National Defence Main Estimates 2006-2007, Part 5
The Liberals
The federal Liberals have been an enormous disappointment on the issue of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan since initiating the mission under Jean Chretien. Perhaps this is because they did the right thing for the wrong reason: committed us to Afghanistan not because they believed the cause was a just one and Canadian participation could make an crucial difference in a difficult part of the world, but because they wanted an excuse to avoid Iraq. While they had no difficulty pushing the CF into Afghanistan, they remained stuck on the fence themselves.
This was never more evident than during the debate on November 7th, when more than a half-dozen Liberal MP's, some of whom were cabinet ministers in the previous government, rose in the House and contributed absolutely nothing of value to the important discussion regarding defence spending in this country.
Marlene Jennings tried to muddy the waters surrounding recent capital acquisition announcements by dredging up Minister O'Connor's past work as a lobbyist for the defence industry in Ottawa, and asking specifically if Airbus had submitted a bid for - I kid you not - "air transporters." I once had concerns about O'Connor's ties to Airbus as a former client as well. Unfortunately for Ms. Jennings, but quite fortunately for the rest of the taxpaying public, Airbus has not gotten so much as a single unjustifiable sniff at the one contract they could bid on with a straight face: the Hercules replacement. If he were inclined to do favours for old pals, the A400M would still be in the running for the job, and the truth is that they aren't. If there's the slightest hint of impropriety in the Minister's future dealings with defence contractors, I'd encourage her to deal with that issue vigourously in the House of Commons at that point. Until then, she needs to stow her baseless and counterproductive insinuations.
Keith Martin, a former Parliamentary Secretary to the MND in abbreviated Paul Martin government, and as such someone who should be expected to question government policy from an informed perspective, did no such thing. Instead he whined about the amount of notice given for a previous debate and got a well-deserved earful for his troubles:
After suggesting we're losing a war in Afghanistan where we're participating at the request of both the host government and the international community, Martin went on to ask why Canada isn't committing troops to Darfur.
If Martin believes we're failing in Afghanistan, why is he so eager to have us jump into a categorically worse situation in Darfur? Islamic militants, a logistics nightmare, no allied support, and opposition from both the AU and the Sudanese government? Mr. Martin is bright enough to see the inherent contradiction in his positions on Afghanistan and Sudan, but it seems he doesn't think the rest of us are bright enough to see it too.
Joe McGuire's exchange with the MND perfectly reflects the Liberals' most fundamental problem regarding not only the Afghan mission, but with any current deficiencies in the department: in many respects, the Conservatives are simply continuing on the path the Liberals themselves set.
Bonnie Brown illustrates the split personality within the Liberal party when it comes to the Canadian Forces. While some Liberals understand the necessity of employing armed force from time to time, many Liberals are deeply disdainful of the military as an organization, and of soldiering as a profession.
At some point in the future, I hope Ms. Brown is asked why exactly she feels military recruiting in schools is inappropriate, as compared to recruiting for any other profession or trade. Some enterprising journalist should feed her a little bit of rope in a scrum one day and see how long it takes before she hangs Rick Hillier in effigy.
But with such a litany of slipshod questioners, the two that typify the biggest barriers to the opposition Liberals becoming an effective check on the government in defence matters are former MND Bill Graham and current defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh.
Dosanjh is quite simply embarrassing. He accused the minister of watering down fitness requirements in the CF when it has been made abundantly clear that standards have not, in fact, been lowered. He accused the minister of contradicting the CDS regarding re-roling, even though the minister's remarks mesh seamlessly with Hillier's own written public thoughts on the matter. In that article, Hillier also dealt with the issue of tour length, pounced upon in yet another inaccuracy by Dosanjh. Finally, it is worth reading this entire tirade by Dosanjh to see the depth of his ignorance and the limits to which he will stoop in the name of partisanship:
Whether or not we're losing the war or winning it, it's clear Mr. Dosanjh is only interested insofar as it gives him a club with which to bludgeon the Tories. He has no understanding of the mission in Afghanistan, nor of the workings of a modern Western military. And he's not particularly interested in learning enough to ask intelligent questions, since he figures as long as he can score his points on tape and camera in the House, he's doing his job as critic. Dosanjh's employment in this role is a travesty, because the only thing he is concerned about is that quintessentially Liberal obsession: politics above all else.
