Comment

Global Security: It is Time For Canada to 'Fish or Cut Bait'

The loneliness of our neighbour's sons and daughters, the American soldier in Fallujah, is a shame.

The American soldier again stands tall for us Canadians in a quest for enhanced global security by containing the uproar of a dangerously failed statehood and terminating another genocidal maniac's rule just as was done in Bosnia.

Ignoring the contributions of brave Brits, Poles, Danes, Dutch, Ukranians, Italians and thousands of other valiant troops from dozens of other nations serving now in Iraq is an unforgiveable mistake made every day by everyone, it seems.

Those valiant young soldiers fight terrorists, spill their sweat and blood, and all the while administer humanitarian aid to any willing takers in Iraq, just as did the American soldier in Bosnia-Herzegovina after we, our U.N. pals and the former Western Europan Union screwed up there but good (See The Wednesday Report Volume 8, Number 12 April 20, 1994).

It is reprehensible that Canadians sit and do nothing to assist our loyal friend and ally while enjoying the rich prosperity allowed us by having America as a good geographic neighbour, protector and trading partner. 

Once Al Qaeda issued its pronouncement that any country denouncing the "Coalition" will be spared brutal terrorist attacks, Canada should have mustered as if Bin Laden's threat were a 'call to arms'. Damn us if we cower and cringe at the command of the psychopathic fear-monger, Usama Bin Laden, who all the while hides in tunnels and caves.

'Too few resources to support the United States in Iraq', says our new Prime Minister.

No. It is not true. We have the resources. We could make the stretch and contribute a sophisticated and worthwhile effort to truly make a difference in the scheme of global security.

• Canada has considerable expertise and experience in providing assistance for national elections in troubled regions. 

• Canada has the wherewithal and an immensely popular approach to teaching the nuances of public law enforcement to those who want and need to learn.

• Canada's solid reputation earned by years of contributions to global peace and stability initiatives would elevate the local perception of an international effort aimed at fixing Iraq. 

'We don't have enough soldiers because of our extensive U.N. commitments in Afghanistan and elsewhere', implies our new Prime Minister who must soon face the electorate in a national election. 

Don't say "not enough soldiers". Too many millions of dollars have been poured illegally into patronage pots by our central government to now make that argument. Find the money. Find the soldiers. We hired our central government politicians to make tough decisions, not excuses and not to purloin our tax dollars.

Iraq is a 21st Century pivotal point in global security. This is not the time to manage public policy and global security obligations exclusively on the basis of popularity polls: this is a time for true leadership and a deeper understanding than what is apparent in the bafflegab that emits from the players in North America's own tribal warfare, otherwise known as electioneering.

Well, as paradoxical as it may seem, Canada may have to wait till after an election for true leadership from our current Prime Minister, who will, and certainly should, win the next federal election. But let that not be as it was in Spain.

Beneath the veneer of anti-Americanism that shellacs international headlines and TV sound bites these days there is an emerging thread of facts as well as informed conjecture, which for future historians may vindicate the U.S. and Britain's, decision to invade/free Iraq --with the help of troops from Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan (non-combattant logisitics support), Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, South Korea, Thailand, Ukraine and friends.

1. Saddam wasn't 'taken out' in 1991 after Kuwait was freed because, according to the U.S. theory at the time, Saddam had effectively glued an unlikely mix of conflicted ethnic and religious elements which once unglued would explode in violent civil war and embroil the Persian Gulf Region.

   Without Saddam Hussein's brutal totalitarian rule, no process could contain the inevitable civil war. "It would be worse than the former Yugoslavia and much faster", some said. The global impact would be more than economic as oil shipments and sea traffic in the fragile Gulf region became unreliable or ground to a halt.

   By the summer of 2003 it was absolutely clear Iraq had been a failing nation prior to invasion and Saddam's grip on power, previously unknown to the West, was collapsing. With Saddam's dynasty in near ruin, it was only a matter of time before Iraq would have blown into fractional conflict divided along ethnic lines with ethnic alliances all around the circle of its neighbours.

   Undoubtedly the inevitable collapse of Saddam Hussein's iron rule would have brought Syria and Iran as well as Saudi Arabia  into the fray and the West would only have been a spectator as the Gulf Region exploded into conflict. Who would have fetched the spoils then? Syria? Iran? And what if any cities would be retired to smoking rubble after Israel were attacked?

   The inevitable collapse of Iraq needed to be contained with strong measures.

2. Jordanian law enforcement professionals seized a potpourri of chemical weapons yesterday. Where are they from? 

   According to limited information emerging from Jordanian officials, the mix was potent comprising choking agents, nerve gas and blistering agents--Saddams fetishes in a few hundred barrels. We don't know the exact chemical compounds but the existence of Al Qaeda CW capabilities is clear enough given that the tons of contraband including explosives was seized from the possession of eight confessed Al Qaeda agents. Add the name of Abu Musab Zarkawi (Ahmad Al-Khalayla), their direct commander, and it is no stretch to suggest the chemicals may be a secondary proliferation of Saddam Hussein's hidden, illegal CW stash.

    

3. Haven't you wondered, "from where came the chemical weapons and nuclear weapons programme elements handed over by Mohammar Qaddafi"? Is it possible that this mismatched pile of dangerous paraphernalia of destruction was purchased from pre-war Iraq? We don't know. That's purely conjecture, but the Lybia-Iraq connections go back a long way.

    

4. In this issue you can read about a corrupt, "U.N. Oil For Food Programme" that improperly benefited France, Germany and Russia among others. That may have been the real reason to oppose a U.N.-backed invasion of Iraq instead of the fibs we all heard. Now that the cat is out of the bag, perhaps Europe can put on its most intellectually-honest thinking cap, get its hypocritical and longish Pinocchio nose out of the air, then 'lend a hand' in Iraq.

    

5. Former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien who like his popular mentor, the late Pierre Trudeau, hated the Canadian military but hated the United States even more. Not just rejecting the U.S. request for Canada's assistance Chretien went on to insult and berate the U.S. and its leadership in late 2002 and early 2003. 

Now that Canada has resolved its problem of "bad leadership"--quoting the grandson of Winston Churchill who made this observation in a 5 April 2003 Larry King interview-- it is now time to properly join our nation's primary ally.

Micheal John O'Brien, Editor

---