DURING THE past
few days there has been a decided shift in Canadian attitudes toward the
war on terrorism.
I cannot prove this by citing some poll. It's a guess based on
random remarks by friends and strangers. But I'm pretty sure that public
opinion has changed.
From the start there was a strong sense of solidarity with
Americans for the slaughter they had suffered. But there was a good deal
of freely expressed skepticism about a war against the terrorists. Some of
this was latent anti-Americanism. Those taking part in a CBC-TV town hall
were overwhelmingly negative in their comments about U.S. policy.
Even more revealing was an early poll showing that while almost 80
per cent of Canadians favoured taking action to punish the terrorists,
support for the war dropped to close to 40 per cent when respondents were
told the terrorists might take reprisals against Canadian targets. We only
supported, it seemed, a no-cost war.
We now seem much readier to stand shoulder to shoulder.
Why the change in attitude?
The speech by British Prime Minister Tony Blair has had a
considerable effect on this side of the Atlantic. I've been struck at how
many people have said in private conversations something along the lines
of, "I have my doubts about this war but I cannot but admire Blair."
Blair's contribution has been to give a moral content, and
therefore a legitimacy, to the war. He possesses the credibility to do
this - his oratorical skills aside - because he isn't an American and
because he's known to be a person of religious faith.
That Canada is going to be actually involved in the war by a direct
military contribution, even if more symbolic than substantial, makes a
difference. People always rally round their soldiers when they are risking
their lives. And the nagging sense of having been left on the sidelines
has left us.
The biggest cause of the change is the most obvious. The Americans
aren't at all waging this war in the way many expected them to. They're
boxing clever, as the phrase goes, rather than swinging wildly.
It's an odd fact that at a time when ethnic and national
stereotypes are condemned the instant any are uttered - and quite rightly
so - stereotypes about Americans are accepted as almost revealed truth.
They are cowboys, goes the presumption. Either they ignore the world,
about which they know nothing anyway, or they stomp around kicking ass
whenever it's in their self-centred interest.
There is, of course, a fair amount of truth in that indictment. But
then how come, as Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has recently pointed
out, all of the U.S. recent military ventures have been undertaken to
protect Muslims, either from non-Muslims or from other Muslims, in Kosovo,
in Bosnia, in the Gulf, in Somalia, and even now in Afghanistan where most
people are victims of the Taliban's fanaticism and stupidity.
They have stayed firmly on
the narrow, critical line that this is a war against terrorism, not
Islam
| None of the initial expectations
about American policy once expressed by critics have proven to be correct.
They haven't invaded Afghanistan (somewhere in Washington, or at some
American college, there has to be someone well aware that no one has done
this successfully since Alexander the Great).
They haven't hurled a cascade of bombs and missiles at Afghan
cities.
They have stayed firmly on the narrow, critical line that this is a
war against terrorism, not a war against Islam.
And they really are boxing clever. Dropping food and medical
supplies to starving Afghans while at the same time dropping bombs on
Taliban military installations may be political public relations but it is
also real politics.
Each life saved, above all those of children, will mean one more
Afghan who'll want to get rid of the Taliban who've done absolutely
nothing to ease any of the sufferings of their own people.
Just how clever American policy has been was confirmed this week
when Palestinian Leader Yasser Arafat cracked down on anti-American
demonstrations in conspicuous contrast to his policy during the Gulf War.
Arafat, indeed, is for once being clever himself. He's got a
declaration of American support for a Palestinian state (something that
Osama bin Laden cannot offer). As a bonus, he's got Israeli Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon quarrelling with Washington.
Of course there'll be mistakes and miscalculations. In the "fog of
war" things always go wrong. So far, though, there hasn't been as smartly
waged and, as is the ultimate unAmericanism, as subtly waged a war in a
long time. Which is as well because it's been a long, long time since
we've faced as difficult a foe.
Richard Gwyn's column appears on Wednesday and Sunday. He can be
reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
