Letters
Good Neighbor Policy?
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
In his review of Habits of Empire by Walter Nugent (Book World, Aug. 10), Michael Grunwald states "the notion of a modern U.S. invasion of Canada was never remotely plausible and is still more than a bit paranoid, no matter what Bush has said or done in Iraq. . . . Nugent's respectful treatment of this cockamamie conspiracy theory suggests a deeper problem with his thesis. . . . "
Where to begin? First, the United States has, in fact, had a nasty habit of planning invasions of Canada, whether under Benedict Arnold during the Revolution, or during the war of 1812, or the Fenian raids of the 1860s. One of the chief reasons the Dominion of Canada was formed in 1867 was for "a better defence" (yes, with a c) against U.S. aggression. And if there weren't outright invasions, the United States had a record of taking territory and having its way in disputes via arbitration, usually with a three-man panel of U.S., Canadian and British diplomats, with the British siding with the United States for ulterior motives. The more cynical would call it a sell-out.
It also depends on what you mean by "a modern U.S. invasion of Canada." How about the years following World War I? In 1930, the U.S. government did, in fact, draw up war plans to invade Canada. It was called "Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan -- Red." Interesting.
Then, of course, there are the U.S. politicians who don't think it's necessary to invade Canada, because it already belongs to the United States. See, for example, Nixon's statement when he imposed a 10 percent surtax on Japanese imports, claiming that Japan was the chief importer to the United States. Japan was actually number 2; Canada was by far the chief importer into the United States. But in Nixon's eyes, Canada didn't count since it was part of the United States. Or we could take Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson's comment in the Senate in the '70s about "our" oil in Alberta. Paranoia? There is good reason.
My own personal experience is also chilling. In the fall of 1988 I worked as a temp at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Arlington. It was staffed almost entirely by ex-Navy officers who were working on anti-submarine warfare. At that time, a front-page issue in Canada was sovereignty in the Arctic. Canada wasn't worried about the Soviet Union, but about the United States not respecting its claims. It seems Canada was actively and publicly negotiating with Britain and France to buy five nuclear attack submarines to station in the Arctic to give the United States something to think about. Incredibly, none of my co-workers at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center had any inkling of this.
--ROBERT CAVANAUGH
Frederick, MD
We welcome letters. Send them -- no more than 200 words, please -- along with your full name, address and telephone (we will not publish the last two) to bwletters@washpost.com or to Book World Editor, The Washington Post, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071. We reserve the right to edit letters for length and clarity, and we regret that, due to the volume of letters we receive, we cannot answer them all.
