Sunday, September 26, 2004
Jay Currie http://www.reviewing.blogspot.com/ “Koby, there was rather a lot to gain by Canada supporting the invasion of Iraq, not the least of which was a seat at the table deciding how best to a) invade, b) handle the occupation. The argument that we should not have gone because Quebec was against the invasion essentially concedes to Quebec a veto over Canada's foreign policy. Remember, in WWII Quebec also opposed Canadian involvement. As for terrorist targetting I think the case is not proven. The Madrid cell was in place long before GWII. The Bali attack seems to have been as much an anti-Western as anti-Australian outrage.”
Quebec was not too happy about WW1 either. Anyway, given the strength of the separatists, such feeling have to be taken into consideration. (Notice I said "consideration" not dicate.) As for, “Asymmetrical Federalism” and the welcoming that twit Jean Lapierre into the party, well, let us just say it is horse of different colour and leave it at that.
The most recent bombing in Indonesia seems to be related to the war, but the Bali bombing no. As for the Madrid, it is quite clear that it stemmed from Spain’s involvement in Iraq. In the preceding months there was a lot of “chatter” as how to best affect the election and several well thought out Jihadists papers dealing with that same subject were posted on the internet. These papers together with various internet forums have proved essential in allowing Jihadists to maintain some kind of coherent strategy. Even then, the diffuse nature of Islamic terror today means that such planning could break down if a particular group hits the wrong target. This seems to have been the case in Spain; a second train attack was later foiled. A group claiming responsibility for the failed bombing said it was just a warning. There seems to be two schools of thought on the issue. One was that the group was trying to put a positive spin on a failed attempt and other that the a group not responsible for the attempted bombing was trying to salvage the pre Madrid thinking sketched out in various documents. At any rate it is quite clear that some Jihadists fully understood that if Spain was attacked after it had promised to pull troops out of Iraq that Europe would be driven closer to the US. Whether Bin Laden was on board with such thinking from the outset is not entirely clear (probably), but what was clear is that the letter he released threatening Spain with further attacks if they did not follow through was entire consistent with such thinking. And for that matter, the style in which the letter was done up was obviously aimed at a western audience.
Backing the US war in Iraq would have cost us a lot more economically and politically. Ever consider how security costs and insurance costs for Canadian companies based abroad will come to stack up to American and British firms based abroad in the upcoming years? Anyway, were was I? Besides, overlapping interests trump political grudges every time. Not many historians would argue that Person “pissing” on Johnson’s rug had any noticeable economic or political consequences for Canada and an insignificant backbencher with a big mouth (i.e., Parrish) is not nearly as significant as a Prime Minister giving an anti war speech at a US university. (In 1967 then Prime Minister Lester Person gave a speech critical of US policy in Vietnam at an American university, whose name escapes me. Anyway, on that same trip Person visited Johnson at Camp David. Johnson was none to pleased and a one point grabbed Person by the lapels and warned him not to "piss on my rug". This is not the only indignity Person suffers at the hands of the Johnson administration. While visiting Canada, Person was stooped in the middle of the night by one of Johnson’s body guards. The body guard asked him who he was and what business did he have being in the hallway. Person replied in his typical dead pan way: I am the Prime Minister; I live here and I am on my way to the washroom. Trudeau and Nixon were on even worse terms. Nixon was heard on tape calling Trudeau an “asshole” and “pompous egg head”. When asked to comment, Trudeau said “I have been called worse things by better people.” After his retirement Trudeau delighted in telling the following story: According to Trudeau, Nixon desperately wanted the US to be the first Western nation to recognize Communist China. When, Trudeau beat him to the punch, Nixon allegedly phoned Trudeau and called him an “asshole”. Trudeau said he just laughed.) Those on the right that take the issue seriously should stop hyperventilating and those that do not should stop fearmongering.
Jay Currie: "Canadians are considered to be excellent peace keepers and there are significant sections of Iraq in which peacekeeping would be a good idea."
Why on earth do you want to send a token Canadian force to Iraq to get shredded? Iraq is not Bosnia. It is not even like Kabul. The point at which Canadian peacekeepers would be able to make even a small difference is long since past. Peacekeepers are best equipped to keep two identifiable warring parties apart and are useful in helping MAINTAIN law and order. Law and order has long since broken down in Iraq, the two war parties in Iraq are the coalition and unreliable Iraq force and the insurgents and one of the parities not identifiable. There is good reason why the Poles and the British are scaling back, viz., they are ill-equipped Militarily and politically to fight a growing insurgency.
