April 17, 2006
There's little worse than mocking someone else's moronic comment only to find they were right and you, the mocker, just got served a heaping helping of crow. So my heart goes out to Steve Young at the Huffington Post, who caught Jonah Goldberg mentioning that the Pentagon has attack plans for Iran, North Korea, and even Canada, and immediately leapt to his computer, still chuckling at Goldberg's idiocy. I mean -- Canada!? How crazy are these hawks?
Unfortunately, the Pentagon does have plans to attack Canada, the infamous War Plan Red. They've had them since the 1930's. And good thing, too. On the list of threats to the continental US, some bizarre attack or provocation by our immediate neighbors is about as likely and far more dangerous than an attempted invasion from Saddam Hussein's drone planes, or Iran's world renowned navy. Indeed, would that we had sound plans to stop Mexico and Canada in their tracks but fewer exciting documents about launching preemptive invasions half a world away. Because at the end of the day, War Plan Red sits on a shelf somewhere, emerging only for the biannual stories about what a wacky document it is. The plans to attack Iran, however, are tucked beneath the pillows and framed atop the desks of a hundred neocons and a thousand blustering warbloggers, ensuring them sweet dreams of great wars, detailed fantasies of personal heroism, and countless hours of delightful warmongering. In contrast, an invasion of Canada seems downright quaint. And they've been really asking for it on this softwood thing.
April 17, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Blame Canada:
We keep contingency plans for almost every possible scenario, even Cuba.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 17, 2006 2:08:05 PM
Perhaps it is time to recall Bush's comment to the press in the leadup to Iraq - something to the effect that he didn't have a war plan on his desk for Iraq - to create the idea he hadn't made up his mind two full years before March 2003.
More inquiring minds might have asked a bit more. A distinction between goog old-fashioned war plans and an operational plan seems to be needed and inquired about by inquiring minds.
I'm confident we've had a war plan on Iran for some time (of the old-time religion type), but now we appear to have operational plans to attack Iran, detailing who hits what, and when. The operational plan is probably not on Bush's desk - and I doubt the op plan for Iraq was either, given that Bush can't digest more than a two page memo without rebelling against his staff.
On the Canada thing, I wonder if the US ground forces will get in line with the commuters to cross from Detroit to Canada.
How weird would it be to be a US citizen in, say, Vancouver BC looking out your hotel window as the US tanks come rolling up the street. Would it be appropriate to go to the street and throw flowers in their path? Would that make one an unlawful combatant? Will we commandeer their ferries to cross into Victoria? Will US customs prevent Americans from crossing from the US to Canada to flee a war-driven New Rome? All these issues...
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Apr 17, 2006 2:19:19 PM
Forget Iran! If we want more oil, let's invade Canada. It's close by - troops can drive their own cars to the front; they speak English - no miscommunication at checkpoints; they have lots of natural resources we want - oil, timber, coal, fish, snow; Canadians are polite - we can be assured of being greeted with flowers and candy!
Posted by: CParis | Apr 17, 2006 3:42:35 PM
detailed fantasies of personal heroism
Of which none ever would, or will, come true.
Posted by: Adrock | Apr 17, 2006 3:44:45 PM
In all fairness, Canada *has* invaded us before, and even scorched the White House. Al Quaeda didn't even get that far.
Posted by: joel | Apr 17, 2006 6:36:08 PM
The London Free Press cited by big Media Ezra - we're on the map now.
And we only burned the White House because your army acted so ungentlemanly during your invasion of Upper Canada, before we kicked their butts and sent them back across the border.
Posted by: Eugene Wellborn | Apr 17, 2006 7:07:02 PM
The difference is we have contigency plans for everyplace on earth - probably including iceland.
But if Hersch is right, we have operational plans for attacking Iran.
Posted by: Gar Lipow | Apr 18, 2006 12:56:51 AM
Dude. Everybody knows we have plans to invade Canada.
joel: Al Qaeda has invaded the United States, and launched a successful attack on Washington even though it did not hit the White House. Are you making that narrow technical point when you say that "al Qaeda didn't even get that far," or are you arguing that al Qaeda is not an invading force? Or perhaps you are making the political point that al Qaeda is no longer a threat to the metropolitan United States? Just curious.
Posted by: TigerHawk | Apr 18, 2006 6:26:50 AM
I think he might be noting that 19 guys crashing planes was a considerably smaller threat to our sovereignty than an occupying Canadian army backed by the British Empire burning significant bits of DC to the ground.
But, hey! When Al Qaeda re-establishes the Caliphate, becomes the greatest military power on the planet, and conquers North America, then we can compare the two situations. So what's the timetable on that?
Posted by: Moleman | Apr 18, 2006 9:54:01 AM
Jonah Goldberg is proof of the adage “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” Yes, technically there is an invasion plan for Canada. It was drafted in 1930 and contains provisions for feeding the horses and supplying ammunition for the bolt action rifles. In other words it is an historic document presently available for viewing at the National Archives. It is not a current “War Department” plan. For one thing the War Department no longer exists. For another, the Department of Defense does not maintain and update the plan. In truth, Goldberg showed his usual depth of knowledge by maintaining the current plan for Iran is no different than the historic plan for Canada.
