case of Iraq, he'd been a pain in the arse for some time. Easy not to like the guy.
In the case of Afghanistan, they aren't Arabs. 'Over the horizon' to some, if not all, Arab governments.

Syria? Arabs. Syria provided a couple of divisions in 1991, to protect The Holy Land (Mecca and Medina) and as I recall never crossed the Iraqi border. Politically, they are in a completely different situation than Iraq. Therefore, any work with Syria will, and must, start via all other means. Embargo has not been tried, other than the Iraqi oil pipeline haveing been just shut off the other day.

Appeals to the UN have not yet been tried, though I wonder if that is worth the bother, since Syria hardly has the probleml that Iraq had in re NBC, aggression, etc. However, in this case, the only premise from which to enter an attempt at UN level action in re Syria is in the explicit case of Terrorism. Not only that, but Hassad, while the heir to his father, has not really had the time to establish a track record as abysmal as Saddam's, though like any leader of any nation, he has ample opportunity to do great things, or to cock it all up. :)

Syria is also a far different kettle of fish in regards to Israel. Anything we try to work out with Syria will be linked to -- it sort of has to be -- the future shape of Israel's relationships in the Middle East, since Israel, an unfriendly neighbor of Syria, needs to be secure and stable to keep Syria, who has bled at Israeli hands more than once, to be content that Israel will not lash out at them again. The US, and the UN for that matter, can be facilitators in that process, which has been on going, with various ups and downs, since 1973.

There is no cookie cutter. Those who want to see one are guilty, in the extreme, of reductionist thinking, and lack of understanding. And in Syria's case, a great deal has not yet been tried short of armed intervention.

This crap really is NOT that simple.

EDIT: I sort of forgot about Syria's 'annexation' of Lebanon back in the 80's. The Reagan administration's inability to sort out who to support, who to shoot, what to do, and how to keep it from creating a mess with the Russians/Soviets basically took us our of Lebanon in about 1984. So, maybe Syria got away with one in 1980s' that Saddam could not get away with when the Eagle and the Bear backed off from their apocalyptic positions.

[Occhidiangela]

From this bit.

Power and Weakness

Kagan strikes on a lot of truths that I have seen in action at the political level within the NATO alliance. However, his article focuses too much on the military element of national power and IMO, maybe due to scope, does short shrift to the economic power element, which he calls soft power. They both underwrite diplomacy and national influence heavily.

He points out that the two generations of Europeans have gotten used to not using force, and to not Spending Enough to Meet Their Own Security Needs, and have thus developed a particular view of not needing power, since they could always count on the back up, or at least the perceived back up, of the Americans. That bit of modern Europe's inability to handle its own regional security, since it won't pay for it, leaves every European government, still, slightly dependent on the US for large muscle movements for those few occasions when such may be suitable complements of policy. I am not in the least bit surprised that such a condition would make any and every European head of state, be it Kohl, Chirac, Thatcher, Schroeder, Berlusconi, or anyone else, uncomfortable. It means that total freedom of action is not within their grasp. He points out, though, that Europeans are better able to deal with that limitation than the typical American leader, be he Clinton or Bush, for reasons that are imbedded within the experience of either region.

The problem is, when in comes to security, you only get what you pay for.

The US is still willing to underwrite a portion of European security for a very smart policy reason: our biggest trading partner is Europe, and a healthy Europe is a Healthy America, and our expenses on keeping and keeping Europe secure for some 50 years has had a win win effect on both sides of the Atlantic.

However, when Europeans complain about American aims not being subserviant to their views, I am struck with their naivete, as is Kagan:

If they won't put up the resources to define an independent security identity, they are stuck with having to put up with some one elses's courses of action being supportable, possibly even achievable, since few governments will write some one else's security bill, or subsidize it, in a 'blank check' format. With the resources come the strings.

This brings me back to a point that I frequently raised with my German, Dutch, French and Italian colleagues:

When will the EU actually grow up and pay its own defense bills? What politician in Europe will have the balls to stand up and tell his people:

"It is time to wean ourselves from the American security nipple."

Or, if they want to keep suckling at the nipple, which as many see it, is a good state of affairs for varied reasons, they have to deal with the shortcomings of not being able to control the nipple wielder. Until such time as the EU comes to grips and moves forward in that direction, their status as the B side in the global rugby match will sustain. Maybe that is acceptable, and the price is all of this nasty rhetoric of opportunity. Kagan suggests as much.

Me, I don't like that.

