# Using our military muscle - from the front page of the Globe and Mail



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2010)

I am giving this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act is from the front page of the _Globe and Mail_, entitled “consider this,” it’s own topic because I think it merits discussion on its own because the _Globe and Mail_ is, _de facto_, a major Canadian _opinion leader_ and this opinion will be controversial:

(I cannot find it in the electronic edition: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/)



> *{consider this}*
> Using our military muscle
> 
> After Afghanistan, what next for our military? Many Canadians want to pull back, and it’s easy to understand why. The mission – with too much investment in traditional forces and too much trust in unreliable allies – has not gone as we had hoped, and more soldiers have died than in any conflict since the Korean War.
> ...




Perhaps the reason this (apparently) is not on the _Good Grey Globe’s_ electronic edition is because the paper’s publisher and editor-in-chief know that the Toronto Liberal/NDP readership will be absolutely beside themselves with rage. This position is diametrically opposed to everything in which the loony left puts its faith – _Saint Stephen_ Staples _et al_ will be foaming at the mouth and threatening to man the barricades.

But the _Globe’s_ position is both sound, as policy, and reasonable in political terms.  It spells out _what_ we should do: maintain an effective CF and, carefully, based on our vital interests and our own values of “common humanity,” carefully pick our missions; and _why_. I hope the Government of Canada and the Liberal Party of Toronto Canada both listen.


Edit: typo


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Oct 2010)

Very interesting catch, ERC - was it an editorial of sorts, or was there a byline as well?



> Perhaps the reason this (apparently) is not on the Good Grey Globe’s electronic edition is because the paper’s publisher and editor-in-chief know that the Toronto Liberal/NDP readership will be absolutely beside themselves with rage.


Agreed - it'll make for interesting reading in the coming letters to the editor pages.

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2010)

Appears to be a sort of editorial - no byline so I assume it is the responsibility of the publisher or editor-in-chief or editorial board. That gives it extra _value_ as an _opinion making_ piece.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Oct 2010)

If past should guide the present, this Globe's argument should be readily understandable and agreeable to Iggy, lest he has been hi"jack"ed by the dark side.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from _On Track_ magazine, is another point of view by Dr. (and LCol (Ret’d) Douglas Bland:

http://cda-cdai.ca/cdai/uploads/cdai/2008/12/ontrack15n3.pdf


> The Role of Canadian Soldiers in International Peace Operations After 2011
> 
> by Dr. Douglas Bland
> 
> ...




This reinforces the _Globe and Mail’s_ position that “battles of the future” will be neither classic conventional wars nor baby-blue beret style peacekeeping – they will be, as Dr. Bland suggests, just ‘operations’ with their own grammar but not their own, unique logic.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Oct 2010)

> After Afghanistan, what next for our military? Many Canadians want to pull back, and it’s easy to understand why. *The mission  * – with too much investment in traditional forces and too much trust in unreliable allies – *has not gone as we had hoped*,



And it that single sentence lies the whole tale.  No matter where troops are sent, at some point in time the prevailing opinion will be that things "aren't as we hoped".

Surely the problem is getting "people", at all levels, to see the necessity of powering through?

Running from Afghanistan in the hope of finding another "easier" tasking will not solve the problems as our enemies will only learn from what worked in Afghanistan and apply those lessons universally.  The Enemy too has its Lessons Learned Centre.

So shouldn't the Globe, as an Opinion Leader, be beating the drum to force the politicians to stay in Afghanistan until the "problem" is solved?  Even if that means a Germany, Japan, Korea, Cyprus .... type of commitment?

No matter where soldiers are sent soldiers will die.  If we expect soldiers to fight "a l'outrance" shouldn't we be prepared to make a similar commitment as a society?  Otherwise dispatching troops becomes akin to organizing the Grey Cup while anticipating real corpses.  Vaguely Romanesque.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2010)

I think one needs to consider the middle of the sentence. The mission did not, indeed, "go as we had hoped" because, *in some part*, we didn't use enough of all the forces we needed and because our allies, beginning with the USA, were and still are unreliable.

The problem, however, wasn't too much 'traditional forces' - we never, ever had enough of those - it was an imbalance of those too few traditional forces and far, far, far too few non-traditional forces. We needed, just for example, more of the original liaison and mentoring teams - at all levels from Kabul to village - and they should always have been military teams until the security issue was much better settled than it is even now. One of the key battles that Canada 'lost' was fought between Canadians in the Pearkes Building and Canadians in the Pearson Building and Canadians in the Langevin Building. The Pearson and Langevin Buildings won and Canada lost. We needed, and only lately have had, bigger, better more _active_ special forces using *Canadian* generated intelligence because US and NATO intelligence appears, to me (an outsider) to have been consistently sub-standard. I have heard, rumour net, that when we provide our own Canadian commander with our own Canadian intelligence he is much better informed. Finally we lost, because we never properly 'fought,' the PR war. Not the operational _information warfare_ programme in theatre - although it does matter - but the real, big _information_ ‘war’ that was fought against the mission by e.g. the media and the _commentariat_ in Canada. Now, readers will know that I have a distaste for the military fighting the media war – but I do not have the same distaste for DND fighting it. When we did ‘engage’ we used the wrong tool (Rick Hillier) too much. Hillier was *superb* at speaking to soldiers and their families and, through them , to all Canadians, but he was a little less than subtle and he was never able to engage e.g. Jeffrey Simpson of the _Globe and Mail_ who uttered absolute nonsense about the mission but was never adequately challenged by the right people – like some of our own _friendly_ professors and columnists.

I think I understand, at least in part, why we lost the liaison and mentoring battle – from the cabinet and Clerk of the Privy Council on down, people with real power were uncomfortable with the fact, and it was a fact, that DND had displaced DFAIT as the ‘engine’ of Canadian foreign policy. The Pearson Building gang had to be put back in the ‘game’ and they had to be seen to be playing a leading role. Mentoring the government in Kabul and Kandahar City was an obvious, but poor, choice for them to ‘show leadership.’ I also think I understand why we never had enough SOF and intelligence resources: we didn’t ‘buy’ them 15 or 20 years ago, when they might have been ready for use in 2006 and beyond. I don’t understand why we never fought, much less won, the PR war.

