Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Which Is It: A Threat or an Event?

Canada's military simplified its domestic command structure on Tuesday, saying the goal was to respond more quickly to domestic disasters and terrorist threats.
"[It will] allow us to react more quickly and more effectively to events across Canada, including the North," federal Defence Minister Bill Graham told reporters.
As I said before, a "terrorist threat" is something that has not yet happened, and is therefore the responsibility of CSIS and the RCMP. An "event" is the real deal, so we can then call upon the military to assist. Could it be that our ass-kissing foreign policy may not actually spare us from the Islama-gonzos? But we're still thinking that the rest of the world us loves us because we one ran around in blue helmets?

Why is our government too chicken-shit to tell it like it is: "folks, the RCMP and CSIS will deal with terrorist threats, the military will deal with terrorist events".

Oh, we're not supposed to notice this semantic sleight-of-hand. What we're supposed to think is that our dear Libranos are keeping us safe by having the military watch out for terrorist threats. It's as if we're standing knee-deep in elephant dung not supposed to notice the elephant in the room.

The military just reorganized to better manage natural disasters or terrorist attacks of such a scale that they overwhelm local and regional resources. Fair enough. But don't pretend the military is reorganizing to prevent terrorist attacks. That's dishonest.

UPDATE: I saw Bill Graham in a televised press conference today, basically answered my question here, stating that we cannot be naive and should be prepared to deal with an attack. I absolutely agree. I hope that his intent was to make clear that the military role is to assist should there be an event. Nevertheless, I find CBC's reporting to be imprecise and misleading. Our defenses against terrorism and preparedness for dealing with its effects call for precision, not a polyanna glossover.