May 30, 2004

The terror threat and Canada

May 30 - Both Canada and the USA face national elections soon. The March 11 bombing attack in Madrid and the impact it had on the national elections there produced a lot of theorizing and speculation and Wednesday, US Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller (ref. 'Clear and present danger') went public with their concerns about the potential for a terrorist attack in the USA given the upcoming US elections.

The inclusion of two Canadians, including the notorious Jdey, forces the thought that Canada may well be the target. (There will be a national election here June 28.)

Shortly after Sept. 11, I asked Mark what he thought the public response would be in Canada if there was a terrorist attack here. He replied that people would complain about gas prices (he's a dyed-in-the-wool cynic.)

Well, Canadians are already complaining about gas prices, so I raised the question again last night, and he responded that Canadians are finally "getting" it and would correctly aim their outrage at the terrorists even though Old Media would use the attack as another plank in their anti-American campaign.

The one thing Westerners (civilisationally, not regionally!) still have had difficulty grasping is that al Qaeda doesn't care which party rules a country: their aim is to destablize and terrify, period. How do I know that? Because al Qaeda told us so.

We also have trouble accepting what al Qaeda says at face value, even though their track record indicates that are stating the unvarnished truth.

That's why appeasement is as fruitless now as it has always been, why US withdrawal from Saudi military bases and the ending of UN sanctions on Iraq (remember bin Laden's justification for jihad against the US?) resulted in an increase of armed confrontation in Saudi Arabia and their open alignment with the Ba'athists in Iraq even though it was Saddam's corruption of the U.N. Oil-For-Food program that caused the deaths of Iraqi babies.

There is an additional complication: the full-blown, outright anti-Americanism led by the Toronto Star and CBC is bound to cause a reaction from Americans. The outpouring of American solidarity with Spain - then an ally - after the March 11 may not be matched if Canada - not an ally - is hit. The fact that Canada's military and security forces are already over-extended and the unfortunate circumstance that an idiot (Anne McClellan) is in charge of Canadian security puts the ruling Liberal Party in a bit of a briar patch: if PM Martin choses to use Opposition leader Stephen Harper's support of the US effort in Iraq as a weapon during the electoral campaign, he further exacerbates relations between the US and Canada but if a terrorist attack happens up here and he calls upon the US to help Canada, more than a few Americans will say "Call France."

It saddens me, but I'll be one of them, or at least I'll be conflicted. Is a docile Canadian citizenry worth the lives of America's sons and daughters? Or are Canadians less docile than they themselves have been led to believe?

Tomorrow is Memorial Day, and it will be sadder this year than in years past. We've lost some outstanding men and women in Iraq and will lose more. We knew going in that the losses would deprive us of the kind of people that make our country strong and could only pray that their sacrifices would inspire others much as President Lincoln articulated in his Gettysburg Address: so "they not have died in vain."

It's hard to keep perspective up here in Toronto, and hard to remember that, despite it's pretensions, Toronto is not the Center of the Universe much less Canada.

But (and this may seem contradictory) there is a different Canadian that co-exists with that portrayed by the media. The hockey game last night is a case in point: Jerome Iginla scored a Gordie Howe hat trick: a goal, an assist, and a fight.

Is a country that cheers Canadians like Iginla truly passive? I don't think so. But then, it's not me that has to get it, it's Canadians themselves who could be on the brink of defining themselves in something in terms other than unlike Americans.

Posted by: Debbye at 10:55 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 717 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Is America defined by the NY Times and CNN? Same issue at stake here - the Real Canada exists well outside the Greater Toronto Area, just as the Real America is not Manhattan. Big cities generate their own parochialism, and Toronto has laways had a bad case of that...

Posted by: JGS at May 31, 2004 10:22 AM (z9hKy)

2 Debbye: Thank you so much for your unique perspective and insightful commentary in these uncertain times. You are a gifted writer. Peace, Del

Posted by: Del at May 31, 2004 06:33 PM (EfMVT)

3 Good point, JGS, and you're right of course, yet until recently, a lot of Americans did think the NY Times, the "paper of record," spoke for Americans. The hard part of living in interesting times is trying to see where true changes are taking place and where fad changes are occuring. It seems to me that the NYT and CNN are trying to define Americans, which is guaranteed to piss a lot of Americans right off. I have no doubt the CBC and Star try to do the same, and my instincts tell me that Canadians too would reject such an affront to their dignity. Del, thank you. I'm just trying to muddle my way to achieve comprehension. If I could have one wish, it would be to look in about 100 years from now and read the news and all the latest history books. The downside of living in interesting times is that we don't get to read the Epilogue.

Posted by: Debbye at June 01, 2004 06:50 PM (B+G3D)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
17kb generated in CPU 0.0269, elapsed 0.1083 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.0989 seconds, 145 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.