What's really odd here is that an academic who studies political science relies exclusively on The Prince for his points. Does no one read the Discourses on Livy these days?

THE CONSERVATIVE BIT

I think that a lot of Canadians who would be quite comfortable with the idea of allowing drafted soldiers refuge are much less comfortable with the idea of allowing willing enlistees -- regardless of economic pressures -- the same latitude.

I am the son of a soldier, and I can very much see any number of cases where a serviceman or servicewoman might disagree with a war being waged, but where their desertion would simply be disastrous. I do not personally support the war in Iraq, but as someone who grew up in a family that wouldn't allow any political candidates (even close family friends) to post campaign signs on the lawn, I think that members of the armed forces have a higher standard to adhere to before they allow their (perfectly legitimate) views to interfere with duty.

Every deserter has to be replaced. Many replacements are less well trained, and they are certainly not as well integrated into their units. Desertion, almost inevitably, costs lives.

THE LIBERAL BIT

Of course, desertion costs fewer lives than launching an unjustified invasion of Iraq. Again, as an army brat, I am delighted that Hussein is out of power. The "containment" spoken of by doves was really a slow-burning war. That said, the hawks in this case have been disingenuous, and undermined international law.

America finds itself in a terrible situation. A prolonged US presence after an unjustified invasion is unaceptable. and yet, a total withdrawal could mean a bloodier Iraq, with greater cost of life to Iraqis. I don't envy your country.

For the soldiers who have deserted, I have this to offer. If you genuinely believe that you are engaging in an act of civil disobedience, then remember that civil disobedience means breaking unjust laws -- and facing punsihment. It means making a statement that you feel strongly enough to break the unjust law, take it on the chin, and use that as a platform for change. Anyone can break a law. Someone who breaks the law, serves the time, and campaigns for the law to change has real moral authority.

THE CANADIAN BIT (well, really the Torontonian bit)

Toronto is Canada's largest city, and it is surrounded by Canada's largest sprawl. The city proper falls within the area code 416. The suburbs are 905. There is not a single Conservative MP in the 416...

That's not relevant to the argument above... I just want to point out that I didn't vote for Harper or any of his cronies!

I agree with Edward McLelland's article on one point, and one point only: Bingham's contempt for successful runners is a case of sour grapes. On the other hand, I at least understand where he is coming from. Although Bingham's attitude is unattractive, it's a human reaction.

I can't fathom Edward McLelland. Surely, if he can easily crack 20 minutes for a 5K run he doesn't need to feel superior to me, huffing and puffing at 26 minutes? My presence in a race need not ruin it; if you're better than me, you'll be ahead of me. Nor does my existence undermine the competitive spirit of racing: a truly competitive runner simply has to choose someone other than me as a benchmark.

The presence of Mr. McLelland in a race, however, loudly voicing his contempt for those slower than him, can ruin a race. Who would try their first race if they knew Mr. McLelland were waiting at the finish line to tell them how inadequate they were? And if no one tries that first race, how will they ever reach Mr. McLelland's exacting standards?