Wednesday, May 31, 2006

They're not POW's

It seems some folks have gotten their knickers in a knot over the CF position that captured Taliban fighters aren't POW's (ht:ST).

I'm no legal beagle, but Article 4 of the Geneva Convention seems pretty clear to me. This is the relevant passage:

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
...
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


The Taliban insurgents might meet the first condition, but they certainly don't meet the rest. They don't qualify for POW status.

Which is not to say that they shouldn't receive humane treatment from the forces capturing them, as LGen Michel Gauthier clearly affirms:

“They are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status but they are entitled to prisoner-of-war treatment,” he said, asserting that all detainees are humanely treated.


Our treatment of prisoners - especially the agreement that sees them handed over to the Afghan government - might be in contravention of treaties to which we are signatories, but the Geneva Convention is not one of them.

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Audio of interview with Sen. Colin Kenny

Strong support for new military equipment and a greater budget from the Chair of the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence (with Steve Madely on CFRA, Ottawa).

Monday, May 29, 2006

Military procurement: Déjà vu all over again--plus; and a Quebec kicker

National Defence Minister O'Connor will pitch Cabinet a massive package. It builds on the one his Liberal predecessor Bill Graham could't get through last November. Let's hope the new minister has more luck.

The federal government will be asked this week to approve a multi-billion-dollar "wish list" of equipment purchases for the Canadian Forces, including new transport aircraft, helicopters, long-overdue trucks for the army and multi-purpose troop transport and supply ships for the navy.

Defence sources say Gordon O'Connor, the Defence Minister, will make a pitch to a Cabinet committee tomorrow for six major projects worth more than $8-billion...

At the top of Mr. O'Connor's list will be four new C-17 Globemaster cargo jets, which the sources said would be bought directly from the U.S. manufacturer, Boeing, in a "sole source" acquisition.

The government will also be asked to approve the purchase of 17 tactical transports -- smaller, propeller-driven aircraft that can land troops or cargo in remote, rough airstrips. The likely winner of that contract will be the C-130J, the latest model of the venerable Hercules now in service with the Canadian air force.

Mr. O'Connor is also proposing to buy as many as 20 new heavy-lift helicopters for the army and a total of 18 new search-and-rescue planes.

The army is to get a replacement for its 24-year-old logistics trucks, while the navy will get approval for its three new joint-support ships [JSS], a combination troopship and resupply vessel due to be built over the next five years, the sources said...


The November proposal was just for tactical transports, heavy-lift helicopters, and fixed-wing SAR aircraft. Now the Army and Navy are also to get badly-needed equipment, and Minister O'Connor his C-17s (a good thing if everything can be got). The complete package seems to be most of what Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Hillier and the Canadian Forces have been asking for, in many cases for years (we all know the reason for the delays).

Airbus is already lobbying furiously for its A400M (which has not flown, has a new, untried engine, and likely would not be available until 2011) to serve as a strategic lifter. And this January Airbus was pitching the A400M as a Hercules replacement--and furiously lobbying the Quebec aerospace industry with the lure of off-set work. This could get very nasty given the Conservatives' fierce wooing of Quebec votes.

How governments calculate prices keeps shifting; the costs are obviously not consistent. The Graham package last November was billed as $12.1 billion. This considerably larger one is billed as $8 billion plus. Go figure.

But some things must wait.

...many other projects have been pushed back for a year or longer, including a plan floated under the Liberal government to purchase one or more large amphibious ships to carry troops, aircraft and equipment to trouble spots around the globe...

I smell a fix here. In return for the JSS (at least most of them) being built in Canada (hang the added expense and delays, politics is politics), when the government gets around to the amphibious assault ship it may consider an off-shore purchase. The Dutch have a nifty example but there are several other possible sources (France, UK, US, Italy--the last is the un-Canadian "hybrid" aircraft carrier that the Liberals so misleadingly and viciously attacked in the 2004 election).

News too that the Navy's fleet of twelve coastal defence vessels is severely inadequate. These were built in Canada and replacing them sooner than planned would provide years of work for Canadian shipyards.

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

Sunday, May 28, 2006

Afstan: Globe reporter declares quagmire

Geoffrey York does it without actually using the "Q" word. It's hopeless; time to cut and run.
...
Just like the U.S. troops in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s [See! It is a quagmire!], the coalition is trying to prop up a corrupt and unpopular government. Local governments are dominated by so many warlords and gangsters that many Afghans express nostalgia for the Taliban regime of 1996 to 2001, which at least was not perceived as corrupt and immoral.

"The Afghan population is throwing up its hands," a veteran aid worker in Kandahar said. "The disorder today is coming from the government itself. Its mandate was to clean out the warlords, but instead it's engaged in an endless dance with them. Everyone says that the Taliban regime, if nothing else, at least stopped the corruption and created law and order."..


Mussolini made the trains run on time. Hitler both built the Autobahns and eliminated unemployment. Stalin and Mao both increased literacy remarkably. Pol Pot excelled at population control.

This is the same Mr York who called the B-1 a "stealth bomber" in his recent article, Bombs kill Afghan villagers.

Update: Mr York is a graduate of the Carleton University School of Journalism. Enough said.

Upperdate: Another Globe reporter, Graeme Smith, called the B-1 a "stealth bomber" in this article, Karzai tries to calm fears over violence; perhaps he was reading Mr York's copy. Silly boy.

Uppestdate: In response to a comment, I have provided a brief analyis of why Mr York's Vietnam analogy is bogus in the third of the Comments.

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

Saturday, May 27, 2006

Five Sea Kings being converted to battlefield transports

Work to be completed by November. See this post at Army.ca.

More details, especially on the Standing Contingency Task Force that the helicopters will support (a Feb. 11 Halifax Chronicle Herald story; I can't find the URL).

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Darfur update: NATO not anxious to "do something" serious/Dallaire nonsense

For some odd reason this sort of report is not carried by Canadian media.

The African Union has accepted a NATO offer to extend its assistance in Sudan's violent Darfur region, the Western military alliance said on Wednesday, stressing its presence there would remain small.

NATO provided training and transport to African Union troops struggling to quell the violence there earlier this year and has signalled its willingness to provide more help..

"It means a limited number of NATO personnel there. From what has been agreed now between NATO and the AU it would not require a significant expansion of the numbers we have now," he [NATO spokesman James Appathurai] said, adding NATO has had at most 15 trainers on the ground.

The United States has been a vocal backer of a significant NATO role in Darfur but other allies are cautious, with the Sudanese government resisting international involvement...


Some real clarity on NATO and Darfur, from the horse's mouth:

No NATO troops have been or will be deployed to Darfur.

They aren't wanted anyway.

UN diplomats say the force [if it is ever sent] is expected to be largely drawn from African, South Asian and Islamic nations so as to reduce opposition to the move in Khartoum, while the United States and NATO would provide logistical support behind the scenes.

Meanwhile, why are the Liberals and NDP not applauding President Bush's taking the lead on Darfur? I think the $40 million in aid that PM Harper has pledged is about right for Canada.

Update: Khartoum keeps stringing things out.

Sudan said Thursday [May 25] it would permit the U.N. to lay the groundwork for possible deployment of a peacekeeping force in Darfur, but cautioned that the world body's role would be smaller than some Security Council members want...

Shortly before Brahimi [U.N. envoy] spoke, Sudan's Foreign Minister, Lam Akol, told reporters that Sudan wants a potential U.N. force to play a far smaller role in Darfur than some members of the Security Council have envisioned.

"Any forces, if that is agreed upon, would be a force for supervision and not a force for peace implementation," he said...


That's not what Sen. Dallaire et al. want. The Globe and Mail printed a snippet only of a similar AFP story; compare that headline with this earlier misleading one.

Upperdate: Sen. Dallaire does not know what he's talking about.
...
Romeo Dallaire, the former commander of the UN peacekeeping mission during the Rwandan genocide of 1994, has said Canada should send 1,500 troops into Darfur, or at least contribute 500 soldiers to a UN rapid-reaction brigade already operating in Sudan...


