Military History from 1867

I want to go into Jonah Goldberg's article a little more, because it contains a historical misinformation. Challenging ignorance is not a bad way to learn a little history.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/800108/posts  (the link to Jonah's Article "Bomb Canada: The Case for War)

"Canada's 1867 confederation, according to most historians, was the direct result of Canada's not-unfounded fears that the battle-hardened Union Army would turn its sights on Canada the way a still-peckish lion lazily turns on a fat gazelle."

In the words of the famous Winston Churchill in response to Mr. Hitler's threat to "wring England's neck like a chicken". Churchill said "some chicken. (prolonged applause) Some neck." That was in 1941, spoken in the Canadian parliament days after the USA joined WW2, which had actually started way back in 1939 in answer to Hitler invading Poland. Most Americans seem peculiarly unaware that this delay ever happened, and wrongly assume that America was always first to defend freedom, last one to appease.

In 1867, Canada was formed out of several British colonies in North America that Britain decided would be better administered, and more easily defended if they were united under one colonial government. Canada was a part of the British Empire, just like Alaska is part of the USA. Canada flew the flag of the British Empire, just like Alaska flies the flag of the Unites States of America. Canada would continue to fly the British flag, or ensign at least through two more world wars. So for Jonah, who mistakenly thought that picking on Canada in 1867 would be like a lion that peckishly turns to a fat gazelle, it would be more like this lion gets itself eaten for lunch.

Realistically speaking, if Canada was such easy pickings, it would be part of America today, no question about it. Canada's only serious military weakness in 1867 was that so many Canadians were actually new immigrants from America. There was a security concern for where their loyalties would lie in case of an invasion. But the Americans had tried before in 1812 (only about 50 years earlier) and it had not worked out. So the US government was not about to make another mistake, especially just after so many were killed in the Civil War.

An invasion of Canada after the Civil War was tried by the Irish-American "Fenian" militias, but the US government denied any responsibility. The Fenian raids only proved that if the USA invaded Canada officially, the US would not be able to completely secure Canada before the British Navy arrived, at which point the US would have to surrender. Remember that in 1867, the USA was much weaker than Britain. Today Canada is weaker militarily than the USA. But in 1867, it was part of the British Empire, and its flag was the Union Jack. Imagine if Canada today tried to invade Alaska, the rest of the USA would come to the rescue before we could secure it. Actually no, from what I remember the Alaska Air Force Reserve alone could beat Canada's national Air Force, so bad example. Let's say Canada invaded Point Roberts, USA then, that would be a better example. Short term we could win, but because the rest of the USA is ready to come to the rescue, the glorious invasion of Point Roberts would soon turn bad. Not to mention all the Point Roberts suicide bombers ready to die for their country. It would really be a nightmare for Canada, which is why we have never done it. Realism usually wins out over megalomania in Canada.

For those who never heard of Point Roberts, USA, use Google maps, then zoom out just a little to see how Canada might win an early advantage. Check especially the location of the Canada US border.

One more quote, but I need to stop there even though Jonah's article goes on and on with ignorance bordering on delusional.

Jeffrey Simpson, who might be called the Canadian David Broder, has even written a book entitled The Friendly Dictatorship, which sports on its cover a doctored photo of Jean Chretien in a Pinochet-style military tunic. Simpson argues not only that Chretien is the "Sun King" of Canada, but that the government itself is designed to be for all intents and purposes a secular monarchy. In Canada, the prime minister appoints the entire senate and has a level of control over members of parliament that would make Tom "The Hammer" DeLay surrender his whip. If one of Chretien's fellow Liberals fails to toe the party line, the prime minister has the power to kick him out of the party and even to refuse to ratify his election papers.

Actually, if the Prime Minister does indeed "Kick him out of the party" (by the way we have some women members too, who have indeed left their party) the member usually sits as independent, or worse yet might go to the opposition party. And this "kicked out" member still has a vote, which can now be used to defeat the Prime Minister instantly. Yes you heard it right. If the Canadian Prime Minister's government is ever defeated by even one vote on one of its bills, they have to call an election immediately. Not like in the US where you get a lame duck president vetoing congress and issuing "Signing statements" that the President does not have to follow the law that he just signed. Or some long drawn out impeachment procedure that does nothing. No, in Canada, the vote is taken and if the Prime Minister does not have at least half of them, he's out within hours.

And the senate in Canada is not like the senate in the US, it does not have any real authority, at least not that Canadians are aware of. It's more like a retirement club for senile members of parliament. A bit like in the US, where senators retire and become unelected lobbyists, except our senate doesn't even have as much influence as an American lobbyist.

Actually, I don't really expect an American to know much about how the Canadian government works. But most of them don't call our prime minister the "Sun King" and "a corrupt African state with decades of one-party rule". And by the way, the reference to Pinochet and his uniform. Pinochet was a CIA-backed Chilean dictator. The only time you will see a picture of a Canadian Prime minister in a uniform is when it is photoshopped. On the other hand, President Bush didn't need much arm twisting to prance around in a real navy flight suit, declaring Mission Accomplished, as the "Commander In Chief" of the armed forces.

And, Jonah, you might be surprised, even shocked, to find out that the Conservatives won the last two elections in Canada. Although as you said they might also be to the left of Sweden. But if you know as much about Sweden as you do about Canada, it's not that much to go on. I will go into how right wing our conservatives are in some other blog, because this could take forever. I only got to page two out of 6, and skipped stuff along the way.

Just for background, I have included a picture of the British HMS Minotaur at the top of this blog, commissioned in 1867, a large iron clad sea going battleship with 36 guns and screw propeller. At the same time,the Americans had the famous USS Monitor, an ironclad ship, shown here, with only one gun, slow moving and and hardly able to stay afloat even in small waves. The wake of the HMS Minotaur alone would have sunk the USS Monitor without a shot being fired. That sums up the difference between the US Navy and the British navy in the mid nineteenth century. Both navies of course had other ships, you might want to read more about it here.