Walter Block on Canada's Military
I highly recommend that everyone watch or listen to the wonderful series of lectures being given right now at the Mises Institute by Walter Block. I had the pleasure of attending the lectures on Monday. Although Dr. Block was not talking about war, he made a joke about Canada's military that I thought was profound. He said something to the effect that Canada has three rowboats for a navy and a police car for an army. I think it is interesting that Canada is not threatened by "rogue states" and that Canadians are not hated the world over. Could it be because they don't send troops all over the world like the United States? Has anyone in Washington (besides Ron Paul) ever considered this?
Comments (37)
They may just be free riding off the US's military too. Uh oh, free riders!
Published: July 27, 2005 6:07 PM
Prof. Block is hysterical, I wish I could be there!
Published: July 27, 2005 6:26 PM
"Could it be because they don't send troops all over the world like the United States?"
To be fair, Canada took part in 86 missions abroad since 1947 (Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, Bosnia, Syria/Israel, Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, etc)
Their navy is also active in the Persian Sea to fight terrorism (whatever that means...?).
And you should see the state of their four submarines (yes,you read that right 4 submarines). Bought second hand from Britain, patched way beyond what's acceptable.. I think they'dd be worth more sold as scrap metal then as submarines! :)
Published: July 27, 2005 6:28 PM
Excuse me, hilarious. Didn't mean to imply anything about his mental state.
Published: July 27, 2005 6:59 PM
Looks like somebody already mentioned the freerider aspect of Canada's military strategy. Canada's military strategy, in a single line, reads as follows: "Hang out next to the United States."
Since we've taken it upon ourselves to defend the world from itself, some other countries don't really have much need for a military. Although, if Quebec decides to secede and takes either the police car or more than one of the rowboats with them, the rest of Canada could be in trouble.
Published: July 27, 2005 10:24 PM
Ryan Fuller,
I don't see how that logic is valid. It doesn't seem to me like the US gov't is spending alot of resources protecting Canada from terrorism. Why hasn't Canada -- arguably an easier target -- been the target of terrorism?
Published: July 27, 2005 11:10 PM
Why hasn't Canada been the target of terrorism? Because they have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a Liberal party which has been blessed by God, naturally...
Published: July 28, 2005 12:14 AM
David Heinrich,
Our military is designed to fight conventional wars against other militaries, not "protect" us from terrorist attacks. We also have a history of intervening from time to time in situations where other countries decide to invade each other. That makes maintaining a military an optional expense for Canada, since they can be sure we'd protect them if someone else tried to invade.
I think you're confusing terrorist attack and military invasion. They are quite different. Canada does not need a military because they can rely on the military of the United States to deter any attempt at foreign invasion.
Published: July 28, 2005 12:34 AM
Hi Ryan: "Our military is designed to fight conventional wars against other militaries...�; you might add, "on foreign soil." God help us all if Washington's offensive war-making machinery were ever unleashed over here to "protect" us.
With all its awesome offensive weaponry deployed half way around the globe, the USG doesn't really put too much thought in the way of a military defense. When did the US last defend itself from an actual foreign invasion anyway? Wasn’t it when the UK was invading in the 1700s? How curious that it is that state which is now considered Washington's closest military ally. I guess they just think so much more alike these days.
Also, I wasn't sure if the comment "We also have a history of intervening from time to time..." was intended as understatement for the purpose of subtle humour, but if so, it was successful. I laughed.
Published: July 28, 2005 1:27 AM
And Ryan: In respect to "Since we've taken it upon ourselves to defend the world from itself...", i'd suggest you're running a little fast and loose with the term "we". I recognize that it is the we taxpayers who underwrite such a mad objective, but outside of that, i think the better term is "they", as in the wonderful and powerful establishment who calls these shots.
In any event, I sure wish this "we" could be limited to the people who actually believe this is a valuable and worthy cause, and that same "we" were the exclusive providers of funding for such a high and noble cause. If i had it my way, we would worry about our own business at home, and leave the rest of the world waste its own resources on useless and destructive military adventures.
Published: July 28, 2005 1:44 AM
Regardless of what we typically do with our military, it still exists as a deterrent to foreign invasions, thus Canada doesn't need a military.
Our main branches of the military are designed for offensive warfare, since we haven't been in a fight on our own soil for close to 200 years. For defense we've got the National Guard, but their kind of like the neglected stepchild of the armed forces; evidence of Washington's priorities and the improbability of invasion here.
Concerning my use of the word "we" to indicate all Americans, that's my mistake. I don't mean to imply that the people in power are the same as the people being taxed.