I have searched the web and can find no mention that UNMIS has any such thing as a "rapid-reaction brigade".

The UN force for Southern Sudan (UNMIS) has the following strength, May 2006:

troops 8,034; military observers 635; police 596; international civilian 671; local civilian 1,242; UN volunteer 99

This is from the UNMIS site:

Of the 10,000 peacekeepers, there will be 750 UN Military Observers (UNMOs), who will carry out monitoring and verification activities in their respective areas of responsibility.

Of the 10,000, approximately 4,000 peacekeepers will make up a protection force, which will be responsible for protecting UN staff, equipment, and installations as well as helping Sudanese authorities to protect any civilians who come are in imminent danger.

Another 4,000 peacekeepers will be involved in administrative and logistical support activities, along with demining and reconstruction work.


If the protection force's main duty in protecting UN assets it can hardly be a rapid-reaction force. Helping Sudanese in only a secondary function.

The reporter, Chris Morris of CP, should do a little more work before taking Sen. Dallaire's statements at face value.

By the way, this is what the Canadian Forces are now doing for Darfur.
...
As of May 2006 the CF has 17 CF members deployed in support of Operation AUGURAL and their location is as follows:
Twelve (12), including the Commanding Officer of Operation AUGURAL, are in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia;
Three (3) are in the Darfur region of Sudan;
Two (2) are in Khartoum, Sudan...

The Canadian Forces is loaning 100 GRIZZLY AVGPs and five HUSKY armoured recovery vehicles to assist the AU in moving its troops quickly and safely...


See: The Grizzly road to Darfur

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Minister of National Defence seeing the light?

Perhaps Gordon O'Connor will ditch some of the sillier Conservative campaign promises (full text not online).

Worried about the cost of the Conservative government's plan to build armed icebreakers for the Arctic, military officials are trying to convince Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor to instead use less expensive hovercraft or small patrol boats to monitor the entrances to northern waterways.

Resistance is building inside the Defence Department toward some of the Conservatives' military policies, particularly those involving the Arctic as well as the stationing of a new rapid reaction army battalion in Goose Bay, N.L...

The army also has concerns about the Conservatives' plan to station troops in Goose Bay. The army is focused entirely on its ongoing mission in Afghanistan and there are questions about where troops for new army units at Goose Bay and other locations would come from...


Note that the reporter, David Pulgiese, manages to put in a gratuitious jab at the Afstan mission. What would the mission in Goose Bay be?

Another jab: Afstan or the Arctic?

...University of Calgary defence analyst Rob Huebert said...Mr. O'Connor is going to "have a huge battle on his hands" in moving forward significant parts of the government's Arctic agenda, particularly with the Afghanistan mission scheduled to continue until 2009. At the same time, there is a pressing need to re-equip the military with billions of dollars worth of modern gear...

Now some good sense:

Mr. Huebert said if the government is serious about protecting Canadian sovereignty in the North it could do the job with a combined force of military personnel, RCMP and members of the coast guard. He said the coast guard is recognized as one of the most skilled in the world when it comes to icebreaking operations, but various federal governments have severely cut that its funding...

David Rudd, president of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, said the military leadership is also concerned about the government's plans to station a rapid response battalion in Goose Bay and other units in places like Comox, B.C.

He said there is "absolutely no military reason to station troops in Goose Bay."..


Nor in Bagotville and Trenton, also promised regular battalions during the election.

And another Great Moment in (Deceptive) Canadian Journalism. Mr Pugliese describes the Polaris Institute as a defence think-tank. Here is the Institute's motto:

...retooling citizen movements for democratic social change in an age of corporate-driven globalization.

Draw your own conclusion.

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

The Torch Banner and Button

Debris Trail from Celestial Junk sent me an email awhile ago asking for a banner and button for The Torch, so without further ado:

Banner 468x106

Button 200x45

I still have some work to do on the smaller button. I'm not that good at working with the smaller sizes. When I get a chance, I'll be redoing that one to come up with a button that's a little more readable and a better size.

Cross-posted to Blue Blogging Soapbox

Monday, May 22, 2006

At what point...

Given the 'plain' speaking nature of current Chief of Defence Staff Hillier, are we beginning to see the first signs of a more politically active Canadian Military?

Personally, I'm happy to see the more aggressive stance adopted since Hillier's choice as CDS, but it's certainly a fine line to tread.
'MBA types' hurt military, commander says

Jeff Lee
Vancouver Sun

Saturday, May 20, 2006

DUNDURN, SASK. -- Years of gutting the Canadian military to bring efficiencies to an organization that relies on layers of operations have deeply harmed the country's military capability, according to the commander of one of western Canada's best-known army battalions.

In an interview sharpened by Canada's decision Wednesday to extend its mission to Afghanistan two more years, Lt.-Col. Wayne Eyre, the commanding officer of the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, blamed "MBA types" for gutting experience-generating infantry battalions.

And he said Canada will continue to lose valuable, experienced soldiers because it doesn't offer them overseas missions, instead overtasking them with training and teaching jobs that keep them away from their families without giving them the adventure they crave.

Eyre also criticized the federal government's decision last month to cancel a smaller secondary task force that would have seen overseas operations in Afghanistan, Sudan or Haiti, and which directly impacted 200 of B.C.'s reserve soldiers who had volunteered for the mission.

Many of those soldiers had quit jobs, put schooling on hold or moved out of apartments in order to join the task force, Eyre said in an interview during a training exercise where a small group of reservists were preparing for a primary task force deployment in February to Afghanistan.

"For me personally it was extremely professionally disappointing. Extremely, because I would have commanded it. But also, what happened is they ripped the battalion apart," said Eyre, a 20-year veteran who was at the Battle of Medak Pocket in Croatia.

As a result, the 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia's is lending one rifle company, including 27 B.C. reservists, to a battle group from Ontario that will take over the newly extended mission.

The government cancelled the secondary task force because of concerns the military was overstretched and could only meet its Afghanistan commitment but not further demands elsewhere in the world.

But that problem started back in the 1990s when the military made ill-advised changes based on a theory it could become more efficient, he said.

"It's because we've got too many MBAs," he said. "Business and military are fundamentally different. Businesses strive for efficiencies. You eliminate redundancies. When you start taking out redundancies, redundancies that were put in place because of the realities of combat, and you're then faced with challenging overseas missions, you've shaved the ice so thin there is nothing left."

Despite his criticism, Eyre said in a second interview Friday he fully supports the decision to be in Afghanistan.

Sunday, May 21, 2006

Canadian Angels takes flight


From Canadian Angels Blog:

What a great first couple of days

In less than two days, my little idea has grown incredibly. I really want to thank the 30+ volunteers who have already signed up, with more emails coming in every hour. I have had calls offering me technical and financial help. I have been contacted by Siri Agrell of the National Post to do a follow-up on her piece of May 6th. And on Monday night I will be speaking to Rob Breakenridge on CHQR (Calgary) at 8:05pm Mountain Time.

The first post on the blog was entitled "Countering Apathy", but now I am beginning to rethink that. Canadians are not apathetic toward their military at all. They really care, as they've shown over the past couple of days.

Our main shortcoming remains the inability to get the word out to the troops en masse, but the applications are trickling in nonetheless.

People are offering advice, too. One person pointed out (to my shame) that I had referred to all our Forces as "soldiers", instead of the soldiers, sailors and airmen that are over there. It's a silly mistake that I promise will be corrected.

Keep the applications coming. As soon as we have more soldiers, everyone will have one to sponsor. And thanks again for all you've done so far. posted by Wendy Sullivan at 9:23pmIf you haven't heard about Canadian Angels yet, stop in and check it out. A simple way for any Canadian to show their support for our Armed Forces members.

Cross-posted to Blue Blogging Soapbox

Afstan: Facts little known in Canada

The Dutch are already there in force and fighting. The French are doing pointy-end things as part of US Operation Enduring Freedom.

