Isolation

American right-wingers should probably give some thought to the fact that even Americaphilic conservative politicians from Anglophone countries don't seem to share their perspective on world affairs. Here, for example, is Canadian Prime Minister Stephan Harper:

Unlike the U.S., Harper said, "Canada has no history anywhere in the world of conquest or domination. It's probably hard to perceive of Canada being in that type of a position."

In contrast, Canada is seen in the world as a "positive and non-threatening force," he said. "What my government is trying to do is to use those values to promote positive change in concert with our allies."

At the end of the day, this stuff isn't brain surgery. Use America's leading position in the world to contribute in a positive way to problems that people worry about around the world and you'll be liked. Use it to pursue a policy of conquest and domination -- not so much.

Comments

I missed the declaration by the neocons that they aim to please the rest of the world and would like to be liked.

Posted by gregor | September 26, 2007 2:39 PM

Canada has no history anywhere in the world of conquest or domination.

Except in say, Canada, which, if memory serves, was not always a part of the Commonwealth/British Empire, or France, for that matter.

So tell that to the Innuits and other natives, Mr. Harper.

And then there's this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/10/energy.business1

Posted by SoCalJustice | September 26, 2007 2:49 PM

The neocons take the domestic Reagan and later Republican position of massive spending paid for with agressive tax cuts, and re-packaged it as foreign policy: proliferation of freedom through a massive increase in the use of force.
How could they not succeed?

Posted by theCoach | September 26, 2007 2:55 PM

I missed the part where "positive" was easily agreed upon by competing groups. Doing anything is going to make one group upset as is doing nothing. The US is blamed all the time for doing nothing. Canada is never blamed for doing nothing. It's just the nature of power. You are blamed no mater what you do or don't do.

Posted by Dave | September 26, 2007 2:56 PM

I agree with Dave. The only way America wouldn't be criticized for what it did would be if it did *nothing*. Then, of course, you would be criticized (arguably rightly) for doing nothing.

Matt, what exactly do you mean when you say "contribute in a positive way"? I would consider things like Gulf War I and the intervention in Bosnia to be positive. A great part of the world wouldn't. I guess what you mean is "what I consider to be positive ways".

Posted by Norway | September 26, 2007 3:09 PM

Au contraire, Matthew, it IS brain surgery. In the long and winding road from homo erectus to homo sapiens sapiens this is by far the biggest jump.

Posted by DCBob | September 26, 2007 3:15 PM

It's Harper's sensible kind of view that has so many Canadian right wingers scurrying southward. Frum and Steyn as key examples.

Posted by Joe Strummer | September 26, 2007 3:25 PM

Harper must have forgotten his acute embarrassment in 2003 over Canada’s non-involvement in the invasion of Iraq. His public laminations we were abandoning our ‘traditional allies’ were broadcasted from Halifax to Vancouver. He had a hissy fit in Parliament when leader of the opposition, standing up and yelling: 'God Save the Queen and God Bless America'.

If he had kept his brain-dead, neo-conservative loopiness to himself, it might be a bit easier to take him seriously now.

Harper has long derided the kind of Canadian values which kept us out of Iraq. Around the same time as his Parliamentary outburst, he co-authored a letter with Stockwell Day to the Wall Street Journal calling Canada a dangerously smug, socialist dystopia.

Dangerously smug? He never elaborated what this meant.

The reason Canada doesn't have a record of domination, especially where it comes to Iraq, is because guys like Stephen Harper don’t get to be Prime Minister of Canada very often, guys like Jean Chrétien do.

The reputation Canada still manages to enjoy remains although in tattered form, despite Canadians like Stephen Harper and the damage his Conservative government has and is doing to Canada’s national interests. It is deeply ironic to see him try and coast on that reputation now.

In fact, if the Quebec Liberal Party hadn't got caught stealing money Harper wouldn't be Prime Minister at all, giving speeches at the UN. He’d be back in Calgary pissed off Canada couldn't be more like Australia.

SoCal. No wounded knees in Canadian history.

Posted by wsam | September 26, 2007 3:30 PM

American right-wingers should probably give some thought...

FAIL

Posted by cleek | September 26, 2007 3:31 PM

In addition to what's stated in the comments above, there's also the issue that if the U.S. were seen as "non-threatening" most other countries would perceive us as weak and would take action against us or our interests.

