Policy Articles: Military & Defence: Terrorism: 2002
The author of this article, J.L. Granatstein, argues that Canada has no choice but to support the United States in an expanded anti-terrorism war, as well as in a National Missile Defense (NMD) scheme proposed by the Bush Administration. Granatstein explains that the two countries have been linked in defense for over 60 years, and that, as such, Canada’s refusal to participate in joint defence programs would inevitably carry real costs. Considering that the US will defend itself regardless of Canada’s position, Granatstein asserts that Canada must participate in defence programs – if only to protect its sovereignty. Granatstein suggests that by participating, Canada can maintain its seat at the defence table, which should, in turn, strengthen Canada’s bargaining position on trade issues.
This article by Douglas Bland examines not whether Canada should continue participating in coalitions (which Bland considers a given), but “whether Canada has the political will and the means to influence the shape and operating expectations of established and emerging coalitions to best benefit Canada’s national interests.”
This article by Joel Sokolsky examines the concept of interoperability but with a specific focus on the role of the Canadian Navy.
This article by Barry Cooper looks to history for answers to the main questions surrounding terrorism today, notably in its ties to religion. The author finds several points of conjecture between the political religions of Europe of the 20th century, notably Nazism, and the newly realized terrorism trend at the beginning of the 21st century. This sets the background on which Cooper can analyze the Canadian and American national security architectures, and changes that he believes should be adopted following the terrorist events of September 11, 2001. Cooper argues, among several points, that the scale of national security operations must be extended beyond their normal scope.