Two truths and a question

Here are the truths:

"A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on." - Proverb

"Whoever talks about it the most owns it." - Public relations truism

Before I get to my question, I'd like to quote from Rick Hillier's book "A Soldier First: Bullets, Bureaucrats, and the Politics of War:"

The Canadian Forces, with Foreign Affairs, were concerned about how the Afghans would treat those prisoners, just as there are concerns with any developing nation, and so in late 2005 we began discussing how we would handle them - the Taliban and suspected Taliban grabbed during operations. Foreign Affairs took the lead and drew up a memorandum of agreement with the Afghan government. David Sproule, our ambassador in Kabul, was at the forefront of developing this agreement. Bill Graham, Ward Elcock and I were of absolutely one mind that an agreement with the government of Afghanistan was the way to go.

In December 2005 the agreement was finalize, needing only the signatures from Canada and Afghanistan to bring it into force. I happened to be visiting our troops in Kandahar and was asked if I would consider signing the document for Canada during the couple of days I planned on spending in Kabul. General Abdul Rahim Wardak, the former Chief of the Defence Staff who was now the Afghan Defence Minister, was going to sign on behalf of the government of Afghanistan and had requested that I sign it with him. Wardak and I had become close during my time as ISAF commander, when he was CDS for Afghanistan. He knew and trusted me. Foreign Affairs had no problems with this, so during my trip to Kabul, David Sproule accompanied me to visit Minister Wardak and, with Sproule orchestrating the shuffling of the various copies with signature blocks marked by yellow stickies, we signed the agreement, bringing it into force.

With that in mind, I'd like to know why exactly we've had three generals (Hillier and Gauthier retired, Fraser still in active service) testify before the House of Commons committee while the diplomats remain silent. I'd like to know why Peter MacKay, the Minister of National Defence, is the lead government spokesperson on this issue, while the Lawrence Cannon, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is nowhere to be seen.

In other words, why exactly is the CF wearing this?

Update: I'm a big fan of Lew MacKenzie, but I have to disagree with him this once:

Two and a half years ago, two complaints regarding the very issue currently being debated in Parliament were filed with the MPCC. Its efforts to proceed in a timely manner have been thwarted as lawyers on both sides argued whether the MPCC's mandate permitted it to investigate the charges that the Canadian Military Police turned detainees over to Afghan authorities knowing they would be abused. It was judged that the issue was an operational matter and not within the commission's jurisdiction. The hearings were suspended a few weeks back.

A public inquiry would be a colossal waste of taxpayers' money. The government should put the file back into the MPCC's lap and direct all players to co-operate. The commission has the highly qualified staff necessary to get to the truth of the matter in the most cost-effective manner.

Having the MPCC take the lead on this will be seen by all too many - and wrongly, I must stress - as a military investigation of itself, simply because the word "military" appears in the complaints commission's title. It will be decried as a whitewash. And the Canadian Forces will continue to take the lion's share of the public opinion fallout.

By all means, direct the MPCC to push as much information towards whichever institution or commission eventually investigates this shitstorm. But the CF has just recently regained its reputation with the Canadian public; keep our men and women in uniform as far away from this political catfight as possible.

Upperdate: Nipa Banerjee weighs in with her considerable personal experience:

I can recall numerous instances during my term with the Afghanistan program where the Canadian bureaucracy took a despicable stance on issues of ethics, accountability and the public's right to access information.

In 2005-'06, a fraud charge surrounding a CIDA-financed program (approximately $4 million) was brought to my attention by employees of the Canadian NGO charged with implementing it. At this time, against my strongest recommendations and a negative external evaluation, CIDA was considering a second grant to this politically valued NGO, so I was told. Upon receipt of my e-mail alerting CIDA headquarters about the alleged fraud, a superior instructed me to not write any more e-mails on the subject, specifically so as to not leave any written trail that might have to be made available to the Canadian public under the Access to Information Act. My attempts to probe the results of any audit on the NGO met with similar stern warnings. This NGO soon announced bankruptcy.

It's worth reading the whole piece. Again, I ask: why is the CF taking the heat on this?