I agree with Kirkhill that Canadians (like Americans, Australians and Brits) will never _like_ a long, long, painfully slow war, but it is not clear to me that we cannot – *next time* – show ‘better’ results throughout the mission, thereby limiting Canadians’ natural disenchantment. We can do better if, and it is a HUGE *IF*, we spend enough now – before that next mission on conventional and unconventional forces and on a PR _machine_.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Oct 2010)

As usual, great analysis ERC - I'm going to augment only one of your points, though.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... Finally we lost, because we never properly 'fought,' the PR war. Not the operational _information warfare_ programme in theatre - although it does matter - but the real, big _information_ ‘war’ that was fought against the mission by e.g. the media and the _commentariat_ in Canada. Now, readers will know that I have a distaste for the military fighting the media war – but I do not have the same distaste for DND fighting it. When we did ‘engage’ we used the wrong tool (Rick Hillier) too much. Hillier was *superb* at speaking to soldiers and their families and, through them , to all Canadians, but he was a little less than subtle and he was never able to engage e.g. Jeffrey Simpson of the _Globe and Mail_ who uttered absolute nonsense about the mission but was never adequately challenged by the right people – like some of our own _friendly_ professors and columnists ....


Let's not forget those at the head of the responsibility line when it comes to communicating with Canadians:


> .... Ministers are the principal spokespersons for the Government of Canada. They provide leadership in establishing communication priorities and themes. They approve the corporate communication plan of the institutions they head. In consultation with their deputies, they determine their institution’s priorities, objectives and requirements ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2010)

I agree that ministers are _responsible_, but it's not as though they don't have hired help. What the hell was she - and folks like her - doing for the past five years?


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Oct 2010)

I agree with you on the communications issue ERC, and I can see what you mean about needing a better assortment of tools in the tool bag.  Perhaps a magnifying glass and scalpel to go along with the sledgehammers.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Oct 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree that ministers are _responsible_, but it's not as though they don't have hired help. What the hell was she - and folks like her - doing for the past five years?


A not insignificant part of the answer, for sure, but I'd bet a loony that the political leadership didn't have to wait for the "hired help" to get moving to communicate more than they did.


----------



## Chappie (23 Oct 2010)

As a current applicant (med tech) this dissection is really cool to know. 
I need to read the newspapers more often


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Oct 2010)

I’m not quite sure what’s going on at the (normally, apparently anti-military) _Good Grey Globe_, but here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is another front page piece with several good, solid ideas:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/military/canadas-next-battle/article1768573/


> Canada's next battle
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> 
> ...



I’m not sure that the CF will _“leave Afghanistan with a bitter taste in its mouth about the scope and scale of what it can accomplish.”_ rather, I hope, the CF will leave with a newfound scepticism about the strategic vision and operational abilities of our friends and allies. We, Canadians and the CF, broadly, can accomplish any reasonable, sensible mission but we must not be expected to work miracles.

For the rest: I hope the Government of Canada and the Liberal Party of Toronto Canada both read and consider this. They don’t have to agree with all of it – heaven knows I don’t agree with everything Campbell Clark says – but it deserves reasoned debate by adults.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Oct 2010)

"heaven knows I don’t agree with everything Campbell Clark says – but it deserves reasoned debate by adults."

When you say "adults" Edward, do you mean Parliament? I certainly hope not.....that's a sandbox. The only thing missing is the hockey helmets....


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Oct 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> "heaven knows I don’t agree with everything Campbell Clark says – but it deserves reasoned debate by adults."
> 
> When you say "adults" Edward, do you mean Parliament? I certainly hope not.....that's a sandbox. The only thing missing is the hockey helmets....


Have to agree, but they have to be at least _part_ of the debate - for better or worse, we voted for them, so they should be representing us.   HOW (Do the "right" thing, no matter what the electorate wants?  Do what the electorate wants, even if it's not "right"?  Do just what the party leaders want?  All/none of the above) is a whole other thread, I think.


----------



## GAP (23 Oct 2010)

A good comprehensive article.....only 5 years too late.....

I wonder what will be said in 5 more years....


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Oct 2010)

Parliament needs to be _"informed"_, Jim and that - leading _public_ debates on important issues - is one of the legitimate roles of the media and the _commentariat_. We need informed, public debates by parties who, however we might view them, care about the issues. This, for example, is an _informed_ debate. Many, probably most, Army.ca members will disagree, some quite vehemently, with Prof. Byers on a whole range of issues but that doesn't make him (Byers) uninformed or, in any way, not entitled to enunciate his positions freely.

I commend the _Good Grey Globe_ for:

1. Holding a public 'session' on What do Canadians think about the military? on this coming Monday (25 Oct 10) at 1200 Hrs (EDT); and

2. Drumming up some _debate_ - some of it drivel - in advance of their little debate.

But we, the NDP's beloved 'ordinary Canadians,' need to make our voices heard, too. What kind of Canada do we want? One that kowtows to Arab sheiks and potentates in order to 'win' a seat on the UNSC or one that marches, confidently, into the world to protect and promote our own vital interests? Our defence policy matters because we either march or crawl based on how others perceive our Canadian Forces and our willingness to use them. We need strong (enough), effective - combat effective and cost effective - and flexible forces and we need to be prepared to use them. You know better than most what a heavy price we pay for using our military and despite my personal sorrow for your loss I would not hesitate to use our forces again - so long as they are used in furtherance of our, Canadian, national interests.

And yes, before someone asks, I too have a son _at risk_ and both he and I are personally conscious of the frightful, human costs of war.



Edit: corrected hyperlink


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Oct 2010)

A good article and welcome, even if as GAP points out it is 5 years late.

