1/23/2006
Oh, Canada/with some thoughts on the Canadian military
Over the weekend wire and blog reports I read said the race between the Conservatives and Liberals had tightened. Apparently voters in the Maritimes are particularly vulnerable to allegations that those “Conservatives out West” are dangerous folks, almost Americans. What’s the word for “borking” in Canadian? In this case “borking en masse.” Perhaps the appropriate description is “plain old scare tactics.” I haven’t seen a poll looking at the Maritimes (if some one has, send me a link). In 1998 my family took a long car and ferry tour of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. We spent a wonderful week on Prince Edward Island. The lovely Maritimes could use a jolt of Reagan-esque economic juice.
For other thoughts on this important election see Michelle Malkin’s roundup. Michelle has a very rich collection of links — Mark Steyn, Ed Morrissey, the CBC site. (And after visiting the CBC site, I’ll add it as a link, too. The current lead article is “Polls Open In Atlantic Canada.”)
What are the issues? Liberal Party corruption drives this election. Good government is the first and foremost, so I’ll offer “good government, good-bye to the bums, and good riddance” to the CBC as a soundbite. Paul Martin won’t like it. As Michelle points out, Ed Morrissey is the hero in this. Morrissey should win a journalism award. While cynics may be justified in saying that Morrissey won’t get anything but a cold shoulder from press prize committees (ie, he didn’t “get Nixon,” he’s helped get a Liberal) this bias may be fading. Many Canadians know what Morrissey accomplished by insisting on the truth and by providing a forum for discussion and genuine dissent.
Here’s my position on the election: I’m for rebuilding what was once one of the best military organizations in the Free World, the Canadian Army. Its decline and degradation have reduced Canada’s international political influence.
Quick background: I worked with 4th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group in Europe on three different major exercises in 1976 and 1977 (in West Germany). I worked with soldiers from 4th CMBG in the planning phases of two exercises and served as a liaison officer during another exercise. In REFORGER 76 the headquarters I served in (Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division Forward) became the headqaurters for a multi-national division. Our operations section controled 4th CMBG, the German’s 29th Panzer Brigade, and the US 1st Inantry Division’s 3rd Brigade. We portrayed the Russians (”Orange Force” in the scenario).
The Canadians launched a sneaky infantry attack –on foot– that preceded our armor attack. The ground attack cracked the Blue Force, sent them reeling, and blew open a hole for Canadian and US tanks.
The judges had to stop the exercise. Take a mulligan, Blue Force.
In my opinion, the Canadian brigade was the best brigade in NATO, which probably meant it was the best brigade man for man in the world.
I think the decline of the Canadian military has weakened Canada as a global political player. As the Canadian military declined, the Liberals’ game of “we aren’t America” (which is a fair fame to play, and one that can actually strategically benefit the cause of freedom) declined into rank, adolescent anti-Americanism. Is there a connection between increasingly strident rhetoric and the loss of military capability? I think the answer is probably “yes.”
The decline in military capability means Canada cannot act with a full spectrum of foreign policy options— a wonkese way of saying Canada’s lack of military prowess creates weakness. Internationally, strident rhetoric usually indicates one of two conditions: a bully, attempting to intimidate (Iran) or it’s an attempt to mask weakness. I think Canada suffers (obviously) from the second condition.
Perhaps this is a minor issue among Canadians. It shouldn’t be.
My heart goes out to the loss of your comrades. It never easy to say goodbye. As for your deployments across the world have made you our" best ambassador's." ;D
