# Responses to CARE In Afghanistan Editorial



## Mike Bobbitt (13 Feb 2006)

Please post all replies to the CARE In Afghanistan Editorial here.

Note you can read the original article here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39776.0.html


----------



## Armymedic (14 Feb 2006)

If CARE is concerned about decreased funding and the impression their NGO would have associating with the CF in the Kandahar area, then they should concentrate their efforts in areas where they have had success (Kabul) and leave the southern area to groups who do not mind so much being behind the wire.


----------



## COBRA-6 (14 Feb 2006)

Excellent article!

I completely agree that it has a lot to do with money. Also, some in the NGO community need to pull their heads out of the sand and realize that in the eyes of the people who may do them harm, there is not such thing as neutral...

Cheers,
Mike


----------



## KevinB (14 Feb 2006)

I could not agree more.

 A sad fact is Mike_R23A is 100% right -- there was a recent kidnapp attempt (yesterday) on a female NGO in Kabul.  Add in the report of two PMC's captured two days ago and you have a reciepe for disaster if you are the long haired, tree hugging, dope smoking firend of Jesus type that views the woirld thru rose coloured glasses.

   AntiCoalitionForces have a $100,000 USD contract out on any westerners that can be kidnapped and delivered to them for execution -- they dont care where you are Mil, Contractor - or NGO.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Feb 2006)

Fully concur.  

In fact, one should question what good a more secure environment brings if the balance of factors that improve quality of life (potable water for consumption and irrigation, medicine/health, education, transportation facilities and power) are not comparably improved with aid and development assistance?  Without provision of aid concurrently with improved security, Afghans will not be provided the improvement in quality of life that their Government and the international community has pledged to them.

Duey


----------



## Long in the tooth (14 Feb 2006)

Be afraid of someone elses 'vision'.  They have an idea and want YOU to pay for it.


----------



## sheikyerbouti (14 Feb 2006)

To begin with, I need some clarification as to the affiliation of the Ruxted group to this site. 

 Now let's get started.

 To begin with, the objection is to the sudden change in Federal policy with respect to Afghanistan. The admittedly prior leaders had indicated that, in tandem with the development of 3-D and all it entails, that there would be an unprecedented commitment to the long term interests of all Afghan people. These interests include security, sanitation, education, human rights and social justice... to name but a few. Even though our government has changed, does that mean Canadian opinion has shifted so quickly too?

 Even though our efforts are now called upon elsewhere, why does every Canadian effort have to reside exclusively within our area of responsibility? Am I incorrect in assuming that all Afghani's are entitled to our help? Particularily with established lines of communication between government, the military and the NGo's, is it truly that hard to keep up our efforts? Especially when we have ample financial resources on hand.

 This is, in essence, the central objection that Mr. Watson has to the cutoff in current funding scenarios. It comes to mind that stable funding is of utmost concern to all aid giving NGO's and that CARE Canada's planning for their programs may not have initially been as optimistic in their scope. If the Federal government was misleading in their intent, then Mr. Watson has every right to complain.

 It is truly in the best interests of Canada to serve others in the best way we know how. If this means DART in Pakistan and CARE in Kabul who cares about our pedigree, we are just getting the job done and hopefully doing it right.

 I feel that the RUXTED position summates the institutional opposition from all militaries to cooperate with the burgeoning growth in NGO activities. Granted some institutions have not been around for too long but some accredited groups instantly come to mind (Red Cross, Medecins sans frontiers, Unicef). If there was a better relationship between NGO's and government, we would satisfy relief demands much faster, and probably for cheaper than what it costs now. By initiating dialogue with NGO's, the CF would be more informed of whom they will have to, or want to deal with in the future. 

 There is a new reality when it comes to delivering aid in a timely fashion. If the military seizes the opportunity, great benefits would come soon. Some examples which readily come to mind are the French interventions in their former colonies or USAID being dropped in Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11. I realize many resent the possibility of becoming 'taxi drivers for hippies' but  the truth is far, far different. No leader worth his/her salt will never relent to such an eventuality.