Since the Dutch are to be part of the Canadian-commanded Multi-National Brigade in Regional Command (South) under NATO ISAF, I wonder why the Canadian media did not cover this story:

Dutch confident about Afghanistan mission

Helicopters, engineers and armoured infantry are helping make the commander of Dutch troops in southern Afghanistan confident of success in their mission in Uruzgan, where now only an handful of special forces are taking on the Taliban...

Despite parliamentary delays in approving the mission amid a heated national debate about it, Morsink [Dutch force commander] said he believed 80 percent of parliamentarians supported the deployment, “and that is very important for the soldiers”. The political support could prove decisive: Western military officials in Afghanistan think the Taliban will try to play on the doubts of the Dutch public in a bid to force their withdrawal.

The about 800 soldiers who are already in Uruzgan, waiting for the arrival by the end of July of some 550 more, have had been engaged by militants twice in the past weeks. The first time was “quite heavy”, involving rockets, grenades and machine-gun fire, Morsink said, adding the soldiers had coped “extremely well”.

...The commander will have at his disposal six Apache attack helicopters and, in a few months, eight F-16 fighters. “They are my Apaches so nobody can tell me in a case of emergency, ‘I cannot help you.’ I have my own means to help myself,” he stressed. The soldiers also will undergo special training in Kandahar before leaving for Uruzgan. AFP


Note that the Dutch have their own close air support, unlike Canadian troops.

As for the French, this was reported but it was deep in the story so I doubt many Canadians noticed.
...
Two French special forces troops were killed Saturday while fighting the Taliban in Kandahar province, the French Defence Ministry said. No other details were immediately available.

France has had 200 special forces officers in southeast Afghanistan since 2003 as part of the U.S.-led coalition.
..

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

Saturday, May 20, 2006

"Hillier Youth"

The depths to which David Pugliese of the Ottawa Citizen is willing to sink:
...
Some officers inside the Defence department have a disquieting name for the general's loyal and, some say, fanatical followers--Hillier Youth.
..

For shame. The media long knives are truly out. After all the Chief of Defence Staff is "American-style" and and clearly a megalomaniac.

To his critics, he is a Canadian version of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the high-profile American commander who in the 1940s and '50s made a career out of ignoring direction from political masters and charging ahead with his own agenda.

He represents the growing Americanization of the Canadian military, a world in which peacekeeping — much loved by the Canadian public — is dead and combat operations, such as those occurring now in Afghanistan, become the norm of the future.
..

This vast article is the most determined case of character assasination disguised as reporting that I have seen for some time.

Disquieting indeed. And truly disgusting. Read it. The 'Teflon General' (Part Two) is here.

Update: Thomas Walkom of the Crvena Zvezda piles on.
...
... [Modern U.S. strategy] requires a smaller set of favoured allies who are willing to send troops anywhere to do anything that the U.S. requires.

This, in turn, requires these allies to have access to sufficient airlift capacity as well as flexible combat units capable of operating seamlessly with American troops.

It's a strategy favoured by the Canadian military (which calls it interoperability) and particularly by Gen. Rick Hiller, the chief of the defence staff.

But it is not necessarily favoured by the Canadian public which, insofar as it pays attention, resists military integration with the U.S. and maintains a nostalgic affection for old-style internationalism...


Cross-posted to Daimnation!

Pro Patria

Slain soldier's husband to receive Memorial Cross

Updated Fri. May. 19 2006 11:46 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Jason Beam, the husband of Capt. Nichola Goddard who was killed in Afghanistan earlier this week, will be awarded the Memorial Cross, defence officials confirmed Friday.

A statement issued by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor's office said an order-in-council has been issued, allowing granting of the medal to Beam.

More commonly known as the Silver Cross, the medal is traditionally awarded to mothers and wives of fallen Canadian soldiers.

Ottawa is now reviewing whether it should also be issued to husbands and fathers in other cases.

"We take great pride and honour in recognizing the ultimate sacrifice of the brave men and women of our armed forces," reads the statement.

The medal is a silver cross suspended by a purple ribbon embossed with a crown, maple leaf and laurel wreath inscribed with the soldier's name, number and rank.

The federal rules -- which haven't been changed since 1966 -- are in the process of being updated, but the official confirmed Beam will receive the award before the process is completed.

The medal was put into place in 1919, and is awarded in recognition of the sacrifice made by soldiers' families.

Liberal veterans' critic Robert Thibault said he was "encouraged" by news that the medal would be awarded to a Beam.

"I think we've got to recognize that there are more and more women choosing careers in the military and the risk of losses such as Nichola Goddard's increases, and there are also split families where the father and the mother of military personnel might not be together," Thibault said Friday on CTV's Mike Duffy Live.

"And that has to be recognized and honoured."

Each year the Royal Canadian Legion chooses one mother to be the National Silver Cross mother. The recipient takes part in Remembrance Day ceremonies in Ottawa by laying a wreath at the National War Memorial on behalf of mothers who have lost children in military service.

Claire Leger, mother of Sgt. Marc Leger who was killed in a friendly fire incident in Afghanistan in 2002, was chosen for the honour last year.

In 2004, NDP MP Peter Stoffer introduced a bill in the House of Commons asking that the medal be awarded "as a memento of personal loss and sacrifice to each surviving parent, spouse or common-law partner of any member who has died as a result of serving their country."

With a report from The Canadian Press

Friday, May 19, 2006

Time to eat my words

Back in April of last year, I commented upon the JTF2 explosives expert who went AWOL and disappeared into the far east a couple of years ago: Montgomery Paisley.

It will be interesting to find out what motivated him to abandon his life here. Here's my guess: nothing. I'll bet he did this because he could. He had the training and the ability to disappear, so when something in his life threw him the sort of curveball the rest of us simply deal with and move on, he used it as an excuse to live out a Jason Bourne fantasy.

Let me reiterate that this is just a guess. I don't know this fellow from Adam - he might well have had a serious life-crisis event that none of us knew about, or a clinical psychological problem that went undiagnosed. If that's the case, you'll see me eat these words.


As it turns out, I was wrong. Time to eat those words, as I promised I would.

Captain (Navy) Holly MacDougall, the Canadian Forces Director of Military Prosecutions (DMP), has withdrawn the charge of desertion, an offence under section 88 of the National Defence Act, against former Sergeant Montgomery Paisley. Sgt. Paisley was the member of Joint Task Force 2 (JTF 2) who left his unit in July of 2003 and was absent until he turned himself in at the Canadian embassy in Bangkok, Thailand, in April of 2005.

The DMP decision to withdraw the charge was based on a consideration of the public interest, which balanced the nature of the offence and the public interest in prosecuting the charge against recently-provided evidence that the accused suffered at the time of the offence (and continues to suffer) from a major depressive disorder. Had the matter proceeded to court martial, the central issue would have been the mental health of the accused and his level of criminal responsibility.


Depression is a serious issue, and although I'm biased, I think it's a more serious issue for military personnel than for most other segments of society. Let's hope Mr. Paisley gets the help he needs.

Cross-posted to Babbling Brooks

Why we are in Afstan

And why many Canadians, with a blinkered view of reality, will not want us to stay there. Richard Gwyn makes some excellent points in the Toronto Star.
...
For us to decide either to leave, literally the day after tomorrow, or to slide out at the first moment available to us, namely next February when our current one-year commitment ends, would have been unconscionable,

We'd be abandoning our allies, both those in Afghanistan itself and those in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, namely Britain, Holland, and the United States.

We'd also be abandoning all the aid workers in Afghanistan, who cannot do their jobs without security.

There's no doubt whatever, though, that political pressure is going to build on the government to get our 2,300 troops out as soon as decently possible...

There is a strong pacifist sentiment in this country. It's strongest in Quebec for historical reasons.

But it's widespread; it explains why, until quite recently, Canadians had come to regard our military as a kind of police force that went around the world handing out sacks of flour and in the meantime helped out at home during ice storms.

Those days are long gone. They're never going to come back...

Almost all wars now are civil wars (as in Afghanistan) rather than the traditional inter-state wars.

In Afghanistan, the mission isn't to prevent a war between nation-states but to build a nation-state, from virtually nothing.

This has to be a long-term project. It can't be done, by many allies as well as ourselves, in under five years.

