# Def Min's "Architect" Statements (split fm Walts et. al.)



## The Bread Guy (28 Apr 2017)

Not exactly claiming a medal, but ...

What.  The.  F#$%^&*k???


> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has apologized to Canadian, American and Afghan troops that he served with in Afghanistan for claiming that he was the “architect” of Canada’s most famous and bloodiest combat operation of that war.
> 
> The minister made the claim in a speech last week in India. He told a gathering of security experts in New Delhi on April 18 that “on my first deployment to Kandahar in 2006, I was the architect of Operation Medusa where we removed 1,500 Taliban fighters off the battlefield … and I was proudly on the main assault.”
> 
> ...


Here's the speech text (also archived) - also attached if links don't work for you.
 :facepalm:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Apr 2017)

Time to resign.  That is all....


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Apr 2017)

Very disappointed with this.


----------



## Stoker (28 Apr 2017)

So the question is this the same as wearing medals you are not entitled to and given his former rank and his new position should he resign? I say yes however I doubt if he will.


----------



## FSTO (28 Apr 2017)

What would compel him to do this? Its one thing to tell tall tales in the Legion basement, but as the MND at a speech on the world stage?
C'mon man! :facepalm:


----------



## RedcapCrusader (28 Apr 2017)

I initially thought, his speech having been presented in India, it was a misconstrued/mistranslation....


....that is until the official transcript came out, followed by his retraction.

Utter disappointment.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Apr 2017)

I'm kinda surprised that, considering how many levels of OK such thing have to go thru, that nobody picked up on that bit before it got to print.

As someone waaaaaay smarter than me once said around these parts, folks don't resign like they used to these days ...


----------



## FSTO (28 Apr 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I'm kinda surprised that, considering how many levels of OK such thing have to go thru, that nobody picked up on that bit before it got to print.
> 
> As someone waaaaaay smarter than me once said around these parts, folks don't resign like they used to these days ...



Cudmore takes the hit?


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Apr 2017)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Cudmore takes the hit?


I don't know how much contact the Director of Policy in the Minister's Office has with this kind of communications product as part of the approvals "sausage machine", so I couldn't even guess that at this point.


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Apr 2017)

> “on my first deployment to Kandahar in 2006, I was the architect of Operation Medusa where we removed 1,500 Taliban fighters off the battlefield … and I was proudly on the main assault.”





> I'm kinda surprised that, considering how many levels of OK such thing have to go thru, that nobody picked up on that bit before it got to print.



His statement was massive: "the architect" of a operation does lead someone to wonder. Also  ...." I was  proudly on the main assault.”

Me, that's pretty damn good for a Militia officer, in the midst of a real war dominated with Cdn military professionals, especially as he was Staff  doing the "plans, designs, and reviews" of the Op, then going on the main assault.

Now we see why he ran for the Lieliberal party.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Apr 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> His statement was massive: "the architect" of a operation does lead someone to wonder ...


Even if they'd written "an" instead of "the", it _may_ have been at least ... wiggle-roomy, but this is pretty definite, indeed.


----------



## Halifax Tar (28 Apr 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> His statement was massive: "the architect" of a operation does lead someone to wonder. Also  ...." I was  proudly on the main assault.”
> 
> Me, that's pretty damn good for a Militia officer, in the midst of a real war dominated with Cdn military professionals, especially as he was Staff  doing the "plans, designs, and reviews" of the Op, then going on the main assault.
> 
> Now we see why he ran for the Lieliberal party.



He's been played up as the "warrior politician" by the media, perhaps assumptions were made by his staffers ?  Or he simply began to see history different than it actually happened, maybe ?


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Apr 2017)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> He's been played up as the "warrior politician" by the media, perhaps assumptions were made by his staffers ?


1)  That's supposed to be why a number of sets of eyes (both bureaucratic and political, _usually_) look at such stuff before it's approved and handed to the Minister, so _*if*_ that's what happened, #SystemFail.
2)  The job of his staffers is presumably to ensure things are correct, not just congruent with media narrative.***


			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ... Or he simply began to see history different than it actually happened, maybe ?


Only he can know that for sure ...

*** - Yeah, I know that's an ... optimistic statement when it comes to political statements developed/groomed by political staff, but the general principle still applies - you have to know reality before you can adequately bend it.  If bureaucrats handled this at some point, though, it IS their job to "speak reality to power".


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Apr 2017)

He read the speech before hand and undoubtedly rehearsed the presentation. Even if he didn't, when he got to the inflated parts, a WTF second and ad libbed to correct the speech.

Absolutely inexcusable conduct. 

The only thing missing was  " I was proudly bravely on the first wave of the main assault.”

Was he on the main assault?


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Apr 2017)

I have seen a favourable reference to him in a FOO party's log from that time frame. He was working developing intelligence in the forward area, so he probably had a role in establishing the enemy paragraph of the operation order. To claim anything more was a lapse in judgement and a case of ego run amok, something politicians do all too frequently.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Apr 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> He read the speech before hand and undoubtedly rehearsed the presentation.


In my limited experience with the government info-machine, this may or may not happen, depending on the Minister or the circumstance, so that's never a "for sure".  That said ...


			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ... when he got to the inflated parts, a WTF second and ad libbed to correct the speech.


 :nod:  One would _hope_ ...


			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Absolutely inexcusable conduct.


Line crossed, indeed ...


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Apr 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> He read the speech before hand and undoubtedly rehearsed the presentation. Even if he didn't, when he got to the inflated parts, a WTF second and ad libbed to correct the speech.
> 
> Absolutely inexcusable conduct.
> 
> ...



Of course. The Regs always position the Senior Officer reservists in the front rank during major battles.... it saves wear and tear on the minesweepers


----------



## HB_Pencil (28 Apr 2017)

This wasn't the first time he said it.


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Apr 2017)

I know he has James Cudmore on staff as one ex journalist, who's his speech writer?  Brian Williams?!?   :


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Apr 2017)

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> This wasn't the first time he said it.


In public?


----------



## George Wallace (28 Apr 2017)

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> This wasn't the first time he said it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Apr 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

>


Funny and partisan, all rolled into one, but that doesn't answer my original question ...


----------



## Remius (28 Apr 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I know he has James Cudmore on staff as one ex journalist, who's his speech writer?  Brian Williams?!?   :



Sgt Frank Gervais.


----------



## HB_Pencil (28 Apr 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> In public?



I'm pretty sure in public. There's been a "role inflation" that has been going on for quite awhile.


----------



## Breacher (28 Apr 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> In public?



I found this video on David Akin's Twitter feed. The video was posted in July of 2015. The "architect" statement is made around the 14 minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1fWSq0mnXM


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Apr 2017)

If I am hearing the Minister's words correctly, at the 14 minute mark he said he is quoting "the CDS" who said "the Minister, was the architect of OP MEDUSA".  It will be interesting to see if the CDS makes any statement to clarify or back up this or not.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Apr 2017)

Breacher said:
			
		

> I found this video on David Akin's Twitter feed. The video was posted in July of 2015. The "architect" statement is made around the 14 minute mark.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1fWSq0mnXM


Thanks loads for that - much appreciated.

I listened more than once, and here's what the Minister said (14:09-14:51)...


> ... We took the fight to the Taliban, we took it hard.  In 2006, as General Vance, who's going to be the Chief of Defence Staff, if I could quote him, he said that I was the architect of Operation Medusa, one of the biggest operations since the Korean War Canada has led ... What people forgot was that, they only remember the fight and the tactical win that we had, but they forgot, how did we get there?  I actually was able to take the population that was supporting the Taliban, bring them onto our side.  That's how I was able to get the intelligence.  That's how I was able to devise the counter-tactics against them and develop the operation that we were finally able to win on ...





			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> ... It will be interesting to see if the CDS makes any statement to clarify or back up this or not.


Indeed ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Apr 2017)

I suspect, that no matter if his words were correct and so to speak this all is taken out of context due to unfortunately framed phraseology, this will be a stink that will never leave the man.  The damage is done, as is with Adm Norman, whichever way the knife cuts.


----------



## FSTO (28 Apr 2017)

Just listened to the CBC Power Panel on this issue. All the reporters are shaking their heads on why he would do this. He already had the street cred, he didn't have to embellish it all.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Apr 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> ... It will be interesting to see if the CDS makes any statement to clarify or back up this or not.


And here's what the CDS told Global (again, via David Akin -- 3:06-3:14) at today's news conference on sexual misconduct when asked about the Sajjan statement ...


> ... I'm not really aware of this case and quite frankly I'd like us to keep our eye on the ball about sexual misconduct in the Armed Forces today.  Thanks for your question ...


And the CDS refused to take a follow-up question on Sajjan's statement.


			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I suspect, that no matter if his words were correct and so to speak this all is taken out of context due to unfortunately framed phraseology ...


I hear you, and I'm one to give one the benefit of the doubt, but it's in the written remarks, he said it out loud in India, and he's said it in an interview in 2015.  He had a chance to pick his words in 2015, and the info-machine had a chance to pick the words earlier this month, and those are the words that got used.  

And I'm not hearing anybody is saying "maybe we should focus more on what he _meant_" in _this_ case    #WordsMatter


----------



## Blackadder1916 (28 Apr 2017)

Architect?  It will become a meme . . . 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGiylPOXSV8

By choosing that specific word he really ****ed up and will continue to wear it.  Whether a former commander used that specific word on some occasion in reference to his performance re OP MEDUSA will never matter, however what was said about his performance was:

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/11/04/opinion/you-have-no-idea-how-badass-trudeaus-defence-minister-really


> Addressed to then-Vancouver police chief Jamie Graham, the letter from Brigadier General David Fraser thanked the chief for the loan of Detective Constable Sajjan, then a reserve officer with the Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> It includes the following excerpts:
> 
> ...



Well, he may not have been the architect, but he was probably a senior draftsman.

(Edited to add)

While I can understand why the initial report was placed in the "walt" thread, this is more than a story about some sad, insecure individual who inflated his military service history.  This is a political story and though it may not be worthy of its own thread, surely there must be a thread that deals with the political screw-ups of the government or at least a thread about this particular individual.  He made a small splash on these means when given his current post, so including this latest event may be appropriate to tell the wider tale of his ministry.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (29 Apr 2017)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Just listened to the CBC Power Panel on this issue. All the reporters are shaking their heads on why he would do this. He already had the street cred, he didn't have to embellish it all.