 Demonstrating immediate operational capabilities in a variety of capacities and environments is to me, one hell of a way of justifying the best for our forces. What is so wrong with giving engineers real experience with IED's and landmines? What is so wrong with showing the need for CF medical personnel in substantial numbers? How about Heavy lifters (Chinook's anyone)? What about trucks, transport planes, infrastructure, Log types, etc.? What about the demands for manpower alone?

 I could go on but I hope my point has been made. The CF should seize this ball and run with it as far as they can because it will pay off in the long term. For too long our military has been made to suffer tremendous budget and acquisition cuts simply because they could never defend their need for everything that they wanted to have or hold on to. 

 3-D offers a way out of that vicious decline, embrace the concept as it truly offers potential revolution of our Foreign affairs in all its' facets.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Feb 2006)

I guess sheikyerbouti and I read different articles (here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39776.0.html ) and editorials (here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39787.0.html )

I think Watson is complaining about 3D.

First: contrary to sheikyerbouti’s position, as I understand it, nothing at all has changed with the change of government; until it does, *IF* it does, 3D is the order of the day.

Second: aid, of any and all sorts, does not reside, in any manner, within *our* area of responsibility, if, by our,  sheikyerbouti means DND.  (The exception, of course, would be small, local projects arranged and funded by the soldiers themselves, as happens.)  Aid is the responsibility of Foreign Affairs (DFAIT) and CIDA – that’s why we call it 3D: Defence, Development and Diplomacy – each department and agency has its own responsibilities.

Third: while Government of Canada funds will be fairly narrowly focussed on 3D projects in the Kandahar area there is *nothing*,  in my understanding of the official 3D effort which precludes any Canadian agency – like CARE Canada, from doing its good works, whichever good works it decides are important, wherever in Afghanistan it thinks best.  Government funding will be channelled through CIDA for 3D projects in Kandahar.  As I read the article that is the crux of Watson’s objection: projects, CARE Canada projects, which he regards as important will not be eligible for further Government of Canada funding – he will have to raise the money elsewhere, like all charities do.  Did I read it wrong?

Fourth: I don’t think the CF is _institutionally opposed_ to cooperating with NGOs.  I don’t know for sure because I am not in the military, having been retired for many, many years.  I suspect that some CF members have little use for some NGOs – and for the people who work for them.  I am certain, because serving people have told me so, that many CF members admire and support the work of most NGOs.

Finally: _the ball_ is not there for the CF to _seize_; that’s not how Provincial Reconstruction Teams and 3D work,  as I understand it.  The aid _ball_ is in the hands of DFAIT and CIDA and the NGOs which elect to work in the Kandahar region as part of the 3D process.  The CF’s hands are wrapped firmly around their weapons – providing security for the Afghan people and the NGOs alike.

But, maybe I don’t read all that well.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Feb 2006)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> To begin with, I need some clarification as to the affiliation of the Ruxted group to this site.
> …



This http://army.ca/legal/ruxted.php which goes with every Ruxted Group contribution would seem to have addressed the question.  It has been there for months and months – but it has only been repeated about ten times now.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Feb 2006)

A few comments:

1)  Edward, your points are bang on.

2)  Having recently sat in an "Aid Effectiveness" meeting with President Karzai's senior economic advisor, I can tell you that the Afghan Government is not so frustrated with some of the larger aid agencies that have "fairly decent" co-operation with the government, but in the "hundreds and hundreds" of smaller aid agencies that cruise into the country, refuse to register with the Government, and carry on with their own small agendas without allowing the Afghan Government the opportunity to coordinate overall aid efforts.  This is not to say some of the biggies (USAID, DFID, etc...) don't carry on in a direction they generally prefer, but they do coordinate with the central Government.