The attempt to do this may fail, of course. It's excruciatingly difficult.

To win, the enemy, the Taliban, does not need to win militarily. It only needs to kill enough people, both Afghans and the foreign troops, until it has won politically.

Political victory for the Taliban will happen when and if public demand in Canada forces the government to opt out of the mission.

It would happen also if and when Afghanistan becomes ungovernable by its own government. This, if it happens, won't be a victory for the forces of pacifism or those who believe our soldiers really only need to hand out sacks of flour.

It will be a victory for the forces of darkness, of hatred, of those who refuse to accept that all people everywhere have the right to a chance at a decent life...


Cross-posted to Daimnation!

Support the troops

I've received two e-mails in the past day from folks looking to make a difference in the lives of our deployed soldiers, sailors, and airmen.

One is from Wendy Sullivan at Canadian Angels, helping serving members:

I don't think it's too much to ask that we send over a letter, or a birthday card, or a packet of snacks to the ones who keep us safe. Show a soldier how much you appreciate them, and how proud you are of the work they do - become an Angel!


One is from Gerry Nichols at the NCC, helping those left behind when a loved one makes the ultimate sacrifice:

Canadian soldiers are putting their lives on the line everyday in Afghanistan to help protect our freedoms.

They deserve our respect; they deserve our appreciation and they deserve our help.

That’s why the National Citizens Coalition has set up a special “Support Our Troops Trust Fund” to provide support and assistance for the families of Canada’s fallen soldiers.


Gerry has informed me that while some administrative costs will come out of the fund, and the cost of the "Support Our Troops" magnets, 90% of the money will go directly to the families of soldiers killed in action.

For those who feel more comfortable dealing directly with military agencies, the Canadian Forces Personnel Support Agency tells you how to mail care packages or letters directly to CF members, but for some reason they're not able to accept donations right now (I am consciously biting back a snark, here). Of course, you can always drop the troops a line, which doesn't cost you anything but your time.

I have to tell you, this gives me warm fuzzies - seeing individual Canadians picking this cause up. It's not like the military and the government don't take care of our serving members and their families, because for the most part they do. There are exceptions, but they try their best in most cases.

The thing is, CF members and their loved ones know that DND has to do that. It's nice when someone who doesn't have to do anything does, out of the goodness of their heart.

If you support our troops, here's a full spread of options to show that support.

Cross-posted to Babbling Brooks

Thursday, May 18, 2006

Canada, Sudan and Jihadis

Been there, done that. Logistics.

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

Afstan: Don't trust the Polaris Institute

This left-wing thoughtless tank grossly over-estimates the cost of the various Canadian missions in Afstan.

Also a piece at Army.ca and my reaction to an interview on CBC.

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Failure of command. Prosecute the corporal.

Some attention has been given to this article by Michael Friscolanti in Macleans a couple of days ago. It is the story of Canadian snipers in Afghanistan and how they went from relative heros to goats based on allegations and innuendo that at least one of them had desecrated the corpse of one of their targets.

The fact that Canadian army snipers in Afghanistan had accomplished outstanding feats of marksmanship and stamina during the 2002 campaign, including a world-record long shot, soon fell to a CF National Investigative Service investigation which would delay recognition and fail to provide evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Canadian troops.

Friscolanti's article is well worth reading, and while it is the reason for this post, it is not necessarily the primary focus.

I have had my ass saved by a sniper. My small unit was unaware of an approaching enemy force when, from 400 yards to our rear, a single shot took out their leader. It gave us time to reposition and eventually kill or capture that force. I know all of that sounds very un-Canadian. It isn't, but if it eases the sensibility of some, it was a British unit.

After the action we conducted the necessary patrols and encountered the sniper team which had started the ambush. As good as my team was, the snipers were better at concealment. They held off challenging a two man approach until after they were past. We secured the area and I had a conversation with them. When I thanked them for the initial shot, they both just shrugged and said little more. They were curious as to whether we had taken any casualties. Aware that we had routed the enemy force, they had no interest in how many we had killed.

And whether we like it or not, that is what snipers are all about. Snipers do not fire warning shots. The sole function of a sniper is to identify and kill a target, almost always on direction from a higher authority. They are a specific weapon assigned to a battlefield commander and while free-lancing is not unheard of, it rarely occurs. I have never met a sniper who boasted outside their own team of shots taken or numbers they have dispatched. It is a personal score and while they may take personal pride in their work, there is a huge price to pay.

Most people do not understand what killing other human beings, even in combat, does to a person. Just accept that it changes everyone who does it. The effect on a sniper, where the killing is planned, deliberate, remorseless and often isolated, has even a greater negative effect on the human psyche. Almost all who have had to do their job on the battlefield suffer from some form of post traumatic stress disorder.

Given all that, snipers, because of the nature of the job and the intense inner secrecy of their feelings do not leave a calling card on their victims. The job requires that they take their shot and then melt into the environment. The best effect of a sniper on the enemy is that he is not seen prior to, during or after the shot. The message to all others is the shot itself.

It was for that reason that the CFNIS investigation and the subsequent board of inquiry conducted by the army left me questioning the sanity of those with command authority.

There is little doubt that Corporal Aaron Perry was a problem in his battalion. He was an insubordinate sonofabitch. His fellow team members, although much less inclined to buck authority, were also subjects of the investigation. In the end however, no evidence was found to support any charge of any kind. And believe me, if there had been any, Perry in particular would have faced a court-martial.

The CFNIS is made up of military policemen. Before I go too much further, I will explain that they have a job to do and it isn't easy. However, they are often over-zealous and they rarely understand the assignment of the people they are investigating. All too often in the Canadian Forces, just being the subject of a NIS or military police investigation is enough to ruin one's career or worse, permanently destroy an individual.

In consultation with the Judge Advocate General's office, investigations are carried out in the same format as those carried out by civilian police authorities. And the military careers of both the military policeman and JAG prosecutor depend on "getting" people. Despite high minded mottos, lofty ethics statements and published visions, both NIS and JAG members engage their roles with career objectives very much on their minds.In the case of the snipers reported in the Macleans article, the pressure applied by NIS was relentless. It was also fruitless. Even an unrelated charge against Perry was dropped, simply because it should never have been laid in the first place. (He was accused of mouthing-off to a chaplain. In that a chaplain, when talking to an individual holds the same rank as that individual at that moment, it is impossible to be insubordinate.) NIS produced nothing, JAG was left with a blank page and the matter should have been dropped.

Then, having been robbed of the opportunity for blood by the military justice system, the command authorities went the next best route - a board of inquiry into Perry's character. The soldiers of 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry were already grumbling that the NIS investigation of the snipers was a sham. When the board of inquiry was convened they knew it was a witch-hunt.

While I know few details of the snipers' case, I have had close involvement with both NIS and JAG. My suspicion comes from the past behaviour of these two groups and their willingness to pursue subjects long after it has become clear that there is no case. They are also not beyond "inventing" evidence and suborning testimony. That they found nothing which could be used against the snipers, particularly Perry, strongly suggests nothing existed.

What is missing from the Macleans article, however, is a look at how the leadership failed. While it is paramount that a soldier take responsibility for his/her own actions, it does not diminish the fact that the senior leadership of the snipers' unit was sorely lacking.

If Cpl Perry was a disciplinary problem throughout his career it was contingent upon his leaders to restrict his advancement until that problem was dealt with. If his character was a problem before he applied for training as a sniper then his request should have been turned down. And if the army is still so politically charged as to find itself unable to demonstrate proper loyalty to its troops then it's time the senior commanders were taken to task for their unacceptable leadership.

To convene a board of inquiry into people's character after they have been exonerated by the military justice system and after having performed one of the most vile jobs on earth is a demonstration of poor judgment at the command level. Perry and his compatriots, whatever their faults, were products of the CF's making. It is the responsibility of their leaders to deal with them properly - not just write them off and engage in the 30 year-old CF habit of making war on its own troops when someone expected to be a stone-killer doesn't act like boy scout.

It's time the careerist officer corps of the Canadian Forces was cleaned out. Perhaps then, more of them would start paying proper attention to their most important resource - their troops.