My quibbles:
Firstly the F35 - Stealth not only permits aircraft to evade ground based radar but also radars in aircraft, radars in the nose of fighters and radars on board those missiles that allow fighters to engage each other Beyond Visual Range.  Stealth is not just about bringing bombs to Baghdad.  It is also about surviving Air to Air engagements over Canada with missiles that can be launched from a whole variety of platforms..... Nuff said and horse beaten to extinction elsewhere.

Secondly, and in my opinion, more importantly - the issue of the UN relying on troops from Developing Nations.  It is NOT just the lack of technology that makes them ineffective.  More critically it is the lack of competent, disciplined and principled leadership at the unit level.

If Canada can figure out how to recreate the best of the old Colonial officers, without the racism and incorporating opportunities for the troops to rise out of their ranks then we would be serving the needs of a rules based world.   How do we create an OMLT system that incorporates the best of the system that raised capable field armies from levies from Libya to Bangladesh without Black and White messes and the terrors of the Memsahib?

My own suspicion is that the solution lies somewhere in the region of ex-serving officers and ncos or even troops on sabbatical or secondment, private security companies, government and UN accreditation, OECD training, and a personal longterm commitment - years if not decades - by the "mentors" to their "regiments".

Can we raise a politically correct Glubb Pasha or deliver units like the Sultan of Brunei's Gurkhas?

I can see a dozen decent, principled, competent and disciplined Canadians making a much more significant contribution in that role than they ever could wandering around various battlefields in 3 or 4 vehicles playinng "whack-a-mole" with the locals.  That doesn't mean they shouldn't be doing that.  To learn their trade and to establish credibility they need to keep doing that as well....early on in their careers, and maybe from time to time as a refresher.

I know I have veered from the generality to the detail here but the reference to the third world forces seems to me to demonstrate clearly a failure to understand exactly what it is that makes Canadians so valuable and so welcome in the field.  

Not all soldiers are created equal.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (23 Oct 2010)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> So shouldn't the Globe, as an Opinion Leader, be beating the drum to force the politicians to stay in Afghanistan until the "problem" is solved?  Even if that means a Germany, Japan, Korea, Cyprus .... type of commitment?



IMO the difference is the leadership and social development of Germany, Japan, Korea and Cypress were sufficiently ... mature (for lack of coming up with a better word) 

We (the Western "we") decided to load all of our eggs into the Karzai basket and would never entertain anything else.  Yes, I've heard time and again that "the alternative is worse" but perhaps people needed to find away around that?  Karzai and his ilk took the pulse of our assistance and it didn't take them long to realize that WE had a greater need to appear successful than THEY did.  I can tell you from personal experience that Joe Afghan viewed ISAF as "useless" once you got out of KC.  Yeah, we can shoot the hell out of bad guys and our combat abilities are without peer.  Oddly, the key to counter insurgency didn't end up being the ability to kill people.  How weird is that?   :  We also lacked credibility in their eyes, since we were backing corruption and exploitation.  It is sad to admit, but the Taliban did provide more in the way of local policing in the areas they controlled.  
True life case:  Man gets bike stolen in market by another man and goes to the police.  Police go, find the bike, force the thief to bribe them to stay out of jail then make the owner of the bike pay a bribe to get his own bike back.  Same scenario, but with a stolen car in Taliban country, Taliban go get car, beat the hell out of thief, give car back to owner.  Who is providing the better service?  (and I am NOT endorsing the Taliban, they suck, so lets avoid that potential hijack).  

So the tactical reality that we've been reporting for years has finally trickled back to the Government and we are looking to get out.  _Everyone_ is looking to get out. Why?  Because with that corrupt government at the helm, nothing of value is going to get done.  They will just take our money, feign effort towards reconstruction and good governance, provide the illusion of going after the enemy (when they are actually working with them in some cases) and generally waste time, treasure and lives.  Not their own of course, but others will be just fine.  And BIG SHOCK!!  Now that the real combat power in Karzai's court is starting to head out, he is in negotiations with the Taliban.  Well, open negotiations now.  

All that to say, the next time we are looking to send our military to some country to assist somebody better be taking a hard look at what the existing governmental structure is and decide how they are going to tackle the political pressure aspect of it.  As mentioned, the enemy has their own "Lessons Learned" center.  Well, so does the Failed State Thugs Posing As Leaders group too.  The next place we go hopefully we aren't just shoveling money into peoples pockets and assuming (incorrectly) that everybody is playing off the same sheet music.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Oct 2010)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is more like it – more, that is, like what I usually expect from my fellow citizens:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/military/canadians-pick-peacekeeping-over-combat/article1771103/


> Canadians pick peacekeeping over combat
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> Ottawa—
> ...




So we get the usual result from the usual suspects, our fellow citizens. They totally misunderstand what has been happening in the world for 20+ years; they misunderstand because they (we, most Canadians) are totally preoccupied with our own, tiny, domestic social and political problems – Québec _et al_. Canadians have failed to notice or care that the world impacts us; problems in e.g. the Middle East tend to come home to roost in e.g. Toronto. But most Canadians believe that _traditional_, Pearsonian, baby-blue beret style _peacekeeping_ can or even should be revived and implemented on any useful scale. 

Less than half – closer to only ⅓ - of Canadians think adequate (i.e. greater than already promised) defence spending is necessary. That gives us a an accurate prediction of the policies of the next government – no matter what its political stripe.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Oct 2010)

Yet another bit of public debate fodder from the_ Globe_:


> Across the country, the 23 Canadian Forces bases and a host of stations, posts, and support units are what connect men and women in uniform to the society they defend. For small towns and rural areas, they are a key driver of the local economy; for regions, part of the community. And for politicians, they're a way of life they're wary of messing with.
> 
> Some former military figures argue the Canadian Forces could get by with as few as a dozen bases. But can Stephen Harper's  minority government, always facing a nearby election, risk the politics of closing bases such as CFB Borden in Simcoe County, Ont., where former Tory Helena Guergis is running as an independent?
> 
> ...