I'm glad you liked my subtle humor. I can think of at least two or three times when we haven't gotten involved in some playground fistfight between petty tyrants, so I figured that the term "always" wouldn't be accurate. :)
Published: July 28, 2005 3:06 AM
Apart from the particularly obvious free rider answer to this post, it implies that the Americans are hated the world over (Canadians are not hated the world over). I am not American but find this rather objectionable, and highly questionable. American culture is bought in droves voluntarily by individuals the world over. Don't see many people emulating Iraqi, Afghanistan lifestyles....crass comparison but get things in perspective when trying to make your point.
Published: July 28, 2005 4:00 AM
The irony is, Canadian backpackers travel the world with the oak leaf on their bags while Americans don’t care about showing off their stars and stripes too much. Not that canadians are so proud of their national politics, which is pretty much undermined by the Quebec cultural conflict. It’s merely a warning signal. They want to show that despite the language they use, they are NOT AMERICAN because they don’t want to hear all the foreign complains.
Racism tends to picture Americans in general as the rich uneducated know-it-alls´, because people in the world are afraid the big guy will use his dominating position regardless of the "cultural" specificities of his vassals. This is certainly also a gross misunderstanding on how Americans tend to act or see themselves.
Racism is merely based on misunderstanding as everyone knows, whether you believe you are misunderstood or you don’t understand someone else’s attitude. It will always exist.
Regarding this I find it interesting to consider how, in American movies you do see quite a few poor Afro-Americans playing socially heroic roles… what you really won’t be allowed to see in the European culture. In European movies though, you do see a lot of international relations being tied between characters on a personal level, which is not so much popular in Hollywood (not counting Star Trek).
Published: July 28, 2005 5:11 AM
Artisan: I don't watch many Hollywood movies but recently I watched the final 40 minutes or so of a film called "Sahara". Watched is the correct word since I was on a plane and didn't have my earphones on.
The movie seemed to be about a Classic American Hero and his Comical Sidekick travelling to Africa in the company of Penelope Cruz. All the bad guys were black and the good guys white. There was a nice scene where after the sidekick blows up a helicopter with a cannon, all the black soldiers start worshipping him like he's some kind of god. Do Hollywood producers believe Africans live on trees? It would seem so. Needless to say, the hero gets the girl at the end.
Going back to the main topic, it is hard to see from which side Canada should feel threatened. Russia? Not likely. The US? About as likely as Russia. I'm not surprised they don't spend much on defence. Come to think of it, the US didn't spend much on defence either until WWII. I'm not sure it was a good choice for them to change course...
Published: July 28, 2005 6:42 AM
Artisan, I think you mean maple leaf, not oak :)
I'm not sure the maple leaf is used to avoid complaints, it's simply the fact that of (North) Americans, Canadians constitute a small minority and there's really no other way to distinguish themselves. To most people there's no difference between a Canadian and American accent, whereas it's easy to distinguisn between a French-speaking Frenchman and a German-speaking German.
I'm a Canadian who lives in the US, and I went to Europe for the first time this summer, and most people would assume I was American. I found it to be like you say, there's a gross misunderstanding of how America is perceived in the world, especially by the mass media here. Pretty much everyone I spoke to knew that American foreign policy was that of the political elite and not that of the American people themselves.
Published: July 28, 2005 8:51 AM
I just think it should be noted that the U.S. doesn't spend much more than Canada on "defense." They do spend a ton of money though on offense (which is the reason behind virtually all its military spending). What our government calls "defense spending" is just imperialism in disguise. Canada doesn't need to worry about invasion and neither does America, at least not the conventional kind. They have natural geographic protections that most other countries don't. For anyone to decide to invade North America would be utterly foolish (even if America weren't the superpower it is.) I think what the original comment is implying is that Canada is not a prime terrorist target precisely because they do not meddle in everyone's affairs like America does. When they do participate it is always as part of a large coalition and always in small numbers.
Published: July 28, 2005 9:57 AM
Aw sorry, I always get my leaves mixed up :) However, think about distinctions between the French or the Swiss speaking French, Belgian or Dutch when they're talking in Dutch... and what about German speaking austrians(!)? I may be wrong, but I never see a flag of those guys on vacation...
Published: July 28, 2005 10:03 AM
I think you guys are way over estimating the effects of the secession threats from Quebec..