I would rather my defense establishment were smaller, be less than 3% of our GDP, like the European model along the 2% GDP lines, and be less intrusive on my tax dollar. While we subsidize European Security, since they can no longer reach globally as they once did without us, my military costs more than it 'needs' to in a more equal partnership. The American policy has been consistent for 50 plus years in that regard, and is done for long term policy and stability reasons: the more stable the globe, the better international trade, the better for everyone, or at least a fairly win win situation.

But it is just a bit more welfare, in the mind of some folks on this side of the pond.

While I do not agree with all of what Kagan says, I will ask as a follow up to his comments on the calculus of power:

When, if ever, will Europe, even a United Europe, ever rise on the strength of its economic and political wherewithal, which is immense, and become an equal partner in spreading global security? I am looking forward to that day, as it will begin the return of 70,000 plus Americans home from Germany. That Army of Occupation has, IMO, outlived its usefulness. It is now a relic of the cold War, and an enabler of European governments to not have to pay their own security bill. ON the bright side, it allows the US to act quickly in Europe to support mutually agreed security issues. I find it ironic that I feel this way, since I lived for 6 years in Germany, and developed a deep affection for Germans and Germany due to the existence of the Cold War and that very uniformed presence.

Some of the other stuff on that site is a bit tough to stomach. :P This piece, though, came as close to cutting through the BS as I have seen in a while, as regards the roles of both the EU and the US in the Post Cold War world. It matches what I saw in action in NATO very closely.

[Mavfin]

Actually, I think Iraq has been planned for some time. Had 9/11 not happened, I think Iraq would have happened a year or more ago.

Note, I'm not particularly talking about the rightness/wrongness of the action, just that I think it would have happened regardless of Afghanistan/9-11.

[Occhidiangela]

There are contingency plans for dozens of hot areas all over the globe. That is part of the due diligence that is demanded of the Defense Department by the Executive Branch: be ready to go and do _XXXXX_ on short notice. You can't do that very well without a plan, or at least a contingency plan that you update when a Warning Order is given.

See Grenada in 1983: an operation with virtually no plan was put together within a few days and executed, with any number of cock up along the way.

Compare Panama 1989: there were a variety of Contingency Plans for years for that area, which got 'updated' when Pres Bush decided that he wanted Manuel to hit the trail and stand trial. Way better planning.

[Jester]

... between the military plans and the politico-wet-dream plans.

Obviously, the military spends its idle days figuring out how it would beat China in an arm wrestle, how best to land marines in Abu Dhabi, or how to storm 24 Sussex Drive before the crack RCMP managed to establish a defensive perimiter.

It's their job, after all.

But these plans were not the military's. This is a political plan for Cold War Style dominance over the middle east hatched by hawkish politicos.

That might be their job too, but I'd prefer they remain unemployed. Or at least lurking in the shadows, rather than calling the shots in the global arena.

Jester

[Jester]

"It is time to wean ourselves from the American security nipple."

I seem to recall one European leader deciding on that policy. People, especially on this side of the pond, seem to think he was unbalanced, if not outright loopy. A Frenchman, IIRC.

I also don't recall him being very popular with the US, which leads me to believe the US isn't really interested in a Europe that would start throwing its weight around, regardless of the savings.

Being the biggest fish in the pond is worth the price; if it wasn't, you wouldn't be paying.

Jester

[Mavfin]

That's a good point, Jester. I think that the Australian and Japanese decisions to support the US play in Iraq had much more to do with their long-term security interests than it did any particular interest in Iraq....

On the other side of things, the Canadians could afford to not send troops, or support the war, as their domestic political situation was not supportive of doing so, and their physical security is tied up with the US's physical security, anyway. I mean, the US is not going to let anyone invade Canada anytime soon, I think. I'm not at all trying to be insulting. Every country acts in what they feel to be their best interests. Canada did so, as did Japan and Australia.

As far as being pissy at Syria, I posted a hypothetical scenario elsewhere:
In the Cold War days, if the Soviets took over Scandinavia, and then Mexico (this is hypothetical) started shipping supplies to Soviet troops in Norway, would the US (who would be at war with the Soviets) look kindly on this? I think Mexico would have fewer ships when it was all over, at the least. The US SSN fleet would see to that. So, Syria's going to get away with what they're doing with a few harsh words, I think.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

On the other side of things, the Canadians could afford to not send troops, or support the war, as their domestic political situation was not supportive of doing so, and their physical security is tied up with the US's physical security, anyway. I mean, the US is not going to let anyone invade Canada anytime soon, I think. I'm not at all trying to be insulting. Every country acts in what they feel to be their best interests. Canada did so, as did Japan and Australia.

