VDH also misses the fact that in Canada (as in some Olde European countries) the attitudes of the governing elites do not reflect the views of the public. Slightly more than half of Canadians in fact supported sending troops to participate in the US action in Iraq (whether or not we are at this point capable of a more than token contribution is another question); a few days into the war, this support was higher. If we controlled for Quebec and our sizeable population of fifth columnists from the region in question, the percentages would no doubt be substantially higher, as is borne out by numbers showing that support in Alberta was higher than in Quebec and southern Ontario.
The army itself is also on a much higher plane than our leadership. Many of our leading generals have campaigned loudly and usually to no effect both for a stronger, better equipped military and for the chance to use it to good effect in some of the nastiest and saddest parts of the world. Unfortunately our generally excellent soldiers and officers (who still routinely beat US teams in joint war games) are less and less likely to be deployed for anything but forest fires or ice storms at home, as our outgoing Prime Minister seems determined to trash our relationship to the US as much as possible, and as our equipment becomes increasingly dangerous and pricey to operate, when it's not outright obsolete.
Also, not only is principled neutrality impossible for political and financial reasons in Canada, it isn't even necessary. The ugly (for the US) or handy (for us) reality is that no matter how obnoxious, seditious and downright dangerous our government becomes to the US, the Americans would never allow a serious threat against Canadian territory because it would by definition threaten them. For the foreseeable future, given the choice between fortifying, defending and patrolling a vast border or bankrolling an army big enough to protect us as well as them, the Americans will choose to tolerate Liberal rudeness and inanities. The two economies are too closely linked (although obviously we are the more heavily dependent party), the cultural ties are too strong and the political and fiscal costs of any other course of action are simply too high to allow for any other response. King Jean and his heirs can be counted on to abuse this situation for as long as they remain in power, which in the grand tradition of tin pot Commonwealth countries that used to have potential could well be measured in the decades. This isn't pacifism, neutrality or any other position reflecting deliberation or principle; it's parasitism, and weaselly to boot.
Posted by Clio at August 15, 2003 04:56 PM