Maybe with all the scandal, and the RAdm Norman debacle, he felt he was losing ground and needed to try and gain brownie points?


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Apr 2017)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> ... While I can understand why the initial report was placed in the "walt" thread, this is more than a story about some sad, insecure individual who inflated his military service history.  This is a political story and though it may not be worthy of its own thread ...


You're right about the political angle -- I was 50-50 about posting it here or on the political threads, and fell this way.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Apr 2017)

And the latest from macleans.ca ...


> A day before he backtracked from his false claim that he was the “architect” of Operation Medusa, one of the biggest and most dangerous missions of the war in Afghanistan, Minister of National Defence Harjit Sajjan inexplicably and stubbornly stood by them in a correspondence with me. What happened over the last five days might be called the anatomy of an apology.
> 
> The controversy stems from an April 18 speech the Minister delivered at “Conflict Prevention and Peacekeeping in a Changing World,” a conference in New Delhi, India. “On my first deployment to Kandahar in 2006,” the Minister said, “I was the architect of Operation Medusa where we removed 1,500 Taliban fighters off the battlefield … and I was proudly on the main assault.” It was an odd comment. Though Sajjan was a veteran of the 2006 operation, he was in no way the key planner. That role is typically credited to retired Major General David Fraser, then the commander of the Multinational Brigade for Regional Command South, and the man who organized and led Operation Medusa.
> 
> ...


op:


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Apr 2017)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> While I can understand why the initial report was placed in the "walt" thread, this is more than a story about some sad, insecure individual who inflated his military service history.



I'll bet he's feeling sad, now.


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Apr 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'll bet he's feeling sad, now.



And has learned a lot about the transition from military to civilian life, and politics


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Apr 2017)

Aaaaand, the apology (via FB):


> The response to my remarks about Operation Medusa has been a good reminder of something important for me as a leader - always set a standard that honours those you serve. Another reminder is to own your mistakes.
> 
> I made a mistake ‎in describing my role. I wish to retract that description and apologize for it. I am truly sorry.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Apr 2017)

Too little, too late, methinks.

Members of the CAF are forgiving, dedicated and self effacing. If they have a fault, it's turning their backs on someone that emphasises their own career on the backs of the doers. They may not say anything, but I _think_ they've lost a lot of respect for him. I don't think members of the CAF, being what they are, will do any less than 100% no matter who the boss is. The man they hoped would bring a military perspective to the job, no matter past glories, has just shown himself to be nothing more than a liebral politician. Makes it hard to work for a man like that. :2c:


----------



## George Wallace (29 Apr 2017)

Agreed.  Respect has been lost.  Even as late as yesterday, he had not changed his story to Evan Solomon.  Now he backpedals.  He has not been the first military personality who entered politics who has lost his 'street cred' with serving and former serving members; and he will not be the last.


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Apr 2017)

It's also telling that both the CDS or MGen(ret) Fraser are refusing to comment on this story.


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Apr 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It's also telling that both the CDS or MGen(ret) Fraser are refusing to comment on this story.



Its not telling that the CDS won't comment. Its telling that he'd rather answer questions about sexual misconduct than answer questions about his boss lying to the Canadian public.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 May 2017)

Remember the online version of the now-notorious Def Min's speech in India?


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Not exactly claiming a medal, but ...
> 
> What.  The.  F#$%^&*k???Here's the speech text (also archived) - also attached if links don't work for you.
> :facepalm:


Even though it's (for now, anyway) clearly marked as "Notes" for the Minister, and it says, "Check Against Delivery" (a warning to reporters or anyone following the speech from the text to let them know the speaker may not be saying exactly what the text says), now, we hear something different from the Info-machine:


> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan‘s controversial claim that he was the architect of Operation Medusa, a major offensive in Afghanistan led by Canadian forces in 2006, was not in the speech’s prepared text, according to a senior government source close to the minister.
> 
> Sajjan delivered the speech earlier this month in New Delhi.
> 
> ...


Really?

Funny  - here's what appears to be the YouTube video of the speech posted by the host organization the day after the date of the speech.  Lots of words there that aren't on the "transcript" posted online -- 17:05 in is where he says the architect thing ...

Really?!?

Countdown to media ATIP for original notes, in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...


----------



## Good2Golf (1 May 2017)

Wasn't "The True ArchitectTM" of Medusa actually an American S5 plans officer who slaved away for the US CG in RC(S), even before LCol Hope handed control of the Canadian Battle group over to (then) LCol Lavoie with (then) BGen Fraser watching from the TOC? ???

Regards
G2G


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (1 May 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Wasn't "The True ArchitectTM" of Medusa actually an American S5 plans officer who slaved away for the US CG in RC(S), even before LCol Hope handed control of the Canadian Battle group over to (then) LCol Lavoie with (then) BGen Fraser watching from the TOC? ???
> 
> Regards
> G2G



 :rofl:


----------



## Good2Golf (1 May 2017)

I don't know, HB, he could be a Green Tab, but with his collar popped so awesomely, he could be hiding his staff-trained credentials? ;D

This guy probably always selected the "Most Preposterous" COA. :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 May 2017)

More grist for the mill:  one political scientist's commentary, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ ...


> I spent much of November and December arguing that naming a very recently retired former general as Secretary of Defense is problematic--that there is much confusion to be had, by the former officer, the person who picked him, and the public.  Well, we see in recent days that this argument may have applied to the country to the north as well.
> 
> Harjit Sajjan has gotten into hot water for stating that he was the architect for a major effort, Operation Medusa,*** in Afghanistan in 2006.  Whether he was or was not (probably not), this is problematic to those soldiers who serves because he is seen as taking credit for what was a multi-person effort.  So, either bragging or lying violates the sense of honor that Canadian soldiers have.  Today, Sajjan will be answering questions about it in Parliament.
> 
> ...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (1 May 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> More grist for the mill:  one political scientist's commentary, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ ...



I am of the opinion that military officers, as a matter of them possessing a Queen's Commission, should refrain from participating in politics.  In my mind, it's a huge conflict of interest having a former serving member as Defence Minister and undermines the entire idea of "Civilian Control" of the Armed Forces.  Has Minister Sajjan renounced his Commission?  I'm sure it proudly hangs on one of his walls.


----------



## GAP (1 May 2017)

I disagree.....having served he has a better perspective of the needs and wants.....the trick is to find a politician with some ethics that don't involve his/her reelection.....


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (1 May 2017)

GAP said:
			
		

> I disagree.....having served he has a better perspective of the needs and wants.....the trick is to find a politician with some ethics that don't involve his/her reelection.....



But it's actually contradictory, Harjit Sajjan is legally still a commissioned officer because he hasn't been decommissioned.  How can we have "Civilian Control" when the Minister of National Defence isn't a civilian?

I don't think Commissioned Officers should participate in politics at all but likewise I believe Officers should be entitled to speak publically about matters pertaining to Defence, regardless of whether the government likes it or not.


----------



## mariomike (1 May 2017)

For reference to the discussion,

(7) No member of the Regular Force shall:
a.take an active part in the affairs of a political organization or party;
b.make a political speech to electors, or announce himself or allow himself to be announced as a candidate, or prospective candidate, for election to the Parliament of Canada or a provincial legislature; or
c.except with the permission of the Chief of the Defence Staff, accept an office in a municipal corporation or other local government body or allow himself to be nominated for election to such office.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-01/ch-19.page

I believe he was ( is? ) in the PRes.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 May 2017)

GAP said:
			
		

> ... the trick is to find a politician with some ethics that don't involve his/her reelection ...


And while many, if not most, may start their political careers wanting to make a difference, in the end, it tends to come down to the bit in yellow - no matter what team jersey.


			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I am of the opinion that military officers, as a matter of them possessing a Queen's Commission, should refrain from participating in politics.  In my mind, it's a huge conflict of interest having a former serving member as Defence Minister and undermines the entire idea of "Civilian Control" of the Armed Forces.  Has Minister Sajjan renounced his Commission?  I'm sure it proudly hangs on one of his walls.


The record says he released as of 8 Nov 2015.  


			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ... How can we have "Civilian Control" when the Minister of National Defence isn't a civilian? ...


Re:  renouncing commissions, are all commissioned members expected to do that on release?  And if they don't, are they not civilians?


			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ... I don't think Commissioned Officers should participate in politics at all but likewise I believe Officers should be entitled to speak publicly about matters pertaining to Defence, regardless of whether the government likes it or not.


Interesting concept -- and you think this would still be a good idea if you had someone working for you publicly (e.g., potentially to the media) disavowing/disagreeing with your orders/directions while in a leadership position over them?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (1 May 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> For reference to the discussion,
> 
> (7) No member of the Regular Force shall:
> a.take an active part in the affairs of a political organization or party;
> ...



Now your talking about service in the Armed Forces, I'm talking about possessing a commission, two very different things.  You may no longer be a member of the Armed Forces; however, you still hold a commission and can be asked to serve "at pleasure".



> ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith
> 
> To ........ .........
> 
> ...


  

The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is the Governor General, The Chief of Defence Staff falls next in the military hierarchy.  Should the Governor General not publically spank a person who possesses a commission signed by his office?  How can you have a Minister of National Defence, who holds a commission given to him by the Governor General, in command of the Ministry of National Defence?  How does the Governor General strip a person of their commission in this instance for poor conduct?  See where the conflict is?

Note:  I'm not saying Harjit Sajjan should be stripped of his commission or should even resign, he made a small error and a formal apology should be enough.  




			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And while many, if not most, may start their political careers wanting to make a difference, in the end, it tends to come down to the bit in yellow - no matter what team jersey.



Officers manage a vital national institution, do Judges become politicians once they leave the bench?  I think anyone working as a Judge or holding a Commission from the Head of State should abstain from participating in politics for life.  It's the reason the Monarch has "placed special trust" in you.   



> The record says he released as of 8 Nov 2015.



Even if you release, you still hold a commission.  It's the reason he can call himself LCol (Ret'd) Sajjan.  He serves at the "Queen's Pleasure".



> Re:  renouncing commissions, are all commissioned members expected to do that on release?  And if they don't, are they not civilians?



Nope, it's the reason I can release from the military then five years later, join as if I never left.  Otherwise I would need to be awarded a new commission.  Commissions have a start date and end date, the end date is when the Monarch says I'm done or I die.  