More here.


----------



## pbi (25 Oct 2010)

It seems to me that every time we go somewhere unpleasant and dangerous, there is a national reaction (led by various folk in the media and chattering classes) along the lines of_ "Oh my God that was a disaster that violated all our national principles and we'll never do that again"_ (or words to that effect).

I distinctly recall that type of feeling being widely expressed in response to our involvement in FRY (esp Bosnia before IFOR), Somalia (especially Somalia...), Kosovo (despite very high support at the outset) and now Afghanistan. It spiked every time we killed/were killed. IMHO Canadians, perhaps understandably, struggle with the idea of other Canadians going somewhere and killing/being killed. (Unless of course it happened 50 years ago, in which case it is recalled with fitting pride and reverence, as something "in the history books")

But, strangely enough, just as surely as we have these periodic national cold-feet episodes, the next conflict we get into is almost always meaner and nastier and more dangerous than the one before. And we go in bigger and better equipped. At least, when I compare my time in Cyprus in 1991 to my time in Croatia in 1994 to Afghanistan in 2004/2005, and all we have done there since, this is what I see. When I look at pictures of us rumbling around the Dalmatian hills in 1994 with old M113s, tinpot helmets, Vietnam-style flak jackets and blast blankets under the seat as "armour", it seems to me to be 100 years ago. But, funnily enough, we thought ourselves far better equipped and trained than we had been went we went to Cyprus, and facing a much more dangerous situation. Our ROE were light years beyond Cyprus (in UNFICYP we couldn't even put on helmets or fit magazines to weapons without specific orders...)

All this rambling is to say that despite the blowback (the natural product of a free society in which there is a diversity of opinion and unrestricted access to expression of same), I believe that we are actually growing up as a nation, and realizing that if we want a world free of dangerous, murderous ***-holes we might have to actually get out there now and then and do something grim about it. Not in a warmongering, "imperialist" sort of way, but more like the old time town cop who, after trying to reason  patiently with a trouble maker, finally sighs, pulls out his billy and gives him a few smart cracks on the head and a swift one in the ribs.

The challenge, as has been ably pointed out here, is for the Govt of the day to explain very clearly to Canadians just exactly what the "whys and wherefores" are, from the get go. All the blood and sacrifice of some very brave and dedicated Canadian soldiers can't redeem what I think has been a dismal effort (by two different Govts) to do so.

Cheers


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Oct 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> ...
> The challenge, as has been ably pointed out here, is for the Govt of the day to explain very clearly to Canadians just exactly what the "whys and wherefores" are, from the get go. All the blood and sacrifice of some very brave and dedicated Canadian soldiers can't redeem what I think has been a dismal effort (by two different Govts) to do so.
> 
> Cheers




Very true. In fact the previous (Martin) government was more forthcoming than the current (Harper) one. Prime Minister Martin was, indeed, _Mister Dithers_ but all that dithering did, now and again produce useful results. I fear that such a clear, lucid expression of Canada's foreign policy goals and methods is quite beyond the capacity of Prime Minster Harper and his 'team' which is all about partisan, political tactics and never about a national strategy.

It takes both courage and brains to recognize the _need_ for a coherent, _productive_ (likely to succeed) national strategy and even more courage to enunciate it. Harper has lots of brains ...


----------



## pbi (25 Oct 2010)

ERC: I've been a Tory all my life but I am in exact agreement with your take on the current govt. In the last few years that I was in the RegF, I began to become aware of the very restrictive, "information is power" sort of approach that the current incumbents take towards informing the public, particularly where Afgh was concerned. I was reliably informed at one point that the PM, early in his tenure, was quite uncomfortable with the CF's very liberal and open media and public engagement approaches. (Note that no other Fed Govt dept or agency came even close to us in this respect, even after OGDs were deployed into theatre). It's my impression that the level of openness, particularly engaging very junior folks on camera, has been cut back somewhat.

I have also at times been uncomfortable with what I perceived as "hiding behind the troops" as a justification to avoid being forthcoming on Afgh-related issues that were unpleasant. There is a place in a free and civil society for public debate: questioning Govt policy during a conflict might be ill-informed, but to me it does not automatically equate to a treasonous or disloyal act toward the country. The problem with people hiding behind you is that sometimes you end up taking the "bullet" that was meant for them.

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Oct 2010)

I won't disagree with the perceptions of Messrs Martin and Harper but in this whole sad tale I personally find the role of the Globe and Mail disingenuous to say the least.

For them to proclaim themselves "Opinion Leaders" and arbiters of the social conscience and then bemoan the fact that Canadians have a poor understanding of the world around them and the needs of that world is pretty base.

If they were "Opinion Leaders" rather than pimps, panderers and profiteers then they might start pointing out that: nobody gets out of this world alive and consequently infinite spending on health care will not change that reality;
governments do not create treasure, wealth or jobs and thus much of the bureaucratic effort is wasteful if not counter-productive;
Uncle Sam will only protect us as long as it is in his interests and he is able;
Canada is a ridiculously rich and spoiled sliver of humanity sitting on a disproportionate share of the world's resources.

Further to that last - we will only survive as a nation as long as we are seen to be distributing those resources at fair market value.  One of the ways in which we compensate for our privileged position our position which allow us to live in the style to which we have become accustomed, is to rebate to the rest of humanity services which we in our idyll/idleness, can afford.

If we don't contirbute to the common good in a manner that the market believes is acceptable then they will devalue our products or come to get them themselves...... at which point a larger commitment to defence of the national treasure may become demonstrably necesssary.

Edit to add:

In my opinion the biggest single contributing factor to Canadians failing to come to grips with the need for the Afghanistan operation and future similar operations was the common position espoused by all parties in parliament that Afghanistan was a mission of choice and not necessity and that, consequently, we could leave anytime we liked because: "IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER".  Just as Americans were taught by their politicians and that Vietnam just din't matter.

