Say something, say something...just not that!

Let me just say that I am against ballistic missile defence (BMD). I've yet to to hear convincing evidence that the system can hit a missile (let alone be able to hit the broadside of a barn). I think that terrorists are more likely to use low-tech methods (dirty bombs, etc.) against America (mainly) or Canada if they were to launch an attack. It seems to me that our defence dollars could be better spent on retrofitting our armed forces for rapid response to diffuse volatile situations abroad and to shore up continental and border security within existing land, sea and air organizations.

That being said, our PM Martin announced on thursday that we would not participate in BMD after our new ambassador to the US Frank McKenna stated that we were more or less involved in missile defence (because NORAD would share missile information and we're in NORAD). At this point, mass confusion ensues, as described by Paul Wells HERE and HERE, and the Christian Science Monitor.

After the announcement, ex-US ambassador Paul Celluci shoots off his mouth about how we've given up our seat at the table AND our SOVEREIGNTY by not participating in BMD while Martin retorts with a demand that the US consult us if the missile is to be shot down over Canada...

I think it's important to realize that regardless of whether we agreed to participate BMD or not, if the unlikely happened and a missile targeted the US, they will blow it up wherever it needs to be blown up in order to ensure the security of the American people. I'm sure they'll try their damndest to blow it up over the ocean, but if it needs to be done over Kelowna, it will. I don't think Celluci would have made such an outrageous comment if our government had articulated in a straightforward manner that we will not participate in this program, but we will participate in all the other programs that we jointly run to maintain continental security.

Secondly, I'm sure that PM Martin realizes that in the event of a missile attack, tough decisions have to be made quickly so I don't know what kind of consultation he expects. The most I would expect is a phone call telling me 'the missile is approaching over X airspace. It will likely explode over the Canadian town of Y. Get your emergency response teams ready...' They're not going to ask us permission to fire into our airspace. It's going to happen. Security of America will always come first. It's understandable and shouldn't be a surprise.

The Globe and Mail reports that by refusing to join BMD, "the government would have had a say in the evolution of the technologically challenging project, and would have had a role in the day-to-day anti-missile operations." Really? Do they really think that the amount we would've put towards the project would've given us a big enough say in how it works? The Americans have put billions into this boondoggle of a project. They're not going to let someone who's late joining the party in on all the goodies.

The only thing our acceptance of the program could've given them is more political legitimacy. We shouldn't have and the government made the right decision in its refusal. Giving different answers to please different people was not the way to go on this one. I can't believe I'm saying this, but Bush probably would've done a better job articulating our refusal than Martin in this situation, and that's saying something.