> Interesting concept -- and you think this would still be a good idea if you had someone working for you publicly (e.g., potentially to the media) disavowing/disagreeing with your orders/directions while in a leadership position over them?



Disagreement is different than not actioning though.  If a person tells me to do something, I can tell him that it's a bad idea for XXXX; however, I will carry it out because it's my duty.

I think debate is healthy.  The government controls the Armed Forces through budget allocation and directing us to undertake missions.  How does a military run an Academic Institution such as RMC if it can't critique government policy.  Situation:  "I'm a student undertaking a Masters in War Studies at RMC and I also happen to be a member of the Armed Forces.  I produce a paper critiquing the methodology used in the upcoming Defence Policy Review".  I need to write this paper to fulfill my academic obligations but I'm also violating the CSD by doing so.  How is this just in a democracy?


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 May 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> But it's actually contradictory, Harjit Sajjan is legally still a commissioned officer because he hasn't been decommissioned.  How can we have "Civilian Control" when the Minister of National Defence isn't a civilian?
> 
> I don't think Commissioned Officers should participate in politics at all but likewise I believe Officers should be entitled to speak publically about matters pertaining to Defence, regardless of whether the government likes it or not.



He retired from the CF before he took the position of MND, so he's no longer commissioned.  This was so there would be on conflict with his having one etc.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 May 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ... The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is the Governor General, The Chief of Defence Staff falls next in the military hierarchy.  Should the Governor General not publically spank a person who possesses a commission signed by his office?  How can you have a Minister of National Defence, who holds a commission given to him by the Governor General, in command of the Ministry of National Defence?  How does the Governor General strip a person of their commission in this instance for poor conduct?  See where the conflict is?...


And where's it say the GG/C-in-C can't appropriately spank the current Minister if he's released but still holding a commission?  And if the GG, as the Crown's rep, can't take way a Royal commission, who can?  If he can take it from a serving officer who's moving into no-longer-serving status, why can't he from a non-serving one if required, especially if something happened that would warrant (no pun intended) taking back a commission?


			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ... Even if you release, you still hold a commission.  It's the reason he can call himself LCol (Ret'd) Sajjan.  He serves at the "Queen's Pleasure" ... it's the reason I can release from the military then five years later, join as if I never left.  Otherwise I would need to be awarded a new commission.  Commissions have a start date and end date, the end date is when the Monarch says I'm done or I die.


This is new to me, in spite of my previous (non-commissioned) service - thanks for that.


			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ... Disagreement is different than not actioning though.  If a person tells me to do something, I can tell him that it's a bad idea for XXXX; however, I will carry it out because it's my duty.
> 
> I think debate is healthy.  The government controls the Armed Forces through budget allocation and directing us to undertake missions ...


But I asked you if you'd be OK with a subordinate officer _*publicly*_ disagreeing with you or criticizing one of your day-to-day decisions, not just discussing pro's & cons (which I suspect is par for the course), based on what you said:


			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ... I believe Officers should be entitled to speak publically about matters pertaining to Defence, regardless of whether the government likes it or not.





			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ... How does a military run an Academic Institution such as RMC if it can't critique government policy ...


Good question, but I think officers publishing papers via an academic review system (and there are a number of military academics who can straighten me out on this around these parts) is quite a different beast than someone in uniform talking off the cuff criticizing the government and its policies.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (1 May 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> He retired from the CF before he took the position of MND, so he's no longer commissioned.  This was so there would be on conflict with his having one etc.



You're incorrect, he still has a commission.  Just because you release from the CAF doesn't mean you give up your commission.

Milnews to answer your question, yes I would be ok with that.  If I make a statement we are doing something and someone tells me that's a bad idea, I ask why?  

Again, public disagreement is totally fine.  Real leaders should accept challenges and be prepared to admit when they're wrong.

Writing a paper is the same as speaking it.  There is no differentiation in the law.


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 May 2017)

I believe you have to "resign" your Commission so you are no longer a "Commissioned Officer". i.e. in the old days a PRes commissioned officer resigned his commission to do a component transfer to the RegF. We had a number of RESO go RegF so they had to resign their PRes commission for a new RegF commission, with seniority from ..........

Their was a Reg F Offr in Edm DB. He wore no rank of course but was still a Commissioned Officer


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 May 2017)

Extract from the Comments section of the NP today re this subject. Very good point I think.



> Griffon11 May 2017 5:06 AM
> I have just read this article on the Google news site along with 100 or so accompanying comments - the majority of which call for him to step down. Most of the comments point to the disservice his elaborations/fabrication have done to the military family and public and associated loss of credibility he will have with those audiences. However, not one addresses what is likely every bit as important to the role he plays in representing Canada's defence interests and that is the loss of credibility and respect he will suffer in his dealings with the international defence community, particularly with the Americans (several very experienced generals in the Administration) and the Brits. This impact cannot be apologized away and his continuance 'justified' by our ever skating and forgiving nominal PM. His ability to represent Canada on the international stage has been badly compromised and for that reason alone he should step down.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 May 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ... Milnews to answer your question, yes I would be ok with that.  If I make a statement we are doing something and someone tells me that's a bad idea, I ask why?
> 
> Again, public disagreement is totally fine.  Real leaders should accept challenges and be prepared to admit when they're wrong.
> 
> Writing a paper is the same as speaking it.  There is no differentiation in the law.


You're a bigger man than most if you'd be OK with someone going to the media (which is the context I understood when you said "speak publically about matters pertaining to Defence, regardless of whether the government likes it or not") about a decision of yours they didn't like.  Disagreeing with you in front of peers & subordinates is one thing, the next step up is quite another.


----------



## mariomike (1 May 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Just because you release from the CAF doesn't mean you give up your commission.



Regarding,

"Commission Upon Release"
https://army.ca/forums/threads/123348.0
OP: "What happens to your commission when you release? Are you "de-commissioned"? Do you "relinquish" your commission?"


----------



## HB_Pencil (1 May 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I am of the opinion that military officers, as a matter of them possessing a Queen's Commission, should refrain from participating in politics.  In my mind, it's a huge conflict of interest having a former serving member as Defence Minister and undermines the entire idea of "Civilian Control" of the Armed Forces.  Has Minister Sajjan renounced his Commission?  I'm sure it proudly hangs on one of his walls.



I think you see a similar discussions in theory emanating in the US over Mattis's appointment as SecDef. However I think the problem actually has manifested consequences that are the opposite of what the concerns are in the United States. This minister has presided over one of the poorest periods of senior civil-military relations since at least the mid 1990s (Jean Boyle, Somalia and the CAR), if not earlier. The Minister has allowed the government to ride completely roughshod over the military in areas that it believes should be its prerogatives. Senior Military staff have been completely sidelined and their advice disregarded on a wide range of issues. Marc Norman is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The decisions being made by this government are having deleterious consequences for the current and future CAF. I think part of the reason why the response on this has been so vicious is because of what Saideman has said: there are other issues that should be raised, but in absence of the Canadian public actually caring whether they will have a fighter fleet in five years' time, this is their way to plunge the knife and turn the handle. The only problem is that many people predict who will likely come after him, and envision the situation will become a whole lot worse than better.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 May 2017)

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> ... The Minister has allowed the government to ride completely roughshod over the military in areas that it believes should be its prerogatives. Senior Military staff have been completely sidelined and their advice disregarded on a wide range of issues. Marc Norman is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The decisions being made by this government are having deleterious consequences for the current and future CAF ...


And part of that comes back to the "loyalty up vs. loyalty down" question:  which is the correct pick?  And if the right answer is officers publicly disagreeing with political decisions one _disagrees_ with, it also has to be correct for GO's disagreeing with political decisions one  _agrees_ with.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 May 2017)

And it's never _really_ explained unless there's the hidden motive ...


> Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan is being accused of falsely downplaying his role in Afghanistan in an attempt to thwart an investigation by the ethics commissioner, just days after he publicly apologized for falsely embellishing his role.
> 
> Ethics commissioner Mary Dawson questioned Sajjan regarding why he refused to open an investigation into the torture of Afghan detainees transferred by Canadian soldiers. Sajjan served as an intelligence officer in Afghanistan at the time and, were such an investigation to take place, he could potentially be called as a witness.
> 
> ...


Holy "wheels within wheels", Batman ...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (1 May 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Regarding,
> 
> "Commission Upon Release"
> https://army.ca/forums/threads/123348.0
> OP: "What happens to your commission when you release? Are you "de-commissioned"? Do you "relinquish" your commission?"



My point stands, you do not relinquish your commission.

There are actually two cases that deal with this:  Vertue v. Lord Clive (1769) 4 Burr 2472
per Lord Mansfield and R. V. Cuming (1887) 19 Q.B.D. 13

Just because you are discharged from the Armed Forces does not mean you relinquish your commission, you've merely been discharged from service.  You can be granted leave from a commission but this decision rests with the person that issued the commission (i.e. the Crown)

Michael Drapeau is using this to argue that certain HR policies the CAF has are illegal i.e. Imposed Compulsory Occupational Reassignment (specifically when an Officer fails training).  His argument is only the Crown may strip someone of a commission (i.e. the Governor General) http://mdlo.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/22-1-Law-Order-Feb2015-Devaluation-of-a-once-proud-act.pdf



			
				HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> I think you see a similar discussions in theory emanating in the US over Mattis's appointment as SecDef. However I think the problem actually has manifested consequences that are the opposite of what the concerns are in the United States. This minister has presided over one of the poorest periods of senior civil-military relations since at least the mid 1990s (Jean Boyle, Somalia and the CAR), if not earlier. The Minister has allowed the government to ride completely roughshod over the military in areas that it believes should be its prerogatives. Senior Military staff have been completely sidelined and their advice disregarded on a wide range of issues. Marc Norman is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The decisions being made by this government are having deleterious consequences for the current and future CAF. I think part of the reason why the response on this has been so vicious is because of what Saideman has said: there are other issues that should be raised, but in absence of the Canadian public actually caring whether they will have a fighter fleet in five years' time, this is their way to plunge the knife and turn the handle. The only problem is that many people predict who will likely come after him, and envision the situation will become a whole lot worse than better.



 :goodpost:

This is my point.


----------



## HB_Pencil (1 May 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Good question, but I think officers publishing papers via an academic review system (and there are a number of military academics who can straighten me out on this around these parts) is quite a different beast than someone in uniform talking off the cuff criticizing the government and its policies.