Bill Graham sits at the other end of the Liberal spectrum. Mr. O'Connor moved into the minister's office at NDHQ and found the chair still warm from Mr. Graham's tush. I was surprised by how effective Bill Graham was as MND - remember, he was the man in charge as Rick Hillier scrapped and rewrote the recent defence policy statement. He was the fellow who went to Paul Martin's cabinet with an audacious three-in-one aircraft procurement (SAR, tactical lift, and heavy-helo) on the eve of an election, and when that was declined, came back with a Plan B that saw the tactical lift purchase approved. Because of his experience with the Foreign Affairs portfolio, Graham also brought a unique understanding to Defence. He is undoubtedly one of the most well-versed politicians on Parliament Hill regarding the military and the mission in Southwest Asia.
You wouldn't have known that from listening to his questions and remarks in the House the other night. This is the full text of his exchange with Gordon O'Connor:
That's it. The man with the most inside knowledge of anyone on the opposition benches, and that's all he came up with. It defies belief.
I've come to the conclusion that either Bill Graham simply can't be bothered to prepare for questioning his replacement, or he secretly agrees with him and for obvious reasons can't say it out loud in public. How else can one justify the lame offering of the ex-MND?
This lack of any sort of consensus within the Official Opposition is crippling its ability to do its job: hold the government to account. Time on the floor of the Commons is spent in either half-hearted thrusts at policies developed by the previous government, or spittle-flecked rants at either the minister, the CDS, the conservatives, the Americans, or a combination of all those at once.
The Liberals need to elect a leader and develop a coherent defence policy that includes a plan on Canadian participation in interventions in Afghanistan and around the world. To develop that plan, it must first decide if it wishes to be simply an Opposition party, or a government in waiting. Currently, it's not much of either.
The federal Liberals have been an enormous disappointment on the issue of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan since initiating the mission under Jean Chretien. Perhaps this is because they did the right thing for the wrong reason: committed us to Afghanistan not because they believed the cause was a just one and Canadian participation could make an crucial difference in a difficult part of the world, but because they wanted an excuse to avoid Iraq. While they had no difficulty pushing the CF into Afghanistan, they remained stuck on the fence themselves.
This was never more evident than during the debate on November 7th, when more than a half-dozen Liberal MP's, some of whom were cabinet ministers in the previous government, rose in the House and contributed absolutely nothing of value to the important discussion regarding defence spending in this country.
Marlene Jennings tried to muddy the waters surrounding recent capital acquisition announcements by dredging up Minister O'Connor's past work as a lobbyist for the defence industry in Ottawa, and asking specifically if Airbus had submitted a bid for - I kid you not - "air transporters." I once had concerns about O'Connor's ties to Airbus as a former client as well. Unfortunately for Ms. Jennings, but quite fortunately for the rest of the taxpaying public, Airbus has not gotten so much as a single unjustifiable sniff at the one contract they could bid on with a straight face: the Hercules replacement. If he were inclined to do favours for old pals, the A400M would still be in the running for the job, and the truth is that they aren't. If there's the slightest hint of impropriety in the Minister's future dealings with defence contractors, I'd encourage her to deal with that issue vigourously in the House of Commons at that point. Until then, she needs to stow her baseless and counterproductive insinuations.
Keith Martin, a former Parliamentary Secretary to the MND in abbreviated Paul Martin government, and as such someone who should be expected to question government policy from an informed perspective, did no such thing. Instead he whined about the amount of notice given for a previous debate and got a well-deserved earful for his troubles:
Hon. Keith Martin: Mr. Chair, for the information of the minister, the reports are from the United States and the United Kingdom. One liaison officer is not going to stop this insurgency. For our troops' sake, I ask him to please get it right.
My next question is with respect to the extension that took place when the government gave only 48 hours' notice for the extension of the mission. At that time our NATO allies had allegedly made troop commitments.
Will the minister tell the House what countries and how many troops were committed by our NATO allies when the government irresponsibly extended this mission for two years while giving the House only 48 hours to try to find and consider the evidence?
Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Chair, the Liberal government gave the military 45 minutes' warning to commit 2,000 troops to Afghanistan. The army commander did not know about it. People down the whole chain of command did not know about it. The Liberal government, centrally the prime minister and the minister of defence of the day, made the arbitrary decision without even considering the problem. At that time the military said it could only handle 500 soldiers and the Liberal government committed 2,000 soldiers. The member should not give me any spiel about warning.
With regard to warning, it was the Liberal government that committed us to the commitment in Kandahar. Most members of the Liberal government, including the hon. member, did not support our troops when the vote came.
