The
Ugly Canadian – Embracing
The American Empire
By Jim Miles
03 June, 2007
Countercurrents.org
Whose War Is It? How
Canada Can Survive In The Post 9/11 World. By J. L. Granatstein. (Harper
Collins, Toronto, Ontario, 2007.)
The
‘ugly American’ – arrogant, ignorant, hubristic, militaristic
– has in this instance a good Canadian counterpart. Whose War
Is It?, to continue the image, is one of the ugliest books I have read
about foreign policy in relation to the Americans and the ‘war
on terror’. It is similar in style to Michael Leeden, Charles
Krauthammer, and Thomas Friedman, all writers who support the transcendence
of America, and the use of the military to set right the world. They
all support the Orientalist approach to the declared war in that ‘we’
are being attacked because they dislike our democracy and licentious
freedoms without any consideration given for previous American actions
around the globe that have created significant ‘blowback’
– the major and highly unexpected one being 9/11. It is perhaps
uglier from my perspective in that as a Canadian military historian,
Granatstein professes those same beliefs while writing a book containing
many examples of patriotic military jingoism in relation to Canada.
The book is not all bad,
given some decent thinking on Canadian sovereignty in Canada’s
Arctic territories, and valid concerns about Canada’s citizenship
regulations, but those are mainly internal matters. His views on foreign
affairs, the military, the ‘war on terror’ are just as misinformed
as his American counterparts. Throughout the work, there are many underlying
premises that are not fully supported. The writing style is weak (again
as with Ledeen, Krauthammer, and Friedman), using unsupported and somewhat
fanciful conjecture, using such technically defined approbation such
as “piss on”, “twaddle”, and “woolly headed
thinking”, and assuming the general foolishness of the reading
public (ignorance can be overcome with education, foolishness is simply
a trait).
The book starts with a conjectural
story about an earthquake in Vancouver on February 12, 2008 with the
‘big one’ happening at 8:08. Along with all the other local
scenarios, a terror group in Toronto has been waiting for just this
kind of event to release anthrax in the Toronto area. The writing is
a combination of Star Wars, End of Times, and Fear Factor rolled into
one, setting the scene to support his subsequent arguments. It might
seem a good start for some to begin with a conjectural rant of fiction
and fear, and it sets the tone for the rest of the book.
There are several premises
that are utilized, some with more weight than others, but all adopting
the militaristic code of conduct that is prevalent in the White House
today.
The first premise is that
of the “war on terror”. Well, yes, there is a war on terror,
created and defined by the American government, but it is unnecessary
as well as illegal and only furthers the blowback of terrorism from
regions affected. As mentioned above, Granatstein sees the “war
on terror” as an “Islamist war…waged against the West,
against democracy, and against secularism” – not realizing
of course that “the struggle of a global medieval theocracy”
reflects as much the Christian right in America as it does the extremities
of Islam. It is a “war against western civilization…a war
against Canada’s freedom.” Canada’s freedom is not
endangered by a clash of civilizations; rather it would be endangered
by flying our flag on the American flagpole, by accepting trade agreements
that give away our resources - we are certainly not threatened by hordes
of Taliban fighters marching across the Siberian tundra in order to
get at Canada, nor by any Taliban naval, air, or missile force.
Much attention is given
to Canadian troops fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and the effect
that has on Canada’s prestige as a “good international citizen”.
The more probable argument is that Canada is seen as cozying up to the
United States war effort as an occupying force trying to tie Afghanistan
into the American geopolitical strategy of containing Russia and China,
and controlling global oil resources. Granatstein supports Michael Ignatieff’s
view (the fellow who in turn supports the lesser evil concept of harming
others for their own good and who supported the illegal war in Iraq)
that “if we want to have any legitimacy in Washington, if we want
to have any legitimacy as a multilateralist” then we need more
military spending (and buying into American war efforts does not make
us multilateralist).
Therefore the war on terror
needs more money thrown at it. There is no consideration given that
the best use of that money would be for international organizations
and international criminal courts and national courts of justice that
are supported not by national militaries but by national and international
police forces, who have already demonstrated that they are perfectly
adequate for watching and apprehending terror suspects (unfortunately
with mistakes made along the way, but hopefully with a positive learning
curve along the way). By acting internationally and multilaterally,
without pre-emptive war and wars of occupation, perhaps then our own
proper legitimacy globally will be enhanced.
An accompanying premised
argument to this is that Canada has always relied on the American military
umbrella for its defence. The larger question, in concern for Canada’s
sovereignty, is who would be most likely to attack Canada, as Canada
- like the U.S. - has large ocean expanses offering the best protection
from invasion. In another disingenuous piece of conjecture, Granatstein
poses the scenario of Canada invading Greenland because of an Inuit
threat or the Inuit wanting to be part of a “Greater Canada”,
saying a “realpolitik view of the world conceivably might suggest
such action.” Conceivable? Well, yes, perhaps, but mostly idiotic.
In a democratic world, the Inuit themselves would be asked if they would
like to control their own territory, to control their own resources,
but when it comes to diamonds and oil, democracy tends to be reinterpreted
as a sanctimonious free-market system run by corporations based in some
other clime.
Recognizing perhaps that
he is presenting a rather ludicrous argument, he then presents an only
slightly less ludicrous conjectural attack of Russian forces claiming
the Arctic Islands. Again, not likely the Russians, more likely the
Americans will try this claim. If this is military thinking at its best,
we are seriously in deep trouble, not from the Russians, but from our
own military’s fear scenarios.
Other countries are suggested
that might attack Canada. Iran and North Korea being the strongest fear
factor with their conjectured use of nuclear missiles. With an unproven
and so far unworkable Ballistic Missile Defence Shield (BMD), no military
preparedness would stop a nuclear missile attack, nor can I believe
that, as wild as they may appear, neither country would attack, knowing
full well they would cease to exist as a consequence. Because of American
actions around the globe, the only reasonable response to American aggression
or hints thereof is to have at least some limited nuclear capability
as a deterrent. The Soviet Union had lots during the over-hyped cold
war and it worked; China has many and has been circumvented politically
and militarily along with Russia; North Korea may have one or two and
it appears to be working; Pakistan has lots and this often violent Islamic
country was enlisted to the American side; Iraq had nothing, resulting
in an invasion and illegal occupation; Iran is ‘in process’
and hanging on the eve of destruction. Typically for these arguments,
Israel’s nuclear capacity is never mentioned, nor is the American
lack of support for the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (that indicates
member countries entitled to enrichment activities, thus Iran) by revoking
its nuclear limitations treaties with Russia and starting a new round
of nuclear weapons development, all contrary to the agreement.
No, the country most likely
to attack Canada is the U.S., but even that is mostly fanciful conjecture.
Returning to the above scenario of Arctic attacks, the main belligerent
against Canada for sovereignty over the Northwest Passage has been the
United States. During the 1930s, the U.S. had full scale plans to attack
Canada, “Plan Red”, including chemical warfare and toxic
agents. Interestingly enough, there was no war plan for Germany. But
the Americans do not need to attack.
The true threat to Canadian
sovereignty comes not from our lack of military preparedness, but from
our economic give-aways to American corporate interests. The North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) gives corporations more rights that the
citizens of the country (the infamous Chapter 11), has created an increasing
gap between the wealthy and the average worker, and has resulted in
a decrease in social services in all sectors (even though the dollar
amount may be increasing, there is a steady advancement towards privatization
and its resultant lower wages, poorer working conditions, and removal
of profits to the corporate owners). More importantly, it opens the
door for full American access to Canadian resources, such that when
the time comes that oil and gas are in short supply, the U.S. is served
first, and Canadians then are second, buying resources at world prices
from other countries if needed to supply the U.S. The sale of water
may in the future have a similar story told.
No, Canadian sovereignty
is threatened mainly by American interests, not by those of other overseas
countries. No, we do not need American protection, nor do we need to
bolster our own military for international stature or legitimacy or
influence to get our way in the world (no one’s going to push
skinny little Canada around anymore!).
In juxtaposition to the premise
of having a stronger military, is the presentation throughout the work
that Canada needs to be acquiescence to American needs if we are to
get along with our powerful southern neighbour. Canada should express
its dissent “quietly through diplomatic channels”, we should
“examine issues through an American lense” (when we are
already saturated with American news channels?), we need a “voice
at the table” (when all other global voices are ignored anyway?).
This argument comes from another argument about Canadians being almost
hysterically anti-American and being ignorant of the good that will
come from sucking up to the Americans.
Throughout the book is the
premise that the Canadian public as an ignorant bunch of fools and needs
to be led and educated by government. “Governments must…provide
a sensible rationale...that can only improve the public’s knowledge”,
“Canadian political leadership must help form Canadian public
opinion”, “leadership can be exercised by politicians on
sensitive foreign policy issues [which presumably the public are too
stupid to understand]”, without leadership, Quebec’s “public
opinion was completely predictable [against the BMD and also the war
in Afghanistan]”, and Harper must “explain the country’s
national interests to the people”.
This unfortunately has two
negative connotations (other than the people being too stupid to be
listened to). First, is the similarity with the usual American political
exhortations about changing the “image” of what the U.S.
is doing, whether it be concerned with climate change, the war on terror,
or any other publicly disputed action by the government. It certainly
wouldn’t do to change one’s actions when it is more beneficial,
especially to those in power, to change the image. Secondly, in a truly
democratic society, the government should not assume the ignorance of
the public yet should take more credit for their own ignorance; as well,
in a truly democratic society, the government should be listening to
the people, not chastising them. True democracy is messy, and it is
usually not prone to starting wars – in both world wars Canada
had to resort to conscription in order to fulfill its supposed obligations
to the British empire’s service.
Not surprisingly in Canada’s
makeup, more than sixty per cent of Quebecois and more than sixty per
cent of the “university educated were most supportive of…peacekeeping
and more opposed to confrontational peacemaking.” Fully “80
per cent of the public wanted the Canadian forces to do “peace-building”
while only 16 per cent favoured combat roles.” Wow, smart people
don’t want war! Granatstein derides this tendency for Canadians
to see themselves as peacekeepers rather than combatants, with a small
touch of reason, as no peacekeeping role is without its potential and
actual combative components. But to set out on a purposeful combative
mission of occupation, fighting an insurgency that is entirely local,
supporting the terror strategies of our American neighbour can in no
way be construed as anything with ‘peace’ involved.
The Canadian people did not
want the NAFTA treaty; the government gave it to them anyway. The Canadian
people do not want universal medical care to be privatized; the government
is doing that anyway, slowly, but surely. The Canadian people did not
want any war in Afghanistan; the government gave it to them anyway.
The Canadian people do not support American foreign policy and its imagined
then self-realized war on terror; the government has brought it to us
anyway. The Canadian government in this sense is far from democratic,
but has its own entanglements with big business and the military, in
Canada and the U.S., which makes it ignore public opinion from an informed
and socially conscientious society.
Along with these major premises
(the war on terror in which Islam is against the West, Canada’s
sovereignty under attack and our reliance on the American defensive
umbrella, the ignorance of the Canadian public) there are other errors
in the work that are too numerous to edit through. One of the more significant
ones from my personal viewpoint is his view of the Taliban (see above),
Hamas, and Hezbollah. All three of these organizations are the result
of military occupation and subjugation of an indigenous population.
All three have participated in some form of democratic action. Ironically,
al-Queda, a non-territorial terrorist group, is mentioned only in passing
and is only briefly identified as being a terror organization.
The Taliban bear the brunt
of the criticism as Canadian troops are fighting them in Afghanistan.
They are an indigenous force (created in part with Pakistani-American
cooperation) , with some ex-Taliban and current Taliban belonging to
the government in Kabul, which in itself is composed to a large degree
with current and ex-warlords and current and ex-drug dealers (one and
the same most likely). But what can one expect from a country that has
been war lording and drug dealing for the past several decades, aided
and abetted by several outside sources ranging from the Russians and
Americans to their foreign mujahideen counterparts? At least they are
attempting to create a democracy in spite of their past troubles and
current occupation. The Afghan government has also recently granted
an amnesty to all combatants from the past twenty-five years and has
called for dialogue and negotiation with the Taliban. It hardly appears
that the local government wants the Canadian military (or NATO) to remain.
Hamas is touched on only
briefly with Harper “acting harshly” as a “terrorist
is not a freedom fighter under another name.” No, war is terror
in and of itself, and occupation of another nation’s territory
is terror in and of itself, in spite of all attempts to make it ‘just’,
to make it a cause for democracy and freedom (at the end of a gun barrel?).
Suicide bombing of civilians and random rocketing of civilians is terror,
just as aerial bombing of towns and cities, and helicopter gunship missile
attacks on civilians is terror. Hamas is another group set up by the
occupier – Israel – in order to challenge Fatah, another
case of unintended, unthought of, consequences.
He refers to Hezbollah as
“a large, well armed terrorist organization…supplied with
armaments by Iran and Syria”. Hezbollah is of course designated
as a terrorist group by the Canadian and American governments, but it
was created as a counter-insurgency against the Israeli occupation of
Lebanon. Nor is there any mention of all the American armaments supplied
to the Israelis, but then again, citizen deaths from cluster bombs and
Lockheed-Martin made Hellfire missiles are perfectly legitimate, as
they can be ignored as the ‘other’. Granatstein then supports
the fallacy of Hezbollah attacking a neighbour and starting the war
in the summer of 2006, again ignoring (or perhaps he suffers from the
critical historical amnesia that seems to be pervasive among those that
support the American line of thinking) the ongoing series of over-flights
and kidnappings by the Israelis combined with ongoing Hezbollah cross-border
raids. Harper’s view of ‘proportionate’ retaliation
is parroted here. This raid no more started the war than the assassination
of Archduke Franz Ferdinand started the First World War.
The Americans keep insisting
that all foreigners should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and stop
meddling in events there. And by golly, for Granatstein, “The
brute truth is that nations want to fight their wars and guerrilla campaigns
when and with who they want, and they don’t like the UN or anyone
else telling them what to do.[italics added].” In a grand case
of historical amnesia, Granatstein does not relate any of America’s
misadventures around the globe as having anything to do with creating
the climate that gives power to terror. There is no mention of Vietnam,
Cambodia, Chile, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, and all the other countries
that the Americans have either directly or indirectly denied their own
democratic actions. Yes, to be truly democratic, Canadians will stay
home; Canadians will be antagonistic to American policies.
“Whose War Is It?”
presents a militaristic, terror preaching, self-righteous grandstanding
view of Canada’s supposed role in foreign affairs. Both Canada
and the U.S. need to listen to the voice of their own people and not
to the resource and wealth grabs of the big corporations to be truly
democratic, truly a power of the people, by the people, for the people.
Both countries need to support international policing, international
courts, international treaties and agreements, and other international
venues of operating, and change the militaristic swagger at home to
one of a more civic minded defence force, one that can deal with the
conjectural disasters and Katrina’s of nature. As with the ugly
Americans who should just go home and let the world try to recuperate
in peace (I’m sure they will still sell you the oil, you just
won’t control it), so the ugly Canadians should do the same.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.