Posted by TLB | September 26, 2007 3:31 PM

Harper is not sensible. Harper wants a majority in Parliment. That is why he is pretending to be something he is not.

Posted by wsam | September 26, 2007 3:32 PM

All states are imperialist by definition.

The problem for some states is how to actually DO it.

Canada has a problem. It's in a lousy position geographically, it has a small population, it's right next to the biggest military power in the world, it's divided between English and French speaking populations, etc., etc.

So for Canada to proclaim itself as "not imperialist" is kind of a joke. It's like Nauru doing the same.

However, now that Canada has troops in Afghanistan, their rep will go down the toilet, if not as fast as the US rep.

As for the characters who think Gulf War I was positive, how so? Who gives a rat's butt about Kuwait? As for Bosnia, the net result of that was that Kosovo is now the HQ for a Mafia.

The US has probably never done an intervention that was worth doing. Everyone in the world except the right wing nuts and the interventionist liberals would prefer it if the US did nothing.

Everyone in the world would prefer that the US STFU and go sit in the corner until it learns to behave.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 26, 2007 3:33 PM

Some here are implying that knowing how to do 'positive' things as a GreatPower is a deep and difficult thing. Many decisions can be made to seem problematical, of course. And truely horrible actions have been dressed up as benign and ethically good. Godwin's law might apply here--I'm not calling anyone a nazi!!!--but it's important to remember that nazis did pretend to have a greater good as their goal. That Stalin fooled many otherwise moral people. I could go on and on, of course, but the BigTwo suffice.

So yes, some thinking must be done. And mistakes will occur.

But the choices between invading another country or not, between attempting to lower CarbonDiOxide or not, between increasing the numbers of children with health insurance or not...I do go on!

These are not deep inpenetrable swamps. I suspect that those who claim they are difficult terrain have some motive for doing so that they are not disclosing. As SteveMartin says in 'The Jerk': "OH, it's that profit thing, isn't it?!"

Posted by JohnMcC | September 26, 2007 3:38 PM

Umm, many people, including our president, saw the Iraq invasion as a way to bring democracy and the rule of law to the middle east. Surely that demonstrates and effort to "contribute in a positive way to problems that people worry about." Good intentions aren't all that matters here.

Posted by ed | September 26, 2007 3:41 PM

Mr. Richard Steven Hack:

"As for Bosnia, the net result of that was that Kosovo is now the HQ for a Mafia."

Maybe you aren't aware of this, but Bosnia and Kosovo are actually two different places. NATO did bomb both but, respectively, in 1995 and 1999, and under quite different circumstances.

Posted by Norway | September 26, 2007 3:59 PM

Well, MY, you have your answer. The comment threads above conclusively demonstrate that even the more literate segments of the American population are riddled with violent morons.

To those who supply our various invasions as evidence of our effort to do good around the world: I believe the point of the Canada comparison is that we should lay off the f***ing bombing, as it is far too easy for different people to have a violent disagreement about whether it was a nice bombing or a mean bombing.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 26, 2007 4:05 PM

One of the saddest comments about the Iraq war was from a soldier during the invasion. I think it was in Tom Ricks's book, Fiasco. He said something to the effect of, "Why are they shooting at us? We're the good guys." If you don't say you're conquering and dominating, then you're not, right?

Posted by Bob | September 26, 2007 4:17 PM

I believe the point of the Canada comparison is that we should lay off the f***ing bombing, as it is far too easy for different people to have a violent disagreement about whether it was a nice bombing or a mean bombing.

I can't imagine the point being made any better than that.

Posted by James Gary | September 26, 2007 4:21 PM

I'm so sorry for the minority of Americans who can actually think for yourselves. To think that the worlds first democracy has failed so badly. Ah well, empires always fall and the world always survive..

Posted by Mike In Denmark | September 26, 2007 4:26 PM

I am not in favor of unprovoked aggression (as in Iraq) or bullying behaviour in general (see Bush, Cheney).

But the reason that Canada has been so "non-aggressive" since 1870 or so is that it has sat under the umbrella of the United States. Had England been invaded and captured in 1940 there would have been a whole bunch of provinces applying for US statehood right quick. As of right now Canada barely has enough soldiers to repel an invasion by the Detroit Police Department , and Canadian friends of mine like to tell me that Canada's defensive plans all have two parts: (1) suicide charge by all available soldiers (2) dial hot-line to Pentagon.

