What is the Strength of the Canadian Character?

It’s a question Canadian’s ponder and navel gaze about more often than they should. It can be something that frustrates and confounds us, or more often than not something that we pay no mind to except maybe once a year on the first of July or in a high school social studies class.

Unlike the British and French we don’t cling to our past glorying in it and believing our history continues to make us a great nation, that our traditions are a shining light, the envy of the world. In fact, frustratingly Canadians know very little about their past. As annual Canada Day poll, after Canada Day poll shows, most of our citizens could not pass a quiz on even the basics of their own nations history. So what about the future?

With the possible exception of former Prime Minister Sir Wilfred Laurier who said that the “20^th century would belong to Canada” we rarely dream of or aspire to greatness as a nation.

There is no equivalent of Manifest Destiny in Canada, unlike the United States we don’t dream that we are a nation destined for glory, a ‘shining light on a hill’ for the worlds oppressed. In our elections there is never talk of ‘Canadian Exceptionalism’, any candidate who did would mocked left and right by the media and public.

So if we don’t glorify or even know about our past; if we don’t have national visions of glory and destiny, what then is our unique strength and character as a nation and as a people?

The answer is in the ‘now’; Canadians are a people that live in the present. This does not mean we don’t plan for the future or have our own unique perspective on our past.  It means that we don’t cling to past glories, we don’t generally have grand visions of a powerful future, but by being in the now, by living in the moment we are often able to pull together and propel ourselves to greatness for a moment in time.

Whether it is storming Vimy Ridge in 1917, an overtime win on home ice in the Vancouver Olympics, or our seemingly never ending need to deal with issues of national unity Canadians have a unique ability to reinvent themselves to meet a challenge.

Unburdened by our past or shackled to a vision of future greatness, the Canadian Character is one that strolls along unassumingly living day by day until an obstacle is placed in our collective path. Then determinedly, and very often creatively we accept that challenge pull together for the moment to meet the crisis. We don’t always succeed, but truthfully, most times we do.

So the secret to our greatness as a people and as a nation is not to be found in a Pierre Burton book or a Group of Seven Painting, it’s not found in some glorious vision of becoming a northern superpower, it is found in the often daily challenges we meet and rise to overcome. As a nation, or individually, we always find a way and that my friend is the real strength of the Canadian Character.

Why Obama Might Lose

Two points to watch tonight:

Forget conspiracy theories here is some history to guide what could happen

1 > In bad economic times the incumbent President always takes a beating. EXAMPLE: The last one term president was George HW Bush - remember him? After the 1991 Gulf War he was riding a huge wave of popularity.... 

One year later... Recession... And along comes the governor of Arkansas, a bac

kwards state mostly known for rednecks, hillbillies and moonshine named William Jefferson Clinton. A man known largely for sex scandals with big haired women but who ended up beating a president that just a year earlier had huge approval ratings.

Why? People tend to vote against the president in bad economic times - Just ask ol' George HW Bush about that.

2 > Next point, for all the fear mongerer's out there, never judge - sadly - what a president will do by what they promise in an election campaign. I remember a certain president who was going to close Gitmo, have civillan trials of terrorist suspects and immediately withdraw from Iraq. You probably know him - he's up for re-election today.

What he ended up doing in the first two years? Pretty much continue GW Bushes foreign policy but with better grammar, and could correct pronunciations of the names of the leaders he met.

The Hypocrisy of Democrats & Trial of Barrack Obama: War Criminal and Murder

It was said early in his tenure about current US President Barrack Obama that the main difference between him and George Bush in their foreign policy was that Obama could correctly pronounce the names of the heads of state he was visiting. Meaning that for all the inspiring speeches and solemn promises, in practical terms during the first two years of his tenure President Obama largely continued on from where George W Bush left off.

 A superpower is as a superpower does, and if you look closely the foreign police of the United States from 2004 until about 2009 under both George Bush and Barrack Obama has followed a rather predictable and somewhat logical course flowing smoothly from one administration to the next.

