Beware the Ennui of the Legions

As the tide of war rises again in the Middle East, the military’s rank and file are mostly opposed to expanding the new mission in Iraq and Syria to include sending a large number of U.S. ground troops into combat, according to a Military Times survey of active-duty members.
On the surface, troops appear to support President Obama’s repeated vows not to let the U.S. military get “dragged into another ground war” in Iraq. Yet at the same time, the views of many service members are shaped by a deep ambivalence about this commander in chief and questions about his ability to lead the nation through a major war, according to the survey and interviews.
The reader survey asked more than 2,200 active-duty troops this question: “In your opinion, do you think the U.S. military should send a substantial number of combat troops to Iraq to support the Iraqi security forces?” Slightly more than 70 percent responded: “No.”
“It’s their country, it’s their business. I don’t think major ‘boots on the ground’ is the right answer,” said one Army infantry officer and prior-enlisted soldier who deployed to Iraq three times. He responded to the survey and an interview request but, like several other service members in this story, asked not to be named because he is not authorized to discuss high-level military policy.

Of course soldiers (usually) go where they're told to go, but when a large majority of veteran combat troops don't want to do something it's worth looking closely at what you have planned and why.

Obama has authorized more action (e.g. airstrikes) but still has nothing approximating a realistic plan. Hitting the oil refineries was part of a plan/strategy, but you will never manage to kill all of the jihadis so you'd better have an end-state in mind.

I have one of course, but it involves carving out enclaves and like-minded people who will defend themselves, and then giving them the means to do so themselves.

A Kurdish/Christian/Yazidi/Assyrian/etc. enclave in northern Iraq and NE Syria is do-able and a solid and largely self-supporting nucleus is in place, so there's where I'd start. This needs to be consolidated and expanded to its' natural limits i.e. what can be held with the consent of the population.

This is NOT empire building, it's closer to ethnic self-determination with the wrinkle that the "ethnicity" in common is being an oppressed minority. Underdogs unite! These are the people we should be protecting, and although no-one's perfect they are the best of the neighborhood as far as we're concerned.

I've seen some other commentary about the current activity uniting the previously estranged jihadi factions against us, and to that I give a resounding "so what?" and not in the determine-all-likely-outcomes sense. If they get upset with us, well, they already want us to convert or die, so BFD. Keeping them divided is useful tactically but not a big-picture problem since it doesn't change the net effect. Besides, radical Islam (or anything else) is a race to the bottom as they fractionate into more-and-more volatile groups, Daesh being the ne plus ultra of violent misanthropy at present.

So, in bullet points, the broad strokes of what I would do if given control of the coalition a la Ferdianand Foch during the Germans' last throw of the dice in March 1918:

• Bring in two US Heavy brigades (of volunteers), one each for Iraq and Syria, coordinate these with the Peshmerga etc. in each Kurdish area
• Reach out to all non-Salafist elements in the contiguous or nearly-contiguous areas;
• Develop a plan for how much territory needs to be secured to make a self-sufficient state, and;
• As soon as this end-state is achieved, all non-local troops are shifted home.

No notice is to be taken of the internal Iraq/Syria border when making these plans. Iran can be told to stuff it as can Assad, but I'd leave it to the locals to replace him if they can. Border establishing yes, but NO MORE NATION BUILDING.

Support your friends, thwart (or worse) your enemies, and keep the troops motivated. Professional soldiers like to fight, at least enough to say they've done so, and a quick decisive gloves-off war is just what most of them are looking for. "In-and-out clever" is how to do it, and doing it right will help a lot of people. Not least of all, your soldiers who are relying on their government to not put them in harm's way without a damned good reason.

   

We'll hold 'em, you hit 'em

I've said for some time that the Saudis should be directly involved in the mess they helped create with Daesh in Syria/Iraq, and their planes are a good start. So far there has been no official commitment to sending the Royal Saudi Army in to get dirty, but it's apparently not completely off the table. They certainly have the resources to make an impact regionally, and I imagine getting some more combat experience for their troops would be a plan also.

The concern comes from various quarters about the incursion of Saudi troops to hit Daesh and Assad (as they would want to) on the basis of Iran and the Shia in general getting bent out of shape. If there was in fact some June 1914-syle delicate balance of power in the region this would have some merit, but as things stand the Saudis don't give a flying about Iran as long as America has the House of Saud's back, nor are "we" too fussed about keeping Tehran happy.

