"Arctic sovereignty", or, "The cold truth"

I've been hammering about the government's strident, scarifying ("use it or lose it"), jingoist, and mainly meaningless, "policy" of affirming Canadian sovereignty in the north. Which has taken in most of the major media (but they do seem to be slowly waking up, e.g. here and, a year ago, here--fustest). And taken in the populace too. Now the conclusion of an article by Paul Wells of Maclean's magazine (via Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs):

...a lot of what the Harper government is doing in the North is beneficial. Op Nanook teaches soldiers and civilian agencies to pool resources and expertise and to improvise creatively under pressure, which can only be to the good in any future environmental disaster or search-and-rescue crisis. Harper has belatedly turned his attention to another fundamental challenge, programs that could enhance the quality of life for the Inuit and other Arctic residents. There is nothing wrong with more concerted government activity in the North.

All that’s wrong is the justification, the false fears and hopes it engenders. At the top of the world, just like anywhere else, we deserve more straight talk from our leaders.

Mr Wells is too kind. And this perfervid patriotism based on false premises is seriously distorting the government's naval policy. See:

Arctic/Offshore patrol ships: More never never land
Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships: Neverer land still