Why is Britain different?  Because that attitude has never been as pervasive there.  

Why was Tony Blair so dangerous?  Because he and that socialist git of a Fly Fifer he gave the keys of the Treasury damnear wrecked that.


----------



## brihard (26 Oct 2010)

The Globe has in fact posted the original article online.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/military/using-our-military-muscle/article1768703/comments/

The comments, of course, are rather predictable.


----------



## ArmyRick (26 Oct 2010)

This very interesting thread to read. To think Canadians have really woken up to what our military does and that Pearson age peacekeeping aint going to happen. I think many canadians have gotten a deeper understanding, especially in the last 4 years of what we do.

Another person brought up the point about wining the fights in A-stan but not winning agaisnt the insurgency. I beleive that to truly defeat the insurgency, you will really need to know them. In other words it will be the Afghans who will do it but it will take serious political will to make it happen. I am not going to comment on the state of Karzai government, I simply haven't done enough research to form a half intelligent opinion.

As far as an insurgency. Imagine a class of grade 2 kids. The teacher knows them and knows who the smart ones are, the apple polishers, the trouble makers, the slow ones, etc, etc. Now she is is sick for a week and in comes the supply teacher. The supply teacher will teach the material and she will enforce the rules but she will not truly have an understanding of who is who, until she spends some serious time interacting with them. AT first, all she will see, is a classroom full of smiling faces.

That is very simplified but I see counter insurgency as similar to that.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Oct 2010)

Brihard said:
			
		

> The comments, of course, are rather predictable.


I'm intrigued by the results of the unofficial online survey:


> Will having a strong military be more or less important in the future?
> 
> * More important
> * Less important
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (26 Oct 2010)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> This very interesting thread to read. To think Canadians have really woken up to what our military does and that Pearson age peacekeeping aint going to happen.


From a quick reading of the comments that follow the article, one of the recurring rants is, "how dare the Globe denigrate 'Romantic notions of Pearsonian peacekeeping'!"

I'm afraid those chanting the _Military as Peacekeeper_ mantra are still out there.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Oct 2010)

Can we “use our military muscle” if most Canadians are too timid? Yet more, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, on that topic:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/military/selling-conflict-to-a-skeptical-public/article1772740/singlepage/#articlecontent


> Selling conflict to a skeptical public
> 
> JEREMY TOROBIN
> 
> ...




Elsewhere I recommended a book by Michael Mandelbaum that makes the point that the world, including Canada, will have to get used to idea that America will not, because it cannot afford to, underwrite global peace and security. That leaves some stark options:

1.	Accept, live with, a much less safe and stable world; and/or

2.	Pick up some of the load.

Canadians, like the Europeans, fear 1 (how many more 9/11s must we endure?) but hate 2 for its expense.

This may be the key article in the _Globe's_ ongoing series.


----------



## PanaEng (26 Oct 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> From a quick reading of the comments that follow the article, one of the recurring rants is, "how dare the Globe denigrate 'Romantic notions of Pearsonian peacekeeping'!"
> 
> I'm afraid those chanting the _Military as Peacekeeper_ mantra are still out there.



I used to be alarmed about the comments on articles in both the CBC and G&M until I realized that the opinions tend to change depending on the time of day:  (these are my unscientific generalizations)

early in the morning: very conservative - the lefties were still sleeping while the older people got up early to start their day and check out the stories before heading to work or do their gardens and stuff 
mid day: left - the lefties are at work using their office computers to post drivel (i'm on my coffee break, ok)
evening: conservative or balanced - the extreme-left are out smoking it out while the people with jobs go home, spend time with family and then catch up with 'stories'
in the end it doesn't matter; you have the same small set of people commenting on every article over and over again.

/rant


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Oct 2010)

Clear this up for me:

Is the Globe and Mail left leaning or right leaning or somewhere in the middle?


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Oct 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Clear this up for me:
> 
> Is the Globe and Mail left leaning or right leaning or somewhere in the middle?


Generally left-of-centre, but its new Publisher, Phil Crawley (bio, PDF), has a history of working for more right-of-centre papers elsewhere in the Commonwealth, and beyond.


----------



## observor 69 (26 Oct 2010)

In Toronto...TO Star definitely left, National Post definitely right, G&M centre and prides itself in taking a pragmatic informed stand.
How'd you guess I subscribe to the G&M?


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Oct 2010)

Interesting....  This appears to be an intriguing article that should be visible somewhere at the G&M site (from Google search)....


> Replenishing Canada's reserves
> Globe and Mail - David Pratt - ‎1 hour ago‎
> Canada's often-neglected army reservists have been tested under fire and in floods and the verdict is in: These guys and girls are pretty damn good. ...


.... but the link doesn't work (yet?)

Looking forward to seeing what it'll have to say.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Oct 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Interesting....  This appears to be an intriguing article that should be visible somewhere at the G&M site (from Google search)........ but the link doesn't work (yet?)
> 
> Looking forward to seeing what it'll have to say.





Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is the article by former Liberal defence minister David Pratt:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/replenishing-canadas-reserves/article1773976/


> Replenishing Canada’s reserves
> 
> DAVID PRATT
> 
> ...




It seems to me that every attempt to define some very specific role for the reserves has foundered in a storm of vested interests and headquarters _over-reach_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Oct 2010)

And yet more, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, as it (the _Globe_) conducts a fairly detailed _examination_ of national defence and the military:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/military/how-much-is-arctic-security-worth/article1774292/singlepage/#articlecontent


> How much is Arctic security worth?
> 
> JOSH WINGROVE
> 
> ...




The Arctic has its own special place in Canada’s political mythology – something Stephen Harper has noted; he visits and talks a lot and spends next to nothing, which appears sufficient for the overwhelming majority of Canadian voters.