What?!! Impossible?!! You’re crazy!! I can hear it all now from both supporters and opponents of the current president but I will let facts rather than ideology or campaign rhetoric speak for me. While Republicans wasted valuable time in silly debates about birth certificates and debating the religious faith practiced (or not practiced) by the Commander in Chief, Democrats – including based on the Facebook posting I see many Canadians – seem to lack a clear understanding of their candidates record and come across as smitten but Obama’s charisma, coolness and self satisfied that he broke presidential mold.

George W. Bush, “the murderer and war criminal”, but Obama? C’mon wasn’t he against the Invasion of Iraq, and later the ‘Surge’, Guantanamo Bay, and the use of Predator Drones in Pakistan, wasn’t all that quite clear back in 2008?

The answer yes, but welcome to Politics 101, regardless of your political party, campaigning and governing are two different animals. If you have not realized that at this point you’re probably still believing in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. The facts are that in Iraq Obama largely continued the policies of his predecessor and then replicated them in Afghanistan. Gitmo?  Still open for business. The hard truth is that any sitting US President or leader of any country for that matter has to deal with the reality they are faced with, regardless of what they may have said on the campaign trail.

The second more uniquely American factor in this is that aside from being the world’s sole superpower with unique responsibilities that no other country has, their whole political system is build on checks and balances. This means that any drastic change of course or action is quite difficult and very often opposed at every turn by Congress or the House of Representatives, making any new agenda difficult for a sitting president to implement without compromise of some kind.

Don’t buy it? Let’s look at the facts of Barrack Obama’s early years as US President and see if by the same standards as George W Bush was judged, by his actions can we hang the label of “murderer and war criminal” on Mr Obama.

The Trial of Barrack Obama:

Exhibit A: Attacking a Country that had not attacked the United States and without a United Nations Resolution & the Extra-judicial killing of an American Citizen Overseas:

This one is the main knocks against George W Bush, that his Invasion of Iraq did not have the blessing of the United Nations (either did NATO’s air assault on Yugoslavia but I don’t hear anyone calling for Jean Chretien’s head). A sinister innovation of the post 9/11 wars has been the introduction of drone strikes. Missile armed remote controlled aircraft that unleash death on the unsuspecting below; a tactic that came into use under the Bush administration and first used in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

While campaigning for the presidency Mr. Obama called these same strikes “counter - productive” and “dangerous”. That stand quickly changed – even reversed itself when he obtained office, and as President, Obama not only did not stop the drone attacks, he actually increased these strikes with the resulting increase in loss of civilian lives in Pakistan. A country with obvious support for the Taliban, and with the blood of both Canadian and American soldiers on it’s hands, yet also a country that the United States officially considers an a “loyal friend and ally”.

Secondly ladies and gentlemen of the jury consider the case of Anwar al-Aulaqi. Who the hell is he? An American citizen who moved to Yemen and became involved in planning al Qaeda operations against Americans. Fine you say, go after him, and you won’t get any argument from me. However as an American citizen he is entitled to certain protections under the law – including due process – that someone like say... Osama Bin Laden would not enjoy.

Mr. Aulaqui was killed by a CIA Predator Drone strike on September 30^th, 2011, at the time he was not engaged in combat, and likely did not even know the drone was present above him. Strictly speaking, legally this was an ‘extra – judicial killing’ with about as much legal authority as a New Jersey mafia hit. Obama ordered an American citizen murdered without even attempting to obtain legal authority for his execution, rather George Bush like you could say.

Exhibit B: Broken Promises and Flip Flops on Iraq:

In spite of pledges for an early withdrawal and an honourable peace, Mr. Obama instead waited and withdrew US Forces on George Bush’s timetable and even increased activities such as ‘night raids’ which the Iraqi government blamed for further terrorizing an already traumatized Iraqi civilian population.