Cross posted from The Galloping Beaver

Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense

I place more importance upon her service and her sacrifice than her gender, but nonetheless must note that Canada has suffered its first combat loss of a uniformed female soldier since WWII: Capt Nichola Kathleen Sarah Goddard, of the 1st Regiment Royal Canadian Horse Artillery. Rest in peace.

I hope at the very least that Capt Goddard's death inspires in tonight's debate on the ongoing Canadian mission in Afghanistan the gravitas that was shamefully absent from the last one. I understand politicians are inherently political, but by God, they need to sober up, ask intelligent questions, and provide intelligent answers. My party, your party, I don't care - soldiers are dying, and cheap theatrics should be stowed while the country's so-called leaders in Parliament address the future of their mission.

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Auditor General's Report on Pilot Training

Here's the section: National Defence—NATO Flying Training in Canada.

A segment that tells a tale.

3.23 The training program has remained underused because National Defence has not enrolled enough pilots into the NFTC program. In addition, however, we found that the ability of the operational training units to absorb pilots after their NFTC training is an ongoing problem—the units do not have enough room to take in all the pilots that the NFTC program would graduate if it was used at full capacity [my emphasis]. Therefore, the Department has been limiting the number of pilots it enrolled in the program in 2003 and 2004. This trend has continued into 2005.

3.24 National Defence also decided in 2004 to lower the enrolment to the NFTC basic training level as it anticipated an interruption in the next stage of training for helicopter and multi-engine aircraft pilots. The existing contract for the helicopter and multi-engine flying training expired in August 2005, and a new CFTS contract was signed in October 2005. This new contract has a two-year transition period before training can be provided at full capacity. As a result, National Defence has made a decision to under-enrol pilots in the basic NFTC program until the next stage of training is at its capacity.

3.25 The interruption in helicopter and multi-engine aircraft flying training may create more of a backlog of Canadian Forces pilots who are waiting for training and increase their wait times. We found that, since 2002, National Defence had improved wait times and backlogs. Wait times had fallen from between 18 and 22 months to about 11 months, and the backlog of pilots waiting to start flying training had dropped from about 161 pilots to about 80. However, new delays may cause backlogs and wait times to increase again.


In other words: too many pilots, not enough planes after training completed.

Speaking of passing the torch...

...how do we go about supporting this competition and encouraging the students who contest it? Well done.

Afstan: Extending Canadian commitment to 2009

Before MPs vote Wednesday evening, May 17 (note the spin in the Ottawa Citizen's headline), they should read this other article in the Citizen by Arthur Kent, maker of the documentary, Afghanistan: Peacemaking In Progress (full text not online).

On the road to peace: Contrary to popular belief in Canada, the situation in Afghanistan is far from hopeless; an active press is one healthy sign.

Some Canadians -- and too many Canadian politicians -- are overlooking at least one crucial factor in determining our country's approach to Afghanistan: the remarkable progress the Afghan people are already making on the rocky road to peace.

However awkward, these first steps toward reconstruction prove that we're onto a winner with our program of development aid backed by military muscle -- provided we have the courage to see it through...

The key point for Canadians to consider is this: Afghan journalists are now entirely free to report all sides of incidents of this kind. Reporters, and citizens generally, are using their new freedoms to rock the warlords' world. Each time a young Afghan reaches for his or her cellphone, or clicks a keyboard, or commits a thought to hard drive, the Taliban and al-Qaeda lose ground.

More than bullets and bombs or a bad-mouthing by Donald Rumsfeld, this is what causes Osama bin Laden and his followers to lose sleep: the realization that young people are reaching out and touching a future free of violence...

Take Raz Mohammed, for example. I met him in February, 1989, the day after he lost his legs to a Soviet anti-personnel mine. I've kept track of Raz through the years, and now it's not a bitter and broken soul who rolls out to meet me in his wheelchair. It's a war-hardened survivor, a 32-year-old husband, and a beaming father of three strong boys...

Raz says the Western and Afghan government forces battling the Taliban and al-Qaeda should pick up the pace. But he's encouraged to see more NATO countries, including Canada, joining the fight...


Our MPs should also be aware of the commitments of our partners in the Multi-National Brigade in Regional Command (South), which Canada is currently commanding. UK troops are committed for three years, until 2009 (note the detail on the British deployment); Dutch troops are committed for two years, until 2008.

Update: Gerald Caplan, in a letter in the Globe and Mail (Doomed mission, full text not online), claims that the conflict and local disruption necessarily involved in the Canadian Forces' operation in Afghanistan will doom this pointless mission.

I wonder why Dr Caplan thinks it is pointless to support a democratically-elected government in its efforts to resist the return of all-out civil war in Afghanistan--and the possible return to power of a terribly repressive Islamic fundamentalist regime. A regime, one should not forget, that allowed Osama bin Laden to train a great number of terrorists on its territory and also allowed bin Laden to plot the terrorist attack on New York City that killed at least 25 Canadians.

Dr Caplan is a strong advocate of taking action to prevent genocides. I wonder how Dr. Kaplan thinks genocides can be prevented without conflict, and rubbing some locals the wrong way. Or are efforts to prevent genocide also doomed?

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

Monday, May 15, 2006

Afstan: Canadian snipers snubbed

At least the US gave them the Bronze Star. Follow the discussion at Army.ca.

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

The big, important question - *yawn*

I'm not going to nitpick.

OK, I'm going to nitpick a bit: why is CBC's "Reality Check" an opinion piece strewn with factual errors and assertions of opinion dressed up prettily like facts?

That's it, I promise.

I'm actually here to applaud the article, since it asks the one big question upon which our entire defence policy revolves: what the hell do we want our military to do?

Eventually the questions lead back to the fundamentals? Why does Canada have a military? Who are Canada's enemies: terrorists such as Osama bin Laden? Expansionist Chinese who want Canada's energy? Rogue states like North Korea? Or rogue Americans who want Canada's water?
...
The fault lies not with the military that Canada does know where its military fits in a changing world. That task is not for Hillier or any other general.

Nor does the fault lie only with the Harper government, but with the succession of governments that went before it. The reality is that until this government or the next figures out Canada's place in the world, nobody will know where to spend that $5.3 billion.


This question is the elephant in the military bunker, and I suspect that the Darfur vs. Afghanistan debate will provide a focal point for two visions that need not necessarily compete, but surely will.

That is, the debate might spark some introspection if Canadians bother to pay attention to the issue for longer than it takes them to finish their morning coffee. I'm not holding my breath.

Cross-posted to Babbling Brooks

Update: And what is up with the crown-behind-the-head photo-fetish at CP? OK, I'm really done nitpicking now.

Do the right thing

This kind of crap needs to end. Former Military Ombudsman Andre Marin recommended compensation after investigating the matter. A year later we learn that two officers have been compenstated for their treatment, but the family continues to receive the bureaucratic shuffle.

I'm on the road with a slow connection right now, but I'll blog on this again later this evening with all the appropriate links.

Link to the original report is below, along with the recommendation for compensation.

It still stands and should be acted upon.
Soldier’s widow still fighting military for compensation(subscription only)

CANWEST NEWS SERVICE
OTTAWA
The Canadian Forces has determined the family of a soldier who was killed during a 1992 training exercise doesn’t deserve financial compensation for their suffering, despite a report last year that blasted the military for putting the man’s wife and
daughters through an emotional roller-coaster of “inattention and insensitivity.”

Christina Wheeler has fought with the military bureaucracy over 14 years, first to find out what happened the day her husband Rick was killed and then to clear his name after officers blamed him for causing his own death.

Master Cpl. Wheeler, 29, died in April 1992 when he was run over by an armoured personnel carrier during a training exercise in Alberta.

The Victoria woman thought the battle was largely won last year when an investigation by then Canadian Forces ombudsman Andre Marin blasted the military establishment for its treatment of the Wheeler family.

Marin recommended financial compensation for Wheeler and her two daughters for the pain and suffering the military put them through. He noted the military’s actions in the wake of the soldier’s death created “an aura of coverup, bias, partiality or impropriety.”