Very much so. And while Canada doesn't officially endorse the War in Iraq, it has made everyone seem to forget our presence in the Afghan campaign. Not to mention that 3 (4?) of our ships still police and patrol the Persian Gulf and stop shipping to check for anything amiss.

Of course, that all means nothing, seems. US companies refuse to ship north of the border, cancel contracts, etc etc... fulfilling some ethereal meaning of being "patriotic" by doing so. The American Ambassador to Canada, Paul Celucci (former Gov of Massachusetts) especially has made some derogatory remarks about Canada's "betrayal" of the "American People".

I much appreciated this letter of reply by a Canadian author, Silver Donald Cameron:

To: Ambassador Paul Cellucci,

Embassy of the United States of America,
490 Sussex Dr.,
Ottawa, Ont.

DEAR MR. AMBASSADOR:

Your recent remarks about Canada's policy with respect to Iraq were inaccurate, inappropriate and offensive. Prime Minister Chretien is maintaining a delicate balance between U.S. pressure and Canadian opinion - a familiar position for Canadian prime ministers - and he will not tell you to go pound sand.

But someone should. Fundamentally, you argue that the United States would instantly come to the aid of Canada in an emergency, and Canada should therefore participate in your ill-advised attack on Iraq.

"There is no security threat to Canada that the United States would not be ready,willing and able to help with," you are quoted as saying. "There would be no debate. There would be no hesitation. We would be there for Canada, part of our family." Codswallop.

And that's being diplomatic.

The primary threat to Canadian security has always been the United States. A monument in Quebec honours my earliest Canadian ancestor for repelling an invasion from your home state of Massachusetts in 1690. The very first instance of military co-operation among the 13 colonies occurred in 1745 under the leadership of James Shirley, your predecessor as governor of Massachusetts, whose army invaded Nova Scotia and captured the Fortress of Louisbourg.

Thirty years later, during the American Revolution, your privateers sacked our ports. We were at war once more in 1812-15. The birth of Canada in 1867 was prompted by fears of a U.S. invasion. That's why our railroad runs along the Gulf of St. Lawrence, far from the U.S. border.

Do you remember manifest destiny, the 1840s U.S. doctrine which held that your country had a God-given mission to rule all of North America? Do you remember "Fifty-four-forty or fight," the slogan that rallied Americans to threaten an invasion in 1902 over the Alaska boundary? Yours is the only country that has ever invaded ours, and it would do so again in a wink if it thought its interests here were seriously threatened.

And how does your sentimental mantra of perpetual willingness to spring to our assistance apply to the First World War, which we entered in 1914, while you stayed out for three years? We went to war against Hitler in 1939, while you were moved to join your sister democracies only after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor two years later. A million Canadians fought in the Second World War, and 45,000 died. We need no lectures from Americans about the defence of liberty and democracy.

Nevertheless, despite the strains of our history, we are probably as close as any two nations in the world. Many Canadians - I am one - have family members who are American citizens. Our two nations fought together not only in two World Wars, but also to repel the invasions of South Korea in 1949 and Kuwait in 1991.

And when great catastrophe strikes without warning, our people have indeed been there for each other. As governor of Massachusetts, you must have been present at the lighting of the Christmas tree in Boston each year - an annual gift from Nova Scotia to commemorate the
immediate and massive assistance of Massachusetts after the Halifax Explosion in 1917.

Our chance to reciprocate came on Sept. 11, 2001, when Canadian communities took in, on an instant's notice, 40,000 passengers from U.S. planes forced down by the terrorist attacks. Halifax alone hosted 7,200. We housed them in our homes and schools and churches, fed them and comforted them and treated them as family. We probably gave more immediate and practical assistance to Americans than any other country. Yet when your president later thanked nations for their help, he did not mention Canada.

The Iraq conflict, however, is not an unforeseen disaster, but a deliberate choice. Your president has squandered a worldwide outpouring of sympathy and solidarity in less than two years - an astounding diplomatic debacle. Your own remarks, with their dark hints of economic revenge, are entirely consistent with the Bush administration's policy of diplomacy by bullying, bribing and threatening. A huge body of opinion, even in the U.S. and Britain, judges this war to be illegal, reckless and irrelevant to the fight against terrorism.

Your government appears to have forgotten Osama bin Laden, and not to have noticed that the Sept. 11 terrorists were mostly Saudi, not Iraqi. They lived not in Baghdad but in Hamburg and San Diego. The Iraq campaign is a sideshow, a grudge match, a distraction. It will breed more martyrs, and more terrorists.

