EvanL
11-13-2003, 12:58 PM
http://www.thewhig.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=48852&catname=Local+News
By Jonathan Barrett
Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 07:00
Local News - The notion that Canadians are peacekeepers is false, a Royal Military College historian says.
“Canada has been involved in fighting three wars in the past 12 years, let alone all the other stuff that’s going on,” said Sean Maloney.
The three wars Maloney refers to are the first Gulf War and the conflicts in Kosovo and Afghanistan.
“There is something called peacekeeping but it really hasn’t been operative for the past 12 years. It’s a Cold War construct.”
In a paper released by the Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRRP), Maloney argues that the perception that the Canadian military is only involved with peacekeeping missions is a myth.
The stabilization effort that follows a change in regime, highlighted in the current war in Iraq, can’t be described as peacekeeping, Maloney said.
Canada’s military contribution to the first Gulf War and in Kosovo and Afghanistan can’t be described as peacekeeping, he added.
And it is the media, government, academia and social elite that attempt to distort this fact, claiming Canadian forces are simply peacekeeping units.
“Just because people think the UN mounts something, that it is automatically peacekeeping just because they are wearing blue helmets,” he said.
The other falsehood in the Canadian psyche is a belief that the military doesn’t have the capabilities to go to war, Maloney said.
“It’s very straightforward, this one isn’t rocket science. It’s what basically is available in our force structure to deploy overseas to support Canadian objectives,” he said.
The paper lists the capabilities of Canada’s maritime forces, air forces and land forces.
“We could’ve fought in Iraq, absolutely.”
The paper is part of a series of 20 research documents to instigate public debate, said Kingston’s Hugh Segal, president of IRRP, who ran in the federal Conservative leadership race in 1998.
“It’s part of a continuing process, we have views that are quite different.”
Segal said that the paper is challenging the notion that Canada couldn’t participate in a war, rather than whether Canada should participate in a war.
“There’s all sorts of assumptions floating around in the media about what we can and can’t do, and that’s spun by various elected and unelected officials,” Maloney said.
He believes that by not participating in ousting Saddam Hussein, Canada showed change in foreign policy, considering its military history.
In an interview with The Whig-Standard he said it was in the country’s economic interest to join the American-led coalition.
“People that think that violence shouldn’t be resorted to, or is unnecessary, is living on another planet, in my opinion,” he said.
He cites that anti-Americanism is
endemic in Canadian culture.
Maloney said Canada must defend its interest before its values.
“You want to not live in a mud hut, there’s a price to be paid for that, too.”
He believes that Canadians and their military get into trouble when placing too much trust in the United Nations.
“When we are dealing with UN-led things everything starts to go to hell.”
Aside from the economic benefits that may have come Canada’s way if it had gone to war against Iraq, Maloney cites protection and stability in the area as the major concern.
The theory is that Israel would have used nuclear weapons against Iraq.
“It would have happened ultimately,” he said.
“We take the lesser of two evils – fight a conventional war and get into a messy stabilization campaign or we wind up with big chunks of Iraq being radiated rubble with fallout drifting all over the region.
“Or worse, [Hussein] actually gets the capability and deploys it against Saudi Arabia and suddenly the world economy is taking hits,” he said, referring to the importance of Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves.
Maloney was asked whether he was dealing with too many “ifs” rather than facts.
“You have to deal in ‘ifs’ because you can’t always deal in hard fact,” he said, adding that modern weapons make it crucial to act early.
“The Canadian people are smarter than the cultural elite thinks, and in fact support aggressive action when it’s necessary.”
Maloney believes that groups, including the cultural elite who predominantly opposed Canada’s involvement in the Iraqi war, are responsible for the decline in Canada’s military capability.
“We’ve had it before, we are losing it now,” he said.
Although Canadians may feel content in thinking of themselves as merely peacekeepers, Maloney believes the military does not serve that role.
“Sometimes you need someone like me to say what’s real.”
By Jonathan Barrett
Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 07:00
Local News - The notion that Canadians are peacekeepers is false, a Royal Military College historian says.
“Canada has been involved in fighting three wars in the past 12 years, let alone all the other stuff that’s going on,” said Sean Maloney.
The three wars Maloney refers to are the first Gulf War and the conflicts in Kosovo and Afghanistan.
“There is something called peacekeeping but it really hasn’t been operative for the past 12 years. It’s a Cold War construct.”
In a paper released by the Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRRP), Maloney argues that the perception that the Canadian military is only involved with peacekeeping missions is a myth.
The stabilization effort that follows a change in regime, highlighted in the current war in Iraq, can’t be described as peacekeeping, Maloney said.
Canada’s military contribution to the first Gulf War and in Kosovo and Afghanistan can’t be described as peacekeeping, he added.
And it is the media, government, academia and social elite that attempt to distort this fact, claiming Canadian forces are simply peacekeeping units.
“Just because people think the UN mounts something, that it is automatically peacekeeping just because they are wearing blue helmets,” he said.
The other falsehood in the Canadian psyche is a belief that the military doesn’t have the capabilities to go to war, Maloney said.
“It’s very straightforward, this one isn’t rocket science. It’s what basically is available in our force structure to deploy overseas to support Canadian objectives,” he said.
The paper lists the capabilities of Canada’s maritime forces, air forces and land forces.
“We could’ve fought in Iraq, absolutely.”
The paper is part of a series of 20 research documents to instigate public debate, said Kingston’s Hugh Segal, president of IRRP, who ran in the federal Conservative leadership race in 1998.
“It’s part of a continuing process, we have views that are quite different.”
Segal said that the paper is challenging the notion that Canada couldn’t participate in a war, rather than whether Canada should participate in a war.
“There’s all sorts of assumptions floating around in the media about what we can and can’t do, and that’s spun by various elected and unelected officials,” Maloney said.
He believes that by not participating in ousting Saddam Hussein, Canada showed change in foreign policy, considering its military history.
In an interview with The Whig-Standard he said it was in the country’s economic interest to join the American-led coalition.
“People that think that violence shouldn’t be resorted to, or is unnecessary, is living on another planet, in my opinion,” he said.
He cites that anti-Americanism is
endemic in Canadian culture.
Maloney said Canada must defend its interest before its values.
“You want to not live in a mud hut, there’s a price to be paid for that, too.”
He believes that Canadians and their military get into trouble when placing too much trust in the United Nations.
“When we are dealing with UN-led things everything starts to go to hell.”
Aside from the economic benefits that may have come Canada’s way if it had gone to war against Iraq, Maloney cites protection and stability in the area as the major concern.
The theory is that Israel would have used nuclear weapons against Iraq.
“It would have happened ultimately,” he said.
“We take the lesser of two evils – fight a conventional war and get into a messy stabilization campaign or we wind up with big chunks of Iraq being radiated rubble with fallout drifting all over the region.
“Or worse, [Hussein] actually gets the capability and deploys it against Saudi Arabia and suddenly the world economy is taking hits,” he said, referring to the importance of Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves.
Maloney was asked whether he was dealing with too many “ifs” rather than facts.
“You have to deal in ‘ifs’ because you can’t always deal in hard fact,” he said, adding that modern weapons make it crucial to act early.
“The Canadian people are smarter than the cultural elite thinks, and in fact support aggressive action when it’s necessary.”
Maloney believes that groups, including the cultural elite who predominantly opposed Canada’s involvement in the Iraqi war, are responsible for the decline in Canada’s military capability.
“We’ve had it before, we are losing it now,” he said.
Although Canadians may feel content in thinking of themselves as merely peacekeepers, Maloney believes the military does not serve that role.
“Sometimes you need someone like me to say what’s real.”