Mixed signals

The Forces has already compensated two officers, one of them retired, the other now a general, for how they were unfairly treated in the aftermath of Wheeler’s death. It also suggested last year that Christina Wheeler submit a claim for compensation, adding such a request “would receive the sympathetic consideration that any meritorious claim against the Crown would receive.”

But in an April 26 letter, the office of the Canadian Forces’ legal adviser told the Wheeler family they don’t deserve compensation. The letter noted errors and delays associated with investigations into Wheeler’s death were administrative in nature and did not make the military liable for any issues that arose from them.

A review of the evidence did not permit the Canadian Forces to determine whether “Mrs. Wheeler is suffering from the result of the death of her husband or her frustration with the process.”

Christina Wheeler said the letter is typical of the attitude the Canadian Forces has always had towards her and her daughters, who were three- and six-years-old when their father died.

“The military can do this because they can,” she explained. “They seem to keep thinking they can stall me or outwait me. I’m not sure why after 14 years they think I’m going to go away.”


From Military Ombudsman Andre Morin's report, When a Soldier Falls:

1506 I therefore recommend that:

1507 30. The Chief of the Defence Staff take action to acknowledge the unfair treatment that the immediate family of MCpl Wheeler received during the investigation of MCpl Wheeler’s death, and ensure that appropriate measures are taken to ensure redress so that adequate closure can be obtained by the family.

1508 The department’s response to this recommendation reads:

1509 Agree in principle. A family visit to the site of the accident and the erection of the memorial cairn, was greatly appreciated by Mrs Wheeler. LFWA continues to
maintain contact through a Liaison Officer.

1510 The DND/CF recognizes the trials that Mrs. Wheeler has endured during the entire process. The departmental OPI [office of primary interest] for compensation claims, DND/CFLA CCL [Department of National Defence / Canadian Forces Legal Advisor Claims and Civil Litigation], has no authority, however, to settle this matter without first receiving a claim from Mrs. Wheeler. Were such a claim to be
received by CCL from Mrs. Wheeler, it would receive the sympathetic
consideration that any meritorious claim against the Crown would
receive
.

1511 Although the DND/CF response appears to indicate that legal advisors for the military would be amenable to making some offer of compensation to Mrs. Wheeler in response to a legal claim submitted by her, this does not in my view go far enough to recognize the harm which she and her daughters have suffered. I note that in accordance with the DND/CF response above Mrs. Wheeler has documented the extent of the impact of these events on her and her children and also provided statements from her daughters as to how they have been affected. This has been done at great emotional expense on all of their parts. It is manifestly unfair however, to place the onus on Mrs. Wheeler to jump through additional bureaucratic hurdles to make a case for compensation, especially given the findings contained in my Office’s report. The ordeal which she has suffered is well documented and the impact on her and her immediate family should speak for itself. It is also deserving of anacknowledgement at the highest level.
I am calling upon the Chief of the Defence Staff to formally acknowledge the impact on Mrs. Wheeler and to instructmilitary legal advisors to ensure not just that her claim receives “sympathetic consideration” but that she receive adequate and just compensation on a expeditious basis, sothat she and her family can put closure to this lengthy saga.

Cross posted from Blue Blogging Soapbox

Saturday, May 13, 2006

Afstan: Poll shows strong support for Canadian mission

Why is this story in the Gulf Times and not front page on the Globe, Star etc.? And not the lead on CBC and CTV?

Support among Canadians for the country’s military mission in Afghanistan has slipped but is still relatively solid despite a rash of recent military casualties, according to a new poll yesterday. The Ekos survey shows 62% of Canadians support the mission in Afghanistan, down from 70% in early February. The number opposed grew to 37% from 28%.
Canada has 2,300 troops based in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar. Four soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb on April 22, bringing to 16 the number of Canadians who have died in Afghanistan since the September 11 attacks.–Reuters


I think the answer is obvious. For our media good news is bad news. I hope PM Harper reads the Gulf Times (or checks out Nealenews.com: Majority support Afghan mission: Poll.

Update: I e-mailed Colin MacKenzie, the Globe's Managing Editor, News, about this and received the following reply:

Ekos was in the field april 20 to 27. We were in the field may 11 and 12.The 'despite casualties' line in the yahoo hed is misleading at best.

To which I have just replied:

Thank you very much for taking the trouble to reply.

The Globe's story was published Saturday, May 6, and says the poll was conducted "on Wednesday and Thursday", i.e. May 3 and 4--not May 11 and 12 as you write.

The Reuters story notes that "Four soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb on April 22" and was conducted, as you point out, between April 20 and 27. Thus a good number of those polled would have been aware of the fatalities. The five and six days until people were polled for you might well have produced a decline in support. However your poll puts those opposed at 54% while Ekos--just few days earlier--puts them at 37%. That seems a very large gap--even allowing for applying the error range to the maximum towards opposition which would give a 51-40 gap.

It still seems to me that your news reporting has a strong tendency (and I know Christie Blatchford is an exception) to paint things in a negative light. At the very least the Reuters story might have produced one of your own trying to explain the exceptionally sharp apparent change in public opion in such a short period of time.


Mr MacKenzie has a point, but the flag and coffin return flaps were taking place during the latter part of the Ekos poll; I think my larger point still has merit. Reader comments welcome.

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

One last trip

This from a local columnist who I usually disagree with. On this subject though, I wholeheartedly agree. The Canadian government paid for the first disastrous trip to Dieppe by these veterans. At the very least, the government can do the same for their last.

Of the 4,963 Canadians who embarked for the operation only 2,210 returned to England, and many of these were wounded. There were 3,367 casualties, including 1,946 prisoners of war; 907 Canadians lost their lives.

The Essex virtually ceased to exist after Dieppe. Of 540 all ranks who embarked, only 48 returned, and many of these men were wounded.

One CF Airbus should do the trick.
'These guys' get their due(subscription only)

Gord Henderson, Windsor Star
Published: Saturday, May 13, 2006

Signing the guest book at the Dieppe Canadian War Cemetery where dozens of young men from Windsor and Essex County are spending eternity, Mike Beale felt compelled to include a question.

"How do we find a way to remember these guys?" he wrote while seated in the stone nave of that achingly beautiful hillside cemetery where the dead, buried in long double rows by their German foes, are serenaded by songbirds and bumblebees.

"These guys" were the 907 Canadians killed during the disastrous Aug. 19, 1942, raid on the French seaport of Dieppe, including 121 members of the Windsor-based Essex Scottish Regiment. And the question posed by Beale, a city businessman on a European pilgrimage, was rhetorical. Or so he thought.

Fast-forward to last spring, and Beale, an honorary member of the Essex and Kent Scottish, was in the non-commissioned officers' mess at Fort Knox in Kentucky, the main U.S. army armour training centre, after a day spent observing Windsor reservists on training exercises.

Seated across from his buddy, Lt. Col. Phil Berthiaume, Essex and Kent's commanding officer, Beale was enjoying his first sip of a single malt scotch when Berthiaume dangled the hook. He explained that the regiment's memorial plaque in Dieppe was in rough shape and needed replacing.

"I hadn't even punched a hole in the bottle," said Beale. But that didn't keep him from leaping at the bait. "We can do that. Sure. No problem," he glibly assured Berthiaume. The next morning the scale of the challenge dawned. "Mike. You've got your mouth in gear. Now you've got to deliver," he told himself.

FINISH LINE IN SIGHT

A big challenge, yes. But also a gift. He recalled the words he'd written in the cemetery. "How do we find a way to remember these guys?" Now he had a way. An ideal way. And it had just fallen into his lap.

A year later, Beale and his project committee are nearing the finish line. They've raised about $100,000 in cash and hundreds of thousands more in donated goods and services.

What began with 20 bucks worth of lumber, used to build a mock-up of the proposed memorial, has evolved into a civic cause that has drawn support from every age group and from organizations as diverse as the CAW and Rotary.

Beale, who described his role as "whining and arm-twisting and generally making a nuisance of myself," was blown away by Windsor's response. Two DaimlerChrysler workers, Jim Lee and Ken Rose, organized a plant gate collection and in a single day raised $5,400, on top of the CAW's $25,000 contribution.

"It's just been a wonderful, wonderful ride," said Beale. What really affected him was how students at several area schools bought in. At Prince Edward elementary school, for instance, the kids raised $588.17. "It might as well have been a million as far as I'm concerned," he marvelled.

Even the thumbs-downs helped. When Air Canada and Air France declined to do anything special (Beale said he could find better deals on the internet) to help 12 vets and their caregivers get to France for the August ceremony, local contributions soared. "It helped us in a backhanded kind of way."

A story in last Saturday's Star sparked new interest and four more Essex Scottish vets, including one living in California, now want to make this last trip. "So be it. These guys have got to go. That's all there is to it," said Beale.

A positive thinker by nature, he's unwilling to pose the obvious question. Where the heck is the federal government in this? If the nation was prepared to give its soldiers a free ride to France in 1942, why isn't it doing the same thing now? Why is it leaving it to school kids to raise nickels and dimes to do the right thing?

Beale said National Defence has been very helpful in getting people to Dieppe on scouting and prep missions and will fly the three-tonne granite memorial to Europe on June 14.

The vets will likely fly out of Detroit on a discount airline. But Beale's dream scenario, the one he wishes the feds could visualize, would have a military aircraft departing Windsor Airport for France with the vets and their supporters. There would be a brass band and a cheering crowd. In other words, a proper final send off for heroes.

It would be a class act and powerful demonstration of our collective gratitude. Surely that's not too much to ask.
Cross Posted to Blue Blogging Soapbox

Friday, May 12, 2006

One simple answer in a sea of complicated questions

I have the utmost respect for Liberal Senator Colin Kenny. He's one of the few politicians of any stripe on Parliament Hill to have educated himself on defence issues, and he's not afraid to take swings at any party - including his own - that screws the file up.

But amidst all the cogent points made in this article, Senator Kenny dances around with what I believe is an overblown idea: exit strategy.

At the forefront of successfully carrying out this mission lies the pressing question: Where do we go from here? First and foremost, it is up to our new government to take ownership and to lead: to outline an achievable, measurable end state, to define our victory and to get us there. And then, when the timing is right, to get us out.


When it comes to Afghanistan, our exit strategy should be this: we'll leave when the democratically elected government of Afghanistan asks us to, and not before. As long as there's more work to be done in the country by foreign troops, Canadians should be helping to do it.

It seems to me that asking when we'll leave Afghanistan is like asking a paramedic when she's planning to stop performing CPR on a heart-attack victim just clinging to life. Don't be surprised when she snaps at you with annoyance: when the patient no longer needs my help to live - now bugger off and let me do my job.

Those worried about an open-ended commitment should revise their expectations. Cyprus wasn't a finite mission; our involvment in the Balkans over the past dozen years or so wasn't laid out in advance; hell, tell me anybody expected us to be in Germany for forty-some-odd years. Any timeline we choose at this point will be nothing more than a wild-assed guess, and some speculation might well be counterproductive.

I had a drink just last night with a CIMIC officer who's 'been there and done that' in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and his personal assessment of how long victory would take was "until we have functioning adults in the country with no memory of war." He says we're making fantastic progress, but three-quarters done isn't done. You can say this sort of thing in private, but to come out publicly with it is foolish. What do you think the Afghan people would say if our Prime Minister stood up in the House of Commons and declared Canadian troops would be patrolling their country for the next twenty years? What sort of a position would that put President Karzai in? With all due respect, Senator Kenny is bright enough that he should have figured that dilemma out on his own.

Besides, the CF won't be deployed to Afghanistan a moment longer than required. It's not like the Afghans are likely to take advantage of our generosity - from all accounts, these are all very proud peoples. When they don't need our help any longer, we'll be politely thanked and courteously asked to leave.

By all means, the Harper government should lay out for the Canadian public a basic strategy with some general goals. But we won't be done until the Afghans say "Thanks, we'll take it from here."

Darfur: What can and should Canada do?

An excellent analysis in an Army.ca editorial. The conclusion:
...
The Ruxted Group agrees with an Army.ca member who said, recently, ”… the primary utility of armed forces is to give the government of the day options. To do that the armed forces must be capable of doing a certain range of tasks – decades, nearly four of them, of neglect and, occasionally, actual destruction of military capabilities have deprived the Government of Canada of many of its options. Delaying the rebuilding of our military capabilities, even to help others to deal with a real crime against humanity, would a grave strategic error.” It may be that Canada will, indeed must ‘sit this one out’ while it rebuilds the military so that when the inevitable next crises arise we can respond, efficiently and effectively.


Meanwhile, David Rudd, President and Executive Director of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, thinks Canada could provide tactical helicopters in a pinch (if any international mission ever comes about), a view that finds some support in the Army.ca editorial (full text not online).

Predate: A marvelous column by John Robson of the Ottawa Citizen.

Update: Silly stuff in the Toronto Star from Jim Travers and (gasp) Linda McQuaig. Fairly good stuff from Thomas Walkom. See the comment thread at Army.ca.

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

Maritime surveillance: What the expanded NORAD will build on

Marine Security Operations Centres will an important Canadian contribution.

Best-known for tracking the skies for Soviet bombers, NORAD has a new responsibility: the oceans: Canada and the U.S. worry about terrorist threats along the coasts...

It's 8 a.m. on a weekday and representatives from Canada's front-line security agencies have huddled in the navy's Pacific headquarters at Esquimalt, B.C., to discuss looming threats confronting the country.

The object of their interest? Ships. Some 500 of them found in the waters off Canada's west coast at any given time — fishing boats, passenger ferries and mammoth cargo ships laden with containers that move the world's commerce...

And a nondescript office building at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt promises to be the new front line for the decades-old defence alliance that once protected the continent from the threat of Soviet bombers. This building houses a marine security operations centre, one of two in Canada...

Each weekday morning, representatives from National Defence, Transport Canada, the RCMP, the CBSA, the Coast Guard and the fisheries department gather at the operations centre to discuss the possible threats...

Another team does the same job in Halifax for the Atlantic Ocean and eastern Arctic. At any given time, the two centres are monitoring some 1,000 ships of all sizes.

(A third centre, overseen by the RCMP and likely to be built somewhere in the Niagara Region, will keep vigil over the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway, which were actually flagged by the Senate defence committee as having the "greatest potential for terrorist activities.")..

The new emphasis on maritime security comes almost three years after the Senate defence committee sounded the alarm about Canada's unguarded coastlines, warning "they are vast, they are vulnerable, and, unfortunately, they are largely unattended."..

Canadian PRT's at work in Afghanistan

10 May 2006
Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team, Afghanistan

Lieutenant Gwen Bourque is one of the instrumental players whom has been involved with the donation of three ambulances, a garbage truck, and one dump truck to the Afghan people. The ceremony took place at the Governor’s palace downtown Kandahar City. The ambulances will be distributed to Spin Boldak, Panjwayi and Maywand District Health Center’s. The garbage truck is for the hospital and the prison. The prisoner van will be to transport prisoner’s to court from the jail.

The Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team (KPRT) located at Camp Nathan Smith in the heart of Kandahar City is comprised of approximately 250 soldiers, drawn largely from Land Forces Western Area (LFWA) and 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group (1 CMBG) based in Shilo, Manitoba and Edmonton, Alberta.

Task Force Afghanistan is part of Canada’s contribution to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Canadians and their international partners are helping Afghan people to rebuild their lives, their families, their communities and their nation. The mission is to improve the quality of life of Afghan people by providing a secure environment in which Afghan society can recover from more than 25 years of conflict.

Photo by Sergeant Carole Morissette
Task Force Afghanistan Roto 1
Imagery Technician

Cross-posted to Blue Blogging Soapbox

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Afstan: NY Times admits it got it wrong about Canada

The fact that American troops are pulling out of southern Afghanistan in the coming months, and handing matters over to NATO peacekeepers, who have repeatedly stated that they are not going to fight terrorists [my emphasis], has given a lift to the insurgents, and increased the fears of Afghans...