So to answer your question, I can't think of an instance where a serving CF personnel member wrote an academic paper that was heavily critical of existing government policy. I can think of a couple of cases where an individual wrote a paper that emphasized a particular policy preference, or offered mild advice to improve an existing policy position, but really nothing hard hitting. Furthermore many pieces have the pro forma disclaimer: 

_Opinions expressed remain those of the author and do not represent Department of National Defence or Canadian Forces policy. XXX may not be used without written permission._

So certainly there is a level of self censorship that occurs. 




			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And part of that comes back to the "loyalty up vs. loyalty down" question:  which is the correct pick?  And if the right answer is officers publicly disagreeing with political decisions one _disagrees_ with, it also has to be correct for GO's disagreeing with political decisions one  _agrees_ with.



Oh I think the Loyalty up versus Down is a not a major struggle that many of them are having: many are focused more on their subordinates. Rather it is the second half of your comment is where the complexity resides. 

This government has basically placed an unusually strong grip on controlling the department, which may be the result of a number of factors: the experience early on of the CSC leaks, their own policy preferences on the military's role and them capitalizing on the image of Sajjan as a steady hand on the file. Internally you had a strong crackdown on dissent, with the Norman investigation and then the gag order placed on procurement staff. This has limited the option available to many to try to manage the situation. 

I think some are staying because they believe that given no alternative, they need to stay in to avoid these potential disasters from occurring. They see how ineffective public criticism has been on glaringly bad decisions (like when 13 Air Staff Chiefs complain about the Super Hornet Decision and the most they got was a blog post by a reporter almost mocking them), and think that a resignation would have little effect. So while they may hold stronger views towards protecting their subordinates, they have little choice but to stay in. That's not a hard and fast rule, but I do believe that it is a dynamic that is at present in many senior officials' minds.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 May 2017)

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> ... I think some are staying because they believe that given no alternative, they need to stay in to avoid these potential disasters from occurring ...


I've heard that before as a rationale for staying with a ship whose direction you're not keen on -- better to manage the crap hose output than just abandon ship and who knows what would happen.

Meanwhile, not too many surprises in the House so far ...


> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Harjit Sajjan has his "full confidence" amid a growing controversy over the defence minister's exaggerated claim he was the "architect" of a major assault on the Taliban in 2006.
> 
> Interim Conservative Leader Rona Ambrose accused Sajjan of "stolen valour" and called on Trudeau to fire him for dishonouring himself and the military. "Will the prime minister remove the minister of defence?"
> 
> ...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (1 May 2017)

HB_Pencil said:
			
		

> So to answer your question, I can't think of an instance where a serving CF personnel member wrote an academic paper that was heavily critical of existing government policy. I can think of a couple of cases where an individual wrote a paper that emphasized a particular policy preference, or offered mild advice to improve an existing policy position, but really nothing hard hitting. Furthermore many pieces have the pro forma disclaimer:
> 
> _Opinions expressed remain those of the author and do not represent Department of National Defence or Canadian Forces policy. XXX may not be used without written permission._
> 
> ...



I agree, Minister Sajjan is the MND and I will not critique him for that.  I will; however, question him as a Commissioned Officer (he still has a commission) and whether he is acting ethically and with integrity?  If we are truly profession, this should be well within our rights.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (1 May 2017)

To follow up on earlier comments I'll leave you with this Samuel Huntington quote as good for thought:


> Politics is beyond the scope of military competence, and the participation of military officers in politics undermines their professionalism. The military officer must remain neutral politically.  The military commander must never allow his military judgement to be warped by political expediency.



The Soldier and State, Samuel Huntington, pg. 71


----------



## FJAG (1 May 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I agree, Minister Sajjan is the MND and I will not critique him for that.  I will; however, question him as a Commissioned Officer (he still has a commission) and whether he is acting ethically and with integrity?  If we are truly profession, this should be well within our rights.



I think some of us are making a bit much out of the commission bit. He's been released from the Forces and is no longer subject to the CSD (other than for things done while in the CF) and is no longer subject to the CF standards for ethics etc. He's retired and the commission is really just a red herring. He's a civilian plain and simple and just because he had been given a commission his obligations and standards do not rise beyond those of your run of the mill civilian politician. 

I'm not a lover of the Liberals by any stretch of the imagination but I find such things as the NDP's allegations that because of his former service and now these statements he's in a conflict of interest because of the Afghan torture allegations as just petty politics at their worst.

Quite frankly when I see the words that Fraser wrote about him 



> ... his hard work, personal bravery, and dogged determination undoubtedly saved a multitude of Coalition lives. ... tirelessly and selflessly devoted himself to piecing together the ground truth on tribal and Taliban networks in the Kandahar area, and his analysis was so compelling that it drove a number of large scale theatre-resourced efforts, including OPERATION MEDUSA, a large scale conventional combat operation that resulted in the defeat of the largest TB insurgent cell yet identified in Afghanistan, with over 1500 Taliban killed or captured. ...



I can see that while the word "architect" is a bit of a stretch it is not a far jump or a totally unsubstantiated claim that he made. He might have chosen his words better and gotten the same audience impact without any stretch of the truth.

As a card carrying Conservative, I think it's time to accept his apology and give the guy a break on this issue. Let's see how he performs in the Defence Review and let's not forget that the biggest albatross that he has hanging around his neck is that he has to work in a Liberal cabinet headed by a Trudeau.

 :cheers:


----------



## Loachman (1 May 2017)

I don't see his performance as an issue one way or another.

I do see his _credibility_, however, as an issue.

I am not sure that even the most sincere apology can overcome loss of credibility.

I am not upset by this, just saddened. An excellent reputation has been ruined, and completely unnecessarily.


----------



## the 48th regulator (1 May 2017)

dileas

tess


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 May 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I think some of us are making a bit much out of the commission bit. He's been released from the Forces and is no longer subject to the CSD (other than for things done while in the CF) and is no longer subject to the CF standards for ethics etc. He's retired and the commission is really just a red herring. He's a civilian plain and simple and just because he had been given a commission his obligations and standards do not rise beyond those of your run of the mill civilian politician.
> 
> I'm not a lover of the Liberals by any stretch of the imagination but I find such things as the NDP's allegations that because of his former service and now these statements he's in a conflict of interest because of the Afghan torture allegations as just petty politics at their worst.



Some would disagree with you.  By saying the commission is a "red herring" what you've done is devalued the document.  I think Huntington would also disagree with you as would many others, most recently former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dempsey: 



> "The American people should not wonder where their military leaders draw the line between military advice and political preference," Dempsey wrote in a letter to the Washington Post. "And our nation's soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines should not wonder about the political leanings and motivations of their leaders."


 http://www.npr.org/2016/08/03/488442470/gen-dempsey-to-fellow-officers-stay-off-the-political-battlefield



> Quite frankly when I see the words that Fraser wrote about him
> 
> I can see that while the word "architect" is a bit of a stretch it is not a far jump or a totally unsubstantiated claim that he made. He might have chosen his words better and gotten the same audience impact without any stretch of the truth.
> 
> ...



I agree on accepting his apology but I stand by my original statement that politics is no place for a military officer.  He's using his military service to advance his political career and that's wrong.  I'd say the same thing about Andrew Leslie, Gordon O'Connor, etc.


----------



## FJAG (2 May 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Some would disagree with you.  By saying the commission is a "red herring" what you've done is devalued the document.  I think Huntington would also disagree with you as would many others, most recently former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dempsey:
> http://www.npr.org/2016/08/03/488442470/gen-dempsey-to-fellow-officers-stay-off-the-political-battlefield



Not at all. I'm quite proud of mine and think that while I was a serving officer it defined who I was. I just don't think that it defines me now that I'm retired. At this point I'm the product of my total existence and experience, not just one facet.

The fact that others might disagree with me is not a new thing and I don't have n issue with that.



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I agree on accepting his apology but I stand by my original statement that politics is no place for a military officer.  He's using his military service to advance his political career and that's wrong.  I'd say the same thing about Andrew Leslie, Gordon O'Connor, etc.



Would you also say it about Dwight D Eisenhower, James Mattis, Ronald Reagan, John F Kennedy,  Harry Truman, and the 837 members of parliament who since confederation served in the military (see here:
http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/Lists/MilitaryService.aspx?Menu=HOC-Bio&Section=03d93c58-f843-49b3-9653-84275c23f3fb) 

Would you leave political service to just the lawyers and university professors and the other hoi polloi? I think we both agree that this country needs good leaders so why would you cut out an entire class of citizens who have proven their abilities and their love of country by the fact that they've served?

 :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson (2 May 2017)

It may be worthwhile to read the Hansard for the early weeks of 1944 - there were serving members of Parliament who were on the D-Day beaches.

While that may be extreme, I don't think that former military service should preclude being a member of Parliament.

That said, IMHO there are few individuals who can make the transition to become an effective MND; moving from a manager of the force to the Government (big G) is a huge transition that is extremely difficult.  Far better to apply their military experience in other areas, at best as members of committees.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 May 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Not at all. I'm quite proud of mine and think that while I was a serving officer it defined who I was. I just don't think that it defines me now that I'm retired. At this point I'm the product of my total existence and experience, not just one facet.
> 
> The fact that others might disagree with me is not a new thing and I don't have n issue with that.
> 
> ...



It's true, there have been great soldiers who were also great statesmen, for that there can be no argument.  Eisenhower, Truman and Kennedy stick out in my mind, it's ironic that the majority of great ones are American.  I would say the difference is a man like Eisenhower never used his military service to show "how badass he was" to the tabloids.  

Interestingly, all the men you named were American.  I would say the United States is fairly unique in that Americans have common views on military service regardless of political affiliation.  I would even argue that the American military is much like the Prussian Army in that what came first?  The Army or the State?

Out of the 837 members of Parliament that have military service, I can't think of one that sticks out in my mind as a great soldier and statesman, certainly not an Eisenhower.  I don't think our political system favours the soldier/statesmen at all.


----------



## dapaterson (2 May 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I don't think our political system favours the soldier/statesmen at all.



Is it our political system that does not favour them, or our military that does not produce them?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 May 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Is it our political system that does not favour them, or our military that does not produce them?



A good question, my personal opinion is that Canadian Society doesn't respect the military as a profession, certainly not to the same extent others do.  In the UK it is very much frowned upon for very senior officers to serve in the House of Commons.  For anyone of General Officer rank, their place is in the House of Lords where it's customary for former Chiefs of the General Staff to receive an appointment.  Right now there are 11 former Chiefs in the House of Lords, providing that sober second thought to House of Commons legislation.

Meanwhile in Canada, we've got Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau  :rofl:


----------



## the 48th regulator (2 May 2017)

Bogey, 

I am getting tired of your "What I feel" reasons for your post.  The man is retired, commission is retired.  This is not the lord of the fucking rings where his past totally dictates his future.  Give it a rest.



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> A good question, my personal opinion is that Canadian Society doesn't respect the military as a profession, certainly not to the same extent others do.



I call bullshit.  Stop pandering for sympathy, as our Country is very empathetic to our Military,a and understand it better than what you portray YOURSELF in knowing.



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> In the UK it is very much frowned upon for very senior officers to serve in the House of Commons.



Good thing Churchhill never served....



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> For anyone of General Officer rank, their place is in the House of Lords where it's customary for former Chiefs of the General Staff to receive an appointment.  Right now there are 11 former Chiefs in the House of Lords, providing that sober second thought to House of Commons legislation.



Yes, Tea and Crumpets will be served at 1400 hrs.....

You know we are 2017, and we really look at Canada more than we do other nations.  That Right, Great Britain is another nation,not our lords anymore.  Just in Fancy dress regs.



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Meanwhile in Canada, we've got Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau  :rofl:



Look, although Meme's are cute, we can't base our opinion on them.  Can you find the list of Senators?  That will really show me if you are truly an Aficionado on pomp and pagentry when it comes to tradition, and what is right for "Royal" Canadian appointments, including a commission.

dileas

tess


----------



## RedcapCrusader (2 May 2017)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I call bullshit.  Stop pandering for sympathy, as our Country is very empathetic to our Military,a and understand it better than what you portray YOURSELF in knowing.



Actually, 

I have to agree. The Canadian public is largely apathetic toward the military, military service, and our plight.

If they were empathetic, I think things like our pay, PLD, housing repaired and updated, and veterans benefits would have improved a long time ago and would be adjusted appropriately more regularly; but that's a discussion for another thread.

I did chuckle at the satire of "Sajjan may resign as Prime Minister."


----------



## NavalMoose (2 May 2017)

Churchill did serve

Post was made before morning coffee and sarcasm detector was in for a service...lol


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 May 2017)

NavalMoose said:
			
		

> Churchill did serve



Psssst, I think he was being sarcastic.


----------



## QV (2 May 2017)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Bogey,
> 
> I am getting tired of your "What I feel" reasons for your post.  The man is retired, commission is retired.  This is not the lord of the ******* rings where his past totally dictates his future.  Give it a rest.
> 
> I call bullshit.  Stop pandering for sympathy, as our Country is very empathetic to our Military,a and understand it better than what you portray YOURSELF in knowing.....



If you are getting tired, don't read the thread.  I am enjoying this discussion.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 May 2017)

NavalMoose said:
			
		

> Churchill did serve



Churchill was never a senior officer, he retired as a Major.  You'll note that I said "General Officers" when I mentioned the house of Lords.  



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Bogey,
> 
> I am getting tired of your "What I feel" reasons for your post.  The man is retired, commission is retired.  This is not the lord of the ******* rings where his past totally dictates his future.  Give it a rest.



Don't get your pants in a knot 48th Regulator.  I've quoted lots of sources in the above posts.  My beef is when Officers use their military service for political purposes, it's unprofessional.



> I call bullshit.  Stop pandering for sympathy, as our Country is very empathetic to our Military,a and understand it better than what you portray YOURSELF in knowing.



Not pandering for sympathy, simply stating the fact that Defence isn't important to Canadians, would you like me to cite one of the numerous surveys available?



> Good thing Churchhill never served....



Again as a Major, not a Senior Officer.



> Yes, Tea and Crumpets will be served at 1400 hrs.....
> 
> You know we are 2017, and we really look at Canada more than we do other nations.  That Right, Great Britain is another nation,not our lords anymore.  Just in Fancy dress regs.



Hmmmm, you're clearly ignorant of our political institutions if you believe the above.  Canada follows The Westminster system and has a bicameral legislature. 
The House of Lords serves the same purpose as the Senate, it's not the systems fault that we've bastardized the Upper House.



> Look, although Meme's are cute, we can't base our opinion on them.  Can you find the list of Senators?  That will really show me if you are truly an Aficionado on pomp and pagentry when it comes to tradition, and what is right for "Royal" Canadian appointments, including a commission.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



I never once cited a meme.  Did cite a couple of political theorists, quote a few Generals, etc.

Don't care about pomp and pageantry, I care about the institutions we have functioning properly.  You know that whole "peace, order and good government" thing.


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 May 2017)

NavalMoose said:
			
		

> Churchill did serve



My grandfather was with the Queen's Own 4th Hussars in Bangalore from 1895-1902.  He served under Churchill.  At that time, Churchill was not respected by the other officers (at least) as they used to beat the shit out of him and throw him into the horse troughs.  Mom never mentioned what the ranks thought of him, grandfather was a Cpl.  Churchill did serve in the front lines to some distinction in France after the Gallipoli disaster. These experiences must have taught him some lessons in being successful in politics.

I am bias, but I will have more faith (Leslie excepted) in a Member of Parliament who has served than a mouth piece who had things handed to him because of his father, political connections or just a being a bloody lawyer.  (sorry FJAG, not a lawyer fan)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 May 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> My grandfather was with the Queen's Own 4th Hussars in Bangalore from 1895-1902.  He served under Churchill.  At that time, Churchill was not respected by the other officers (at least) as they used to beat the crap out of him and throw him into the horse troughs.  Mom never mentioned what the ranks thought of him, grandfather was a Cpl.  Churchill did serve in the front lines to some distinction in France after the Gallipoli disaster. These experiences must have taught him some lessons in being successful in politics.
> 
> I am bias, but I will have more faith (Leslie excepted) in a Member of Parliament who has served than a mouth piece who had things handed to him because of his father, political connections or just a being a bloody lawyer.  (sorry FJAG, not a lawyer fan)



Churchill was an excellent politician; however, I don't know if he was much of a soldier.  He also didn't take part in any serious battle while commanding his Battalion in WWI.

One of the benefits of being a writer back in the day is you could write whatever you wanted without the worry of immediate retorts or having someone being able to confirm the validity of what you were saying.  Churchill never wrote in an academic setting where his work would have been scrutinized.


----------



## Loachman (2 May 2017)

Parliament and the Senate, and hence the Country as a whole, benefit from diversity of membership. I'd rather have former Officers in both than neither, and both places could benefit from a few former Sergeants-Major as well.

I'd infinitely prefer that such members had served in areas of conflict and had to struggle with ancient and crumbling equipment as well.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 May 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Parliament and the Senate, and hence the Country as a whole, benefit from diversity of membership. I'd rather have former Officers in both than neither, and both places could benefit from a few former Sergeants-Major as well.
> 
> I'd infinitely prefer that such members had served in areas of conflict and had to struggle with ancient and crumbling equipment as well.



I fundamentally disagree because what you end up with is an "iron triangle" much like what exists in the United States with the "Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex".







Having former officers, especially senior officers, in a legislative body corrupts the political process.  In my mind, it's no different than having a judge run for office.  Mind you in Canada, retired judges are allowed to do so but they're not supposed to refer to themselves as a judge.  Some do though and there are plenty of Judges that think that's wrong.  

Lobbyists and Special Interest Groups are IMO, and many would agree with me, the biggest threat to democratic government today.


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 May 2017)

> .... an "iron triangle" much like what exists in the United States with the "Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex".



I think what you are describing is the laurentian Lieliberal elites vice Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex.


----------



## Journeyman (2 May 2017)

While I initially thought this thread should be under Canadian politics, it was obviously a wise choice putting it under Chatter.

        :stars:


Update: ....and then it gets moved to Canadian Politics.  :-[


----------



## dapaterson (2 May 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Churchill was never a senior officer, he retired as a Major.



Not to be pedantic, but, by definition, a Major is a Senior Officer.


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 May 2017)

The Snowbirds just flew past our building on the way to Parliament Hill, a short time ago.  One of the officers here commented "there goes our Defence Minister.  He must be flying the lead plane".  Man oh man, he won't be living this down for a long time to come, if ever.


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 May 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Not to be pedantic, but, by definition, a Major is a Senior Officer.



Agreed.  They were considered "Field Grade" officers at that rank and above when I was an MP in Calgary.  Any investigations that involved them were not dealt with by Patrols.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 May 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The Snowbirds just flew past our building on the way to Parliament Hill, a short time ago.  One of the officers here commented "there goes our Defence Minister.  He must be flying the lead plane".  Man oh man, he won't be living this down for a long time to come, if ever.



They should have spelled out 'Memento Mori' over the Hill.... just to keep egos in check


----------



## FJAG (2 May 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Not to be pedantic, but, by definition, a Major is a Senior Officer.



I was going to do a "one upmanship" on that and say that majors are "Field Officers" but when I did my fact double check I see that once again I'm out of date. Senior Officer it is.  ;D

:cheers:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 May 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Not to be pedantic, but, by definition, a Major is a Senior Officer.



For the purpose of elaborating I define Officers in to three grades:

1.  Junior - Lt/Capt
2.  Field - Maj/LCol/Col
3.  Senior - Brigadier and above

Just because the Canadian Army arbitrarily decides they will change something doesn't make it actually so. 

We decide to do things all the time that nobody else does, such as remove combat support from all infantry battalions (making them little more than well armed constabulary).  

Yesterday I had to listen to someone profess the uselessness of attack helicopters because you know.... Swarm drones are the next big thing!

How about renting supply ships from the Chilean Navy, all part of our global engagement plan I'm sure  ;D



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> i think what you are describing is the laurentian Lieliberal elites vice Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex.



I was making a comparison to the US system of democracy.  Frankly, it's more dangerous in Canada because our Executive and Legislative bodies are one and the same.  

Going back to FJAG said earlier about great leaders, the ones he mentioned were all American.

In the US system of government, the Executive and Legislative bodies are separate, President's run the country (which includes control of the Armed Forces) but they do not make laws.  The President is also the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces while in Canada it's Her Majesty thru the GG.  

Officers in Canada swear allegiance to the crown; however, they are also expected to answer to the government as civilian control of the Armed forces is a key principle in civil-military relations.

And this applies to the statements I made above:

The problem facing our Armed Forces is that the factor of civilian control has been misused due to the inherent weaknesses in our political system.  1. 
A CinC who really isn't. 2.  A dysfunctional upper house 3.  Combined executive/legislative government without checks and balances (see #1 and #2)

Two types of civilian control - Objective and Subjective (first yielding positive results/second yielding negative results).  Our civil-military relations in this country are subjective because we don't have the following:

1.  recognition and approval from political leaders to the professional authorities and autonomy of the military.

2.  minimal intervention of the military in politics and of politicians in military affairs.

Having formers officers serving in roles such as MND only exacerbates this.  Gordon O'Connor butting heads with Rick Hillier comes to mind.  A politician telling a four star General what to do because he used to be a one star and knows best.  In spite of the fact that he never achieved the professional level of competency in the Armed Forces.  It diminishes the credibility of the profession of arms. 

Note:  I'm not critiquing our system of government, I am critiquing how it has the potential to undermine the ability to generate a proper professional military.


----------



## Lightguns (2 May 2017)

American system, in Canada we have General Officers (Col to Gen), Senior Officers (LCol and Maj) and Subordinate Officers (2Lt to Capt), ohhh and Officer Cadets.


----------



## FJAG (2 May 2017)

Still disagree with ya HB although this one has given me pause:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/01/politics/kfile-trump-army-secretary-pick-theory-of-evolution/index.html

Seems Green went through West Point and was an infantry officer for a number of years before being selected for training as a medical doctor in the army. After twenty years in the military (including West Point) he retired to civilian life and to become a State Senator in Tennessee and a strict creationist.   :facepalm:

He's Trump's nominee for Secretary of the Army.  :brickwall:

:cheers:


----------



## Journeyman (2 May 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> For the purpose of elaborating I define Officers in to three grades:
> 1.  Junior - Lt/Capt
> 2.  Field - Maj/LCol/Col
> 3.  Senior - Brigadier and above
> ...


Ahhhh....

Yet, you also said...with no small amount of repetition... that there's no such thing as a retired officer, because the letter of the law says something about only Queen Liz can turn the commissioning scroll off.

How does one decide which faults can be passed...or which rocks don't need painting...or far that matter, which chicken really isn't that sexually attractive?
:dunno:



ps - for disclosure, until this morning I actually believed I was a civie.   :'(
I know my barber probably assumed that I'm a civie -- or dead -- because she hasn't seen me in three months.  Of course, I've not yet found a need to say "Guy with Commission (Ret'd)."  I better start getting some f*cking salutes then!


----------



## Blackadder1916 (2 May 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> . . .  in Canada we have General Officers (Col BGen to Gen), Senior Officers (LCol and Maj Maj to Col) and Subordinate Junior Officers (2Lt to Capt), ohhh and Subordinate Officers (Officer Cadets).



There, FTFY

and with a handy diagram  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/honours-history-badges-insignia/rank-army.page


----------



## Lightguns (2 May 2017)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> There, FTFY
> 
> and with a handy diagram  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/honours-history-badges-insignia/rank-army.page



Merci, I no longer have access to the diagram....


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 May 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Ahhhh....
> 
> Yet, you also said...with no small amount of repetition... that there's no such thing as a retired officer, because the letter of the law says something about only Queen Liz can turn the commissioning scroll off.
> 
> ...



You're right I did say that and I meant it.  Just because you release from the service doesn't mean you lose rank or expectations.  

As the Commissioning scroll states:



> You are therefore carefully and diligently to discharge your Duty as such in the Rank of .............. or in such other Rank as We may from time to time hereafter be pleased to promote or appoint you to, and you are in such manner and on such occasions as may be prescribed by us to exercise and well discipline both the Inferior Officers and Non-Commissioned Members serving under you


  

Yellow - You will hold a rank of XXXX and may be promoted to XXXX 

Red - You will be directed by the Crown when they want (i.e. prescribed by us)

If you're promoted to Major, you're a Major for life unless you're demoted or promoted and you can be called upon by the Crown at any time to serve them.

I know, I know, this is all very pedantic to you and everyone.

However, in politics and policy, being pedantic matters.


----------



## Journeyman (2 May 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Just because you release from the service doesn't mean you lose rank or expectations.


 Actually, my expectations are _much_  higher now; I no longer have to deal with the higher HQ from hell.   :nod:



> I know, I know, this is all very pedantic to you.


I believe the word you are looking for is...irrelevant -- to me. If *anyone* believes I'm going to suit up and head off to Mali, something has gone horribly wrong with their meds.



> However, in politics and policy, being pedantic matters.


.... and grammar; otherwise that is the sort of errant pedantry up with which I shall not put!  


.... and see, no one even cares to discuss that Militia guy who occasionally BS's.  Joys of "Radio Chatter."


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 May 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Actually, my expectations are _much_  higher now; I no longer have to deal with the higher HQ from hell.   :nod:
> I believe the word you are looking for is...irrelevant -- to me. If *anyone* believes I'm going to suit up and head off to Mali, something has gone horribly wrong with their meds.
> .... and grammar; otherwise that is the sort of errant pedantry up with which I shall not put!
> 
> ...



Despite my parents both being English teachers, grammar has never been one of my strong suits.  Possibly due to the fact that all my early education (to high school) was in French, so sorry.


----------



## FJAG (2 May 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Despite both my parents both being English teachers, grammar has never been one of my strong suits.  Possibly due to the fact that all my early education was in French, so sorry.



FTFY  ;D

:cheers:


----------



## Journeyman (2 May 2017)

I wasn't critiquing; I simply have a tendency to be pedantic justified in my grammatical concerns.


----------



## Lightguns (2 May 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Actually, my expectations are _much_  higher now; I no longer have to deal with the higher HQ from hell.   :nod:
> I believe the word you are looking for is...irrelevant -- to me. If *anyone* believes I'm going to suit up and head off to Mali, something has gone horribly wrong with their meds.
> .... and grammar; otherwise that is the sort of errant pedantry up with which I shall not put!
> 
> ...



All militia guys BS but most don't do it for the cameras.......


----------



## FJAG (2 May 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> All militia  guys BS but most don't do it for the cameras.......



FTFY Too.  ;D
 :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 May 2017)

Ironically....

“Each man is the architect of his own fate.”

Appius Claudius, 300 BC


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 May 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Ironically....
> 
> “Each man is the architect of his own fate.”
> 
> Appius Claudius, 300 BC



And sadly, why I am the man I am today.  I'm no proper architect either.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 May 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I wasn't critiquing; I simply have a tendency to be pedantic justified in my grammatical concerns.



Just for you I've enrolled in a crash course of "hooked on phonics" as my first order of business as DS  ;D


----------



## Journeyman (2 May 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Just for you I've enrolled in a crash course of "hooked on phonics" as my first order of business as DS  ;D


Hey, start banning the right people and I don't care how you phrase it.   :nod:


----------



## Scott (2 May 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Just for you I've enrolled in a crash course of "hooked on phonics" as my first order of business as DS  ;D



Telling JM to fuck off requires no grasp on the old grammar. ;D


----------



## Journeyman (2 May 2017)

Scott said:
			
		

> Telling JM to fuck off requires no grasp on the old grammar. ;D


 :nod:  

Hard to imagine, but I _have_  been told in several different ways.  We're divorced now.


----------



## Loachman (2 May 2017)

This is turning out to be the best thread ever.


----------



## Journeyman (2 May 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> This is turning out to be the best thread ever.





			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> While I initially thought this thread should be under Canadian politics, it was obviously a wise choice putting it under Chatter.
> 
> :stars:
> 
> ...


Deserving more and more to be back in Radio Chatter.    New Mods.    :

 ;D


----------



## Loachman (2 May 2017)

Nobody stopped _you_ from applying...














Or did he?


----------



## Journeyman (2 May 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Nobody stopped _you_ from applying...



I didn't meet the prerequisites.


			
				Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> *You must be impartial*













I couldn't treat repetitively stupid people the same as informed useful posters. Oh well.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 May 2017)

Meanwhile ...

_*"Harjit Sajjan pulls out of (2 May 2017) fundraiser for Afghan vets amid credibility controversy"*_
_*"Minister of National Defence to address the Conference of Defence Associations Institute (3 May 2017)"*_


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 May 2017)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Out of the 837 members of Parliament that have military service, I can't think of one that sticks out in my mind as a great soldier and statesman, certainly not an Eisenhower.  I don't think our political system favours the soldier/statesmen at all.



He may not have been great soldier, but I think Lester B. Pearson would qualify as a pretty good politician.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 May 2017)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> He may not have been great soldier, but I think Lester B. Pearson would qualify as a pretty good politician.



I agree, I thought of mentioning him but didn't because he never served as a high ranking Officer.  A possible Canadian example of excellent statesman/military leader would be someone like George's Vanier who was a career soldier, diplomat and Governor-General.  

Business, not politics, seems to be the post-military vocation of choice for our retired Generals.


----------



## Lightguns (3 May 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Meanwhile ...
> 
> _*"Harjit Sajjan pulls out of (2 May 2017) fundraiser for Afghan vets amid credibility controversy"*_
> _*"Minister of National Defence to address the Conference of Defence Associations Institute (3 May 2017)"*_



Confirmed, he has now crossed over to politician.  "Damn the vets, full speed ahead to the political lobby groups".


----------



## Gunner98 (3 May 2017)

“The official reason for his not being able to attend is he was asked to be elsewhere at the time. That is what I was told,” said Elliott..."

Perhaps he had a meeting with the Association of War Plans Architects. More likely he had to take a day to review his speech for CDAI and prepare some canned replies to the questions that he can expect to hear on 3 May 17.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 May 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> This is turning out to be the best thread ever.



Easily destroyed with one pot-bomb 
 ;D


----------



## Journeyman (3 May 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Easily destroyed with one pot-bomb
> ;D


Now you've done it.....   :not-again:


----------



## kratz (3 May 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Now you've done it.....   :not-again:



[tangent] It seems Navy.ca might have to invoke it's own version of Godwin's MJ's law/  [  [/tangent]


----------



## NavyShooter (3 May 2017)

The memes that are appearing as a result of this are, well, amusing.  

