Following Aden’s discussion of terrorism on Thursday, I began to think about the different types of terrorist groups, currently at war with the Western world, (read United States), and how despite the various typologies and ideologies, they all seem to have a similar goal in removing Western (American) influence from the Middle East so that a new order can be established.   Even though these groups are often at odds with not only the military, but other terrorist groups, their hatred of western ideals and influence has united them in away that may make them difficult to officially “defeat”.  This blog post will seek to explore the problems that Western powers may face in attempting to settle the conflict in the Middle East, as I believe that the ideological base for many of these terrorist groups have already been established, and will continue on regardless of the actual groups that are participating in the violence.

Following September 11th, the world began its journey into the War on Terror, a war with seemingly no real definition.  Terror in itself is an abstract, no singular enemy embodies the role of “terror”, and as such, it makes little sense that the war can ever really end without a definitive definition.  The United States moved into Afghanistan to take on Al-Qaeda, intending to destroy the forces that were responsible for the devastation of 9/11, but as the war evolved, they began to include more groups as enemies, and the war became an extreme entanglement of military forces against multiple ideological systems.  As much as they may want to completely rid the world of terrorist threat, the very fact that they entered into the area and began to express their power and ideals only serves to rile up more enemies against them.  “Terrorists” do not like the United States, and the imposition of American (and subsequently Western), military, political, and ideological influences by virtue of the War on Terror will only serve to prolong the war, and widen the list of enemies who need to be shut down.

The United States, and the West as a whole, is essentially facing an invisible enemy, and it is one that has already shown itself capable of transforming in order to live on indefinitely.  When the US followed up the War in Afghanistan with the Invasion of Iraq, it was seen as a necessity, as it would remove Saddam Hussein from power and thereby remove a major enemy of freedom from the Middle East.  As we now know to be the case, this did not occur.  Although Saddam was removed, and a democratic government was installed, there was still a power vacuum that led to fighting among groups seeking out new forms of control, culminating in the arrival of ISIS to the region.  ISIS is already the product of an ideological transformation – existing as an off-shoot of Al-Qaeda, and they only serve to prove the difficulty that is faced when attempting to defeat an essentially invisible opponent in “Terrorism”.

As much as the US led West, may want to eliminate all terrorists from the face of the earth, it is physically impossible, as constant births, transformations, and rebirths allow terrorism to live on regardless of status of its individual parts.  Someone will always be able to create a new goal for their group, but ideologically, they will always be against the West.  As such, it becomes a difficult decision regarding what actions must be taken in order to end the “War on Terror”.  Should the US and its supporters continue to immerse themselves in Middle Eastern politics and war in order to promote peace and liberal ideals?  Should they vacate the area and leave it to its own devices, essentially abandoning all that they have been fighting for in the hope that order can restore itself?  Can they help establish governmental systems more natural to and ideologically aligned with the areas currently occupied?  These are all tough questions, and I am not the one to answer them, but they just help point out the difficulty of continuing on with the “War on Terror”.  On one hand – the war must continue in order to establish functional states, but on the other, the more intervention that occurs, the more likely it is to extend.  Ultimately the war will never truly end, and such is the problem with waging a physical war against an idea.

The world is a tumultuous place, with wars breaking out across the globe on a yearly and even monthly basis.  In many countries, security is merely a dream – and has been out of reach for decades, but fortunately for us here in Canada, conflict has remained off of our soil for over a century.  Because Canada is one of the safest countries in the world, some question the need for retaining a military force at all.  If we are not in need – what is the point.  We are currently involved in war, but none of the conflicts affect our home, so why should we bother – money spent on the military could easily be used to improve other aspects of the country.  Nevertheless, this blog post will present reasons as to why the military plays such a critical role for Canada, even if we are one of the safest countries in the world, as it asserts Canada’s independence on a global level.

1. Military activity protects Canadian sovereignty –  By giving up the armed forces, Canada will have no way to truly enforce its control over dangerous affairs at home and around the world.  Without a military, the Canadian government will be forced to rely on the help of other actors – be it other countries, or private contractors – when issues get out of hand and require physical intervention.  If such an event were to occur, the government would be placing its authority to truly “rule” the country into the hands of others.

2. Canada is a global power, and by giving up the military, we have the potential to lose that status – There are currently only 21 countries in the world with either no military, or extremely limited armed forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces), and the majority of these nations are extremely small in size, with limited roles to play in the international system.  Many of these nations were former dependencies that have become sovereign states, but who still rely on others to protect them.  Furthermore, the states’ limited size prevents them from really posing a threat to other nations, and keeps them from being threatened.  Canada does not have this relationship with the world – it is an economic and political leader, and while not in the same category as say the US or China, it does fall into the second tier of world powers, and as such, should retain this status in all aspects – including defense.  Getting rid of the military removes Canada’s from being on par with the global elite, and instead places it alongside many of the globes more “forgotten” nations so to speak.

3. The inability to defend ourselves will increase our reliance on the United States – Canada and the US currently share an extremely close relationship, similar to siblings you could say.  Many of Canada’s policies and decisions are influenced heavily by the United States, but we do retain the right to make our own decisions independent of the US.  Like the American War in Iraq – despite US and British involvement – Canada did not declare war, nor did they send troops to the area.  Even though the US holds major sway, Canada reserves the right to make major decisions on its own accord.  If we got rid of the military however, we would likely turn to the US for assistance when it was required, and our relationship would shift from one of brothers, on equal terms, to that of a parent and child where one protects in exchange for the other’s obedience.  The US would become much more involved in our external affairs, and because they were our “protector”, they would influence our internal affairs on a much greater level as well.

Ultimately – Canada needs to retain its military presence in order to protect its strong and independent status on the global level.   Eliminating it would reduce our ability to control our own affairs, lessening our status to one of a near dependency because of our intense relationship with the US.