Back in Massachusetts, in 1846, a young man was arrested and jailed for refusing to pay taxes, to avoid supporting his government's deplorable policies. He explained this in an essay, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, which has ever since inspired people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King. His name was Henry David Thoreau, and no doubt the governor of Massachusetts thought he was a pretty poor American. He was not; like King, he was a voice for what is finest in American life and values. And the issue on which he took his stand may sound a bit familiar. He was opposed to an imperial war - the unprovoked U.S. invasion which stripped Mexico of 40 per cent of its territory.

Good citizens - and good friends - oppose bad politics. By telling you the truth, they strive to save you from folly. They may be mistaken, but they are not your enemies.

That is the message you should take back to the White House, whether or not there is anyone there who will understand it.

Sincerely, Silver Donald Cameron


As always, the truth is that ordinary Canadians take issue with Shrub, the Hawks, and the American Administration... not ordinary Americans. One hopes that CNN (or whatever flavor of propaganda the public adheres to) reinforces that truth, instead of promoting anything outlandish. However, it remains a fact that the US Govt's snubbing of Canada at the moment is big headlines in Canada... and hardly noted by the American media. Typical... typical. ;)

*tips helm*

[Occhidiangela]

Since 1992 Maastricht, as I recall, the French initiative to create a more independent security identity, be it WEU, Eurocorps, what have you, has been supported by many in Europe. It has also been

All Hot Air ((Edited: I looked up my Maritime Guard facts.)

with the exception of Operation Sharp Fence. In support of the 1992-1993 phase of the WEU maritime embargo of Yugoslavia. (That operation was an eerie replay of the arms embargo of 1936-1936 versus the Republican movement in Spain.) NATO and WEU joined efforts and combined the Operation into the Sharp Guard arms embargo and trade embargo in June of 1993. (<== That was one of the details I had hosed up.)

FWIW, Maritime Guard Synopsis)
Belgians in Sharp Fence Sharp Fence lasted from, IIRC, July 92 to June 93.

For a fuller family tree explanation:

Operation Sharp Guard

The NATO alliance had a similar awakening, and suffered a similarly steep learning curve, during the history-making events involving the Former Yugoslavia. In July 1992, NATO Operation Maritime Monitor and Western European Union (WEU) Operation Sharp Vigilance were initiated as monitoring operations in accordance with existing U.N. Security Council resolutions. On 22 November 1992 these became known as Maritime Guard and Sharp Fence, respectively, when the U.N. added enforcement as a mission. Finally, on 15 June 1993, these two operations were merged into one, unity of command was assigned to the Commander of Allied Naval Forces Southern Europe (COMNAVSOUTH), and the name was changed to Operation Sharp Guard. This enforcement activity consumed the combined efforts of two of NATO's Standing Naval Forces (Atlantic and Mediterranean) and the WEU Task Group for 36 months until Sharp Guard was suspended on 19 June 1996.

Sharp Guard presented the Allies with the classic challenge of producing and managing an accurate and timely Recognized Maritime Picture (RMP) over a wide sea area. Its key objectives were:

-Detect all ships in the Southern Adriatic Sea and its approaches,
-Maintain the picture of which ships have been challenged and which have not,
-Take appropriate action against any ship deemed suspect, and
-Prevent blockade-runners from delivering prohibited items into a Serbian port.

The two ops were combined when the various NATO politicians decided to quit their posturing and adapt the KISS principle. However, it is worth noting that for political reasons, the WEU Flotilla remained as a discrete force offering under WEU auspices. This had zero military value, but immense political value: it allowed the French to play without having to put their forces under NATO 'pure' command. "In but out."

No one has coughed up the resources to make the European Independent Security Identity work, though quite a bit of political work has been done to 'fall in on' pre existing NATO structures when Europe decides to act and the US demures. That work continues, however, the throny problem of 'paying the freight' (25 Cents on every dollar spent in NATO comes from Washington, roughly) has political ramifications in all NATO capitals.

Hence, when the Europeans wanted to get serious about Bosnia, they had to play the NATO card, since the EU and WEU cards, played by the insipid UN RoE conventions, simply did not work. Peace Enforcement and Peace Keeping are not the same thing. When they wanted to get serious about Kosovo and Serbia, they had to ask Big Brother Clinton to make it possible. That is 'suckling at the nipple' writ large.

My point is, the idea of an independent European Security Identity has great merit. The resources, the organization, and the wealth are there, in Europe, to make it possible. What is lacking is the political will, to date.

The politicians have not shown the balls to put the money where their mouths are, as they are afraid that their populations, after two generations of getting subsidized security, will reject having to pay their own way. Hence, they continue to suckle on the American security nipple, which strikes me as a tad hypocritical given the rhetoric of the past 10 years or so.

On the American side, the opinions are very divided, depending on who you talk to. One reason is that we are still in transition as reagards our relationship with Russia. As that changes for the better, Europe north of the Alps no longer needs our protection. The other is that with the infrastructure in place, any assistance we are called on to provide to Europe, when it wants our help, is 'right there' and does not need to wait a few weeks to cross the pond.

So, while the French talk a good line, they don't back it up with their resources. One carrier not available all year round does not a rapid reaction force make. A Eurocorps, that is in truth a mythical force, is also not a credible instrument of collective policy, nor of collective security.

In 10 years time, though, the idea may actually have come to fruition. We are still seeing the wrestling, internal to various European parliaments, about how far they will finance their own security, and how much is enough. In any case, it will be done collectively, either in NATO or under EU or WEU: that habit of 50 years, and the relationships already built, stand them all in good stead.

What is lacking is the collective political will to pay the freight, to finance strategic lift, large muscle logistics, and credible power projection capability. At present.

[Mavfin]

Yes, people's behavior toward Canada isn't right. I think the letter alluded to the fact that the Prime Minister is between a rock and a hard place. I was just noting that, in this case, Canada didn't have to feel the same about their own security interests, being on the same continent with us, as Australia and Japan.

Canada has acted in their own best self-interest, as has the US, France, Germany, and others. I think the companies who are being nasty about this are biting off their nose to spite their face, and will quit soon.

Occhi's comments about Europe have some merit. Of course, as Jester said, being number one has its price, and we're paying it. At times I think we should call our troops home from Europe and other areas of the world where the public doesn't want us there, and let them fix their own problems. Places where our presence is welcome at this point, such as Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, etc, let them stay.

On the subject of shrub....I don't like the man either. But he's what we have to deal with at least until another election. To do anything else is outside the law, is it not? Unless someone can find an impeachable offense? And I don't mean playing with an intern in the Oval Office. He was democratically elected, even though the courts had to make the final decision which count was right. Some people think that the court putting him into the presidency makes him illegitimate, but I disagree. That was the court's issue to settle, and it was settled. Period.

[Occhidiangela]

Mr Camerons insertion of the 1700's and 1800's relationships is pure codswallop.

He ignores the relationship of the past 100 years, and NATO. In short, his assertion that the US is, or has in his lifetime been a security threat to Canada is pure bullsh**. Too bad he resorted to that, some of what he was saying actually had merit, in re:

The Ambassador's stab at the equivalence of security threats is part of an idea that has less than universal currency: His underlying assumption once again implies that an antiterrorism campaign is the same as the older problelm of article V protection under the NATO alliance.

Canada does not, at present, see it that way, and may never see it that way.

Canada will do as Canada thinks best, of course, and so Canada should always.

As to American companies and what they do: that is an exercise of freedom, as is the exercise of screaming in public about America that has become such a hobby in Canada. Free speech can offend others, but that is still an exercise of free speech: to be willing to deal with the outcome of the exercise thereof.

Put another way: if you talk enough sh**, someone may decide to do something about it. Thus it has ever been.

[ShadowHM]

played to his audience, to a certain extent.

However, there is something to the dusting off of ancient history. Canadians have their unifying myths, just as Americans do. Most Americans, yourself included, Occhi, appear buy into the myth that the freedoms of democracy are meaningless if no one had to fight and die for them. This allows them to continue to be dismissive of Canadians and Kiwi's, for example, with comments about 'our colonial masters'. This is despite the fact that no American has had to fight for the freedom of American soil for many generations. (Pearl Harbour, for those who wish to jump in with that one, was not part of an American state at the time of W.W. II.)

We Canadians have our defining myths too, and Mr. Cameron did trot some of them out for review.

I would like to share two observations that I got from two very different readers of Mr. Cameron's essay.

The first was from a senior citizen - Canadian born and bred. He pointed out that Mr. Cameron failed to mention another joint defense project from the Cold War years. Canada allowed the U.S. to build the DEW line in our north. Any missiles shot down would have certainly come down on Canadian soil, despite the high probability of them not being targeted at any Canadian city. Further, the environmental mess that was made during that project has never been broached as an issue for Americans to deal with.