Similarly, the US' reputation is bad at the moment in part because of the actions of Bush/Cheney. But the fact is that the strongest and richest entity on the planet will always be hated, and fanatics will always find a way to blame "the troubles" (whatever and wherever they may be) on that entity. This was true for China, Carthage, Rome, Spain, England, and now the US. It will be true for whoever follows the US as most powerful (maybe China again).

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | September 26, 2007 4:31 PM

"Canada has no history anywhere in the world of conquest or domination. It's probably hard to perceive of Canada being in that type of a position."

In contrast, Canada is seen in the world as a "positive and non-threatening force," he said. "What my government is trying to do is to use those values to promote positive change in concert with our allies."

Yeah, Canada is just like Monaco, Belgium, Nepal,etc. Not in the forefront of events, comfortably to the rear, free to moralize how fine they were free of conquest and domination. 1st under the Brits protective umbrella, then the Commonwealths, then the Americans.

It's sort of like the basic line about American pacifists - about them being a positive, morally superior non-dominant force as long as other men go forth to keep the pacifist safe..

So tell that to the Innuits and other natives, Mr. Harper. Hard to get huffy and self-righteous like you do SoCalJustice, when in every case when an advanced people meet an aboriginal people - it's the same story. From Chile to Zulus to Japan...Yawn!

Posted by Chris Ford | September 26, 2007 4:49 PM

'In contrast, Canada is seen in the world as a "positive and non-threatening force," '

That's why Canada never gets the babes. The US is the bad boy of enlightened western democracies and always will be - at least as long as it's an enlightened democracy.

Posted by Njorl | September 26, 2007 4:50 PM

Stop being such a suck-up Canada.

Posted by blah | September 26, 2007 4:52 PM

"Canadian friends of mine like to tell me that Canada's defensive plans all have two parts: (1) suicide charge by all available soldiers (2) dial hot-line to Pentagon."

Considering that the US is the only country that could launch a land invasion against Canada, I don't think that plan would work out so well.

Unless, of course, you refer to the grave threat of a Russki invasion over the polar ice cap. Or maybe the Danes will launch the longboats from Greenland? I don't know how Canadians manage to sleep at night with that threat hanging over their heads.

Posted by weichi | September 26, 2007 4:53 PM

Funny you should mention the Danish Menace, weichi. I remember in the mid-'70's a candidate for PM of Denmark running on a platform that included replacing the entire Danish military establishment with an answering machine (high-tech in those days) that said "We surrender" in Russian. He didn't win. Maybe the voters were afraid of resurgent Norweigian agression.

Posted by CJColucci | September 26, 2007 5:09 PM

"Canada sat under the umbrella of the United States."

Are you totally crazy?

A major reason for Canada becoming a country was the threat the post-Civil War and therefore unoccupied Union Army posed to Canada. It was thought the US would be less likely to invade a semi-country than a semi-colony.

Not that Dominion and nationhood stopped the US from allowing Irish nationalists to raise a terrorist army of Irish civil war veterans for the purpose of conquering Canada and then trading it with Great Britain for Ireland. Known as the Fenians for obvious reasons you most likley wouldn't understand, they invaded Upper Canada (Ontario) and what is now New Brunswick several times. To no great purpose.

As well, Métis like Gabriel Dumont, from the Red River in what is now Manitoba, who had rose against Canada as late as the 1880s found refuge in the United States. Dumont ended up working for Wild Bill Picklock’s Wild West Show – some umbrella.

Another impetuous for Canadian nationhood was Canada getting screwed by British diplomats trading Canadian interests to curry favour with the US. Alaska?

The Monroe Doctrine only existed because it was convenient for the British – possessors of the globe’s most effective navy.

As recently as the 1930s, Canadian defence plans focused exclusively on the threat from the US. Clearly planners then didn’t feel as comfortable under the US’s benevolent security umbrella as you imagine. The plan then, which was of course totally unrealistic and unworkable, was to seize Dakota and then wait for Britain to intervene, then trade the Dakotas for Ontario and Quebec or whatever the US had managed to capture.

Your Canadian friends sound like a bunch of hoseheads. Which is why I assume they are friends with you.

Also, Canada was agressive before 1870?

Explain.

Posted by wsam | September 26, 2007 5:09 PM

What do you think would happen if Canada said it didn't want the US to 'protect it' anymore.

Some umbrella.