That said, the minister is no longer a soldier, he's a politician.  (Regardless of whether or not he still holds a Commissioning scroll.)

Have we ever known politicians to lie?

Have we ever known politicians to embellish?

Have we ever known politicians to do or say things for their own grandification?

I think the HOPE within the lines of the CAF was that maybe this MND would be different, and that maybe he would, as 'one of us' represent our values, our ethos, our concerns to the highest levels of the government.

Unfortunately, it would seem that he has not chosen that path, and to be truthful, none of us should be surprised, because he is, after all, a politician now, and politicians lie.  That's how they get us to vote for them.  They say what they think the crowd wants them to hear, and those who don't say what the crowd wants to hear get ousted and rejected.

The unfortunate parts of this are the breaking of faith with the military ethos that I think the CAF had hoped he would maintain, and the loss of the his credibility in the face of dealing with both our allies, and our enemies.  

Do you not think this failure in judgement will have an impact on the perceptions and conversations the next time he interacts with Mr. Mattis?  

The collective disappointment by us as the CAF is palpable, but, looking at it realistically, it should not have come as a surprise to any of us.

I'm just relaxing and enjoying the memes...there was one about how he saved Private Ryan, another about how he beat Chuck Norris, another showing him starring in the War of 1812, planning Operation Overlord from a landing craft...and so on.

The other thing that's in the back of my mind....what else is on the go?  If the attention is focused on the MND, what has our attention been distracted from?  Did the contract for the Super-Hornets just get signed?  Did we need something that'd distract from the VCDS circus?  What funding got cut this week?

Ah well, life will carry on, babies will be kissed, politicians will lie, and we'll still be wondering about our pay-raise.  

As King Solomon is reputed to have said....there is nothing new under the sun.

NS


----------



## Lumber (3 May 2017)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> The collective disappointment by us as the CAF is palpable, but, looking at it realistically, it should not have come as a surprise to any of us.



and Rona Ambrose said:

"What he did was wrong, and now _he has lost the confidence of our men and women in uniform_".

Maybe it's because I don't have high expectations regarding the conduct of politicians, former serving members or not, but I can say that I am not disappointed, nor has my confidence in his ability to perform as MND been lost. 

Which serving members did Rona Ambrose actually ask to come up with this conclusion? Did any of you get surveyed? Did she just make it up?! Shame! She should be fired!


----------



## Stoker (3 May 2017)

On the news stories online there is the letter that General Fraser sent praising the MND for deployment there, its quite the read.

16 September 2006

Chief Constable J.H. Graham

Chief Constable of the Vancouver Police

1. I have had the pleasure of having Constable and Major Harjit Sajjan work for me for the past nine months on OPERATION ARCHER/ATHENA, Canada’s contribution to the global war on terror in Afghanistan. I must say that Major Sajjan is one of the most remarkable people I have worked with, and his contribution to the success of the mission and the safety of Canadian soldiers was nothing short of remarkable.

2. Maj Sajjan was specially selected for that demanding and challenging task of acting as the Liaison Officer of the Afghan National Police on behalf of the Combined Task Force (CTF) Aegis HQ because of the civilian skillset he has brought to the table as an undercover narcotics officer. His job further changed into being a special intelligence officer working direct to Commander CTF Aegis because of his ability to understand and exploit criminal networks. He consistently provided the most timely and accurate intelligence available, and he personally fused broad sources of information into an extremely coherent picture upon which most of the formations major operations were based. Not only did he display a rare high level of intellect and experience in his analysis, he also demonstrated remarkable personal courage in his collection efforts, often working in the face of the enemy to collect data and confirm his suspicions, and placing himself almost daily in situations of grave personal risk. His products were cogent and demonstrated a profound understanding of the Taliban (TB) and tribal networks which were critical in making formation and unit operations successful. He was the best single Canadian intelligence asset in theatre, and his hard work, personal bravery, and dogged determination undoubtedly saved a multitude of Coalition lives. Through his courage and dedication, Major Sajjan has single-handedly changed the face of intelligence gathering and analysis in Afghanistan.

3. He tirelessly and selflessly devoted himself to piecing together the ground truth on tribal and Taliban networks in the Kandahar area, and his analysis was so compelling that it drove a number of large scale theatre-resourced efforts, including OPERATION MEDUSA, a large scale conventional combat operation that resulted in the defeat of the largest TB insurgent cell yet identified in Afghanistan, with over 1500 Taliban killed or captured. I rate him as one of the best intelligence officers I have ever worked with - fearless, smart, and personable, and I would not hesitate to have him on my staff at any time in the future. I have advised my chain of command that the Canadian Forces must capture his skillset, and seek his advice on how to change our entire tactical intelligence training and architecture to best meet the needs of future deployed units fighting in extremely complex battle space.

4. I cannot thank you enough for allowing Constable Sajjan to deploy with us on OPERATION ARCHER, and he has been an outstanding representative of the Vancouver City Police. I would ask that you pass my personal thanks to Constable Sajjan, and to those who supported him and his family while he was over here with us. I pray that he stays safe now that he returns to the challenges and dangers of his “everyday job,” and ask that if I can ever be of assistance to either Constable Sajjan or your Department, that you do not hesitate to ask.

Sincerely,

David Fraser

Brigadier General

Commander CTF Aegis



Now that being said are these letters often written by Generals or are they written by a staff officer and often without the general even looking at it? Was this inflated a bit or is he that good?
Further to that here is a response concerning the MND supposedly from someone in theater. Its looks real but I never deployed there. I wonder if there is any truth to it.

From M. Allen.

"I have kept my head out of the news and facebook for a while, but this one caught my attention. As many of you know I was in Afghanistan during the time that Sajjan boasts about. I had limited engagements with him, but have many accounts of his f*ckery. The best description of what he accomplished during the 7 months we were there, is that he continuously undermined the efforts of every REAL analyst on the ground. So, below are a few of his greatest hits.
Minister Sajjan’s embellishments throughout his campaign rubbed me the wrong way, but they were just that, embellishments. His recent outright lies have compelled me to give my account of his, well, quite frankly shenanigans in Afghanistan. My statements are a true account of my recollections and do not serve to slander. The sarcasm is free.
From what the media has explained and from what I remember, Sajjan was a liaison between the ANP and Task Force Kandahar Headquarters (TFKHQ) or something like that. He was NOT a member of the 1 RCR BG. I know that he was often present at daily meetings at the Provincial Governors compound.
We too had a liaison with the provincial governor, a Cpl. By all accounts Sajjan’s behavior at the governor level was deplorable. Our Cpl often exclaimed that it was hard to work with him because his blatant disrespect and disdain that he showed the local Afghans made them too angry to work with at times.
I also question his involvement in the Intelligence process at Kandahar. I knew, or at least “knew of”, every Canadian analyst there and he wasn’t one of them. I would like to ask him a few questions though. Questions that every soldier present that day should hear the answers to. Why was the BG ordered to cross the river that day? Two days early? When EVERY actual intelligence person I know that was in theater that day said not to? Was that on your wise old intelligence analyst advice? You claimed to have been one of the best intelligence officers Gen Fraser had ever met. Because let’s be honest, you wrote it he signed it right? If that is the case, only you know why that decision was made.
While we are asking questions, I have another for you. You wear the Commander in Chief commendation. Do you were that for your service in Afghanistan with the TFK HQ? Pretty sure that commendation was awarded to the 1 RCR BG. If that is the case, I ask that you kindly remove it and publicly apologize to all of the soldiers of TF 3-06 for being such a disgrace to the uniform.
You cannot apologize for what you have done. You lied, in public, about a very sensitive topic. You did this of your own free will. There is no forgiveness for stolen valor and that is exactly what you have done."
Sooo, if you could just go ahead and resign, that would be great.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 May 2017)

In my opinion Rona Ambrose has a habit of talking out of her ass when speaking on behalf of members of the military when she's also not in a position to do so. She's quicker than a gun slinger when it comes to capitalizing on liberal faux pas and facts seem to take a backseat to drama.   I actually like her a lot but it's a very annoying habit. 

As for the MND I'm pretty disappointed in him.  I really wanted to buy into the whole  'he's one of us' mantra but I can't help shaking the feeling that he's a yes man. This architect of medusa crap just lowers my respect for him further, unfortunately.


----------



## Loachman (3 May 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> In my opinion Rona Ambrose has a habit of talking out of her ass when speaking on behalf of members of the military when she's also not in a position to do so. She's quicker than a gun slinger when it comes to capitalizing on liberal faux pas and facts seem to take a backseat to drama.   I actually like her a lot but it's a very annoying habit.



That is common practice for MPs - anything is usable as a "weapon" to attack those from other parties, no matter how outlandish it is.



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> As for the MND I'm pretty disappointed in him.  I really wanted to buy into the whole  'he's one of us' mantra but I can't help shaking the feeling that he's a yes man. This architect of medusa crap just lowers my respect for him further, unfortunately.



I did not know of him before his appointment, and based my opinion upon what others said about him, in and out of the media, which was all glowingly positive. I did not think that his reputation would be improved by his appointment, though, based upon how I've seen others change. Two were former high-ranking Officers and a third was a woman that I'd known for several years - at least, I thought that I knew her - and, until she was finally elected after two or three campaigns, thought would be an excellent MP.

If it is ever revealed in the press that a brainwashing/wiping or alien-pod-replacement programme exists for MPs, I'd not be the least bit surprised.


----------



## FJAG (3 May 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> On the news stories online there is the letter that General Fraser sent praising the MND for deployment there, its quite the read
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



As to Brigadier Fraser's letter I can tell you that these types of letters are either dictated by the officer or written by a staff officer under specific direction from the brigadier especially when, like here, there would have been a number of these types of letters to be done at the end of the tour. Either way they would be reviewed before signing so there is generally little chance Fraser would have been unaware as to what was in the letter. As to whether it was wholly true or inflated I wouldn't want to say. The CF as a whole (primarily through its PER system) tends to inflate achievements but even then they are generally based on positive acts. I would tend to think that in Fraser's eyes, the MND's performance was noteworthy in a positive sense.

As to the Allen letter, all that I can say is that it's a long standing tradition within our military to gripe and grouse. It's noteworthy that the individual cites no personal observations but just things he heard second hand. 

Allen's issue with the MEDUSA assault going in two days early had nothing to do with the MND, however. 