Why did Obama not keep his campaign promise of an early troop withdrawal? Because once in power he had to deal with the reality of as Gen. Colin Powell (ret’d) put it “you broke it, you bought it”. Meaning that by 2008, signs of progress were showing finally showing in Iraq, and a sudden pullout of United States military forces would mean that would likely be lost and bloodshed would rapidly increase. So Obama did the practical and expedient thing and continued on with the plan laid out by Bush/Cheney.

Exhibit C: Afghanistan and the Surge he said wouldn’t work:

In the post 9-11 wars Afghanistan was commonly called ‘The Good War’ by those campaigning for Mr. Obama, although I don’t believe he ever used the phrase himself. While the situation in Iraq was improving, the situation in Afghanistan was badly deteriorating, with the Taliban still active in large parts of the south and east of that country.

As a Senator Mr. Obama opposed a ‘troop surge’ in Iraq, meaning inserting 30 to 40 thousand more troops into that country to ‘clear, hold and build’ and try to create some stability and create forward momentum of some kind.

So what once in power did Obama do? He committed to a troop surge in Afghanistan, and in one of his biggest flip flops since taking office actually appointed the surge commander in Iraq – Gen Petraeus - to command it. I have yet to hear a single Obama supporter have an explanation for why this would be opposed in one geographic location but supported in another.

On this charge the hypocrisy of Canadians shines like a bright light in the darkness. While the majority – about 80% of Canadians support the current US president, by it’s later stages most of these same people opposed Canada’s own participation in the Afghan War. How one can support the US President’s actions in that country and no support your own country doing the same thing is a leap of logic I have not been able to overcome. We are – regardless of who is Commander in Chief south of the border obligated by treaty to mutual defense.

What does all this mean? It shows a President Barrack H Obama, who like his predecessor George W Bush will break international law, break US law, attack a country without UN Sanction, and generally do what he feels is in the country’s best interest and to hell with the rest of the world. Surprise, surprise... Just like any other US President or head of state of any other country in the world. 

Horses & Bayonets: A Metaphor for Election Half Truths

Horses & Bayonets, the line from the debate can be held up as a metaphor for the current US Election. On the surface a self evident witty reply in an otherwise rather lackluster debate, but on closer examination not a statement that stands up to any scr

utiny.

In short: Based on the current size of the United States Army and Marine Corps compared to the relatively small pre World War One US Military, and given the fact that every US Infantry soldier or Marine is issued one and taught how to use it: While definitely having fewer if any horses the United States likely DOES actually have more bayonets than it did a hundred years ago.

So the statement, while a great debate line is only half true and does not stand up to scrutiny.

The truth is, regardless of who wins Tuesday’s election, there will not be much of a change in American foreign policy, at least not in the early years.

For Whoever Wins the US Election Danger Lurks in the Far East

Whoever claims the presidency after this Tuesday's election will have to confront the growing potential for conflict in the Far East.

While war in Syria and threats of war with Iran will keep the Middle East in the headlines for the foreseeable future,  in the Pacific a toxic mixture of territorial disputes between China and it's neighbours as well as left over resentment against Japan's World War 2 aggression (which the leaders of countries such as China and South Korea stir up whenever domestically convenient) has created a potential for a conflict that would dwarf anything we've seen in recent memory.

Under the Obama Administration the United States has quietly begun shifting it's strategic focus more and more on the Pacific Rim, even symbolically stationing a small contingent of U.S. Marines in Australia for the first time since the Second World War. There is no reason to believe a Romney Government would do anything different.

Finally, the saddest irony of all; Japan having woken up to the new reality of it's neigbourhood has begun to feel compelled to move from away it's post war pacifist orientation. From briefly sending troops to Iraq, to participation in the US Ballistic Missile Shield (something Canada will eventually do regardless of current party policies). Now in some quarters the only nation on whom atomic weapons were actually used is considering acquiring nuclear weapons of it's own. If only just to ensure it has a counter point to the periodic threats of national extermination it receives from China and North Korea.

As BC singer Sue Medley once sang "We are living in dangerous times".