In 1968 the government of Canada decided to openly admit Americans seeking
to avoid being drafted into the US war on Vietnam. Before, would-be
immigrants were technically required to prove that they had been discharged
from US military service. This move made it easier for Americans to escape
President Johnson's war machine by heading north.
Although a founding member of NATO, Canada did not join the United States
in its war against Vietnam. The Canadian government did not see a conflict
7,000 miles away as vital to Canada's national interest so Canada pursued its
own foreign policy course, independent of the United States.
How the world has changed. Canada's wise caution about military
adventurism even at the height of the Cold War has given way to a Canada of
the 21st century literally joined at Washington's hip and eager to
participate in any bombing mission initiated by the D.C. interventionists.
Considering Canada's peaceful past, the interventionist Canada that has
emerged at the end of the Cold War is a genuine disappointment. Who would
doubt that today's Canada would, should a draft be re-instated in the US,
send each and every American resister back home to face prison and worse?
As Glenn Greenwald pointed
out this past week:
Canada has spent the last 13 years proclaiming itself a nation at war. It actively
participated in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and was an enthusiastic
partner in some of the most extremist
War on Terror abuses perpetrated by the U.S.
Canada has also enthusiastically joined President Obama's latest war on
Iraq and Syria, pledging to send fighter jets to participate in the bombing
of ISIS (and likely many civilians in the process).
But Canada's wars abroad came back home to Canada last week.
Though horrific, it should not be a complete surprise that Canada found
itself hit by blowback last week, as two attacks on Canadian soil left two
Canadian military members dead.
Greenwald again points out what few dare to say about the attacks:
Regardless of one's views on the justifiability of Canada's lengthy
military actions, it's not the slightest bit surprising or difficult to
understand why people who identify with those on the other end of Canadian
bombs and bullets would decide to attack the military responsible for that
violence.
That is the danger of intervention in other people's wars thousands of
miles away. Those at the other end of foreign bombs - and their surviving
family members or anyone who sympathizes with them - have great incentive to
seek revenge. This feeling should not be that difficult to understand.
Seeking to understand the motivation of a criminal does not mean that the
crime is justified, however. We can still condemn and be appalled by the
attacks while realizing that we need to understand the causation and
motivation. This is common sense in other criminal matters, but it seems to
not apply to attacks such as we saw in Canada last week. Few dare to point
out the obvious: Canada's aggressive foreign policy is creating enemies
abroad that are making the country more vulnerable to attack rather than
safer.
Predictably, the Canadian government is using the attacks to restrict
civil liberties and expand the surveillance state. Like the US PATRIOT Act,
Canadian legislation that had been previously proposed to give the government
more authority to spy on and aggressively interrogate its citizens has been
given a shot in the arm by last week's attacks.
Unfortunately Canada has unlearned the lesson of 1968: staying out of
other people's wars makes a country more safe; following the endless war
policy of its southern neighbor opens Canada up to the ugly side of blowback.
