In the weeks before the conflict began, as public opinion in the United States rallied behind the decision to go to war while support in Canada remained in the low 20s -- at least without a "second" UN resolution -- the usual suspects were on hand to explain that this was only a reflection of the profound and immutable differences in values between the two nations.

"Canadians are less ideological, less xenophobic, more secular than our southern friends," wrote Jim Travers in The Toronto Star. "As Canadians, we take pride in our role as peacemaking and peacekeeping," a pollster with the Strategic Counsel pointed out. "And when we look at the U.S., we don't see those kind of values necessarily reflected." A University of Quebec professor observed that "Canadians believe in the UN as a means to reach peaceful solutions." It was left to Jeffrey Simpson to sum up. Commenting on the diverging approaches of Europe and the United States, The Globe and Mail columnist leaned on the pop formulation of Robert Kagan: "Europe is from Venus, America is from Mars." And Canada? Apparently, Canada is from Europe. "Canada's instincts have never been so offended by U.S. foreign policy," he wrote. "Canada sees the world, as modest-sized states do, in terms of influence; the U.S. now sees the world almost exclusively in terms of power." And on and on and on.

But then the war began. As the polls are now showing, that fundamental divergence of values soon proved illusory. Fully 72% of Canadians in Tuesday's National Post poll said Canada should have supported the American war effort in some way, even if only 31% would say it with troops. More significantly, 56% now say they agree with the U.S. decision "to launch a land invasion to bring down Saddam Hussein's rule." And that's not just our poll. The Globe published a poll the previous day showing 48% in support of the war (versus 48% against) while 51% said Canada should have offered the United States our help.

Was this simply out of fear of American trade retaliation? Blind loyalty to a friend? In the main, no. Of those who gave a reason for their position, two thirds of those polled by the Post identified the threat posed by "Saddam and his terrorist allies" or the need to stop "Islamist extremism." (If "liberating Iraqis from a horrific tyranny" had been included, the proportion might well have been even higher.) In other words, they agreed with the reasons given by the U.S. administration.

They thought the cause was just.

This has it about right. If we truly thought the Americans were doing something profoundly wrong, depraved or reckless or both, we would be right to withhold our support, even at some cost to our interests. The right reason to support the war, and to support Canadian involvement in it, is because it's the right thing to do, because the Americans are doing the right thing.

The level of support among Canadians is all the more remarkable, since it flies in the face of the position taken by the Canadian government -- at least, so far as anyone could make out what that position was. Recent polls in Britain and Australia have shown similar majorities in support of the war, but not until they had put troops in the field and then only after weeks of the most eloquent and passionate exhortation on the part of their political leaders. By contrast, Canadians have come to the same conclusion without any leadership at all.

For, as yesterday's Commons debate made clear yet again, the government has no principled objection to the war. It is nonsense to say that we support the Americans and hope they win the war, while continuing to oppose the war itself. The principled position, if you truly believe the war is unjust, is not "I hope you win this unjust war." Neither is the alternative, as the government implies, "I hope Saddam wins." It's "stop fighting and come home." That is the position of the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois. It is probably the position of many Liberal MPs. And it is the logical implication of the government's initial stance against the war. But somewhere along the way public opinion shifted, and so by degrees did the government.

The more hawkish of its members, let's call them the Manley tendency, are now more or less in line with the public's centre of gravity: in support of the war, in support of Canada supporting the war -- morally - - but skittish of sending troops.

But this, too, is a contradiction, or at least hypocrisy. If indeed the cause is just, if it is a fight worth fighting, it is a curious sort of morality to say "you fight, we'll watch." We are not just the Americans' friends and trading partners. We are their military allies. Allies are perhaps entitled to stand aside from a conflict they consider unjust. But an ally that does not fight in a cause he knows to be just -- or at least, to which he has no coherent objection -- is no ally at all.

And this I fear will prove to be the most profound and lasting damage done by the government's mishandling of this issue. It isn't the insults to the President or the childish anti-Americanism of certain MPs: that sort of thing can always be smoothed over, especially with a change of prime ministers. Rather it is the "principled" decision to stay out of the war that will do us most harm.

It will be felt not so much in bilateral relations, via trade retaliation or what have you, but in our exclusion from the very multilateral councils in which we set such stock. It isn't that the Americans will go out of their way to punish us -- though they certainly aren't about to do us any favours. But having proved ourselves an unreliable ally, we will simply be passed over, left out of the emerging post-war order, which will inevitably be shaped to American designs.

Believe it or not, the Americans do want to act in concert with other nations. They don't want to be the lone gun. But they will depend on those they consider dependable: serious people with serious capacities.

We have much rebuilding to do on both fronts.