I have not personally seen how CARE fits in, whether they coordinate their activities with the central government or not.  I know first hand, however, that CIDA is VERY WELL RESPECTED by the President and the Afghan Government as a whole, and those in the aid business in particular.  So much so, that CIDA's head of aid here in Afghanistan was made the chair of the international community's advisory group to the Government.  As well, not ALL CIDA money is going down to Kandahar...Mr. Watson is quite simply wrong in that statement.  A noticeable amount supports national projects and also directly supports National, Provincial and District government rebuilding.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## sheikyerbouti (14 Feb 2006)

To satisfy your query Mr. Campbell.

 I read every days worth of releases from SOMNIA provided by the CF college and try to keep abreast with issues of interest to the CF in general. My query with respect  to the RUXTED group is NOT as you assert provided by the disclaimer appended to all Ruxted releases. My original question still stands, what is the relationship? If I were to hazard a guess, the group is comprised of many of the notable luminaries and pundits of this site. In no way shape or form did I question the editorial position of the Ruxted group but rather I am simply curious as to what requirements are in place to have a permanent "sticky" on the main page. There are many informed people on this site that contribute greatly to my knowledge, so why not to the public at large? 

 With respect  to due diligence on the comprehensive scope of the 3-D program I would refer you (Mr. Campbell) to the DFAIT website, it is easily navigable and will provide insight into the aims of the 3D concept. At no point in time did I ever assert that 3-D is infallible, rather I consider myself a champion of its' merits and potential to bring honour to the good name of the CF and Canada.


 In pursuance of the topic at hand, your article cited raises the concerns of Mr. Watson towards the perception by CARE that they must shift their focus towards the new AOR of the Canadian mandate. By this I mean the full range of activities (diplomatic, military, aid related) that are carried by the various Canadian groups that are involved. In essence, I am implying the collective "we". If "we" cut off money for some of CARE's efforts that are no longer of priority, then "we" should be held to task. For chrissakes, we are talking gas money (40 thou) for some of the recently chartered jets that flew our leaders across the country on their campaigns. Considering we gave the money in the first place, we should have reasonable grounds for cutting off food aid to war torn women and children. 

 Given our wide range of goals WRT Afghanistan, the 3D approach allows us to garner resources that may not be otherwise available to us. I believe the rub to Mr. Watson's objections lies with the reduction in commitment to CARE's contributions that were previously instituted by the Canadian government. This is a long standing complaint that surfaces constantly; essentially once the conditions are favourable to withdrawal of government efforts, there is a vacuum created which prompts NGO's and the like to pick up the slack. When the need becomes too great, then those volunteers are the first to withdraw their activity and for the most part they are more effective at providing aid given their lack of overhead and specialized skills.

 In a high intensity aid effort like that of Afghanistan, there is a need or sustained commitment regardless of which party/mandarin is in power. 3-D affords greater commitment by bridging resources between separate departments or ministries. The skillset of the CF is paramount to succesful implementation of 3-D, and in my humble opinion will temper the shape of the CF for years to come. Only our military can do the job correctly and in a sustainable fashion. For 3D to work effectively we need all facets (Defence, Development and Diplomacy) to work hand in hand; not at arms length and possibly against each other at times.

 Unless of course you think Ottawa can do it better? My money is on the good people we have who can make it work, as well as we can, given the resources at hand.

 It behooves Canadians to put our money where our mouth is, or in this case where their mouth is.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Feb 2006)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> ...  I believe the rub to Mr. Watson's objections lies with the reduction in commitment to CARE's contributions that were previously instituted by the Canadian government. This is a long standing complaint that surfaces constantly ...



Bingo!