But: kudos to the _Globe and Mail_ for this series.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Oct 2010)

In addition to LGen Leslie’s comments about forthcoming cuts, the _Good Grey Globe_ also offers this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, as more in its ongoing series about Canada’s defences:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/military/canadas-navy-force-of-the-future-ships-from-the-past/article1775775/


> CANADA'S NAVY
> Force of the future, ships from the past
> 
> ROBERT MATAS
> ...



I think the Navy poses a unique _strategic_ challenge. We can, as we have just demonstrated, take a less than well equipped, somewhat disorganized, _traditionally_ indifferently led *army* and make it into a first rate fighting force – using only our own (limited) resources - in a very short space of time because, at bottom, the army is all about people. But the navy is different it is about ships and people, in an extraordinarily complex relationship, and I am not convinced that a navy can respond as our army did and “come from (too far) behind” to win. 

Navies are, also, hideously expensive and, unlike either armies or air forces, the ‘return’ for the cost is hard for the citizen/taxpayer to see.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Oct 2010)

There is, now, a series of five videos on the _Globe and Mail_ web site that are worth a watch:

•	Has Canada failed in Afghanistan?
•	Is the Canadian peacekeeper dead?
•	Is Canada susceptible to attack?
•	Does military spending need to increased _[sic]_?
•	What does the future hold?


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Oct 2010)

Full marks to the Globe and Mail for running this series.



> I think the Navy poses a unique strategic challenge. We can, as we have just demonstrated, take a less than well equipped, somewhat disorganized, traditionally indifferently led army and make it into a first rate fighting force – using only our own (limited) resources - in a very short space of time because, at bottom, the army is all about people. But the navy is different it is about ships and people, in an extraordinarily complex relationship, and I am not convinced that a navy can respond as our army did and “come from (too far) behind” to win.
> 
> Navies are, also, hideously expensive and, unlike either armies or air forces, the ‘return’ for the cost is hard for the citizen/taxpayer to see.



I was going to disagree.  And then thought better of it.

But I am still going to take issue.

In the CH-47 thread I took issue with the value of establishing an O&M budget.  I still do.  It is just too difficult to determine if China is going to increase the demand for titanium plate heat exchangers in 10 years time thus increasing the price of replacement landing gear.  But after capital planning and O&M planning there is a third part of the budget, the labour budget, that is actually very easy to quantify and plan.

The Navy, like the Air Force, is a classic example of the value of spending now so that you don’t have to spend later. 

Productivity is regularly cited as a virtue.  I agree. It is.

Many folks fear productivity because they fear redundancy: the loss of jobs.  But productivity is actually about more than just doing what you are doing with fewer people.  It can be about doing more with what you have.  In a world of a shrinking population (the non-Islamic worlds of the West and China) that ability to do things with a minimum level of staffing becomes critical.  The Navy and Air Force can’t find the bodies they need now and the Army is trying to figure out how to keep the ones they have.  Replacing people with Programmable Logic Controllers, electric motors and generators (and fuel tanks) is key to maintaining/enhancing capability.

The Navy and the Air Force, because of their reliance on platforms that supply capability, are uniquely placed to take advantage of these technologies.  They “Man the Weapon”.  They don’t “Arm the Man”.

This distinction means that they are the first to be able to take advantage of / feel threatened by UnMANNED Systems.   Just as it is possible to envisage a platform in the sky with nobody at the controls (Satellites and Hybrid Air Vehicles and Reapers come to mind) it is also possible to envisage a big floating barge in the middle of the ocean with nobody on board but held in place by a PLC, GPS sensors and some azipod thrusters.

Now all of these capabilities do drive up the capital cost of acquisition (resulting in sticker shock from the taxpayer).  But savings to compensate for the capital increase can be “reliably” generated from reduction in labour costs.  Those costs not only include salaries and benefits but often, more importantly, “hotel” costs and training costs.

Hotel costs are the costs of accommodation.  In a ship that means space and tonnage dedicated to bunks, messes, galleys, heads, showers, water treatment, heating, waste disposal, recreation.  A smaller crew reduces all those requirements leaving space for other capabilities and a more liveable environment for the remaining crew.

The bigger benefit though is in training.  Fewer people means reduced training facility requirements.   Technology, with the twin advantages of built in simulation and the Nintendo generation, actually creates the possibility of reducing training requirements further.  

In the bad old days we had plant loaded with hand-set valves and physical gauges.  It required one man to read the gauge, another to turn the valve, a third to decide if the valve should be turned and a bunch of people in between yelling instructions down the passages.    This required a highly trained decision maker and a lot of training of the team to get things done efficiently.  Placing the gauge, the valve and the decision maker in the same place cut down much of the teamwork problem but still demanded a highly trained decision maker who was also a highly trained mechanic.

So along come computers, or to be precise, the Programmable Logic Controller.  And we, the industrial design community screwed up.  We sought to replace the highly trained decision making mechanic operator with the PLC.  Consequently we built programmes to control the plant in every foreseeable eventuality.  And when the unforeseen occurred we cursed the operator and added a new layer to the programme.  And the unforeseen occurred again.......  

The problem of course is that the PLC is little more than a digital clock.  It does everything to a fixed schedule.  This created the situation where the operator had to become even more skilled than before and arguably the plants became less efficient with more unforeseen down time as the operator tried to puzzle out what the black box was trying to do when the real world intruded on it.  Kind of like the opening days of World War I when I think about it, with mobilization decisions being driven by the railway schedule. The results were certainly similar if less catastrophic.

But now, I believe, we have learned that there is a certain irreducible requirement for the “Man in the Loop” and that the “computer” should be used as an aid to the operator: a combination of valve turner and secretary.  

The best designed systems run plants with the PLC but when the schedule encounters the real world and the PLC boggles, the computer informs the operator what the PLC was trying to accomplish, what it has encountered and, most importantly, what the operator’s options are.  No more hunting through manuals at Oh Dark 30 or trying to remember IAs after being out of your bunk for the last 54 hours – Your IAs and Stoppages are presented on the screen in front of you in Multiple Guess format. Pick one.  (Final choice: call tyour supervisor).