After suggesting we're losing a war in Afghanistan where we're participating at the request of both the host government and the international community, Martin went on to ask why Canada isn't committing troops to Darfur.
Hon. Keith Martin: Mr. Chair, with respect to the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, the minister's own troops are saying that development is not getting through to the people. I would like to ask the minister why.
He has a surge capacity of 600 troops. Will he commit to use at least part of those troops toward enforcing and implementing a chapter 7 peacemaking force into Darfur that has been authorized by the UN?
Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Chair, I think the hon. member asked two questions.
From a DND point of view and from our point of view, our projects are moving ahead. If the member wants to know about the projects from CIDA or foreign affairs or U.S. aid or the Karzai government, he can go to those sources and find the answers.
With respect to Darfur, no organization has ever asked us to contribute anything to Darfur. The member knows from reading the newspapers and staying in touch that the UN is trying to negotiate to take control of Darfur, and it has no intention of asking Canada to send troops. If it asks for any more troops, it will ask countries like Pakistan and African countries to do the job. The UN is quite content to have the African Union look after its own country.
Hon. Keith Martin: They can't. They are failing.
Hon. Gordon O'Connor: That may be the hon. member's opinion. However, I am saying that we have not been asked.
If Martin believes we're failing in Afghanistan, why is he so eager to have us jump into a categorically worse situation in Darfur? Islamic militants, a logistics nightmare, no allied support, and opposition from both the AU and the Sudanese government? Mr. Martin is bright enough to see the inherent contradiction in his positions on Afghanistan and Sudan, but it seems he doesn't think the rest of us are bright enough to see it too.
Joe McGuire's exchange with the MND perfectly reflects the Liberals' most fundamental problem regarding not only the Afghan mission, but with any current deficiencies in the department: in many respects, the Conservatives are simply continuing on the path the Liberals themselves set.
Hon. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): ...When we were talking with the padres and the caregivers and so on at the base, they seemed to be overworked, understaffed and really stressed out themselves because of the huge workload that they have in dealing with our returning soldiers.
Why have the resources necessary to take care of our returning soldiers not been provided on that particular base?
Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Chair, I do not want to point out too harshly that the member's party was the government until the end of January this year. I could ask why they did not do something about it...
Bonnie Brown illustrates the split personality within the Liberal party when it comes to the Canadian Forces. While some Liberals understand the necessity of employing armed force from time to time, many Liberals are deeply disdainful of the military as an organization, and of soldiering as a profession.
Ms. Bonnie Brown: I am not sure that the parents in Canada will be completely thrilled with the tactic that has been suggested to all these new recruiters which is, “Telephone your children's schools and ask if you or your unit could go there to recruit”.
At some point in the future, I hope Ms. Brown is asked why exactly she feels military recruiting in schools is inappropriate, as compared to recruiting for any other profession or trade. Some enterprising journalist should feed her a little bit of rope in a scrum one day and see how long it takes before she hangs Rick Hillier in effigy.
But with such a litany of slipshod questioners, the two that typify the biggest barriers to the opposition Liberals becoming an effective check on the government in defence matters are former MND Bill Graham and current defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh.
Dosanjh is quite simply embarrassing. He accused the minister of watering down fitness requirements in the CF when it has been made abundantly clear that standards have not, in fact, been lowered. He accused the minister of contradicting the CDS regarding re-roling, even though the minister's remarks mesh seamlessly with Hillier's own written public thoughts on the matter. In that article, Hillier also dealt with the issue of tour length, pounced upon in yet another inaccuracy by Dosanjh. Finally, it is worth reading this entire tirade by Dosanjh to see the depth of his ignorance and the limits to which he will stoop in the name of partisanship:
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh: Mr. Chair, the government has taken great pains, in fact, to hide the cost of this war and to hide the truth about this war from Canadians.
The government has stopped lowering the flag on the Peace Tower, tried to ban media from the repatriation ceremonies and is now even refusing to disclose the number of Canadian soldiers who are wounded.
Despite $17 billion in defence purchases, much of which is needed, there is no defence capabilities plan. I am assuming that, one, it is not ready, and two, it will never be made public.
The CIA believes that the success of the international community is now in doubt in Afghanistan. The CIA believes that many Afghans think that, first, police and government are corrupt in Afghanistan, second, not enough reconstruction is being done, and third, not the government or the police or the army can protect the people from the Taliban.
