Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

Fighting terror effectively necessitates a military and security structure which has different but vital components, namely; foreign military power projection, well funded intelligence services, strong cross border North American security plans, domestic border control and domestic vigilance in preventing terrorist groups from financing and planning attacks. On all these issues, Canada and Canadians need to do more. Canada is not immune from terror, nor does militant Islam view it with affection. A strong military and secure North American defence is vital to protect Canada from rogue states and terrorist groups. On border security and immigration Canada provides an easy point of access to North America for terrorists to both stage attacks and finance terror groups. These fundamental areas of national self interest are being sacrificed to party politics, vote buying and post modern ideology. Canada needs to take the War on Terror more seriously and prove it can become a mature adult nation. It can demonstrate maturity by increasing immediately the spend on national defence by 100 %.

Military Strength:
Peace, love, apologizing for fascist Islam’s attack on the West, and arrogance in supposing that being nice means anything, does not project power on the world stage. Hard power through a real projectionable military force, is necessary if you want to wield soft power and defend national interests which are spread all over the world in an age of communications, technology and economic [and by extension political] compression. Canada basically does not possess a military. Prime Minister Martin stated that he will increase defence spending by $11 billion over 5 years but all that spending is from years 3-5 – so it is meaningless rhetoric. With a budget of only $12 billion per annum Canada spends less as a share of its GDP than any major developed country in the world – a travesty for the world’s 8th or 9th largest economy. In fact many sources state that the military in Canada will just disappear within 10 years if proper funding is not guaranteed every year moving forward. The bare minimum increase in spending is 50 % according to recent reports.

Graphic: Canadian Military Spending

Canada ranks poorly on any measure of military spend. Per capita and % of GDP figures point to a woeful policy of Canadian free-riding off the US. Its small 62.000 man force does not have modern equipment, armor, or support and only 2-3.000 men in total per annum can be deployed overseas. This says nothing of its starvation of the intelligence services, which are now at their weakest level since the Korean War. Canada depends almost wholly on the intelligence services of other countries, especially of course the UK and USA. By following the peacenik path Canada has abdicated its national security and by extension its sovereignty to the US -- but it still demands equal status as a relevant nation. Such free-riding and back-biting naturally impacts political arrangements between the two nations. Canada has in effect rejected the US-Anglo alliance, which is the linchpin of Western civilization’s freedom and security. It is historically a bizarre choice that has the potential to self-destruct the country.

Canada’s immature commitment to defense and its own national sovereignty, is exemplified by its rejection of the US North American missile defence plan. Martin had promised a new era of Canada-U.S. relations after bitter divisions over the war in Iraq. American officials had warned it would be an inauspicious start to any new era if Canada refused to join the missile plan. Desperate to court left-leaning votes in English Canada from the NDP and in Quebec from the Bloc Quebecois, Martin rejected the missile defence plan with the excuse that it means the weaponization of space. Canadians should realize that Martin’s volte-face, and ludicrous logic, while politically opportune for his Liberal party, endangers the entire spectrum of US – Canada relations. Security is the prime US concern and not taking our military and security seriously impairs economic matters between the nations.

A Strong Military Allows for Peace and Peacekeeping:

After the Tsunamis disaster in December 2004 the Aussies and Americans, using mobile army and naval units were the first to respond. Canada was delayed 2 weeks trying to organize a response. In traveling to fight in Afghanistan the few hundred Canadian troops had to beg for transport from the Americans. The Second Gulf War to impose needed democracy on the Middle East and reform the fascistic elements of medieval Islam was ignored by Canada – due to internal polls and politics but also because there is no military force to send. Out of 50.000 fighting men and women only 17.600 are equipped to fight and of these, only enough equipment, proper clothing and materiel exist to send a few thousand overseas.

This is a rather sad legacy. Canada’s so called ‘peace keeping’ image [it ranks 34th in the world on peace keeping contributions], came from the credit it won during the Two World Wars, the Korean War and the Cold War. During the Cold War the regular army, navy and air force grew to 120,000 and defence spending increased rapidly in the 1950s and early 1960s. For the first and only time in history, Canada had efficient and well-equipped forces. This paid dividends with our Allies.

Being militarily strong, Canada was able to do other things on the global stage. United Nations peacekeeping was not a Canadian invention, but there was no doubt that governments and the public liked the idea that Canada could help settle disputes. Kashmir 1950, Suez 1956, Lebanon 1958, The Congo 1960, Cyprus 1964 and other conflicts since then exemplified the quality of the Canadian military. It is sadly a quality that does not exist today as successive governments have starved the military of money and material – in order to buy votes and increase the socialization of the country. The UN in times-past extolled Canada for its peace-keeping missions not because Canada was a model perfect state, but because it had at one point, some military relevance and power. Such military relevance is non-existent today.

While useful for government propaganda the role of Canadian peacekeeping missions was always exaggerated. It is easier to let the Brits and Yanks do the real fighting and emphasize the more enlightened qualities of peace, and brotherhood, but such ideals have little real impact in an anarchic world if rhetoric is not matched by real military power. Witness the Rwandan massacres in the mid – 1990s and the Darfur genocide today. Without a military what does Canada really offer to solve these cruel conflicts except nice words while eschewing hard deeds ? Does it and the UNO really expect the US to do all the fighting all the time, everywhere ? If so why ?

What Canadians do not understand is that peacekeeping is possible only if you have a military. A capable military needs naval ships that can actually cover the seas, transport aircraft to take men and materiel thousands of miles, signallers, logisticians, infantry with up to date armour and support, all of which can be sent anywhere, and made to work with other national armies. Canada has none of this and it impacts its alliance and trade structures.

Trade patterns, and military alliances are indeed tied together. The Aussies and Brits are reaping benefits for their prescient morally based military support in Iraq and the Middle East. Currently the Aussies are the recipients of foreign investment, preferred trade ties and have secured access to the US market for goods previously kept out by the Americans. The same applies to Britain. Canada has failed to understand that economics is shaped by alliance patterns. Canadian history offers a lesson – the all-important Auto Pact of 1965, which was the precursor to NAFTA. In Cyprus in 1964 NATO partners Greece and Turkey were on the verge of an Alliance-shattering war. Canada stepped in at U.S. President Lyndon Johnson's request, sent a battalion of infantry on short notice, and stabilized the situation. In return Canada negotiated a very successful and quite one-way Auto-Pact agreement which protected Canadian content and spurred the industrial development of Central Canada [see Michael Hart’s book on Canadian trade history]. Cyprus was the perfect mix of military capabilities and diplomacy harnessed to national self-interest. Don’t expect however any current Canadian politician to know about this or even reference it.

In general having a strong military helps you to get what you want in international affairs. It pays to know who your real friends and Allies are and Canadians should wake up – corrupt France, the corrupt UNO and corrupt Russia are not allies. A weak military does not aid peace, good government or support the War on Terror. The War on Terror is just as critical as the Cold War and just as fraught with uncertainty. Canada should return to its 1950s era policy of carrying its weight with its natural allies to secure Western Civilization. Canadians must begin to view the War on Terror for what really is – a war for civilization – and begin investing heavily and immediately in the defence of the Western alliance through increasing defence spending by at least 100 % per annum.

Part II; Domestic and N.A. Security

Sources:
Good report on what Canada's Defence is doing

J. Granatstein NP, Tuesday, September 10, 2002

Craigread.com ©