Sorry, I drifted off course onto a tangent of detail (par for the golf course and me – but it is an area that I believe in strongly and with which I have a degree of familiarity)

This control architecture mimics the Nintendo system.  The kids learn as they play.  They don’t read the manuals.  They learn by doing.  But instead of the monitor showing blood and guts spewing when they fail a simple “You can’t do that” from the Nanny in the Box will probably suffice.

All this is to drive home a point:  Capital investment in the Navy and Air Force will Quickly generate capability precisely because the capabilities are technology dependent.

Conversely the Army, despite its increasing use of technology will never remove the need to train soldiers that fill boots and Advance to Contact – make personal face-to-face contact to uncover the nature of the other and determine if its capabilities and intentions represent a real threat or only a potential threat – also known as a fear.

We should be investing in the Navy.  

It is, as noted in the article, above all other things flexible.  And if the Navy builds spare people carrying and connections capacity into all there platforms then the Canadian Government can advance soldiers to contact that 80 to 90% of humanity that live within helicopter range of the coast.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Oct 2010)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is, actually, a follow on from the videos, especially the second one the _Globe and Mail_ posted yesterday:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/military/dont-write-off-the-future-of-peacekeeping/article1776922/


> PETER LANGILLE
> Don’t write off the future of peacekeeping
> 
> PETER LANGILLE
> ...




There are a few of flaws in Prof. Langille’s analysis:

1.	Yes, _traditional_, baby-blue beret style, _Pearsonian_ peacekeeping still exists because the world, including Canada does not care enough to execute its new found _Responsibility to Protect_ (R2P) and UN peacekeeping is the ‘best’ we (the world again) is willing to offer;

2.	Although UN peacekeeping has, doubtless, improved, it (the UN) is still unable – because it is institutionally inept and corrupt - to conduct anything like an effective _operation_ (peacemaking or peacekeeping) of any sort. Langille’s 90% “success rate” for UN peacekeeping is a red herring. The ‘successful’ UN mission are those, like Kashmir, Cyprus and the Golan Heights that have, over a long, long times decayed into irrelevance and have been either, effectively, replaced by bilateral negotiations or have simply faded into the environment as harmless artefacts of a (temporarily) abated conflict;

3.	“Pearsonian idealism” was aimed at developing a “safer, saner world” because it was aimed, squarely at countering the baleful influence of anti-democratic, dictatorial Soviet power in the third world and, concomitantly, spreading the influence of the US led West. The UN, in the 21st century does not share these goals and, for that reason alone, UN peacekeeping runs, broadly, counter to Canada’s best interests.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Oct 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is another article (apparently the final one) in the “Using Canada’s Military Muscle” series:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/military/part-6-of-6-canada-and-the-call-of-the-congo/article1777444/singlepage/#articlecontent


> Part 6 of 6: Canada and the call of the Congo
> 
> GEOFFREY YORK
> 
> ...



I have no doubt that Canada, specifically the Canadian Forces, can make a difference in Congo. The degree of change (difference), for the better, we _might_ effect is directly related to the degree of _detachment_ we have from the UN. A UN *sanctioned* mission that is _managed_ and _controlled_ by a ‘coalition of the willing’ that includes Canada and a few other countries has a very good chance of effecting beneficial change. But the mission will involve killing and being killed and it will, without a doubt, suffer the same fate as Afghanistan: steadily and rapidly declining public support.

But, Canadians are likely to support a no-to-low casualty but wholly ineffective UN mission because an overwhelming majority of Canadians care nothing for Congo - or for the CF.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Oct 2010)

Finally, this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Axct from the _Globe and Mail_, is the _Globe’s_ own ‘position,’ published, like an editorial, without a byline:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/military/the-world-needs-our-military-but-we-need-to-shed-some-burdens/article1777462/


> *The Globe's View*
> The world needs our military, but we need to shed some burdens
> 
> From Friday's Globe and Mail
> ...




Summary:

•	*Yes* to doing more ‘heavy lifting’ in hard to win places like Congo, but *not* as traditional UN peacekeepers;

•	*Yes* to rebuilt armed forces, including the F35 and new ships;

•	*Yes* to _rebalancing_ between infrastructure (mainly bases?) and combat power; and 

•	*No* to the _Pearsonian_, baby-blue beret style _peacekeeping_ so loved by too many Canadians.


----------



## GAP (29 Oct 2010)

Here's another part of another series....

 Peacekeeping
Article Link
Part 6 of 6: Canada and the call of the Congo
Geoffrey York Goma, Congo— From Friday's Globe and Mail  Published Friday, Oct. 29, 2010

In this strategic city near the chaotic combat zones of what is often called "the rape capital of the world," the streets are bustling with thousands of United Nations peacekeepers in jeeps and armoured vehicles. Finding the Canadians, however, is a bit more difficult.

To locate the Canadian peacekeepers in Congo, you need to enter a collection of prefab trailers on the shores of Lake Kivu. At the end of a rabbit warren of offices, two Canadian officers are sitting at their desks, working on the mundane realities of garrison construction and soldier training. 

There are only a dozen Canadians among the 18,000 members of the world's biggest peacekeeping mission, in one of the world's toughest conflict zones. Despite growing outrage at the mass rapes and murders by rebel militias and government soldiers here, Canada has declined to provide the high-tech military equipment that the peacekeepers need.

The Canadian Armed Forces, battle hardened and highly mobile after years of combat in Afghanistan, possess precisely the advanced technology and logistical skills that could help protect Congo's war-weary civilians. The needs of the UN mission here - light and mobile forces, helicopter capabilities, telecommunications, intelligence gathering, language skills - are exactly the strengths that Canada has developed in Afghanistan and around the world.

While Canadians remain wary of Afghanistan-like combat missions - a Nanos poll for The Globe showed only 21 per cent saw it as an important role for our military - they retain a strong attachment to UN peacekeeping, seen by 52 per cent as important.