In fact, American officials have given dire warnings about the state of matters in Afghanistan. NATO itself is concerned about its own strategy. One hears this if one is in the U.S. or in Europe. Our government continues to paint a rosy picture. We have lost the war, or almost lost the war, for hearts and minds. Is this not just another example of the government doing blithely as it wishes while keeping the truth from the Canadian people as to what the state of the issues is in Afghanistan itself? [Babbler's incredulous emphasis]
Whether or not we're losing the war or winning it, it's clear Mr. Dosanjh is only interested insofar as it gives him a club with which to bludgeon the Tories. He has no understanding of the mission in Afghanistan, nor of the workings of a modern Western military. And he's not particularly interested in learning enough to ask intelligent questions, since he figures as long as he can score his points on tape and camera in the House, he's doing his job as critic. Dosanjh's employment in this role is a travesty, because the only thing he is concerned about is that quintessentially Liberal obsession: politics above all else.
Bill Graham sits at the other end of the Liberal spectrum. Mr. O'Connor moved into the minister's office at NDHQ and found the chair still warm from Mr. Graham's tush. I was surprised by how effective Bill Graham was as MND - remember, he was the man in charge as Rick Hillier scrapped and rewrote the recent defence policy statement. He was the fellow who went to Paul Martin's cabinet with an audacious three-in-one aircraft procurement (SAR, tactical lift, and heavy-helo) on the eve of an election, and when that was declined, came back with a Plan B that saw the tactical lift purchase approved. Because of his experience with the Foreign Affairs portfolio, Graham also brought a unique understanding to Defence. He is undoubtedly one of the most well-versed politicians on Parliament Hill regarding the military and the mission in Southwest Asia.
You wouldn't have known that from listening to his questions and remarks in the House the other night. This is the full text of his exchange with Gordon O'Connor:
Hon. Bill Graham (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vancouver South. I will not be making a speech but will be asking questions. I am sure this will be of great relief to all members of the House.
I would first like to ask the minister about the primary purpose of this mission. I am hoping he will agree with us that the primary purpose of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is not to bring about a military victory but rather to rebuild that beleaguered country, and that military activities within Afghanistan must be properly tailored to ensure that we achieve that primary goal.
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Chair, I do not think that the goals or the tasks given the government in Afghanistan are any different under our government. It is our intention to be part of the NATO alliance and as part of that alliance to help restore proper governance in Afghanistan, to help with the development of the people so they can live a decent life, and to provide security so that insurgents do not interfere with the average lives of the citizens. It is a combination of security, development and governance.
Hon. Bill Graham: Mr. Chair, I take it, then, that we are agreed, the minister and I, and that in fact in order to be successful in Afghanistan we cannot rely exclusively on the military victory, but rather, the goal we must have is to win over the support of the local population so that people will not in the end turn back to the Taliban.
The most effective way of doing this, obviously, is through a proper balance between providing security and humanitarian and development assistance, but if we do not provide the people with the basic necessities of life, with potable water, reliable electricity and sound infrastructure, we cannot guarantee success.
My question for the minister is this. Given the reality of the situation on the ground in Kandahar today, are those reconstruction goals truly achievable?
Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Chair, as the hon. member knows, there are 34 provinces in Afghanistan. There are 26 to 28 provinces that are relatively stable and development is going on with relatively little security effort. In about six provinces, including Kandahar province, the insurgency is quite virulent at the moment and we have had to put in extra efforts, the British, ourselves, the Americans, the Danes and the Dutch, to suppress the insurgency.
Given that, we are still succeeding in Afghanistan. We are still succeeding in Kandahar province. We are proceeding with development. There is U.S. aid development, UN development, Afghan government development, our foreign affairs development. We have development projects and CIDA has development projects and they are proceeding.
Hon. Bill Graham: Speaking of aid, Mr. Chair, there is obviously considerable pressure to deliver timely aid and we cannot wait to deliver that. General Richards, the British general who is commander of all NATO troops in Afghanistan, said in September that in his view the heavy military phase of the mission was now over and it was time to focus on reconstruction. He went on to say that we have to show in the next six months that the government is on the winning side. He said that if we do not take advantage of this in the next six months then we could pour an additional 10,000 troops in next year and we still would not succeed because we would have lost by then the consent of the people.
Would the minister agree with the assessment of the general in command of our troops in that area and if not, why not?
Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Chair, I do not agree with the general's assessment of time. There are probably reasons behind his selection of six months. However, it is a critical time in the south, in Kandahar province and we have to suppress the insurgency. That is what we are doing. I believe that we are going to succeed. We have already broken the back of the insurgency in the Kandahar area in a sense that they are not prone to attacking us directly. They will have to revert to suicide bombings and IEDs.
Yes, it is a critical time, but I do not set a six month deadline to it.
Hon. Bill Graham: Mr. Chair, I am glad the minister mentioned the suicide bombings and IEDs because there is concern obviously that the tactics adopted by the Taliban and the insurgents are starting to replicate tactics that have been adopted in Iraq. Clearly those of us who watch the situation in Iraq are very concerned about whether similar military tactics in Afghanistan would be as unproductive as they are in Iraq at present.
There are questions we need to have answered for the Canadian people today.
The decisions on military tactics that are being taken, while successful from a military point of view, are they undermining the possibility of achieving a true political resolution of the conflict?
Are we assured that the tactics of our allies who may occasionally attempt to fight an underground insurgency with tactics that are more suited to fighting a conventional military force are not unproductive?
Are we concerned that the use of our equipment, the use of tanks among the local population and particularly the use of air power, is such that it is destroying our capacity to reach out to the local population in such a way that we can ultimately achieve success with the overall mission?
Hon. Gordon O'Connor: Mr. Chair, I think that the military tactics used in the south are appropriate to the situation. Sometimes there are only a few insurgents in the area and they are dealt with in a certain manner. When there are large numbers they have to be dealt with in a conventional manner. For instance, in the Panjwai area when they concentrated into numbers of about 500, we had to deal with them in a conventional manner. They stayed and fought in trenches and so we had to deal with it that way.
With respect to tanks, we have moved tanks into our area to protect our infantry, to make sure that when the Taliban go into areas and fight from the equivalent of pill boxes, that we do not have to send our infantry into get them, that we can use tank fire to take them out.
I think that the tactics of our allies are appropriate to the case in the south.
Hon. Bill Graham: Mr. Chair, the minister would agree that it was never contemplated to use tanks at the beginning and that the use of tanks is an indication of the nature of the change in mission. That takes us really to the question of aid which will be my last question.
We are concerned that aid be delivered in the Kandahar region in ways which will support our troops. We heard in the Senate hearings that some $1.9 million of the military's own money was being spent for local aid in the region. We recently heard in the House about the doubling of discretionary aid to be given to local commanders.
Is the aid from CIDA coming forward in such a way that our military commanders are telling the minister and the government that they are getting the resources they need to provide villagers in the region with the help they need so that they can get the backup to make a military success of a mission? Without that they will not be successful because the local people will not have the clean water, the roads and other infrastructure they need to make a success out of this mission.
Hon. Gordon O'Connor: I will answer two issues that you brought up. The first one is tanks. It is quite appropriate for us to have tanks there. We are putting them there to protect our infantry, to reduce the risks against our infantry. We are trying to reduce casualties.
With respect to aid, CIDA has aid. You are going to have to ask the CIDA minister about her aid program. We have a program as you mentioned. We are spending some millions of dollars. In fact we have doubled that effort in the Kandahar area. I have asked the CDS to ask the commanders on the ground if they can develop projects that the military can run that are efficient and actually get results in the Kandahar area. We are looking at that now from a military point of view.
That's it. The man with the most inside knowledge of anyone on the opposition benches, and that's all he came up with. It defies belief.
I've come to the conclusion that either Bill Graham simply can't be bothered to prepare for questioning his replacement, or he secretly agrees with him and for obvious reasons can't say it out loud in public. How else can one justify the lame offering of the ex-MND?
This lack of any sort of consensus within the Official Opposition is crippling its ability to do its job: hold the government to account. Time on the floor of the Commons is spent in either half-hearted thrusts at policies developed by the previous government, or spittle-flecked rants at either the minister, the CDS, the conservatives, the Americans, or a combination of all those at once.
The Liberals need to elect a leader and develop a coherent defence policy that includes a plan on Canadian participation in interventions in Afghanistan and around the world. To develop that plan, it must first decide if it wishes to be simply an Opposition party, or a government in waiting. Currently, it's not much of either.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 1:26 a.m.
2 Comments:
Babbling: Great post.
Mark
Ottawa
The craptacular nature of our politicians shouldn't surprise me anymore, but it does.
Post a Comment
<< Home