Published: July 28, 2005 10:12 AM
I'm aware of all these distinctions, but I think the difference is this myth that Canadians are loved around the world while Americans are hated, so Canadians feel it necessary to advertise while abroad. This has even spread to some Americans pretending to be Canadian to avoid harrassment overseas! Quite absurd when you think about it.
Another factor is that being such a young country means Canada has very little cultural hertitage, and in recent years it has become fashionable to use "not American" as some sort of identity. Walk around any campus or mall in Canada and half the people will be wearing Roots paraphenalia with the Canadian flag on it.
Published: July 28, 2005 10:33 AM
Artisan:
Actually what you describe does happen in Europe, only you don't see many flags around in general. That's probably because in most European countries national flags are often associated with nationalism and extremism. However since Germans seem to have a bad reputation for historical reasons, you will often find Austrians keen to point out that they have nothing to do with Germany.
As for Quebec seceding from Canada, I don't see why that would count as a threat.
Published: July 28, 2005 11:40 AM
I think people outside of the US view Americans as fine, except they find Americans tend to be ignorant of the havoc their government instigates or supports around the world. Americans who actually do buy into the view that they are the proud and superior nation of exceptionally high moral fabric destined to protect the rest of the world from themselves can possibly be viewed unfavorably by non-Americans. Many people are proud of their national heritage (or want to be), and hearing a big loud American defend his government's meddling where it doesn't belong continues to put all Americans in a bad light. Outside of that, i think the world is very impressed with the principles of liberty on which the US was initially founded. It is what motivated France to ship over the Statue of Liberty, if i'm not mistaken.
Published: July 28, 2005 12:09 PM
@ Bruno Panetta: yes, you’re quite right about the flags… just one remark about Germany and Austria though: I don’t think it’s really so similar to Canada and America since we’re not talking about actual politics. In one case the war is long over and you’d have trouble to find still any German claiming he’s backing Hitler’s political ideas (he was Austrian by the way). In the other case, you have 50% of Americans voting for president Bush so he’d keep the troops in Irak till today.
(This reads like I'm comparing Bush with Hitler now... it's just rethorical of course!)
Just for the anecdote: as a matter of fact, the relatively smaller country of Austria has been vetoed by EU members at the assembly not so long ago, as its leading party made an alliance with Haider from the “far� right precisely. An alliance you wouldn’t consider to be decent in Germany since the war… therefore, Germans abroad didn’t want to be mistaken with Austrians as a matter of fact, but that was a much more limited phenomenon anyhow…
@ Paul Edwards:
Europeans really have trouble to "hate" the american people because their roots are very much european in the first place... yet of course you also have a lot of marxism nostalgics in Europe, who need an enemy to fight...
Published: July 28, 2005 4:02 PM
And if that enemy happens to be rich, then so much the better. Throw some old fashioned class envy in the mix for even more hatred.
Published: July 28, 2005 11:51 PM
Sorry to butt in again, but many comments to this post imply that not wearing a flag is somehow an admission that you are embarrassed of your country and/or are aware of its unpopularity overseas. This is rather a large assumption.
I am proud of my country (not American or Canadian) but feel no urge to sport flags on my person.
As to America's supposed unpopularity overseas, how deep can it really go when their culture is so widely bought overseas, voluntarily I might add.
Published: July 29, 2005 7:59 AM
Unfortunately, Canada is now sending 1200 soldiers to hunt for "detestable murderers and scumbag" in Afghanistan. Government ministers are now openly warning Canadians that they could face a terror attack at any time. No kidding. Soon Canada will be able to catch up to Britain and America in passing oppressive legislation.
Published: July 29, 2005 12:02 PM
Don't forget the PM wanted to intervene in Darfur so as to get one more vote in his coup, oops "confidence vote."
The problem with the Canadian military is that it is a "peacekeeper" force and they think they are revelant even though they can't do anything. Whenever Canadian politicians want to do a non-American, unimperialist, uh invasion they need the help of the evil imperialist Americans. Personally I think Canada should decide whether they want to be like France (no I don't mean that in a nasty way) or Switzerland. Personally I say Switzerland.
Published: July 29, 2005 11:10 PM
"Soon Canada will be able to catch up to Britain and America in passing oppressive legislation"
Complaining about your loss of liberty is so... American and UnCanadian! Paul Martin and the Liberal/NDP coalition know best and the charter of non-freedom by St. Pierre of Trudeau will save us all!
Published: July 29, 2005 11:29 PM
Well it seems you guys are forgetting that the Danes think Canada is illegally occupying a small arctic island. The Danes want to lay claim to the arctic for its oil deposits.