Now see:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39787/post-336099.html#msg336099
  where it says, _” In point of fact Dr. Watson is not engaged in promoting the independence of CARE Canada, or any other agency – no one is conscripting them.  This is nothing more than a nasty little feud over money.”_

CARE Canada is a charity, it raises money – donations – to do its good works, and they are good works.  *It is not an arm of government* but the Government of Canada does provide some support for some of CARE Canada’s work in some countries, just as the Government of the USA provides some money for some of CARE USA’s projects.  CARE is, in fact, the world’s largest humanitarian organization, see: http://www.care.org/ .  Watson’s objection is that some of the government’s money will be reassigned to projects in the Kandahar area, projects which require that NGOs work within the framework of the Canadian Provincial Reconstruction Team which is 3D in action.

I have some, personal, sympathy for Watson’s position: stable, long term, _untied_ support to efficient and effective NGOs *is* a good way to provide aid.  Turning the taps on and off is not good policy.  That does not, however, validate Watson’s contention that: _“… comments by Canadian Col. Steve Bowes reflect "a breathtaking lack of understanding" of how the military and aid groups should be working together.”_ 

In fact Colonel Bowes is trying hard to make 3D work – to get the NGOs to bring their skills and knowledge, commitment and courage, too, to the dangerous but necessary work in Kandahar.  Watson objects because cooperating with the military might mean being _”… prepared to give up their hard-earned neutrality by going "behind the wire" and aligning themselves with military forces …”_ – I believe that is a specious argument; that’s not what is being asked.  The Government of Canada is saying that those who want Government of Canada funding for aid operations in Afghanistan need to join the 3D team in Kandahar – where they will, indeed, be protected by Canadian (and allied) military forces.  Watson says that Canada’s 3D programme in Kandahar is _”just not feasible”_; that’s fine, no one is conscripting CARE Canada; they do not have to come to Kandahar and be part of the Government of Canada’s 3D efforts; they can stay in Kabul or wherever else they want to work.

I personally think 3D deserves a good trial; I think the Kandahar PRT will give it that; I think a good trial requires adequate funding.  CIDA does not have a bottomless pit of money; it is _fair_ and proper that Government of Canada funding should be focussed, mainly, on Government of Canada projects.  Watson disagrees, he wants that money for his, CARE Canada’s, pet projects – fine, it’s a free country; RUXTED disagreed with Watson – ditto.

Edit to correct spelling


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Feb 2006)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> ... My query with respect  to the RUXTED group is NOT as you assert provided by the disclaimer appended to all Ruxted releases. My original question still stands, what is the relationship? If I were to hazard a guess, the group is comprised of many of the notable luminaries and pundits of this site. In no way shape or form did I question the editorial position of the Ruxted group but rather I am simply curious as to what requirements are in place to have a permanent "sticky" on the main page.



This, from: http://army.ca/legal/ruxted.php settles the issue for me: _” The Ruxted Group consists of an informed group of stakeholders who are knowledgeable in the profession of arms, Canadian National Defence policy and related issues. While the opinions of The Ruxted Group vary widely, the articles and editorials of The Ruxted Group that appear on Army.ca or in publications nationwide reflect a consensus of the members and contributors to The Ruxted Group at the material time the materials were published. Unless expressly stated otherwise, the materials do not necessarily reflect the policy or opinions of Army.ca and its owner …”_

The Ruxted Group is just that, a group - self described as an _informed_ group but some readers will disagree.  It posts in Army.ca – in a sticky on the main page - because the owner allows it, just as he allows sheikyerbouti to post in the Army.ca fora.  Maybe it is _” comprised of many of the notable luminaries and pundits of this site”_; it posts with a pseudonym, just like sheikyerbouti, so we have no way of knowing ‘who’ it is or how it is connected to the proprietor.  Must Mike Bobbitt make the names and coordinates of all staff members public in order to _validate_ their positions here?  Presumably – not my place to say because I am neither the proprietor nor a staff member/moderator – The Ruxted Group is required to follow the same conduct guidelines, etc, as the rest of us.


----------



## sheikyerbouti (16 Feb 2006)

Although my profile may appear to be limited, with minimal sleuthing it would be very easy to ascertain my identity. Any young person involved with the RCL is going to be extremely easy to spot nowadays (especially in Vancouver). I also feel it should be noted that there are no indiscrepancies in my information provided to the admins of this site. If there was a need I could be contacted in a timely fashion.  As an aside, given that there has been no disciplinary action taken against me by the moderators of Army.ca it could be construed that my conduct has satisfied the terms and conditions of use. If I have abrogated my responsibilities, I invite any and all to constructively criticize my conduct.

 WRT the topic at hand, I feel that a comparison between our efforts and those of USAID are totally irrelevant. In a nutshell Canada has long neglected the civilian impact that our NGO's have, especially given their ability to render effective and timely aid that cannot be provided by official government efforts especialy in non-permissive environments. 3D provides an opportunity for us to enhance our efforts without really affecting the fiscal bottom line while at the same time justifying expenditures by all departments involved.

 To summate my position, I feel very strongly that full CF involvement in the 3-D approach can bring great benefit to the long term vision of the forces. The budget allocated to the Canadian military dwarfs that of its' related partners and with this in mind, to me, it makes sense that we put greater scrutiny on where our money is going. If the military needs certain critical assets to improve its capability then it is incumbent upon them to demonstrate such needs. 

 By working with non-traditional partners, the CF has an opportunity to justify itself and its actions especially when it comes to the procurement of big ticket items that cannot be otherwise supported ie: the Conservative decision to sell off the Chinooks we so badly need. Transport assets are notable in this respect as they can provide humanitarian impact while at the same time providing valuable experience, assets and activity to the members of the forces. To me, this is a "win-win" scenario, particularily given the potential for ongoing minority government situations that can impact our efforts abroad (the Netherlands and its' recent parliamentary decisions on troop strength and mobilization in Afghanistan come to mind).

 Assymetrical warfare is shaping the CF dramatically and it is up to its' leaders to mould that impact into a potent, hard hitting force that truly represents the intentions of all Canadians. We should be able to provide a hand up , while at the same time being able to strike down those that stand in the way of our efforts to spread democracy, human rights and socio-economic development. By relying on all assets at hand, we should be able to help those who need us in a more timely and constructive fashion.

 I would like to suggest that the RUXTED group or some others, invite Mr. Watson and CARE Canada to clarify his/their position on this forum giving once and for all, some closure to this matter while providing better insight to those of us who actively participate here. 

 As noted by last fall's Canadian Army journal and recent journalist participation, Army.ca has a widespread stature and influence that is shaped by its' participation and support or dismissal thereof of other groups like RUXTED or the Polaris institute. Army.ca is no longer the hangout and mailing list for a bunch of servicemen/women it used to be, rather it has become an influential force that cuts through alot of the bullshit we would otherwise rely upon as our main sources of information.

 If no others in a more formal capacity will do so, I will volunteer to contact Care Canada, Mr. Watson or its' representatives and invite them to elaborate upon their position. Better understanding can only be reached through mutual acceptance and debate of all positions.


(Mod edit to remove unnecessary mention of individual.)


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (16 Feb 2006)

sheikyerbouti, I don't believe anyone suggested that your conduct has been outside the Guidelines, unless I missed it. You're right though, Army.ca does enjoy a more prominent status these days, and with that comes a great deal of responsibility. That responsibility includes helping groups like Ruxted get their message out, but it also means presenting the _other side_ of arguments here. We do ourselves no favours if we stick to a single line of though and never consider alternate viewpoints.

In short, Army.ca is not about pushing a single "agenda" but is most useful when _all_ sides of an issue are represented and considered.

That being said, I understand that the Ruxted Group generally invites the focus of their editorials to respond. I do not know if they have done so in this case, but I believe that too many people pushing CARE with the same request may have a negative effect.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## sheikyerbouti (16 Feb 2006)

Loud and clear Mr. Bobbitt. On a side note, I look forward to ensuring my subscription to this site and support of your good work. For far too long I have ghosted and posted without showing my full support for your activities.

 If anyone from Ruxted is reading, could they confirm as to whether or not CARE has been apprised of the discussion ongoing on this forum. If they have not been contacted perhaps they should be encouraged to respond so as to provide definitive insight to their objections to the matter at hand.

 From my perspective, if Ruxted enjoys the support of this forum perhaps they may want to consider an amalgamation of their efforts with Army.ca so as to provide a greater critical mass to the message they wish to spread while at the same time adding even greater legitimacy to this site (although this is an editorial debate that I am not privy to). 

 Far too often, things of late seem to pop up here well before they reach the media mainstream. An excellent example of this would have to be the discussions and subsequent developments in support from the Conservative party for the enhancement of port facilities in Iqaluit. CIMIC provides greater functionality for the CF than could otherwise be achieved without broadbased support for the Canadian military strategy from our citizenry. Such a realization is crucial and of tremendous benefit to the positive, long term viability of the CF.

 cheers,

P.S. did my previous post just get edited? If I was out of place name dropping a prominent, published and renowned journalist, I sincerely apologize.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Feb 2006)

sheikyerbouti,
PM inbound


----------



## mdh (16 Feb 2006)

> My query with respect  to the RUXTED group is NOT as you assert provided by the disclaimer appended to all Ruxted releases. My original question still stands, what is the relationship? If I were to hazard a guess, the group is comprised of many of the notable luminaries and pundits of this site.



I think there is something to sheikyourbouti's argument here. Although I'm not especially fixated on the topic, if the Ruxted Group is going to provide a continuous series of collective editorials, then some disclosure of its experience, composition and background would help sustain its credibility (this doesn't necessarily mean naming names). I didn't find Edward Campbell's argument very persuasive - editorials posted on this site are of a different order of magnitude than the general run of forum messaging - even if the group is covered by the guidelines. 

Moreover if Ruxted proposes to challenge opinions in the public realm and in the media, with an eye to building a reputation for sober military calculation and incisiveness, its anonymity will undoubtedly be challenged anyway.

FWIW

cheers, mdh


----------



## starlight_cdn (17 Feb 2006)

> Dr. Watson is on record as opposing military managed ”aid” because it might endanger the neutral civilian aid agencies by tying them, in the minds of locals, with foreign, ‘occupying’ military forces and making those neutral, civilian aid agencies targets for attack.  That is a legitimate point of view and if he feels that CARE Canada people would be unnecessarily endangered then he should not deploy them to Kandahar.



Methinks, Dr Watson did not learn a single thing during the Nineties. I remember, during the fighting in *the Balkans*, how the NGO accomplished very little because of their lack of a staff element, intelligence, security and logistical support. These are all elements that armies excel at. I have a very good friend who works for the Red Cross, she will never deploy with them unless she has better security and intelligence. A lesson she learned during a horrible experience in *Somolia.* I think *Rawanda* proved that an armed organized force with a strong mandate to maintain order is required before any NGO will be effective.



> Dr. Watson talks about the ”hard earned neutrality” of international aid agencies and suggests that they are unwilling to surrender that to move ”behind the wire” and cooperate with Canada’s 3D (defence, diplomacy, development) approach to delivering support to the people of Afghanistan.



I remember, the haphazard way that aid was delivered at the whim of warlords based on their troop movements, not on DPRE's. For S&G's I traded rations with a Serb in '93, we sat down to eat at the crossroad. I gave him a Ham Omellette IMP . He handed me a Red Cross Daily Ration ( some kind of bean casserole- no meat) !!!! "Hard Earned Neutrality" :

The only way NGO's will be truly effective in any failed state or nation building operation will be with the assistance of the interveneing military forces involved. By making use of the assets that the military offers, NGO's will be able to effective deliver aid to the right people safely.

Just my $0.02.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Feb 2006)

Here is a letter, from today’s _National Post_ (reproduced under the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act) which adds some fuel to the fire:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=22a6e7bb-8d57-4812-afb7-906a05e972f8 


> CIDA decision hurts needy Afghans
> 
> National Post
> Published: Friday, February 17, 2006
> ...



Ms. MacDonald has an almost iconic status in the aid world,  She was, I think, the ‘voice’ whispering in Joe Clark’s ear during his tenure in Foreign (then External) Affairs, where she had been before.  She is also a _Red Tory_ icon but I am not sure that she did not join Clark and Stevens, _et al_ in being opposed to the new (unprogressive) Conservative Party.

To the point: MacDonald, like Watson, opposes the 3D project.

In my opinion her comments confirm that this is just a nasty little feud about money.  She says: _” This project has been funded by Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), and it is a dreadful travesty that the government has decided not to continue it.”_  No one is saying that CARE Canada, a partner in the world’s largest (and richest?) humanitarian agency cannot do whatever it wants, with all the money it raises from all its donors, *other than CIDA*.  CIDA is saying: _”Most of our money will be spent, by NGOs, in the Kandahar area.”_

MacDonald is wrong, talking through her hat, in my opinion, when she says:_ “Colonel Steve Bowes {statement} …. Is simply untrue and indicates a misunderstanding of the work of the aid agencies …”_.  In fact it is MacDonald, like Watson, who misunderstands the goals and methods of the Government of Canada and, I believe she, like Watson, does so intentionally – intending to deflect attention away from the fact that many NGOs are opposed to the 3D approach because it involves the military.

I can understand the desire of NGOs to operate in relatively safe areas where they can keep clear of the military and still (because the military is there, in great strength) do their jobs with a fairly high degree of security.  It is hypocritical but fully understandable.

Canada wants to take a somewhat different approach: to bring aid to people who live in less safe areas.  Col Bowes’ call for a _gut check_ was highly appropriate; the need is great and NGOs are better at helping the people in these dangerous areas than are soldiers or CIDA bureaucrats.  The soldiers will provide security and CIDA will hand out money; some NGOs will answer the call – maybe not CARE Canada but then, *who cares?*


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Feb 2006)

40 years, eh?  Are these luminaries aware that the "D" in "CIDA" stands for "Development", not "Dependency"?


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Feb 2006)

>some disclosure of its experience, composition and background would help sustain its credibility

Why?  Editorials are presentations of ideas.  Either the ideas and arguments are strong, or they are not.  Challenge the ideas, if you can.  It doesn't matter who contributed.  The soundness of the editorials - the body of work - will determine the credibility.


----------



## mdh (17 Feb 2006)

> Why?  Editorials are presentations of ideas.  Either the ideas and arguments are strong, or they are not.  Challenge the ideas, if you can.  It doesn't matter who contributed.  The soundness of the editorials - the body of work - will determine the credibility.



Why? Why not? If you are going to promote the Ruxted Group as a kind of pro-military "editorial brand" then sooner or later people are going to ask the obvious question - who or what is it? Why should I care (as a reader) what something called the Ruxted Group thinks? If Ruxted wants to take issue with CARE - okay - but if it's going to engage the reader on the basis of anything more than scoring clever debating points (or as you put it "the presentation of ideas") then you might want to present your credentials up front. You're more likely to get my attention with the gravitas of your experience if Ruxted represents 150 years of collective military experience as opposed to 14 year old cadet who happens to be an intellectual _enfant terrible. _ 

People on this board have asked who or what the Polaris Institute is, for example, without simply addressing the quality of their arguments. And they have generally measured the quality (and importance) of its arguments with that background in mind. 