The feared Sunni-Shia "civil war" is already happening so the Saudis doing the dirty work of removing Assad would cut the Gordian knot of disturbing the power balance which most seem to fear messing with. Reports also have airstrikes on al-Nusra, another slightly-less bloodthirsty Salafist outfit and no more a friend to us than Daesh is.

There is always the problem of the power vacuum, and hitting all of the players might seem a good idea. The only problem I see with hitting Assad is that he represents the only remaining protection (besides the Kurdish areas) for religious minorities in Syria. The Alawi sect that the Assads hail from is adjudged heretical by "proper" Muslims and they won't last a week if the Baath party goes down completely, likewise the remaining Christians and garden-variety Shia.

In the meantime the squeeze is being put on the money-making and administrative soft underbelly of Daesh, which has them scrambling to adjust. Strikes on Daesh forces besieging Kurdish etc. villages in Syria have taken some pressure off, and a further degrading of the materiel Daesh scored from the Iraqi and Syrian armies will degrade their advantage. The tanks, APCs and artillery they took from Mosul are hard to hide and useless to you if you do manage it. That is a lesson the Germans on the Normandy front in WW2 learned the hard way, and that was without smart bombs.

A random though along that track; A-10s have been deployed to theatre, but what is ideal for killing vehicles and even easier to base are AH-64D (or better) Apaches, especially "Longbow" ones. Base a few of those close behind the friendly lines and you'll be able to break up any vehicular attack in minutes.

That's tactics, but also public relations. Already the US is making some more friends as it saves them from Daesh, and confidence that the lines will hold will take the humanitarian pressure off as people stay put or return to their homes. Putting hardware where the locals can see it, making them feel like it's "theirs" has an intangible but very real morale effect.

I'm not holding my breath to see Saudi M1A2s sweeping to Damascus, but you never know. Latest I've heard of the Iraqi Army is that it's as useless as it was in Mosul so SOMEBODY has to pick up the slack.

What would Nixon do?

Obama has come out and said that the USA will go after Daesh (formerly ISIL; this name pisses them off so I'll use it) on either side of the now nominal Iraq/Syria border. That this would ever have been an issue would be mind-boggling if I actually had any faith in those in power displaying any kind of common sense, but alas it was expected.

As the US and allied Arab states launch air strikes on Islamic State (IS) positions in Syria and Iraq, questions arise as to the basis of such military action according to international law.

The legal evaluation differs where operations against IS in Iraq on the one hand and in Syria on the other are concerned.

No questions in my mind. A border is an arbitrary line on a map which only means something if it's enforced. In this context "enforced" means one state controls the actions of parties within their boundaries to the extent that they don't affect parties outside those boundaries. The rump Syrian state doesn't control most of the country at this point, and Daesh roams at will accross the borders Sykes and Picot drew up in the aftermath of the Ottoman empire's collapse in 1918.

Whether you choose to treat Daesh as a rogue state or transnational terrorist group (Iran for example fits both models), if you want to defeat them you have to defeat ALL of them. First rule of fighting any insurgency, or anyone for that matter, is don't leave them a sanctuary. Taking Vietnam as an example, the political constraints against hitting NVA and Viet Cong bases in Cambodia and Laos hobbled the American military. It was only when Nixon took the gloves off in 1970 that these sanctuaries were attacked and disrupted. Even Nixon only gave North Vietnam a taste of what the US could do if it wanted to (even leaving nukes out of the equation), but it was enough to bring the Communists to the bargaining table.

It's an imperfect comparison of course, but the essential lesson of ignoring borders if people are hiding behind them to kill you remains. This brings me back to Nixon.

Looking at it as objectively as I can, I don't think that Nixon was the terrible president he is made out to be. His stepped up attacks on North Vietnam were long overdue, and were designed to get the US out of the war, preferably by winning it. Nixon also thawed things out with China, and as it was said at the time, he was (probably) the only US leader who could do that.

That opinion wasn't the result of Nixon being a nice guy, it was because he had impeccable credentials as an anti-communist, and being ready to smash them if need be is the way you get a reputation like that. It was in fact a conscious "policy" decision, the "madman theory". Putin is running a variant of this right now, and you'll notice that we are reacting to him.

Whether you want to talk about credibility, deterrence, initiative, momentum, the OpFor has most of that and Obama (by extension the USA and the "West") none. That "red lines” fiasco in Syria over chemical weapons (where, again, Putin ate Obama's lunch) was the last straw for any anyone to take Obama seriously, and even his response to this Daesh situation right now is halting, half-assed and indecisive.

Madman theory only really works against parties who have something to lose and is essentially deterrence. Nuking Raqqa (in Syria, self-proclaimed capital of the Islamic State) right now would set the tone and establish your "street cred" as truly balls-to-the-wall crazy, but it would cause a lot of other problems. Short of that, I hear that Arab airforces are involved in hiting Daesh now, and have already (Egypt and UAE) been hitting Salafists in Libya. The weak link in all of this is ground troops.

And now this:

Turkey is bracing itself for an unprecedented refugee crisis after as many as 200,000 ethnic Kurds fled across the frontier from Syria in just two days to escape a fresh advance by Islamist extremists.

The influx came after the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) captured dozens of Kurdish villages in northern Syria and threatened the border city of Kobane, which was left deserted after most of its inhabitants evacuated in panic.

I've said it before and I'll say it again here: the only answer to this situation is to push back, secure areas of "friendly" populations while arming the able-bodied among them to defend themselves. This is what's sort-of happening in Iraqi Kurdistan, and it's time for Turkey to get off the fence and start throwing their weight around. I understand that there are Kurdish "issues' in Turkey, but Daesh is a bigger problem which will come for Turkey (and Jordan, and Lebanon, etc.) if they are not smashed into the ground. You'll never get them all, but individual wasps only hurt, while a swarm can kill.

I don't know who the USA needs in charge to handle this effectively, but we've got what we've got so fingers crossed that they take some sensible (and sufficiently kinetic) action.

 

There's a 'nac for that

Environment Canada this spring predicted a really hot summer. Living in the area predicted to be affected by this, I can say that they were right out to lunch, it being cool and wet, but mostly cool. They have now predicted a mild winter; I am sceptical to say the least. The Farmer's Almanac has come out with this prediction, which on past performance and personal observation I am more inclined to believe:

“It’s going to be colder, it’s going to be snowier … it’s not pretty.”

According to the almanac, central Canada, in particular, is expected to experience winter’s nasty bite.

“From Calgary to Quebec, we’re going to be up to our neck,” Burnett said.

One of the few exceptions will be southwestern Ontario, which will be cold, but with below-normal snowfall.

Burnett said forecasts show that while Toronto and the surrounding region will experience a deep-freeze, it’s going to be drier this winter, with “fluffier snow.”

Atlantic Canada, meanwhile, is set for a milder, but wet winter season, according to the almanac.

‘Baby lamb’ of summers next year

It may seem far in the future, but warmer temperatures will return – eventually.

Summer in Canada is expected to be milder and wet, with hotter and drier temperatures concentrated in Western Canada.

“Nothing really spectacular in the summer,” Burnett said

 

I don't of course know their exact method of generating these, but I do know that sunspot activity plays a significant part. Let's take a look at things we know to be true:

• We had a long, cold winter last year with the ice not melting completely on Lake Superior well into June
• During that winter, solar activity was at "the most anemic in 100 years,"

The sun is what keeps us alive, but there is a narrow range of variability in which we will be able to survive, and an even slimmer one in which we will thrive. Cold long winters mean a lot of things, foremost is shorter growing seasons, but they are also the way that ice ages start. The current "Climate Change" shibboleth permeates government agencies and the media, even though it's increasingly obvious to the impartial observer that they have no idea what they are talking about. This I feel explains the unsubstantiated wishful thinking which produces a relentless series of erroneous predictions.

Yes' I'm contrasting this with the Old Farmer's Almanac, another set of predictions, but the Almanac has a much better success rate than any of the expensive computer climate models the Climate Change crowd keep relying on. Really though, as soon as it changed from Global Warming (which we could all understand) to Climate Change, it ceased to have any linkage to what it was all about (CO2) in the first place.

If CO2 has the impact Al Gore etc. claimed, the constant upward march of the CO2 concentration over the years would have been linked to an increase in global temperatures as less of the sun's energy escaped back to space. That has not happened, nor have all of the icecaps and glaciers melted away with attendant catastrophic (to our costal cities) rise in sea level. What has happened is that data and media have been manipulated to make it look like at least some of that has happened, but it simply has not been getting appreciably (if at all) warmer out here in the real world.

So what? Forced to make a choice, I'll put my money on the Almanac's model, since it makes sense and because they don't have an agenda (that I can see or think of). In the end we'll see what we get and the computers have no hope of keeping up with reality. Be ready to bundle up, and get that snow blower tuned. I won't cry if I'm wrong on this one, but I'll be prepared.

District 9 by Osmosis

I've had a hard time writing about immigration policy. It's not because I don't have opinions on it (you should all be that lucky) but more because I see a reasonable policy as a forlorn hope.

That however will not stop me, any more than it stops me on all of my other Quixotic railing against stupidity and ignorance. Here is, imo, the crux of the problem for Western countries and the proximate cause of our eventual disappearance.

Bibi speaks no English and has been working at a small Saskatoon restaurant for the last six months. Her boss and friend, Sahana Yeasmin, told CTV that Bibi’s "situation back home is very bad."

Amnesty International is also urging the Canadian government to reconsider the deportation, saying the work of the UN body should be completed before the Canadian government makes any final decisions.

"There’s no way that Canada would want to be responsible for returning a woman back to a country where her rights could be violated," Gloria Nafziger, an Amnesty International refugee co-ordinator, told CTV.

 Emphasis mine. I do not dispute that Pakistan is a horrible place to live if you're a woman, and I can say the same thing for a lot of other places in the world. The problem is, if being a a woman means that your rights could be violated in Pakistan, by this logic we should accept all c. 90 million Pakistani women to protect them from this fate.

Don't be ridiculous, you say? That is the logical extension of this thinking, and it would take a lot less than that to destroy Canada as Canada. We can help some people, but we need to do that in such a way that they help us too. The harsh market truth is that a woman in her 60s with no money, no skills and who doesn't even speak one of our official languages is a liability to Canada, not an asset.

This is the sort of thinking which keeps the wheels turning and the lights on; mushy bleeding-heart talk about trampled "rights" in places we can't control does not help Canada (or the UK, France, Italy, Australia, the USA, etc. ) retain its' character as a place people would want to live in preference to their 3rd-World shithole.

You see what happens when I start in on this stuff? Obnoxious but unassailable truth is what happens. Sure you can tell me I'm a big meanie or a racist or whatever the fuck else you want to tar me with, but WE CAN'T TAKE EVERYBODY WHO WANTS TO COME HERE. I wish I could find the link to it again, but I saw an excellent lecture on immigration which involved jars full of marbles representing the various populations of the world. It very graphically represented what would happen if we were to open the borders, and that if we do so we'll all be living in Nairobi, and most of us not in the nice parts.

"We" are vastly outnumbered, and we should act like it, or there won't be a "we" left. Be very clear that this isn't some "White Power" shtick, I'm talking about culture, which can be adopted. Multiculturalism has failed. It works, for a while, as part of an empire, but a functioning democracy is a delicate flower which can be crowded out by weeds. Iffy analogy, but I think you get the point.

Going back to Nigeria again, contrast the governance of that country with that of Canada. It's a good comparison, as both have rich resource-based economies and educated, English-speaking ruling classes. Canada has internal divisions, but not the sort who raid each others' villages; the same cannot be said for the diverse parties in Nigeria. Nigeria is not poor, and Nigerians are no stupider on an individual basis than Canadians are (I'll steer clear of "Race IQ" stuff) so I would have to say the difference between their volatile and ineffective governance and ours is mostly a cultural one.

Now, if you like the way they do things, good for you. I don't, and I suspect the majority of people who grew up in (or gravitated to) the Western system would like to keep living in it. That means we can take some immigrants from wherever, but in digestible increments, and not just anyone. Sticking to this sort of policy is not for the meek, but if you like how things are where you are, it must be done so that the fortunate and productive few who we do take in have a nice place to live.

Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse.

(It will be noted that the phrase I have used for the title didn't work out too well for the guy who originally said it, but I have more confidence in my prescriptions here.  We do this time know exactly who and what we're fighting.)

As the USA gears up at a glacial pace to do something about ISIL, Boko Haram has taken inspiration from ISIL's success of late and declared a caliphate of their own in northern Nigeria. This at first glance is alarming, (and certainly it is at the pointy end) but a closer examination of the circumstances of each shows much vulnerability for each group.

The irony of their success is that they have by acquiring property and infrastructure tied themselves down and made them easier to find and kill. Looking at the origin of these two caliphates, the essential ingredients in the constitution (making of, not document) of each is instability, diversity and incompetence.

Instability pretty much speaks for itself, as power of some sort will always fill a vacuum. Diversity was a factor as they both play on differences, mostly in religion to sow discord and divide to conquer. Incompetence is related to instability, but a competent military force can hold things together against insurgents even against a background of political instability, NATO forces in Afghanistan and French forces in Mali as recent examples.

Of possible options to salvage Nigeria, the only plausible one I see right now is a military coup. Ideal would be some sort of replacement of the current corrupt government with something else, but that's called colonialism and it's apparently a bad idea. The Nigerian Army has been starved for resources by a government (not unrealistically) afraid of letting it get too powerful. The irony of an armed takeover of much of a country which weakens its' army to prevent a military coup is not lost on me, but they may not be seeing it in that light right now.

So, the real challenge with either of these situations is not crippling the respective caliphates; that is tactically dangerous for the operators and troops, but we know how to break things. The trap is the nation-building that was tried in Afghanistan and Iraq. Northern Iraq gives us the Kurds, who are this iteration's "Northern Alliance" and if we stay in long enough to remove the existential threat to them we'll have done enough, barring some residual SOF presence to help them with flare-ups.

Nigeria is another matter. They have all of the resources (natural, financial and human) to sort this themselves so I don't see a pressing need to put our guys on the line there. It occurs to me that this is an ideal situation for mercenaries. As stated, the Nigerians have a problem which requires a military solution, but are loathe to give the military the resources necessary, thus threatening the state. Executive Outcomes isn't around anymore, but I'm sure there's someone(s) else to fill that role for the government in Abuja if the latter are willing to pay.

By Christmas the Islamic State will be a thing of the past [update 14 Oct 14: maybe not], but of course the residue will remain troublesome. Boko Haram is more complex for the simple reason that less influential (powerful) parties care enough to get involved, leaving out the attitude of the Nigerian government and Armed Forces to foreigners doing the dirty work in their country. Regardless, three weeks of professional military operations with air support and intel could bring that caliphate crashing down too. It's just a question of "who" and "when".

Franklin ship found

After all this time I thought they'd never find either the Erebus or the Terror, but I'm happy to have been proved wrong.  This for a great change is the latest of breaking-news and not what you'll usually see here, but I wanted to mark it.

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/lost-franklin-expedition-ship-found-in-the-arctic

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says one of Canada's greatest mysteries now has been solved, with the discovery of one of the lost ships from Sir John Franklin's doomed Arctic expedition.

"This is a great historic event," Harper said.

"For more than a century this has been a great Canadian story.… It's been the subject of scientists and historians and writers and singers. And so I think we have a really important day in mapping together the history of our country," the prime minister said.

At this point, the searchers aren't sure if they've found HMS Erebus or HMS Terror. But sonar images from the waters of Victoria Strait, just off King William Island, clearly show wreckage of a ship on the ocean floor.

The wreckage was found on Sept. 7 using a remotely operated underwater vehicle recently acquired by Parks Canada. When Harper revealed the team's success at Parks Canada's laboratories in Ottawa Tuesday, the room burst into applause and hollering.

 This is a big deal, as the search for the lost Franklin expedition of 1845 (his third expedition, his first very nearly as calamitous his last) greatly exercised the imagination of Victorian Britain and beyond.  The original search was looking for survivors and obviously found none, but did end up doing a very thorough job of charting the Arctic.  This in turn is the basis for Canada's (as the successor to British North America) claim to what we call our northernmost territory today. Anyway, I will be watching this for whatever info comes from this discovery.  It's not every day that I'm actually excited about something in the news, but you can mark this one down.

Symptoms of the Diseased Body Politic

With the Global Whack-a-Mole on Terror sputtering along again in Iraq, the issue of "foreign fighters” is at the fore once more. The UK has announced an intention to do something half-assed about non-citizen passport holders who go off on jihad. While some may take this as "finally someone's doing something", I personally see it as a sign of the rot and weakness which will be the end of Western Civilization.

Western Civilization has had a rough go for sure and is far from perfect, but it has produced most of what makes modern life comfortable and reasonably long. Scientific Method, germ theory of disease, immunization and advances in horticulture and chemistry have all come from "us", immeasurably improving lives the world over and the only things which make our current population remotely sustainable. This doesn't even include the advances in materials sciences and computers which keep everything moving.

It's not about colour or race, it's about culture. Anybody can be "western" if they want to, and there was a time when it was the thing to aspire to. Two World Wars accelerated the collapse of the British Empire as well as that of the French, but not before both had left their modernizing and linguistic impressions across the globe. The ideas were loose but so were some others, specifically Communism and Islamism. It could of course be argued that Communism is a Western development, but despite its' geographical origin it fails the "keep moving forward" test. There was a time when that was about unrestrained development, but it moved past that (for most people) to be about doing things better than before, not just bigger.

That still exists, but it is increasingly opposed by limiting philosophies. Foremost in my estimation is the "Climate Change" lobby. If you actually look at who is doing what you'll notice two distinct groups. First are the profiteers, the ones pushing carbon trading scams schemes, the Solyndras and wind farm subsidy-seekers, and of course the "scientists" who have sold out for the grants. They are bad and dangerous, but their motivations are venal and easily understood. The real menace are the Luddite (watermelon) Greens.

EVERY proposal to limit greenhouse gases (they could start, simply by ceasing to breathe) would destroy advanced technological societies by wrecking their economies. The partial success they've had in North America has driven up electricity rates and decreased reliability of supply, a mere shadow of what they would like to do. See the UK for the next step from where we are.

All of this is to say that the seeds of the downfall of Western Civilization are sown from within, and we are proving ourselves "unfit" in the evolutionary biological sense by the death-wish we have as a society. Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory are the key tools to take us down from within. When Moral Relativism is your guiding philosophy the outcome seems to be that everything else is judged superior to your own culture.

I like Rule of Law and having a decent chance of surviving walking the streets at night; it may surprise you but the two things are not actually related. They are in fact a historically exceptionally (vanishingly) rare combination even in the imperfect form we find them today in our First World countries. The harsh truth is that if you hate your heritage so much that you'd deluge your country with "Diversity" the basic institutions created in that First World will be replaced by the Third World which you have imported. Think of India, but where it's too cold to live in a shack, but that's the best case going down that road.

Which brings us back to the intro paragraph. Thousands of Saudis flocking to al Qaeda and now ISIS is no surprise. What is more of surprise on the face of it is recent Muslim converts of European extraction doing the same. Scratch the surface a bit and it starts to make sense. If you think of these Salafist groups as both "a Cause" and as gangs, you will see the appeal to overlapping personality types.

The simplest type is the adventurer. Young men have been from time immemorial headed out on raids and general mayhem, and these find expression in gangs, pirates, drug cartels, etc. I'm sure you would find that many in ISIS' current ranks aren't "true believers" but more opportunistic criminals and psychopaths with a gloss of religion to make it look good to the group. The next group need to belong to something, and jihad is the most dynamic something going today. A sub-set of them are the types who hate Western society as decadent and overly permissive and find the intolerance and rigidity of Wahhabi-style Islam the perfect antidote.

If the Arabs hate us, big deal, we've been fighting them since Roman times at least. When our own people turn against us to join them we really need to think about root causes. The simplest way to look at this is as osmosis or as Nature abhorring a vacuum.

Our confidence in the way we do things has declined, and with it our confidence and assertiveness as a culture. People in most parts of the world like to be on the winning side, and right now that doesn't look like us. We need something to believe in, but the common culture we once had (even between British and French in Canada it wasn't fundamentally different) has been systematically dismantled and blackballed as the worst thing ever.

There's your vacuum. Something needs to take the place of the Iliad and Odyssey, Horatius at the Bridge, Charles Martel, The Charge of the Light Brigade, Vimy Ridge, the flag raising on Iwo Jima, etc. If you don't have passing familiarity with at least 5 of the above, well, you're not alone these days.

The past is treacherous territory, but at some point you have to choose something to believe in. It could be where you come from (dangerous to outsiders) religion (ditto) or whatever else, but if you don't stake out something as the Line Which Shall Not Be Crossed you'll have no anchor and no standards for how things should be. We can do better than the old days, but we need something for people of diverse backgrounds to rally to. The current Canadian government is bucking the trend and trying to bring our history back, but they won't last forever. As long as we can't give our people something worth dying for, radical Islam will be ready to fill that void.