5 September 2013
As this is being written, the United States Congress is
debating whether or not to authorize President Barack Obama to launch cruise
missile strikes against Syria. In the
eastern Mediterranean Sea, six U.S. Navy destroyers lurk below the horizon of
the Syrian shore, bearing several hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles and awaiting
a presidential order. In the Red Sea,
south of the Suez Canal, the nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz stands
ready to protect those destroyers and add its striking power to the barrage of
cruise missiles, if necessary.
What has the Royal Canadian Navy got to do with this?
At the moment, nothing.
Readers may recall that I have been pushing for the RCN to be equipped
with a capital ship - specifically a kind of modern battleship. Instead of a program of sixteen new frigates
of four thousand tonnes displacement, we should instead order twelve new
frigates of four thousand tonnes and one ship of sixteen thousand tonnes. A ship of that size could not only carry a
vertical launch system for Tomahawk cruise missiles of 2,500 kilometer range,
but also pack six twelve-inch guns in two turrets for provision of naval
gunfire at ranges of up to forty kilometers.
Nuclear power would provide the ship with unlimited range, making
capable of sailing all around the world without needing to put into port or
refuel.
One of these ships would provide all the firepower that the
fleet of U.S. destroyers has, in addition to the formidable capacity to wreck
targets precisely that lie at or close to shore.
Isn’t that kind of dangerous, giving the Canadian government
such naval power?
Isn’t that the point of having military power in the first
place – to be really powerful and capable?
Before he found out how few friends he really has in this
world, President Obama asked a number of prominent allies for political cover,
er, I mean, military assistance. He
asked Britain and France for the assistance of their naval assets. Canada was able to say that we do not have
the naval or military capacity to help out in any way. We could not have used this excuse, however,
if we possessed a battleship of the type described. We would have to have come up with some other
excuse not to participate in Obama’s scheme.
The British showed the way.
They actually held a debate in the House of Commons on the matter, and
held an unwhipped vote. The Members
actually got to vote with their heart, their guts, their consciences, and with
the wishes of their electorate. The
British House denied the government the authority to strike at Syria. What a scathingly novel thing – to hold a
vote!
The Americans are organizing a vote in Congress. It is certainly a spectacle to watch President
Obama and the senior poobahs of the Democratic party twist the arms of the most
dovish, anti-war members of their party so that they will put party above
principle. People who suffer from Bush
Derangement Syndrome, who are best known for their anti-war stand – like
Secretary of State John Kerry – are going to push for a military strike so that
President Obama is not made to look weak and foolish. Perhaps no one will notice. And even if the Republican controlled House
of Representatives denied Obama the authority to attack Syria, President Obama
claims the right to attack without Congressional authorization; which begs the
question of why ask Congress in the first place?
If Canada had the naval power in the form of a
nuclear-powered battleship to attack Syria, would it not complicate our
relations with the United States if we said, “no, we will not participate”?
Last time I checked, Canada was a parliamentary democracy
with a House of Commons that voted to limit our participation in Afghanistan to
2011 and 2014 timelines. The British
demonstrated the real power of representative government after their Commons
voted against war: suddenly Obama’s rush to war was stricken. The American public were forced to confront
the fact that even close allies were truly opposed to this adventure. Canada stayed out of Vietnam despite American
pressure on the grounds that the Commons would not support the government. A Canadian vote against war in our House of
Commons today would also demonstrate to Americans - who do cherish democracy – our
true beliefs, and would excuse the government from improvidently supplying
Canadian naval power in a matter not in our interest.
On the other hand, having such naval power means that we can
rely on our own strong right arm to vindicate principles that we think require
it.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment