# With regards to the new Minister of Defence here is  Peter Worthington



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jul 2004)

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Peter_Worthington/2004/07/22/551693.html

Generals disarmed

By PETER WORTHINGTON

There'll be more tears than cheers in the military about our new defence minister. 

The appointment of Bill Graham to replace David Pratt seems to indicate a leftward shift. Pratt had been assiduously groomed by generals to be their guy at the top, but sadly Pratt was rejected by the voters. Now it's back to square one for military manipulators. 

In one sense (one must try to be positive) Graham is a fitting choice for defence: In foreign affairs he was an advocate of "soft power," and if there's one thing our army has been reduced to in recent years, it's soft on power. 

Do-nothing diplomacy, do nothing militarily. 

Put bluntly, our military has been so depleted of personnel, equipment and weaponry that we could not sustain military action against a well-armed enemy. 

We've been involved in several conflicts since the early 1990s: In the first Gulf War our troops were relegated to garrison duty, not fighting, and endured no casualties. 

In Somalia our only casualties were self-inflicted wounds. In Rwanda we had one suicide. In Kosovo, again no casualties. 

In Afghanistan, the Princess Pats did no fighting, but our snipers performed well. The main casualties were from a U.S. hotshot bombing our guys for no valid reason. 

The Americans gave our troops 30 Bronze Stars which went to four snipers (for valour) and the rest to the senior officers and senior NCOs -- zilch for the rank-and-file. 

Now the military's got Bill Graham! 

Graham screwed up foreign affairs so royally that the PM must be hoping he'll do the same for the military. (Paul Martin, like his dad, has little interest in things military). 

In foreign affairs Graham was a great appeaser. He believed the Saudis when they said Bill Sampson wasn't tortured. He paid court to Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's version of Stalin, and opposed the Commonwealth imposing sanctions. Nary a peep from Graham when Mugabe framed Zimbabwe's gallant opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai for treason. 

Graham tugs a forelock to Beijing, and gives the back of his hand to Taiwan -- a flourishing democracy. 

Graham opened diplomatic relations with North Korea, and supports aid which goes not to the starving but to Kim Jong Il's army. 

As for Israel, we vote against it or abstain when it is routinely condemned by the UN. On Graham's watch, Canada supports the Palestinian Authority with humanitarian cash that helps indoctrinate young Palestinians with hatred and encourages suicide bombers. 

This outlook isn't encouraging for our military. 

Maybe these dire expectations are unfair. Maybe Graham will surprise us -- and the army -- as John McCallum did when he was a surprise choice for defence minister. 

McCallum turned out to have a greater social conscience on behalf of serving soldiers and veterans than any predecessor in living memory. 

Refreshingly, McCallum knew right from wrong and did something about it. Now McCallum is gone, even from veterans affairs. Pity. He's revenue minister, whatever that means. 

The thing about Graham in defence, is that he seems to have neither interest nor a clue about soldiering. 

He's a rather dainty fellow for the rough trade of soldiering. 

It's hard to visualize Graham visiting troops in the field, or munching on hard rations. 

He seems more a wine-and-canapes guy. 

Kind of precious. 

Soldiers aren't likely to identify with his rather effete personality. 

Oh, he'll try to be one of the boys on occasion, and generally will guffaw on cue, but the troops will roll their eyeballs and wonder what they've done to deserve this. 

Once again, the army gets a kick in the groin.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jul 2004)

P.S.  Peter rocks


----------



## Scott (23 Jul 2004)

PETER WORTHINGTON FOR MND....or Don Cherry......maybe....Ricky, Julian and Bubbles from TPB?

So many people more qualified than the man who got it.

I do not like Bill Graham, never have.

Just thoughts

Cheers


----------



## dutchie (23 Jul 2004)

This guy belongs on TV...or at least his views do. 

Right on Peter!


----------



## Rfn (23 Jul 2004)

Good article. I never realized what a disaster Graham was in Foreign Affairs. Lets hope the Liberal minority government collapses before the CF does.


----------



## AntiArmour Guy (23 Jul 2004)

> He seems more a wine-and-canapes guy.
> 
> Kind of precious.



OMFG...that was funny


....and kinda sad.

I hope he does surprise us. :-\


----------



## Danjanou (23 Jul 2004)

Last Nov 11th, I was invited to attend the services at the Naval Club, near Yonge and Bloor (cousin is a member). Good ole Bill who is the MP for the area (and my MP), Art "why can't my cuddles have a six figure job at NDHQ" Eggelton along with the local MPP were invited to the ceremonies.

Afterwards of course they made speeches to the assembled crowd, mostly vets. Long long self serving Liberal speeches. The MPP even got in a snit because he was introduced by the President of the Naval Club as the MPP for the Area and not as the new Health Minister to which he'd just been appointed. Turns out he also forgot to bring his wreath to lay on behalf of the Province of Ontario and that was the only reason he'd been invited. 

Anyways the bovine excrement that rolls and lack of understanding that rolls so easily from this Slick Willy of the North's mouth is amazing.  

When I got home after I told the wife, she shouild be proud of me. I refrained from decking the sumbitch after he started prattling on and on about his er I mean Canada's gloroius acheivements under the Liberal watch.

Methinks we're in for a new name change from CAF to CF and now soon CEF (Canadian Emasculated Forces). :

Oh yeah there were no canapes either.


----------



## vr (23 Jul 2004)

Well gentlemen it didn't take long for our first sign of the bones to come.  According to the papers they've chosen the Sikorsky S-92 for the MHP.  Inspite of the the fact that we are already building, receiving, training on, using, maintaining, and learning to love the EH-101.  The EH-101 is a purpose built maritime platform while the S-92 is a "militarised" version of a civilian transport.  Does anyone else smell "Griffon" here?  Just think of all the money we won't now be saving in training, maintenance and supplies.

On the bright side we won't have our helicopters mistaken for those of any 1st world navies.

I guess we know how much the say the Forces will have in their future.

Sorry guys, it just stinks.  Clausewitz was only half right:  preparing for war is a continuation of politics by other means.


----------



## Slim (23 Jul 2004)

No wonder they replaced McCallum, he started listening to the soldiers...Instead of the You-KNow-Who's!

Enough Said!

Slim


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jul 2004)

The new helicopter is not a bad choice.   Although I do agree 100% that we should have stayed with one helicopter for this purpose at least this new helicopter (so far) appears that it can get the job done.   See this thread on the purchase.   So no I don't think it is along the same lines as the Griffon debacle.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/17809.0.html

esp this link: http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/superhawk/index.html

http://www.sikorsky.com/details/0,3036,CLI1_DIV69_ETI1583,00.html


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jul 2004)

Here is a comparison:

http://www.sikorsky.com/details/1,,CLI1_DIV69_ETI263,00.html


----------



## quebecrunner (23 Jul 2004)

I'm so horrify by all that political non sence :threat:

dont tell me that the cormoran will have cost more than the sikorski. It was a political gift to the Ontario voters.

Logics and politics dont make a perfect match,,,


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jul 2004)

I look at it this way.  At least it was money spent on a quality product with multiple uses.


----------



## Slim (23 Jul 2004)

For a change...!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Jul 2004)

Oh no doubt.


----------



## Sheerin (24 Jul 2004)

> In Afghanistan, the Princess Pats did no fighting, but our snipers performed well. The main casualties were from a U.S. hotshot bombing our guys for no valid reason.



I thought our troops in Afghanistan particpated in combat during Op Harpoon... or am I mistaken?


----------



## nULL (24 Jul 2004)

They participated in the operations, but never closed with the enemy.


----------



## sinblox (24 Jul 2004)

PPCLI never participated in any combat at all? I had thought they did, guess I was just mistaken. Can anyone confirm that?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Jul 2004)

I don't believe they saw any combat but each cave they cleared could have been full of bad guys (ie each had to be treated as if they were hostile).


----------



## Slim (24 Jul 2004)

sinblox said:
			
		

> PPCLI never participated in any combat at all? I had thought they did, guess I was just mistaken. Can anyone confirm that?



I have to say that I thought that they were engaged at one point as well. Still, even if the caves were empty the guys on the ground would have experienced almost the same stress if they thought the caves were full of bad guys...Or even the unknown!

My hats off to them in any case.

Slim


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Jul 2004)

That was what I was trying to say.  Thanks for making it easier to articulate.


----------



## MJP (24 Jul 2004)

Well said Slim and CFL.
Just an addition I poached off another site from a Coy commander that deploy with 3VP.  After reading it maybe the armchair generals can tell me what part of not closing with the enemy 3VP didn't do?



> I would suggest that "shots fired in anger" is a relative term. It is true that the only direct engagements against positively identified enemy combattants were those prosecuted by members of Recce Pl during the initial stages of Op ANACONDA. However, I would argue it is also true that the many direct-fire SA and AT rounds, satchel charges, etc, expended in prepping sangars and caves for clearance on the Whale were fully intended to kill enemy soldiers. The fact that those fighting positions had been abandonned is largely irrelevant, as the soldiers doing the shooting did not know that. Many soldiers within the rifle coys fired rounds with the expressed intent of killing enemy combattants. We can split hairs all day long, but I would consider any round fired with the expressed intention of killing whoever is at the far end, to be a shot "fired in anger".
> 
> Apparently the guys you've been talking to around 3 VP have also forgotten the mortar barrage fired with the intent of killing the escaping AQ on the South end of the Whale. I am personally aware of yet another incident where a Pl Comd engaged an enemy target with rifle fiire during a bunker clearance with his signaller. The fact that the engaged enemy turned out to be previously deceased should not belittle the fact that upon transitioning from bright daylight to a dim bunker and idenifying a potential threat, the individual in question immediately engaged to kill. Again, I would suggest that those were "shots fired in anger".


----------



## Slim (24 Jul 2004)

MJP said:
			
		

> I would suggest that "shots fired in anger" is a relative term.
> Apparently the guys you've been talking to around 3 VP have also forgotten the mortar barrage fired with the intent of killing the escaping AQ on the South end of the Whale. I am personally aware of yet another incident where a Pl Comd engaged an enemy target with rifle fiire during a bunker clearance with his signaller. The fact that the engaged enemy turned out to be previously deceased should not belittle the fact that upon transitioning from bright daylight to a dim bunker and idenifying a potential threat, the individual in question immediately engaged to kill. Again, I would suggest that those were "shots fired in anger".



I love the fact that I'm a Canadian...But sometimes this "apoplogist" way of life we have starts to rub a bit! Those soldiers did a bang-up job! Why take take away from their accomplishments with armchair crap from some one who has never even seen an enemy, except perhaps on television.

They had no way of knowing what they were up against when they cleared those caves. They went, and did a profesional job, without complaint!

I say again, good job!

Slim


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jul 2004)

Reference the discussion about the PPCLIs on this thread I can only agree with those who say "Good Job".

However the original discussion point was the new MND.  I just saw something in today's National Post (I think - I can't find it again).  Surprised the heck out of me but should make Ex-Dragoon ecstatic - Bill was a Subby in the Navy.  He got out in '57.  Precious eh?? ;D

I still don't like him but for military experience I think he has got everybody beat except for Sgt Barney Danson and Cpl Paul Hellyer.  

Cheers.


----------

