Nukes, blue helmets and Canada’s ‘traditional role’

The peacekeeping myth of Canadian military history has been reasserting itself in the back half of this election campaign. If you ever went to let the air out of the tires of someone waxing poetic about Canada’s traditional role as a peacekeeping nation and the fine tradition of Lester B. Pearson, here’s a fun factoid: Pearson, the father of peacekeeping and Nobel Peace Prize winner, was also the man to arm the Canadian military with hundreds of nuclear weapons.

That’s right. Canadian nukes, courtesy of Pearson the peacekeeper. Bring that up and watch the peacekeeping disciples wilt — assuming they believe you at all. In my experience, sometimes they assume that I’m tragically misinformed, or outright lying to them, just to be a jerk.

If you’re in the disbelieving camp, a quick primer: Canada never developed nuclear weapons itself. But for a 21-year period, from 1963 to 1984, various units of the Canadian Armed Forces, and various Canadian bases both at home and in Europe, were home to American nuclear weapons. The actual warheads were always kept under the control of American personnel, but they were there to be dropped/ fired/launched, in time of war, by Canadian troops, who were trained in their use. Most were missile warheads of relatively low yield, intended to knock down incoming Soviet bombers. Some were atomic artillery, for use against advancing Soviet divisions in Europe. Some were assigned to Canada’s air squadrons on the continent, as part of NATO’s rapid nuclear response force, which would have rained warheads down on Soviet units, bases and logistical choke points had the Warsaw Pact ever moved west.

All of these facts are on record. A lot of the precise operational details remain classified, and probably will be for decades yet. But it is not a contested historical fact that the Canadian military, for much of the Cold War, was able and willing to use nuclear weapons in battle.

This long-ago and little known chapter of our military history isn’ t strictly relevant to the ongoing debate about peacekeeping and our role in the world. No one is advocating Canada re-equip itself with nukes (though that would certainly be more entertaining than most of what we’ve had so far this campaign). It’s illustrative, though, of the true reality of our military history: peacekeeping is something we’ve had occasion to do, and we’ve done it well when we have. But our traditional role? Our global calling? Puh-leeze. Any politician trying to sell you that is betting that you’re historically illiterate — which in Canada, sadly, is a pretty good bet.

Here’s another fun question for the far-too-numerous Canadians who think our military history is basically a story of neutral, honestbroker-style peacekeeping. Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair both say they’d like to return us to our “traditional role.” In other words, they’d like us to do more peacekeeping. OK. Fair enough. But a few questions for the honourable gentlemen and those echoing their talking points: What missions? How many troops? Under what command, and what rules of engagement?

Peacekeeping is not an abstract concept. It’s an international collaboration that can only work in very narrow circumstances. Looking around at the world’s most active conflict zones right now, I can’t really see any of them as being ripe for an old-style blue-helmet deployment, as eager as Messrs. Trudeau and Mulcair might be to contribute to one. Nor are we about to strike off on our own: we simply don’t have the firepower or numbers to do that. We can contribute to larger missions, when they exist. Right now, it’s hard to make the case that there are any missions out there that would be solving the world’s ills if only the Canadians would chip in a battalion or two.

This isn’t to knock the honourable service done by Canadian military and police personnel all over the world, for decades. Nor is it to say that Canada should refuse to join future missions. When the need is real, when circumstances are right and when there’s enough international consensus for a mission to be viable, there are a lot of ways Canada can meaningfully contribute. But let’s get real. Peacekeeping never has been the primary role of the Canadian armed forces, it never will be, and even if it was, the world’s problems today are so complicated and ugly that we would still leave our blue helmets gathering dust on shelves most of the time.

It’s OK to wish it were otherwise. It’s not so great to campaign as if it actually is.

The next time you hear someone touting the legacy of Lester B. Pearson, remind them he’s the guy who outfitted our military with hundreds of nuclear warheads