Published: July 29, 2005 11:41 PM
Dear Canadians,
I hate to break this to you but your military has been active in Afghanistan for some time now. As in they were apart of the invasion of that country, granted it was a numerically small but proportional contribution. Most Americans I know are aware of this,
You might recall the tragic friendly fire accident that happened around 2002 between our to nations. I bet that might jar your memory.
Also I recall reading that one of Canada’s best, archived the worlds record for distance for a sniper shot in Afghanistan, with a recorded killing shot of a Taliban warlord taken from well over a mile away.
yes Canada is also one of the most active nations in UN peace keeping.
In fact UN forces in Rwanda were commanded by a Canadian .
O V
Published: August 2, 2005 9:26 PM
Some years ago a ship carrying Illegal Immigrants landed its Cargo On the Coastline of Northern BC. The people were picked up weeks later all but starving as they had no place to go. Look at a Map of Canada. We only have one land Border with another nation, and that is the United States. A Russia invading over the North Pole is going to have supply lines thousands of miles long with a whole lot of empty in between.
It is not easily done.
Who IS a threat to Invade Canada realistically? Where would they land? How would they keep troops supplied? Who tried twice and failed?
The US Military is designed to project its power the world over, and not just defend the territory of the United States. The US is much more reliant on foreign resources then is Canada.
I expect were a Boatload of soldiers from Chinas People Liberation Army to land on our coasts, they would throw their rifles away and declare Refugee Status.
Perry
Published: August 12, 2005 12:54 AM
First in response to Matthew Armstrong: "Another factor is that being such a young country means Canada has very little cultural hertitage." Wow, guy. Canada will be hitting 140 years old this year (confederation in 1867). And has an extremely diverse culture. If you want to make comments on this point, I suggest you read up on how Canada was settled, by who, and how it has developed.
Now, namely to Ryan Fuller, but for everyone's information: Canada doesn't maintain a military force based solely on deterring a military invasion. Our forces are used to be a contributing member or NATO and the UN (and of course our contributions are smaller. Compare Canada's population to a nation of your choice). Addionally, we use our forces to protect our economic interests (Canada has a huge amount of sea space to protect, for example (a 200 nautical mile economic zone from our coasts) and protect our sovereignty (even from the US - watch as the North West Passage becomes an issue once it's passable year-round). In short, you're not seeing the big picture, and the every day functions of an armed force.
Published: May 29, 2007 7:37 PM
Canada needs a stronger navy to protect from american nuclear subs from going into canadian territory. We need to show the world that the north is not from for their taking. Look Canadas got what 2 icebreakers that are actually capable of handling the ice north. And 4 2nd hand piece of junk diesel subs. They need at least 3 armed icebreakers to sink enemy ships
Published: June 25, 2007 10:52 PM
Canada needs a stronger navy to protect from american nuclear subs from going into canadian territory. We need to show the world that the north is not from for their taking. Look Canadas got what 2 icebreakers that are actually capable of handling the ice north. And 4 2nd hand piece of junk diesel subs. They need at least 3 armed icebreakers to sink enemy ships
Published: June 25, 2007 10:52 PM
Canada needs a stronger navy to protect from american nuclear subs from going into canadian territory. We need to show the world that the north is not from for their taking. Look Canadas got what 2 icebreakers that are actually capable of handling the ice north. And 4 2nd hand piece of junk diesel subs. They need at least 3 armed icebreakers to sink enemy ships
Published: June 25, 2007 10:52 PM
Canada needs a stronger navy to protect from american nuclear subs from going into canadian territory. We need to show the world that the north is not from for their taking. Look Canadas got what 2 icebreakers that are actually capable of handling the ice north. And 4 2nd hand piece of junk diesel subs. They need at least 3 armed icebreakers to sink enemy ships
Published: June 25, 2007 10:53 PM
Canada needs a stronger navy to protect from american nuclear subs from going into canadian territory. We need to show the world that the north is not from for their taking. Look Canadas got what 2 icebreakers that are actually capable of handling the ice north. And 4 2nd hand piece of junk diesel subs. They need at least 3 armed icebreakers to sink enemy ships
Published: June 25, 2007 10:53 PM
Canada needs a stronger navy to protect from american nuclear subs from going into canadian territory. We need to show the world that the north is not from for their taking. Look Canadas got what 2 icebreakers that are actually capable of handling the ice north. And 4 2nd hand piece of junk diesel subs. They need at least 3 armed icebreakers to sink enemy ships
Published: June 25, 2007 10:53 PM