After all, editorials are not generally considered to be disembodied fragments of opinion floating in the etherworld but a series of consistent (more or less) expressions representing the outlook of a publisher, a party, an interest group. 

cheers, mdh


----------



## muskrat89 (17 Feb 2006)

> Why should I care (as a reader) what something called the Ruxted Group thinks?



Why should the Ruxted Group care what you (the reader) thinks? It appears that the Group is simply offering counterpoints, via Mike's site, to specific concepts/entities/individuals. Members on this site are allowed (not invited, encouraged, nor obligated) to comment, as they see fit. If they don't like the context from which the Group presents those counter-points, then they don't need to join in the fray.

Sorry, but I think it is much ado about nothing


----------



## mdh (17 Feb 2006)

> Why should the Rusted Group care what you (the reader) thinks?



Well personally it doesn't matter to me - but in the overall sense that's a odd point to make isn't it? 

If you are going to all the trouble of producing editorials (again under aegis of a brand name), I assume you want to convince and persuade your audience - otherwise why bother? Secondly I would have thought Ruxted wants to persuade audiences beyond this site. If all the Ruxted Group is meant to be is an informal ginger group that makes the occasional rhetorical sally against the latest target _de jour_, that's fine.  If it has greater ambitions, then it may want to revisit this issue. 

cheers, mdh


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Feb 2006)

>You're more likely to get my attention with the gravitas of your experience if Ruxted represents 150 years of collective military experience as opposed to 14 year old cadet who happens to be an intellectual enfant terrible.

Your own bias is something for you to resolve.  No-one else can help you to become more open-minded.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Feb 2006)

>(again under aegis of a brand name),

The whole point of a brand name is to establish itself based on the quality of the product.


----------



## muskrat89 (17 Feb 2006)

> Well personally it doesn't matter to me



That's odd, considering you are one of only two people taking umbrage with it   ;D

My impression is that the Group wants to provide a counterpoint to specific ideas as put out by individuals or groups of some prominence. In many cases, ideas are presented, or statements are made - with little opportunity for counterpoints, particularly from members of the Military, Veterans, or people well-versed in military matters. Mike's use of the site is a tool for that purpose, utilized by _an informed group of stakeholders who are knowledgeable in the profession of arms, Canadian National Defence policy and related issues._ As to their motivations or long term goals... I cannot speculate.

If PETA, or the Objectivist Society contacted Mike and asked permission to post Editorials, I'm sure he would evaluate the possibility on a case-by-case basis...


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Feb 2006)

>People on this board have asked who or what the Polaris Institute is, for example, without simply addressing the quality of their arguments.

And it was a mistake to do so purely for its own sake.  However, there is at least one straightforward reason to legitimately ask "whois" in the course of evaluating ideas.  Weak arguments generally originate from biased sources because by definition an objective person seeks the strongest possible argument and follows rather than fits evidence to conclusions.  Thus, when one finds a weak argument one then asks what the agenda driving it was.  It makes it easier to understand why the weak case was presented.


----------



## mdh (17 Feb 2006)

> However, there is at least one straightforward reason to legitimately ask "whois" in the course of evaluating ideas.  Weak arguments generally originate from biased sources because by definition an objective person seeks the strongest possible argument and follows rather than fits evidence to conclusions.  Thus, when one finds a weak argument one then asks what the agenda driving it was.  It makes it easier to understand why the weak case was presented.



So therefore the objective person has a legitimate reason to ask "who is" the Ruxted Group.

Ah, so you agree with me after all  

cheers, mdh


----------



## Pikache (17 Feb 2006)

And you were told who the Ruxted Group is. Bunch of people with mil exp present or past who wish to remain anonymous.

It's not like editorials published anonymous is not without precedent.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Feb 2006)

I get the feeling of a guy with a Level I Security Clearance trying to get a gander at documents that are Level III.   :


----------



## mdh (17 Feb 2006)

> I get the feeling of a guy with a Level I Security Clearance trying to get a gander at documents that are Level III.



Yep that's me all right  :


----------

