Australia gives Canada some pointers (Aussies point out what's wrong with Canada's weasels policy)

Toronto Star Times (via Embassy magazine) ^ | August 17th, 2005 | By Martin Regg Cohn

[I. M. Trenchant]

Apologies to CeDex. My post #20 was intended for Joseph_CutlerUSA who seems to think poorly of Canada's war efforts, but overlooks some salient history.

[I. M. Trenchant]

In September 1939, when Canada entered WWII, as was the case when it entered WWI, most Canadians were descendants of British or French antecedents, and the Canadian Government's decision to declare war on Germany was in-line with the democratic will of public opinion in the country. Although obligatory combat, when drafted, did meet considerable opposition in Quebec, even after Germany's invasion and conquest of France, it remains that the combat record of Canadian Francophones in both WWI and WWII was outstanding. Moreover, Canada's decision to enter WWI and WWII never met with the sort of massive opposition and disillusion among the Canadian public that now characterizes U.S. public opinion about U.S. military action in Iraq.

On the other hand, U.S. public opinion strongly opposed U.S. participation in WWI and WWII until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour left the U.S. President with no option but to declare war on Japan and Germany. Both nations are democracies, and their governments acted properly in reflecting the public will in entering (Canada) and not entering (U.S.) WWI and WII at an early date. Importantly, there was never the slightest criticism by the Canadian Government, and no significant sniping by individual members of the Canadian public, about the U.S. Government's decision in favour of non-participation in the early years of WWI and WWII. As I recall, when Canadians were regularly characterized -- largely by isolationist members of the GOP -- as being knee-jerk colonials who were mindlessly prepared to bend to the imperial will of Great Britain, they responded with stoic silence.

In the case of the war in Iraq, Canadian Governmental opinion has always reflected the will of the Canadian public (85% opposed), and this in turn, has been strongly influenced by the fact that Canada's demographics have changed markedly since WWI and WWII: the dominance of the 'French and English connection' in Canadian foreign-policy decisions has been severely diminished. Importantly, Canadian views about the U.S. led attack on Iraq have always been very much in-line with what are now the current views of a large, perhaps the largest segment of the U.S. population. It therefore seems that your objections to Canadian non-involvement in Iraq should, more appropriately, be directed to the corresponding large segment of the U.S. population that has no 'quarrel' whatever with the Canadian stance.

As recce guy has pointed out in this thread (post #19), your objections to Canada's military contributions require no reply from me. It is downright snide of you to suggest that you are paying due respect to Canadian forces serving in Afghanistan while you continue to 'worry the bone' about what Canada is NOT contributing to the U.S. Middle East effort to stabilize Afghanistan -- especially so after U.S. military courts exonerated the inept pilot whose 'friendly fire' accounted for the largest proportion of Canadian deaths in that beleaguered nation. Listen to the president more closely and you will note that he has placed emphasis on the quality, not the quantity of the forces that Canada has contributed in the Middle East and elsewhere. There is nothing "mythical" about Canada's peace-keeping record and it is beneath contempt for you to use such language in describing it in that way. On the other hand, it is worth noting, in passing, that the U.S. peace-keeping effort in Iraq has not merited much praise from anyone.

Soon after he was elected. Nixon had the wit, intelligence and courage to begin a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam, and to use the following four years, which ultimately led to a nearly full withdrawal of U.S. forces, as a platform with which to introduce lasting and constructive geopolitical policies that served his nation and the world well: the first meaningful arms-limitation agreement with the USSR, a detente with with the USSR/Russia that has lasted more than 3 decades, and the implementation of a foreign policy that led to the "generation of peace" he had promised his countrymen. By 'kick starting' the process with his 'opening to China', Nixon laid the foundations for the longest period of freedom from participation in major warfare that the U.S. enjoyed in the 20th century, and it reached a full generation (30 years) between 1972 (the end of the Xmas Bombing in the Indochina war) and 2003 (the beginning of the Iraq war). Hopefully, the Bush Administration will find some equally imaginative way to accomplish a similar generation of peace in the Middle East.