Posted by wsam | September 26, 2007 5:15 PM

Michael Byers, the international law professor at the University of BC, has a very interesting book on how the way Canada can be a world power as an honest broker, and that the past six years of US moral authority getting pissed away can only help less hefty nations take up the role.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 26, 2007 5:17 PM

> weichi
> Considering that the US is the only country that
> could launch a land invasion against Canada, I
> don't think that plan would work out so well.

France could be massing troops on Saint Pierre and Miquelon for an invasion.

> Also, Canada was agressive before 1870?
> Explain.

Talk about hoseheads. Prior to 1870 Canada was entirely under the umbrella of England. Whether or not it was aggressive is your lookout. After 1870 the US began its rise to economic leadership and England wasn't much of a factor in North America after that. Alaska was a Russian possession when the US bought it as I recall. I am glad the Canadian Army was ready to repel the looming US invasion in the 1930s as that probably meant they were in good training when they had to enship for England in 1940 (where they saved the UK's bacon after Dunkirk which is not widely acknowledged in the UK IMHO), however I am unaware of any serious threat thereof and my ancestors managed to make it through Immigration (from Canada to the US) during that period with no problem.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | September 26, 2007 5:19 PM

> What do you think would happen if Canada said it
> didn't want the US to 'protect it' anymore.

All the Tim Hortons in the US would close and I would have to drive farther than Ohio for my crunch doughnut and large coffee fix?

Cranky

Probably have to give my frequent drinker cup back too...

Posted by Cranky Observer | September 26, 2007 5:25 PM

soCal: Innuits? (sic) You mean like those in their own self-governing province? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunavut)

As for the Indians, the list of great warriors who voted with their feet and sought refuge in Canada's fairly long, no? Tecumseh, Joseph Brant, Sitting Bull, etc. Sure, there were problems, but comparisons of the Canadian West and the American West almost always leave the Canadians looking better. No James brothers, no Jayhawkers, no Wounded Knee, etc.

Wsam: the whole concept of "Leader of the Opposition" may have been lost on you. Hint: it means you spend your time opposing things. Strangely, Harper's had the reins for nearly two years and he hasn't rushed to commit troops to Iraq for some reason.

Oh, and Jean Chretien had a lot of things going for him, but he remains the only Canadian leader since World War Two to put troops into combat without a UN mandate (Kosovo).

RS Hack: Canada's had its troops in lots of places since World War 2. The difference is that, with the one exception above, since 1945 those places have only ever been the places where the UN Security Council has asked us to go. One secret to being a non-imperialist state may lie in only doing the things that the concert of nations is asking you to do.

Oh, and not torturing people helps, too.

Posted by BruceR | September 26, 2007 5:46 PM

The Canadian government also wanted to buy Alaska from Russia. The purchase made sense. Alaska would have fit better with Canada than the US – they share a land border.

Britain is why we didn't get it. Nice umbrella.

Obviously if the seven or eight defence planners Canada had back in the 1930a were planning for a threat to come from the US that means they perceived that threat to exist. Otherwise they would have planned for something else, like the French to invade from their awesome fortified stronghold on St Pierre. Or for the Spaghetti monster to return and carry us all up to meatball mountain with his noodly appendages.

That is what it is to plan.

What this means is that Canada was not humming along merrily under the American umbrella, as you imply. That is not to say Canada didn’t enjoy good relations with the US. It did. However, until the middle of the post-war period Canadian elites as well as the wider population were reflexively suspicious of the United States. This was especially the case among true blue Tory, conservative-minded Canadians, that now extinct grouping who were possibly one of the last repositories of pro-British, hurrah for the Empire sentiment in North America. Maybe anywhere outside the British home counties and Melbourne.

It is an undisputed historical fact that the Canadian army was unprepared for World War 2. Unfortunate, but true. Canada has never been ready for a war. That’s how we like to kick it.

Nice try at sucking up though, eh.

Posted by wsam | September 26, 2007 5:59 PM

Flit.

As you know Harper wants a majority. I'm sure you have or are going to read Tom Flanaghan's new book. The one about not doing conservative things until the country is ready for it. I'm sure you'd agree that explains his latest speech.

The comparison with Kosovo is spurious. We didn't have a UN mandate then because of the Russians blocked it. The invasion of Iraq didn't have a UN mandate because it was a retarded thing to do.

Posted by wsam | September 26, 2007 6:04 PM

But if Canada continues to avoid aggressive, militaristic nationalism, then what can insecure middle-aged Canadian men identify themselves with in order to compensate for feelings of inadequacy? Ice hockey teams?

