The Truth of the Matter Regarding the U.S. Canadian ‘Civil Assistance Plan’

I've really had my fill of internet reporting from the Left and the Right blogosphere citing the recent U.S. NORTHCOM-CANADA COMMAND military-to-military agreement establishing the bilateral Civil Assistance Plan (CAP) as being the establsihment of a "North American Army".

---

What a bunch of conspiracy nonsense and absolute hooey! The Civil Assistance Plan is a signed document, a contingency plan (CONPLAN) which provides the legal framework for the military forces of the United States or Canada to assist each other if requested as necessary in supporting their nations civilian authorities in emergency situations which include but are not expressly limited to: floods, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes and other natural disasters as well as the effects of a terrorist attack. If you want to read the whole gamut of related conspiracy nonsense out there, by all means do so. Just google "Civil Assistance Plan." The Lefties and even a few conservatives have made this agreement appear to be something that I do not believe it is - and that is it is not a mechanism establishing an armed force of Canadian or American soldiers charged with the enslavement of the citizens of the other nation by force. Neither is it an army of totalitarian conquest or an enforcer of a poltical union between them. Like I said, I've really have had my fill of this blatant rubbish. As a result of the indigestion it caused I felt the need to attempt to set the record straight with some salient facts. This military agreement between the U.S. and Canada establishing a "Civil Assistance Plan" predates most of the partisan political discourse and conspiracy theorems regarding the so-called "North American Union" by at least 67 years. So that patriots on both side of the U.S.-Canadian border do not misunderstand where I am coming from, I'll state categorically that there is something beneath the surface regarding the agenda of the SPP, that it might be a vehicle to a political union not unlike the EU - that is the agenda of the globalist elite if I am not mistaken. However, while I'm not 100% sure about Canadian law, I do believe that the U.S. Constitution is the critical or principle legal obstacle to any economic or political union in North America. The establishment of a "North American Army" would of necessity have to undergo and withstand very significant legal (i.e. Constitutional) challenges. I'll assume for the moment that the same is true for the Canadian armed forces. And therein lies the rub, the difference between planning for potential military involvement in cross-border civil authority support contingencies and any possible "North American Pentagon." The oath of enlistment for American soldiers is to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and to obey all lawfull orders of their superior officers. Period. And speaking of globalist elites and their agenda, how many of you remember the 1990s Clinton-era brewhaha over US soldiers wearing UN blue helmets? Does U.S. Army Specialist Michael G. New ring a bell? That brewhaha revolved entirely on legal issues involving the service members oath to the Constitution. Getting back to the CAP and the history behind it, there was a meeting held on August 30, 1940 in Ogdensburg, N.Y. between Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King and U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt wherein a proposal was made for the creation of a joint defense board to handle continental defense issues. As as direct result of that meeting the Permanent Joint Board on Defense (PJBD) was created with its focus to be "the defense of the north half of the Western Hemsiphere." The choice of the word "permanent" was insisted upon by both PM King and President Roosevelt. The PJDB was not founded on any treaty or legislative action, nor was it established as a vehicle to devise future treaties or other agreements. The PJBDs focus was made clear by President Roosevelt who said that it was not just for the threats posed during WWII, but "to help secure the continent for the future." The PJBD led to the policy guidance set forth in t he joint U.S.-Canadian Basic Security Document (BSD) for planning processes as well as the long-established Combined Defense Plan for Canada and the United States. The military forces of the U.S. and Canada under these agreements have always treated each other as peer equals and cooperated formally and informally in planning for the defense of the North American continent. In 1946 the PJBD led to the creation of a new bilateral military institution, the Military Cooperation Committee (MCC). The MCC then led to the creation of North American Air and then to NORAD in 1958. The establishment of the new American combatant command NORTHCOM is a logical after-the-fact of 9/11 and follows in the progression of the events of the past 67 years to fully integrate U.S. and Canadian military forces into the unified purpose of directing, planning and conducting defensive exercises and military civil support operations within the United States and Canada in light of the Nuclear, Chemical, Biological or Radiological threats from foreign or Islamofascist enemies. Canada and the United States must stand united in purpose for our common defense or we will surely die divided and conquered by our enemies. Planning for civil emergencies and having "boots" planned into civil contingencies is probably a good, prudent idea. Whatever happens in the future at least those with the mission to assist civil authorities in a crisis have their ducks all in a row to do something they may or may not actually be tasked to do. Contingency being the operative word. I believe General Renuart and General Dumais did make the purpose of the agreement very clear with respect to their assigned and specific military missions. But it's not their purview to explain it to the public; not even their subordinate Public Affairs Officer would do an explanation justice. Even then certain 'conspiracists' would likely twist the explanation to suit their particular agenda. This is what both left and right have done in the past couple of days, and that's what gave me indigestion. I believe it's actually the job of civilian media to do the due diligent research, to understand the implications and/or background of the agreement and then to provide John and Jane Q. Public with a certain level of assurance regarding their military missions - particularly in a time of war which has effectively demonstrated repeatedly that to the enemy there is zero differentiation between military and civilian targets. Shopping malls, financial district s, critical infrastructure or military bases - they all have an equal chance of being hit by the enemy. Sorry folks, but a 'North American Army' was not created without U.S. Congressional or Canadian Parliamentary approvals. It simply does not exist except as a figment of the imagination in certain conspiratorial craniums.