The second was from a classmate of one of my sons - born and bred elsewhere, but now a Canadian citizen. He felt that the references were 'dusty' and less than relevant. "That is all Grade 10 history." He was more concerned with the right / obligation of a friend to object to what one's friend is doing and say so. The 'if you are not with us, you are against us' attitude expressed in Mr. Cellucci's speech was of more concern to him.

[Occhidiangela]

I can only laugh at the complaint that a collective security measure, agreed by both governments, once again simply must become an environmental issue. Perspective? Nil.

Not touching the rest of it, other than to remember, as regards terrorism:

"Evil prospers when good men do nothing." What the hell, some cliche's are handy.

Appeasing terrorists is antithetical to the long term goal, in some future near or far, that the rule of law will one day actually be a more universally accepted premise. A work in progress, as I see it, since Abel and Cain.

Edit: two other points

&nbsp; However, there is something to the dusting off of ancient history. Canadians have their unifying myths, just as Americans do. Most Americans, yourself included, Occhi, appear buy into the myth that the freedoms of democracy are meaningless if no one had to fight and die for them. This allows them to continue to be dismissive of Canadians and Kiwi's, for example, with comments about 'our colonial masters'. This is despite the fact that no American has had to fight for the freedom of American soil for many generations. (Pearl Harbour, for those who wish to jump in with that one, was not part of an American state at the time of W.W. II.)

1. The nature of how our Constitution was baptized in blood is more than myth. That 89 year process (From 1776 - 1865) is one cultural fact that makes one-for-one comparisons of the American and Canadian models of government meaningless, not the characterization, (which is not mine) of folks freedom being meaningless if earned under a different mode. My comments to Skandranon last year, on RBD as I recall, had to do with reminding him that our constitution had been baptized in blood, and hence its meaning was different to me than his might be to his, not meaningless, and it is by definition The Supreme Law of The Land, a model that is once again not Xeroxed in the Canadian Constitution. As I recall, that discussion had to do with the Second Ammendment. The question of what national character is, which does indeed get tied to the 'creation myths' == see Kosovo in 1389 for Serbia== is part of what makes a nation what it is. The lines on the map and 'the scraps of paper' all have something else behind them.

2. Pearl Harbor was a territory of the US, not a state, just as Puerto Rico still is. The attack on the US fleet, however, was an act of war. So war came. A little known mission that a Japanese sub conducted, IIRC in 1942, included a sea plane bombing in what I recall was an area in Northern California. That was indeed the last attack on the Contintental United Stated (CONUS) that I know of by a hostile nation.

Someone figured out that it was smarter to wage war on some one else's turf rather than wait until it came home to our own: Name of Roosevelt. The French caught on to that idea after WW II, funnily enough, and were more than happy to station their forces in West Germany to meet 'the Bear' on someone else's turf. I can't say I blame them: the two wars fought on their turf were pretty destructive.

[ShadowHM]

I can only laugh at the complaint that a collective security measure, agreed by both governments, once again simply must become an environmental issue.&nbsp; Perspective?&nbsp; Nil.

Not touching the rest of it, other than to remember, as regards terrorism:

"Evil prospers when good men do nothing."&nbsp; What the hell, some cliche's are handy.

Appeasing terrorists is antithetical to the long term goal, in some future near or far, that the rule of law will one day actually be a more universally accepted premise.&nbsp; A work in progress, as I see it, since Abel and Cain.

Who said anything had to be an environmental issue? I didn't. My senior citizen friend didn't either. He merely observed that the mess was cleaned up with no fuss or requests for assistance. Was it the fact that he mentioned it at all?

And where did this appeasing terrorists part come from? I had the distinct impression from repeated declarations that the war in Iraq was to bring a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction and a known predilection for using them into line. The U.S. admin has chosen its own way to do so. Canada has declined to jump on that particular bandwagon and stated that it prefers a different bandwagon.

The war on terrorism, while certainly related, is not at issue here. Or is it?

Or maybe there was an extra coffee or three this morning? You have me confused.

[Jester]

I don't like the recent governments of France any more than you do. Chirac especially irritates me like few other politicos on either side of the Atlantic.

But when De Gaulle decided it'd be better for France to pay its own way in the nuclear detterence world, I don't recall that being very popular with the US.

I'm just saying that the US is very fond of its top dog spot. You'd be more than glad to have someone relieve some of the economic costs of defending the free world, but I don't think most of the powers that be would be seriously interested in a Euro superpower to match the States.

Jester