Prime Minister Harper doesn't seem to have taken that into account... pretty inconsiderate of him.

Posted by N | September 26, 2007 6:08 PM

Yeah, Canada is just like Monaco, Belgium, Nepal,etc.

I don't think that the PM of Belgium could get away with claiming is "has no history anywhere in the world of conquest or domination." They became sort of infamous for that sort of thing in central Africa.

Posted by Tyro | September 26, 2007 6:32 PM

BruceR - The difference is that, with the one exception above, since 1945 those places have only ever been the places where the UN Security Council has asked us to go. One secret to being a non-imperialist state may lie in only doing the things that the concert of nations is asking you to do.

It's always heart-warming when the Americans, Russians, Chinese, Brits, and French all agree that a worthless, inconsequential place Does Need a UN peacekeeping force - but not wasting their own soldiers in such an inconsequential place. Or stuck in a dumb mandate for 30 years in a semi-consequential place like Sinai keeping inconsequential assholes apart from one another.

Thus, the call rings out from all 5.....Send the Canadians into that crappy place!!! With nothing better to do, they will feel all noble and good about themselves being in some African shithole the next 5 years.

BruceR - Oh, and not torturing people helps, too.

I don't know about you, but I was pleased to see the Canadians kicking the shit out of Somalis they caught stealing or scouting targets in the Canadian camps. Almost as amusing as the Liberal Party females that had attacks of the vapors about it and wanted to send your troops to life in prison for violating 18 separate counts of Canadian political correctness.
But good on the manly Canadians who do serve and generally do not come from effete regions of Ontario or Quebec. The Canadians have engaged the 10 feet tall unbeatable (to Lefties minds anyways) Taliban and Al Qaeda and torn them new assholes. Canadian troops are very good - ranking up with US troops in ability - and unlike the Euroweenies and S Koreans in Afghanistan, they don't shirk combat.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 26, 2007 6:36 PM

Unless, of course, you refer to the grave threat of a Russki invasion over the polar ice cap.

Okay, this response is going to be petty, and I won't make an effort to pretend otherwise, but yes. If the Russians ever invaded North America, the plan was to do it across the Arctic Ocean using ground-effect transports called "ekranoplans".

And even if we can safely dismiss Cold War-derived scenarios in which Canada has to use force, much of the Canadian northern arctic holdings are disputed by Russia, the US, and the Baltic and Scandanavian countries. This has never gotten even remotely close to war because for now they're mostly fields of thick ice, and no one really cares that much. If and when that ice starts to melt, allowing access to the extensive natural resources sequestered below, we'll see.

Posted by Senescent | September 26, 2007 6:50 PM

Harper is leaving out direct Canadian participation in the largely successful effort to crush democracy in Haiti. We were also proud business partners of the dictatorship in Indonesia.

My feeling on this issue is that the moral behaviour of states is in inverse proportion to their power.

Posted by RLaing | September 26, 2007 7:46 PM

You guys missed the best part of his criticism:

He said he was "deeply concerned" that the political discourse in the U.S. had been infected by "populism, protectionism and nationalism in an unhealthy sense."

Can't argue with that.

Posted by JFD | September 26, 2007 8:22 PM

Weren't the Canadians lackeys for the British program of world domination for much of their history?

A Google search has revealed that 73 Canadian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan. The Canadian army is small but of pretty high quality. Any military looks bad compared to the US military, since the US spends more on the military than every other nation on Earth combined. Which may have something to do with why people in other countries are suspicious of the US.

Posted by Ed | September 26, 2007 8:27 PM

Yeah, Canada is just like Monaco, Belgium, Nepal,etc. Not in the forefront of events, comfortably to the rear, free to moralize how fine they were free of conquest and domination. 1st under the Brits protective umbrella, then the Commonwealths, then the Americans.

A real student of history I see. Canada didn't sit back in either World War to wait for the warring powers to exhaust themselves before wading in...Canada sat out all of 1 week combined from both WWs.

And then, of course, when the US got involved in WWII, it took its sweet time (2 1/2 years) to do anything in Europe, all the while, the Soviets were busy defeating the Germans and paving the way for a relatively easy Western front. For two years the Soviets begged for a second front, and all the Allies did was sacrifice a bunch of Canadians at Dieppe as a sop to Stalin.

