"Squishy" Canadians

Or, the dream world most of us prefer to inhabit.

This is first of four articles by Mr Granatstein:

What are Canada's national interests? Are we able to defend them? How can we protect ourselves from terrorism and natural disasters? These are the questions that historian J.L. Granatstein answers in his new book Whose War Is It? In the excerpt that follows, the first of four presented this week by the Post, Prof. Granatstein outlines the sort of catastrophes Canada could face in this dangerous new age.

And commentary:

A just-published book on the Canadian military hits the reader like a cold shower, a slice of reality pie and a good kick in the arse.

Historian and author Jack Granatstein offers his take on where the public is, versus where it needs to be, with respect to Canada's long-neglected defence force that, in 2007, simply isn't up to the urgent array of tasks potentially confronting it.

There's too much naive idealism around, asserts the York University professor emeritus in Whose War Is It? How Canada Can Survive in the post-9/11 World.

As a country, we have national interests, he writes. "The denigration of national interests . . . is almost wholly wrong, naive and ultimately misguided.

"Nations do not exist in a fairy-tale world where good always triumphs, where the cowboys in white hats inevitably beat up the bad guys in black hats. . . . It's not a benevolent world out there, and the cold-blooded or rational calculations of realpolitik are sometimes precisely what is needed."

Canadians spend $343 per capita on defence, compared to $903 spent by Brits and $648 by Australians.

The author advances the view that Canada's largely pacifist foreign policy results in part from the large role non militaristic Quebec plays in setting the foreign policy agenda. Canadians have a blue-beret image of themselves as peacekeepers which may be comforting and pragmatically inexpensive but is totally impractical.

Granatstein notes, even in the face of our do-gooder intentions, we're tightwads when it comes to foreign aid (.27 of 1 per cent of GDP compared to a global target of .7).

He calls the Canadian preoccupation with promoting values abroad -- stuff like good governance, human rights, diversity, gender equality -- "preachy squishiness" and asserts it has little to do with safeguarding our national interests.

Liberal politicians such as Lloyd Axworthy and Bill Graham, and former UN Ambassador Paul Heinbecker [emphasis added] come under attack for promoting naive and moralistic mythologies about Canada's role in the world.

Scoffs Granatstein: "Canadians are the world's good guys, the nation that always does the right thing and is not afraid to tell the rest of the world, especially the United States, just what the right thing happens to be . . . Naturally enough, such a nation can have no enemies."

The fundamental point he drives home is that it's not in our domestic interest to be mere missionaries spreading a values-based gospel. When the rubber hits the road, Canada, quite simply, is unprepared to protect itself...

The book here.

Update: Second piece here, via Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs:

The peacekeeping myth: 'Canadians keep the peace; Americans fight wars,' goes the cliche. In Afghanistan, the Balkans and beyond, the reality has been very different