Alec Saunders SquawkBox

Security is a sensitive topic for Americans.  In the post 911/War on Terror/Iraq era, it's easy to see why.  Men are in harms way, and the country remains on a war footing.

At what price?

American airports are starkly reminiscent of George Orwell's classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.  People bustle to and fro, under the watchful eyes of security officers, and accompanied by the droning of propaganda.  "The threat level is orange", blare the loudspeakers.  Television monitors tell the stories boys and families damaged by combat.  Even the very name of the border patrol — homeland defence — conjures images of threats and war.

This photograph, taken on the F Concourse at Philadelphia International Airport, shows no fewer than 9 visible surveillance cameras, and as you walk further you will discover more — a dozen in total.  Some of them are less than two yards apart.

My friends in America, as you head to your elections, ask yourselves whether the fear fomented by the current administration is justified.  Is it rational, or paranoid?  Ask yourselves what the right thing is for Iraq, too. 

I am not discounting how hard these problems are, nor would it be appropriate for me to suggest that another could have done a better job than Mr. Bush. He's your President, you elected him, and presumably he's what the majority of your electorate wanted.  Besides, I don't have the right to vote in your country.  

The situation deserves a real debate, that's all. After all, the price of security is liberty.

Paul William Roberts piece The Flagging Empire, appeared in today’s Globe and Mail. This is a long, but thought provoking read.    It’s about oil, Iraq, New Orleans, America’s relationship with China, with a little bit of conspiracy theory thrown in for good measure.  Roberts is asking "How did we get here, and where do we go next?".

On a related topic, the Canadian Security Intelligent Service now says that Terrorism is a Perpetual Threat. It can’t be defeated. 

And, of course, this morning’s papers in Canada ran the NY Times Story from yesterday in which Colin Powell called his UN speech a lasting blot on his record.

This is rich.  The NY Times says in Bush Seeks Help of Allies Barred From Iraq Deals that the Whitehouse was blindsided by the Pentagon.  Senior diplomats are saying that the objective of rewarding coalition partners could have been achieved by simply giving them preferential treatment, rather than excluding those who opposed the war. 

"What we did was toss away our leverage," one senior American diplomat said. "We could have put together a policy that said, `The more you help, the more contracts you may be able to gain.’ " Instead, the official said, "we found a new way to alienate them."

Alienate… that’s for sure.

Marcus Gee, in his column from this morning’s Globe writes "Holding an anti-war march now is like protesting the fight against Nazism at the height of the Blitz." 

Watched Bush’s State of the Union last night. Made my 14 year old son watch it too — history is being made, I told him.  First impressions:

• Accelerated tax cuts — Reaganomics lives!
• AIDS funding in Africa — a surprise.  Bush started by quoting the numbers of people the US funding would help, and I turned to Janice and said "It’s not enough".  Then he quoted the dollar figure, and I sat back and said "That’s a lot of money".  Stephen Lewis, Canada’s AIDS ambassador to the UN, said in this morning’s Globe and Mail, that this would be a wake up call to the rest of the G7 to step forward.  Let’s hope so.
• Iraq — the war will be underway within weeks.  Next week’s meeting with Colin Powel and the Security Council is a last ditch effort to get the UN onside.  The Security Council will deadlock, and at that point the US will abandon the UN and head off to war with its "coalition of the willing".