Weird and vaguely scary news of the day

Just to change the subject from property taxes and baseball... here's the Canadian version of this news sent along by an alert reader:

Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other's borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.

Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas.

The U.S. military's Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.

The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S. ... On right-wing blogs in the U.S. it is being used as evidence of a plan for a "North American union" where foreign troops, not bound by U.S. laws, could be used by the American federal government to override local authorities. [link to entire story here]

And, for the record, here's the U.S. military's version:

SAN ANTONIO, Texas — U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, and Canadian Air Force Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command, have signed a Civil Assistance Plan that allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.

“This document is a unique, bilateral military plan to align our respective national military plans to respond quickly to the other nation's requests for military support of civil authorities,” Renuart said. “Unity of effort during bilateral support for civil support operations such as floods, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes and effects of a terrorist attack, in order to save lives, prevent human suffering and mitigate damage to property, is of the highest importance, and we need to be able to have forces that are flexible and adaptive to support rapid decision-making in a collaborative environment.”

Comments

[Chris Jenkins]

Why would there be a civil emergency big enough to require the military of two large nations to collaborate on handling it?

Can someone give me an example of an appropriate use of this agreement?

[ALC]

Canadian Bacon! What a great film. Shame it hasn't become more of a cult classic.

[ALC]

On the substance of the articles: while I haven't read the document, the mainstream press does not seem to have indicated that either country's military forces would be permitted to enter the other's territory without particular, express permission. This appears to rather me an agreement to facilitate that entry in those particular incidents where express permission is granted.

I can think of two recent events when this sort of facilitating agreement would have been helpful. Following the the September 12, 2001 invocation of our NATO allies' commitments under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, NATO allies sent E-3A AWACS aircraft to patrol American skies during Operation Eagle Assist. This was done to immediately supplement American air early warning capabilities, as well as eventually enable the American AWACS to depart for Afghanistan, where they flew flights in support of OEF. (Note that Canada's contribution to Operation Eagle Assist was handled bilaterally, because Canada maintains its own fleet of E-3 aircraft, even though they were placed under NATO command with the pooled NATO E-3 fleet).

The second occasion followed Hurricane Katrina, when Canadian Forces Maritime Command (the Canadian Navy) deployed one destroyer, two frigates, and several helicopters to help with transporting provisions to the Gulf Coast, as well as search and rescue, in Operation UNISON. CFMC conducted a similar operation after Hurricane Andrew.

So there are two examples of an appropriate use of this agreement. Wouldn't it be better to have protocols in place for this sort of support, rather than handling it ad-hoc as we did in 2001 and 2005?

[Chris Jenkins]

Brilliant. I suppose it would...

It's in preparation for the multitudes of violence, looting, and burning that will occur if Obama loses

NAFTA, bi-lateral military processes, unregistered Mexican trucks transporting goods on American highways now allowed, licenses for illegals. . . why bother having borders at all?

Oh wait. . . That's the point!

[ALC]

4:26-- Shucks, you're right. I've seen the light. Let's just create an autarkic economy. It'll plunge us into the stone age, but at least we will keep in tact your xenophobic pride and your union membership card!