It might not be the right moment today to send Canadian troops into Congo. The conflict lacks the political negotiation process and concerted international effort that could lead to an enduring peace. But many experts see Congo as a classic example of the kind of UN mission to which Canada could be contributing after it withdraws its military forces from Afghanistan next year.

It could be a crucial contribution. Aside from the major powers on the UN Security Council, Canada is one of the countries with an expeditionary military capacity, able to respond quickly to crises and conflicts, as it showed in Haiti this year. For many UN missions, this could spell the difference between failure and success.

"After many years in Afghanistan, Canadians are well-trained and well-equipped for participating in Congo or any of the new peacekeeping missions around the world," said Jocelyn Coulon, a military and peacekeeping researcher at the University of Montreal.

"If the mandate is to protect civilians, you need to deploy a robust force that deters the enemy," he said. "Canada could play a role in providing special forces, combat helicopters and human intelligence. The Canadian soldiers have a lot of experience dealing with rebels and insurgency." 
More on link


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Oct 2010)

The Congo? While it may appear to be a worthwhile endeavour, what will be the cost in human terms?

If....we deploy to the Congo, you can bet dollars to donuts that OSIs will skyrocket.

My two cents plus GST.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Oct 2010)

The Congo mission is eminently "doable" with only two conditions:

1. Remove the UN _management_ (but retain the UNSC _mandate_) and replace it with a 'coalition' command and control _team_ that is recruited an organized by one country (*not* by NATO although the organizing country may be a NATO member) - the one that provides a commander, etc; and

2. Set _robust_ ROE for every single participating nation, and, based on those, recruit a _coalition of the willing_ that is both willing and able to sort out the problem - accepting that the 'sorting out' is going to involve a lot of dead people, most of them black and many, many of whom will be mistaken, by a biased media, for innocent civilians and child soldiers.


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Oct 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...accepting that the 'sorting out' is going to involve a lot of dead people, most of them black and many, many of whom will be mistaken, by a biased media, for innocent civilians and child soldiers.



Likely the main reason we'll not do anything. No Canadian government, certainly not the current one, is going to set themselves up as a such a target. The media will quickly spin public opinion, and the government will have to react. Just like we've done in AFG.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Oct 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Likely the main reason we'll not do anything. No Canadian government, certainly not the current one, is going to set themselves up as a such a target. The media will quickly spin public opinion, and the government will have to react. Just like we've done in AFG.



But the media will keep banging the drum for the next war.  Nothing helps circulation like a tale of blood and guts, grieving widows, incompetent generals and politicians, gee-whiz toys and wasted treasure. :


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Oct 2010)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> But the media will keep banging the drum for the next war.  Nothing helps circulation like a tale of blood and guts, grieving widows, incompetent generals and politicians, gee-whiz toys and wasted treasure. :



I'm afraid that you may be correct. It seems that the lessons of Rwanda, Bosnia and Afghanistan are already, as we speak, being forgotten.


----------



## PanaEng (29 Oct 2010)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> But the media will keep banging the drum for the next war.  Nothing helps circulation like a tale of blood and guts, grieving widows, incompetent generals and politicians, gee-whiz toys and wasted treasure. :


Precisely!  Notice the pattern?  
The news media depends on controversy; doesn't matter who is in power. They'll channel/spin public opinion against something one month and for something similar the next. 
It is a strategic approach to job security - Something our Generals need to learn to use more (and I'm not talking about cushy Executive contract/advisor jobs with GD, LM, etc. ) IMHO.


----------



## ArmyRick (31 Oct 2010)

The sad thing is, that media relies on controversy to sell stories. As we have seen, sometimes they will create controversy or spin something to add contreversy.

We need to anticipate this and have a good PsyOps Campaign ready to use on our own people here in Canada. I think it makes a huge difference when the majority of our people are behind us.

As far creating contreversy, look at the whole damn mess that blew up when the US Army had their documents leaked to Wikinews and it was falsely mentioned that the 4 troops KIA in Op medusa were the result of Friendly Fire. That was a real **** storm.


----------



## pbi (31 Oct 2010)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> As far creating contreversy, look at the whole damn mess that blew up when the US Army had their documents leaked to Wikinews and it was falsely mentioned that the 4 troops KIA in Op medusa were the result of Friendly Fire. That was a real **** storm.



What I found sickening about that was how many people, both some media (except for a few calmer heads like Christie Blatchford) and even more the "Bloggites" who infest places like cbc.ca, etc, immediately swallowed it whole. We were instantly cast as heartless, scheming liars who had somehow managed to hide the cause of death, brainwash or intimidate the soldiers who were present, and buy off or lie to the families, the medical staff, the MPs, the morticians, and the Ontario Medical Examiner.

Exactly why we might want to bother doing this never occurred to these people, but then critical thinking usually isn't a strong suit with the foil-hatted conspiracy mongering crowd, who see a Govt plot behind every news story. Especially, when you consider that very shortly afterwards, an RCR coy was hit by friendly fire, and this was widely reported.

It is almost as though there is a crowd of people out there who are absolutely sure that the CF are competely evil and dishonest, but somehow we have been able to hide it. They have become frustrated with the lack of  reports of juicy scandal and wrongdoing, so following the basic conspiracy-monger dictum that "_absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"_ (ie: if you can't find credible proof of your theory, this is because The Govt or The Military (or the Martians...) have hidden it.

They never stop to connect the dots and see that they don't actually go anywhere.

Cheers


----------



## ArmyRick (31 Oct 2010)

I agree with what your saying. With those people (conspiracy theorist and others of similar ilk) in their minds We (the CF) are already guilty, now they just need any evidence (no matter how weak or lame) they can find to prove their point.

Its like situating the estimate but in another way.


----------



## Journeyman (31 Oct 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> .....who are absolutely sure that the CF are competely evil and dishonest, *but somehow we have been able to hide it*.


Ah, to have that degree of competence and coherence. That would be sweet!  ;D


----------