There are plenty of smart, well-informed conservatives in this country. How does this guy continue to find work?
Posted by: Bob | Apr 18, 2006 11:36:24 AM
I haven't paid much attention to The Huffington Post. Then the other day I offered a comment about Joe Klein's remark that America-hating "leftists" were hurting democrats' Congressional advocacy--or some such thing...anyway...
Huff didn't think enough of my unimportant comment to post it, so I started reading some of their other features. I concluded it was a good thing my opinion is inconsequential to their moderators--that way I won't get involved in an ongoing relationship with HP. This article is like the one by Joe, and like so many things I read. Their well-credentialed, usually-rational correspondents somehow make a clean break with reason and logic when they set about to write their Huffington Post articles. I saw this over and over, and thought it was very odd. That, combined with the use of "moderation" (prior restraint) in the comments section gives The Huffington Post a shocking resemblance to extreme, right-wing blogs.
I've seen enough! In the future, I'll know not to fight, agree or disagree with The Huffington Post.
Posted by: «—Ū®Āņŭ§—» | Apr 19, 2006 12:48:04 AM
Canada had plans for an invasion of the United States in the 1930s, called Defence Plan No. 1, and developed by the slightly loopy Brigadier James Sutherland "Buster" Brown. When King found out about it, he blew a gasket.
Posted by: Pithlord | Apr 19, 2006 10:51:10 PM
Bob : Since the "War Department" no longer exists, we must conclude not all spin is to be credited to Rove ( It kills me to say that ! ).
Posted by: opit | Apr 19, 2006 10:56:51 PM
Did a bit of research, starting with reading your link. It was actually "Defence Scheme No. 1" and it was terminated in 1928. Apparently, Buster informed his superiors that we would be greeted as liberators by Americans sick of Prohibition.
Posted by: Pithlord | Apr 19, 2006 11:06:52 PM
Jonah Goldberg himself called for a sneak U.S. military attack on Canada in the 11/25/02 issue of National Review. Here's a summary of his article from the National Review website:
"Canada is, quite simply, not a serious country anymore. It has internalized the assumptions of U.N.-ology: not just anti-Americanism but also the belief that Western nations don't need military might. As a consequence, they are simply unarmed. If al-Qaeda launched a September 11-style attack from Canadian soil, we would have only two choices: ask Canada to take charge, or take charge ourselves. The predictable — and necessary — U.S. action would spark outrage. We certainly don't need the burden of turning "the world's longest undefended border" into one of the world's longest defended ones. And that's why a little invasion is precisely what Canada needs. In the past, Canada has responded to real threats with courage and conviction (some say more Canadians went south to enlist for war in Vietnam than Americans went north to dodge it). If the U.S. were to launch a quick raid, blow up some symbolic but unoccupied structure — Toronto's CN Tower, or an empty hockey stadium — Canada would rearm overnight."
Posted by: Steve Sailer | Apr 21, 2006 3:45:11 AM
Yes, I vaguely recall some moment when we managed to get to the top of the hyper-ventilating neocon hate list, somehow displacing Will & Grace, al Qaeda, New England and pacifist mothers of war heroes. The local bourgeoisie was worried, I can tell you. We have numerous America-haters, of course, but we always rather expected a superpower to take such things in stride. Fortunately, the American right has the attention span of a pre-Ritalin eight-year-old boy, so there was some other hate object within the fortnight.
Posted by: Pithlord | Apr 26, 2006 10:23:30 PM
YOU INVADED US!!!!!!!YOU IDIOT!
Posted by: Malcolm | Sep 4, 2006 12:14:43 AM
The Aging Population Hurts The Economy
Posted by: ann | Oct 4, 2007 9:14:57 PM
Americans think they are so superior, which is the very reason their country is falling apart; overconfidence is the destroyer of nations. Rome fell; the US is just another offshoot of Roman imperialism, injected into the North American atmosphere by Britain, the main inheritor of the Roman tools of statecraft. A friend was in the Canadian military. One day they had an excercise where 300 Canadian troops were to defend against 3,000 US marines. The marines were expected to win of course, by everyone exept the Canadian commander. The Canadian commander ordered a bunker dug, the Canadian troops basically buried themselves in it, the American marines marched right over and when the Canadians came out, every last marine was captured or "killed" using the radio frequency tags all participants wore that were connected to the "weapons" used which sent a signal to the wearer's unit, registering a "kill". As someone said here, just try it you arrogant Americans, and watch Canada re-arm overnight and stomp your sorry asses right back below the 49th and beyond. Just try it. We are fewer than you, but smarter by light years and nothing stirs up patriotism and dormant instincts like an invading force. Just look at the Insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan where you jackasses sent your invasion force under the guise of "liberation and freedom installation". Not one mulsim or Iraqi/Afghani is fooled. Clearly you people learned nothing from Vietnam and you will have your asses handed to you on your way out of those countries in a similar fashion as when you LOST the Vietnam war, which like the middle east, you have no business being involved in. Just come to Canada, I dare you. The smoke from the burning of all of the dead American bodies will be seen around the globe.
Posted by: private | Mar 10, 2010 5:28:33 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.