Quebec was not too happy about WW1 either. Anyway, given the strength of the separatists, such feeling have to be taken into consideration. (Notice I said "consideration" not dicate.) As for, “Asymmetrical Federalism” and the welcoming that twit Jean Lapierre into the party, well, let us just say it is horse of different colour and leave it at that.
The most recent bombing in Indonesia seems to be related to the war, but the Bali bombing no. As for the Madrid, it is quite clear that it stemmed from Spain’s involvement in Iraq. In the preceding months there was a lot of “chatter” as how to best affect the election and several well thought out Jihadists papers dealing with that same subject were posted on the internet. These papers together with various internet forums have proved essential in allowing Jihadists to maintain some kind of coherent strategy. Even then, the diffuse nature of Islamic terror today means that such planning could break down if a particular group hits the wrong target. This seems to have been the case in Spain; a second train attack was later foiled. A group claiming responsibility for the failed bombing said it was just a warning. There seems to be two schools of thought on the issue. One was that the group was trying to put a positive spin on a failed attempt and other that the a group not responsible for the attempted bombing was trying to salvage the pre Madrid thinking sketched out in various documents. At any rate it is quite clear that some Jihadists fully understood that if Spain was attacked after it had promised to pull troops out of Iraq that Europe would be driven closer to the US. Whether Bin Laden was on board with such thinking from the outset is not entirely clear (probably), but what was clear is that the letter he released threatening Spain with further attacks if they did not follow through was entire consistent with such thinking. And for that matter, the style in which the letter was done up was obviously aimed at a western audience.
Backing the US war in Iraq would have cost us a lot more economically and politically. Ever consider how security costs and insurance costs for Canadian companies based abroad will come to stack up to American and British firms based abroad in the upcoming years? Anyway, were was I? Besides, overlapping interests trump political grudges every time. Not many historians would argue that Person “pissing” on Johnson’s rug had any noticeable economic or political consequences for Canada and an insignificant backbencher with a big mouth (i.e., Parrish) is not nearly as significant as a Prime Minister giving an anti war speech at a US university. (In 1967 then Prime Minister Lester Person gave a speech critical of US policy in Vietnam at an American university, whose name escapes me. Anyway, on that same trip Person visited Johnson at Camp David. Johnson was none to pleased and a one point grabbed Person by the lapels and warned him not to "piss on my rug". This is not the only indignity Person suffers at the hands of the Johnson administration. While visiting Canada, Person was stooped in the middle of the night by one of Johnson’s body guards. The body guard asked him who he was and what business did he have being in the hallway. Person replied in his typical dead pan way: I am the Prime Minister; I live here and I am on my way to the washroom. Trudeau and Nixon were on even worse terms. Nixon was heard on tape calling Trudeau an “asshole” and “pompous egg head”. When asked to comment, Trudeau said “I have been called worse things by better people.” After his retirement Trudeau delighted in telling the following story: According to Trudeau, Nixon desperately wanted the US to be the first Western nation to recognize Communist China. When, Trudeau beat him to the punch, Nixon allegedly phoned Trudeau and called him an “asshole”. Trudeau said he just laughed.) Those on the right that take the issue seriously should stop hyperventilating and those that do not should stop fearmongering.
Jay Currie: "Canadians are considered to be excellent peace keepers and there are significant sections of Iraq in which peacekeeping would be a good idea."
Why on earth do you want to send a token Canadian force to Iraq to get shredded? Iraq is not Bosnia. It is not even like Kabul. The point at which Canadian peacekeepers would be able to make even a small difference is long since past. Peacekeepers are best equipped to keep two identifiable warring parties apart and are useful in helping MAINTAIN law and order. Law and order has long since broken down in Iraq, the two war parties in Iraq are the coalition and unreliable Iraq force and the insurgents and one of the parities not identifiable. There is good reason why the Poles and the British are scaling back, viz., they are ill-equipped Militarily and politically to fight a growing insurgency.
Comments:
Post a Comment