Canadian casualties for the two WWs far exceeds that of the US on a per capita basis.

Chris Ford, you sir, are a moron.

Posted by McKingford | September 26, 2007 8:42 PM

The US is blamed all the time for doing nothing.

I think you're conflating overly sensitive liberal Americans with people outside of America.

Similarly, the US' reputation is bad at the moment in part because of the actions of Bush/Cheney. But the fact is that the strongest and richest entity on the planet will always be hated, and fanatics will always find a way to blame "the troubles" (whatever and wherever they may be) on that entity. This was true for China, Carthage, Rome, Spain, England, and now the US. It will be true for whoever follows the US as most powerful (maybe China again)

Countries get hated for oppressing others or harming them somehow. Who hates Switzerland? Heck, who hates Germany, other than for WWII and what came before it?

Of course there will always be irrational hate. Such as conservative American hatred of France.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | September 26, 2007 8:53 PM

Canada didn't sit back in either World War to wait for the warring powers to exhaust themselves before wading in...Canada sat out all of 1 week combined from both WWs.

According to wikipedia,

Early in the war, Canada's commitment to the British-French forces in Europe was limited to one division. Canada's military deployment reached corps-level strength for the invasions in Italy in 1943, and Normandy in 1944.

also

In addition, approximately half of Canada's army and three-quarters of its air-force personnel never left the country, compared to the overseas deployment of approximately three-quarters of the forces of Australia, New Zealand, and the United States.

BTW, thanks for the help in the Pacific.

Posted by Just Karl | September 26, 2007 9:02 PM

It may be of interest to post the question that was put to Harper that resulted in the quoted response.

The gist:

" Since Canadians and Americans share the same life-styles and have such similar values and aspirations, why are Americans so disliked throughout the world and Canadians are not? "

Posted by chet | September 26, 2007 9:52 PM

> France could be massing troops on Saint Pierre and
> Miquelon for an invasion.

But that would be an amphibous assault, no? But still, you can't trust the French ... what if they let the Danes use Saint Pierre and Miquelon as a stopover for the longboat invasion? Once Newfoundland falls, it's a short hop to Nova Scotia and thence the mainland.

> If the Russians ever invaded North America, the plan was
> to do it across the Arctic Ocean using ground-effect
> transports called "ekranoplans".

Touche. Is this how it went down in Red Dawn? I can't remember.

Posted by weichi | September 26, 2007 9:52 PM

Use America's leading position in the world to contribute in a positive way to problems that people worry about around the world and you'll be liked. Use it to pursue a policy of conquest and domination -- not so much.

What "leading position"?

All the United States has is a large conventional military which, as Iraq demonstrates, is becoming obsolete in an era of guerrilla warfare.

And this military is financed by borrowing from abroad and, increasingly, depends upon outsourced technology.

Posted by McGruff | September 27, 2007 1:03 AM

"Use America's leading position in the world to contribute in a positive way to problems that people worry about around the world and you'll be liked. Use it to pursue a policy of conquest and domination -- not so much."

This is a little sophomoric. First, countries where America is well-liked in many countries where we are considered a potential counterweight against the local hegemon -- e.g., Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Australia, Vietnam, etc. Second, a lot of people around the world who petulantly criticize the United States would immigrate here in a heartbeat as soon as their visas are approved. Third, any country that is the dominant military power as well as the dominant economic and cultural power will be resented, whatever it does.

Thus, despite the countries we have liberated from totalitarian rule, despite the hundreds of billions of dollars of charity Americans donate, etc., some people still don't like us. This shouldn't be a surprise. People often resent those who have helped them. That's why the best way to get someone to like you, as the saying goes, is to have them do you a favor, and not the other way around.

Also, re the comparison with Canada: It's not as if Jihadists are fans of Canada because it's smaller. Remember the plot that was broken up a couple of years ago by Canadian Muslims who planned to decapitate Canada's prime minister and then blow up the parliament or something?

"All the United States has is a large conventional military which, as Iraq demonstrates, is becoming obsolete in an era of guerrilla warfare."

That's all we have? Not the world's largest economy and most dominant culture? The U.S. military, at least our ground forces, are actually not that large. And guerrilla warfare is an age-old form of asymmetry by weak adversaries. It doesn't make conventional military force obsolete. We still need conventional forces to deter other stronger potential adversaries' conventional military forces.

