The discussion over Pat Robertson’s comments that Bush told him there would be no US casualties in Iraq has been getting a lot of attention over the past few days. It may be that Bush was mistaken about the location of the casualty-free war; pre-emptive action against Canada would almost certainly yield no casualties whatsoever. It may be a far-fetched idea but Americans are rightly concerned over the potential use of Canada as a launching pad for a terrorist attack in the US. Earlier this week US Ambassador Paul Cellucci, hardly a diplomat in the traditional sense, underlined the gravity of the situation:

“I have to tell you this co-operation is now more important than ever. Another attack could be catastrophic to our economic relations. The threat has not receded. The threat is real," he said.

Another attack with roots north of the border would prompt the US to seal the borders and that indeed would hit both economies hard, for Canada however it would be devastating whereas for the US it would merely be uncomfortable. The core of the issue remains the extent to which Canada is prepared to secure itself for such eventualities as well as its willingness to work closely with the Pentagon and Homeland Security. That’s why Cellucci keeps hammering on the simple truth:

"Our shared geography alone makes it inevitable that the terrorists will consider using Canada as a potential launching pad into the United States. ... For us, the simple fact is that we cannot defend our homeland without Canada's help."

To the Bush opponents this may be interpreted as a prelude to yet another grab for oil (and there’s lots of it in Alberta, the place where US troops would probably be quite welcome) and for the conservative crowd it’s yet another valid reminder that Canada needs to take its security obligations seriously. A North American security perimeter is a no-brainer and while it’s absolutely ridiculous that it’s still up for discussion, we should note that political thinking in Canada is still dictated from the left. The same political stream that continues to rally against free trade and that would be perfectly welcome the US closing the borders: a northern autarky has always been their preferred model.

The problem is not only that the left influences this debate: it is not well framed to begin with so that most Canadians either fail to get the importance or conveniently ignore it. It’s either labeled as a US-issue in which case the potential impact on the Canadian economy is hugely underplayed, or it’s cast in such a way as to suggest that the only casualties would be American which is ludicrous. Canada has long been on the al-Qaeda hit list and the country is also an established recruiting ground for terrorist organizations precisely because security is lax. In essence, the current administration in Ottawa is Clintonesque (or Kerryesque if you like) in its approach: let’s downplay the danger and let’s pray that we are not going to be in the line of fire, and if we are, we’re happy to use the time-tested concepts of pre 9/11 foreign policy. As long as that attitude prevails, which by the way is lauded by the Canadian public at large as it hates to be woken up from its self-delusional sense of well-being, it will be impossible to credibly deal with the issues that Cellucci has put on the table. Sooner or later a Canadian leader will have to stand-up for North American security and we can only hope that it will be early enough to thwart a terrorist attack on either side of the border. A US invasion of Canada is implausible today, but if it turns out that a nuclear dirty bomb finds its origins in Vancouver or Montreal than even the most moderate US leaders will rapidly start to lose their sense of humor.

UPDATE I: Here's some good background reading on Cellucci. Question: will he get a senior appointment in Bush II ?

UPDATE II: Yes, the Southern border is equally problematic, as noted by Michelle today.

UPDATE III: Entered in OTB's Traffic Jam.