Oops. A correction.

A front-page article on May 3 about the growing brazenness of Taliban insurgents in southern Afghanistan referred imprecisely to the combat policies of NATO peacekeeping forces that are scheduled to take over responsibilities as American troops withdraw from that region in coming months. While some contributing nations to the NATO forces have said they do not intend to fight Taliban and other militants, others, including Canada, have said they consider the NATO mission to be more than just peacekeeping [my emphasis] and would operate under the same rules of engagement as the Americans [I doubt they're exactly the same].

At least I had the good sense to put this in my post's title: Pessimistic story in the NY Times.

And to open the post with: Sad to say, I am not sure if I trust this kind of reporting in the Gray Lady any more.

H/t to Opinion Journal - Best of the Web Today which led its item with: Don't Blame Canada.

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

If the helmet fits...If the magic works

Cost-effective and speedy defence procurement: let's hope this works.
...
Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said yesterday that it's time for the armed forces to buy more products off the shelf rather than continue an expensive practice of ordering uniquely Canadian equipment.

"We're abandoning, except in some exceptions, abandoning Canadianization," said O'Connor. "It wasn't good enough somebody had a rifle, somebody had a truck, somebody had a helmet, we had to go and Canadianize it. We had a particular head or we had a specific need for a rifle that somebody else didn't have."

O'Connor said the military spent approximately $15 million trying to design a helmet for the "peculiar Canadian head."

"It just adds to cost," he said outside a Senate standing committee. "If an airplane works, or a truck works or a gun works, just buy it."..


But this is rather worrying (full text not online).

"The magic of accountants" will help the Conservatives deliver on their promise to add 13,000 new full-time Canadian Forces personnel, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said yesterday during tough questioning before a Senate committee.

Mr. O'Connor also said that as much as half of the $400 million in extra funding for the military in last week's federal budget could be clawed back under a government spending plan the Conservatives inherited from the Liberals...

Liberal Senator Joseph Day pressed Mr. O'Connor on how the military could even begin its ambitious recruiting plan with as little as $200 million in actual new money this year.

"We'll actually spend more money on people this year, above what the original plan was and, uh, the magic of accountants, somehow they can shuffle those dollars around," Mr. O'Connor replied. "I don't get into that sort of stuff, but they can shuffle dollars around and there will be extra money to buy more people this year."..

Mr. O'Connor also reiterated his pledge from last week that he had six to eight major equipment purchases, including transport aircraft and armoured trucks for soldiers in Afghanistan, ready to be launched as soon as federal cabinet gives him the green light.


Cross-posted to Daimnation!

Canadian flags burned, Veterans' headstones overturned

For some reason 'Cowards' doesn't seem an appropriate description, although it's probably the only one that's printable.
'Cowards' targeted graves, veterans' spokesman says
Kamloops -- A veterans' spokesman blames "cowards" for targeting military graves and burning a Canadian flag.

Gord Marsh of the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans Association said yesterday someone overturned veterans' headstones at the Pleasant Street Cemetery.

The vandals also burned or destroyed Canadian flags marking those graves for a special VE-Day ceremony planned for last night.

RCMP Corporal Fran Bethell said police have no suspects. "We haven't been able to locate any suspects, so we're making an appeal to the community." CP

Monday, May 08, 2006

The facts; the NDP in cuckoo-land

The CF are, surprise, stretched.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says the Canadian Forces can't take on any new overseas missions while they try to expand their ranks.

There have been suggestions Canada might play a role in an eventual international effort in the Darfur region of Sudan, but O'Connor says the military already has its hands full with Afghanistan.

He told a Senate committee that the Afghanistan operation can essentially be maintained at the present level forever, but there's nothing to spare for any other deployments...


Meanwhile, George Bush is still trying to conquer Canada by stealth.

The House of Commons voted late Monday to renew and expand the NORAD pact, a keystone of Canada's defence for half a century.

Both the Conservative government, which signed the latest renewal agreement, and the Liberals, who oversaw the renewal process, support the deal.

The latest version of the Canada-U.S. treaty, which expands its watch over sea approaches as well as air and space, passed 257-30...

The NDP objects to provisions of the treaty, which they say will compromise Canadian sovereignty and draw Canada into the controversial American missile-defence program.


Well, they would wouldn't they?

CF airlift procurement: Airbus is getting desperate

Both Boeing and Airbus have full-page colour ads in the May 8 Hill Times aimed at our politicians and political media.

Boeing's for the C-17 points out:

...its unmatched ability to support troops and deliver humanitarian relief virtually anywhere, anytime...

Go, DART, go!. I think we should ditch DART and give money to experienced relief organizations instead, but no votes there--and the Conservatives promised to double the size of DART.

Airbus, for its part, takes the following line, appealing to traditional Canadian parsimony in defence purchases:

A400M: Get more -pay less!

Canada wants a new tactical military transport aircraft. There is also a demand for a new strategic airlift capability. The A400M does both without finding new tax dollars to buy and maintain tow separate aircraft fleets [Airbus' emphasis]...the A400M will be delivered on time and ready for service in 2009...


In a pig's eye. The plane has not flown yet and it will have an all-new engine (PWC should have won the competition for this on merit but the Euros gave it to a Euro consortium--why should we reward this behaviour?). In any case the A400M simply does not have the trans-oceanic range and payload to be a good strategic lifter for Canada.

Nothing from Lockheed Martin touting the C-130J. Confidence?

Cross-posted to Daimnation!

The NDP's failure to understand Darfur and "peacekeeping"

The NDP's leader and defence critic say some truly silly things.

The federal NDP says Canada should take a lead role in any United Nations mission to stop the bloodshed in Darfur, even if that means reducing its commitment in Afghanistan.

NDP leader Jack Layton pointed to a weekend poll that suggested public support for Canada's Afghan mission is wavering...

"Our view is that this is exactly the kind of peacekeeping role that Canadians have always supported," Layton said yesterday. "Canada invented the concept of UN-led peacekeeping forces under (then diplomat [no he wasn't; he was a politican and Secretary of State for External Affairs] Lester) Pearson" in the 1950s...

Liberal Senator Romeo Dallaire, the former general who led the doomed UN peacekeeping mission in Rwanda, has called for Canada to play a lead role in a proposed 20,000-member UN peacekeeping force...


Mr Layton is clearly not aware that the UN's Suez peacekeeping mission (UNEF)—Pearson's concept—had nothing to do with protecting people. Its mission was simply to place troops between the armed forces of two states, Israel and Egypt, in order to discourage a resumption of hostilities.

NDP defence critic Dawn Black...said that once Canada fulfils its Afghan commitment in February, "we may want to look at returning to a more traditional kind of work that we could do and do very well in Darfur."


Ms Black wants Canada to do "traditional" peacekeeping in Darfur. Clearly she is unaware that what those in favour of intervention want is no such thing. Rather they want a UN Charter Chapter VII mission with a mandate to take action and use force on its own: in other words "peacemaking" (as in Afstan) rather than "traditional peacekeeping".'

There are also the slight problems that China and/or Russia will almost certainly veto any UNSC Chapter VII resolution, and that Sudan would not accept such a force even if it were approved. Which would mean an invasion, which no-one who could do it (US, EU, NATO) has the slightest willingness to do.

The best hope is that Sudan accept a Chapter VI "peacekeeping" force. But it probably won't and the effectiveness of such a force would be pretty doubtful anyway.

I doubt Mr Layton or Ms Black know any of this. But who cares about facts when trying to make political hay? And how ironic that the story appears on VE Day—a day that is a reminder of a real tradition.

And I wonder how many people know that both the NATO ISAF and US Operation Enduring Freedom in Afstan have the unanimous endorsement, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, of the Security Council. Certainly not Mr Layton or Ms Black. Our media certainly never mention the fact. Perhaps it is inconvenient for their view of the world.

Update:
An astute analysis at Army.ca of a column in the Ottawa Citizen by Susan Riley on the politics of Afstan.