"And this military is financed by borrowing from abroad"

No more so than the rest of our budget. Is a Predator drone financed with Treasury bonds less lethal than one paid for in cash?

"and, increasingly, depends upon outsourced technology."

Outsourced to whom? Most of the technological innovations spurred by the war in Iraq have been coming from American manufacturers, as far as I can see: robots from John Deere and iRobot; MRAPs from Force Protection, etc.

Posted by Fred | September 27, 2007 9:19 AM

"As of right now Canada barely has enough soldiers to repel an invasion by the Detroit Police Department"

That's the kind of thinking that got your white house burned.

Posted by asdf | September 27, 2007 9:58 AM

"Use America's leading position in the world to contribute in a positive way to problems that people worry about around the world and you'll be liked. Use it to pursue a policy of conquest and domination -- not so much."

This is a little sophomoric. First, countries where America is well-liked in many countries where we are considered a potential counterweight against the local hegemon -- e.g., Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Australia, Vietnam, etc.

Certainly, and it's the other way around where America currently supports a tyrant, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. It's somewhat so where America used to support tyrants, like Spain, Portugal, Greece and Latin American countries. It's mostly about what you do.

Second, a lot of people around the world who petulantly criticize the United States would immigrate here in a heartbeat as soon as their visas are approved.

Depends on what you mean by "a lot". Most people want to stay where they are, so your statement is mostly false.

Third, any country that is the dominant military power as well as the dominant economic and cultural power will be resented, whatever it does.

No. America, in fact, was for a long time admired in the world for having a lot of power but not using it to have colonies, like the Europeans did at the time.

Today, the EU is the second biggest military power, and second biggest economic power, and, as far I can see, not hated at all (irrational conservatives in the Anglosphere are excepted).

I say irrational, because hating the French for not obeying American orders properly is an irrational form of hate.

Many American conservatives want to be like slave owners. They have never really gotten over it. They think they have a right for other people to be servile.

You can even see this inside America today, where people are criticized for criticizing General Petraeus. It's as if a General who serves a conservative cause should be immune from criticism. Shades of falangist's attitude to Franco.

Conservatives in America are very bad.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | September 27, 2007 12:18 PM

Unlike the U.S., Harper said, "Canada has no history anywhere in the world of conquest or domination. It's probably hard to perceive of Canada being in that type of a position."
************************************************

Except for maybe the troops they sent to South Africa to help Britain in the Boer War

http://www.civilization.ca/cwm/boer/boerwarhistory_e.html

Posted by Campesino | September 27, 2007 2:32 PM

Mr Ford,

“… but I was pleased to see the Canadians kicking the shit out of Somalis they caught stealing or scouting targets in the Canadian camps.”

They tortured and killed a 14 year old boy for breaking into a storage building. Then they took trophy pictures of his dead body. This pleased you? That is a disturbing fetish.

“…good on the manly Canadians who do serve and generally do not come from effete regions of Ontario or Quebec.”

Except, of course, for the fact the Canadian regiment now actively fighting in Kandahar are the Vandoos (22nd), a storied French Canadian regiment out of Quebec. They lost a soldier three days ago. The attack also badly wounded three other French Canadian soldiers.

Unfortunately, I fear you are too ignorant to feel much shame.

Just Karl. WW1 ... WW2 ... Thanks for coming out. We couldn’t have done it without you guys. Asshat!

The Canadians have been ‘lackeys for British world domination’?

Posted by wsam | September 27, 2007 2:32 PM

Are you totally crazy?

A major reason for Canada becoming a country was the threat the post-Civil War and therefore unoccupied Union Army posed to Canada. It was thought the US would be less likely to invade a semi-country than a semi-colony.

Not that Dominion and nationhood stopped the US from allowing Irish nationalists to raise a terrorist army of Irish civil war veterans for the purpose of conquering Canada and then trading it with Great Britain for Ireland. Known as the Fenians for obvious reasons you most likley wouldn't understand, they invaded Upper Canada (Ontario) and what is now New Brunswick
************************************************

Can't imagine why the US turned a blind eye to the Fenians. Couldn't have had anything to do with British (and by extention Canadian) support of the Confederacy during the Civil War? Or that Confederate raiders based in Canada came south into Vermont

Posted by Campesino | September 27, 2007 2:41 PM

The context: trying to demonstrate Canada wasn't luxurating under a protective American umbrella.

Posted by wsam | September 27, 2007 3:47 PM