I think the record is very clear that Fraser ordered Lavoie to cross the Arghandab and go in ahead of the planned schedule because of pressure that Fraser received from his superior headquarters. In Colonel Horn's book, _No Lack of Courage_, he clearly recounts the Multinational Brigade's Ops O LCol Shane Schreiber stating that there were widespread reports that the Taliban were leaving and that Major-General Freakley (The US ISAF Deputy Commander for Security and Lieutenant-General Richards (the UK Comd of ISAF) were drawing the conclussion that the Taliban were slipping out of the bag and put pressure on Fraser to get into the objective area and to find out what was going on which resulted in Fraser directing the BG to go earlier. 

I won't argue the tactics involved or whether the decision was right or wrong. I wasn't there. I do know however that Canadians tend to be generally risk adverse while the US and UK are tactically more aggressive. What I see here is simply a difference of opinion as to what to do based on the limited intel that reached the various headquarters and how they interpreted that. Fraser's actions were not predicated on what Sajjan may or may not have "analysed" but were based on what his ISAF superiors considered the tactical situation to be and what they directed/urged Fraser to do. 

I think Mr Allen, even though he may have been there, has a very limited understanding of what happened at the higher levels of command and is using the situation for an ad hominem attack against the MND without any substantiation as to his actual involvement in the decision.  I personally put absolutely no weight on Allen's article. :2c:

 :cheers:


----------



## Loachman (3 May 2017)

And it's the only such complaint to come to light, as far as I know.

A lot of potential complainants would have released in the eleven years since the op. Until several more come forward to back this Allen fellow up, I give it no credence either.


----------



## Stoker (3 May 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> As to Brigadier Fraser's letter I can tell you that these types of letters are either dictated by the officer or written by a staff officer under specific direction from the brigadier especially when, like here, there would have been a number of these types of letters to be done at the end of the tour. Either way they would be reviewed before signing so there is generally little chance Fraser would have been unaware as to what was in the letter. As to whether it was wholly true or inflated I wouldn't want to say. The CF as a whole (primarily through its PER system) tends to inflate achievements but even then they are generally based on positive acts. I would tend to think that in Fraser's eyes, the MND's performance was noteworthy in a positive sense.
> 
> As to the Allen letter, all that I can say is that it's a long standing tradition within our military to gripe and grouse. It's noteworthy that the individual cites no personal observations but just things he heard second hand.
> 
> ...



Thank you for the insight although this is not the only time in the last week I heard people who were over there cast dispersion on his achievements as overstated. Perhaps its just sour grapes or they have an axe to grind with the MND. I would imagine this will fade in time but still will rear its ugly head from time to time.


----------



## Kat Stevens (3 May 2017)

I think it's a disgrace. His regiment should be disbanded and scattered to the four winds.  [


----------



## Loachman (3 May 2017)

"I'd rather eat shit with the Airborne
Than steak with Collenette"
- Sign in Petawawa the last time a "regiment (was) disbanded and scattered to the four winds".


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 May 2017)

I don't know Mr Allen, however, I won't disparage him. Nor will I say he doesn't understand higher level tactics, etc. I'll wait until the dust settles and then have a good look at things while I draw my conclusion. Anything less is a disservice to those involved.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 May 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Easily destroyed with one pot-bomb
> ;D



FFS, just can't leave well enough alone, can you Jarnhammer. 

I've asked people to be respectful of those that use it medicinally by not being cavalier about it. I guess some must need personal invitations.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 May 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> FFS, just can't leave well enough alone, can you jarnhammer.
> 
> I've asked people to be respectful of those that use it medicinally by not being cavalier about it. I guess some must need personal invitations.



You're right poor humour attempt on my part.


----------



## FJAG (4 May 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I don't know Mr Allen, however, I won't disparage him. Nor will I say he doesn't understand higher level tactics, etc. I'll wait until the dust settles and then have a good look at things while I draw my conclusion. Anything less is a disservice to those involved.



RG. Just a point here; I never said that "he didn't understand higher level tactics". 

What I said was that he:



> has a very limited understanding of what happened at the higher levels of command



I drew that conclusion from the fact that Mr Allen, in his article, said: 



> I would like to ask him a few questions though. Questions that every soldier present that day should hear the answers to.Why was the BG ordered to cross the river that day? Two days early? When EVERY actual intelligence person I know that was in theater that day said not to? Was that on your wise old intelligence analyst advice? You claimed to have been one of the best intelligence officers Gen Fraser had ever met. Because let’s be honest, you wrote it he signed it right? If that is the case, only you know why that decision was made.



The point here is that Mr Allen in posing the question in the way he did himself admitted that he didn't know why the decision was made, however, he then went on to unfairly, and without evidence, make the claim that the fault was Sajjan's. The historic evidence is relatively clear on where the pressure on Fraser to go early came from. Mr Allen either is unaware of that and/or deliberately misstated things in order to disparage Sajjan.

It was because of this that I said that:



> I personally put absolutely no weight on Allen's article



The fact is that the only disparagement that went on here was that of Mr Allen in respect to Sajjan. 

:cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 May 2017)

Chris Vernon - Retired Senior British Army Officer who was Chief of Staff of the Canadian-led HQ in Kandahar - Operation Medusa

https://omny.fm/shows/am640-the-morning-show/chris-vernon-retired-senior-british-army-officer-w#description


----------



## Stoker (4 May 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Chris Vernon - Retired Senior British Army Officer who was Chief of Staff of the Canadian-led HQ in Kandahar - Operation Medusa
> 
> https://omny.fm/shows/am640-the-morning-show/chris-vernon-retired-senior-british-army-officer-w#description



I don't think anyone doubts he wasn't important and a integral part of the team over there however I guess his choice of words still wasn't the greatest and it does appear that he embellished his role over there either by design or just an honest mistake. He apologized and I'm sure he'll never make that mistake again. This no doubt will dog him for the rest of his political career.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 May 2017)

And this happens no matter what colour jerseys the "Opposition of the Day" is wearing.


			
				Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> On the news stories online there is the letter that General Fraser sent praising the MND for deployment there, its quite the read ...


Do you have links to these bits o' information?  It would help put the comments into a bit of context - thanks!



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> ... She's quicker than a gun slinger when it comes to capitalizing on liberal faux pas and facts seem to take a backseat to drama ...


#OppositionForTheSakeOfOpposition


----------



## Lightguns (4 May 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Chris Vernon - Retired Senior British Army Officer who was Chief of Staff of the Canadian-led HQ in Kandahar - Operation Medusa
> 
> https://omny.fm/shows/am640-the-morning-show/chris-vernon-retired-senior-british-army-officer-w#description



Good enough for me.


----------



## Lumber (4 May 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Chris Vernon - Retired Senior British Army Officer who was Chief of Staff of the Canadian-led HQ in Kandahar - Operation Medusa
> 
> https://omny.fm/shows/am640-the-morning-show/chris-vernon-retired-senior-british-army-officer-w#description



I just had a listen to this. 

As an ignorant by-stander, if I'm to weigh the opinions of Mr. Allen (negative of Minister Sajjan) vs. the opinions of Mr. Vernon, General Fraser, and LCol <insert name>(Australian; planning cell IC), who all had positive things to say of him, I'm going to side with the latter and say that, he clearly had a very important effect on the planning and ultimate success of Op Medusa.

So, did he play a critical role? Yes. Did he use improper terminology? More or less. There are not "architects" in Ops planning; it's a group effort. Did he embellish to make himself look better? Absolutely! Do I care? Absolutely not! 

We started talking about this yesterday in the messes (we have mixed messes most days), and the consensus of everyone in my unit was whoopadydoo.


----------



## Jed (4 May 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I just had a listen to this.
> 
> As an ignorant by-stander, if I'm to weigh the opinions of Mr. Allen (negative of Minister Sajjan) vs. the opinions of Mr. Vernon, General Fraser, and LCol <insert name>(Australian; planning cell IC), who all had positive things to say of him, I'm going to side with the latter and say that, he clearly had a very important effect on the planning and ultimate success of Op Medusa.
> 
> ...




From all sources there is no doubt in my mind that the soldier, Maj. Sajjan acted in a courageous, highly effective and honourable manner during his role in Op Medusa or his past service prior to him leaving the CAF. What is in question is the less than honourable self inflation of his exploits since becoming MND.  In WWII Gen Patton was a great soldier who peed in the pickles and had to be reined in by others like Eisenhauer and Omar Bradley so this type of thing is not new.

I no longer wear the uniform so I can not pretend to represent the consensus of opinion from currently serving personnel. With that said, I feel that as the MND, he has lost a considerable amount of respect and good will from many soldiers and his continued leadership is in question. For the good of the Country  and the CAF he should man up and tender his resignation and move on to some other political position that this Trudeau government feels he is good at doing.

I find it disappointing that the consensus of  opinion of currently serving soldiers feel that 'Whoopdydoo" who really cares that our leadership is less than hounourable and is prone to embellishment and lying. If indeed, this is an actual consensus of opinion by the rank and file.  If you don't hold your leadership to the highest of standards how can you hold your own behavior to the highest of standards?

Whatever happened to the RCR saying 'Never pass a fault' ?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (4 May 2017)

Jed said:
			
		

> From all sources there is no doubt in my mind that the soldier, Maj. Sajjan acted in a courageous, highly effective and honourable manner during his role in Op Medusa or his past service prior to him leaving the CAF. What is in question is the less than honourable self inflation of his exploits since becoming MND.  In WWII Gen Patton was a great soldier who peed in the pickles and had to be reined in by others like Eisenhauer and Omar Bradley so this type of thing is not new.
> 
> I no longer wear the uniform so I can not pretend to represent the consensus of opinion from currently serving personnel. With that said, I feel that as the MND, he has lost a considerable amount of respect and good will from many soldiers and his continued leadership is in question. For the good of the Country  and the CAF he should man up and tender his resignation and move on to some other political position that this Trudeau government feels he is good at doing.
> 
> ...



And this is why, as I've stated multiple times, Officers should refrain from politics.  If they do get involved in politics, they should stay as far away from the Defence Portfolio as a possible, not only to protect the institution but also protect themselves.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (4 May 2017)

Jed said:
			
		

> I find it disappointing that the consensus of  opinion of currently serving soldiers feel that 'Whoopdydoo" who really cares that our leadership is less than hounourable and is prone to embellishment and lying. If indeed, this is an actual consensus of opinion by the rank and file.  If you don't hold your leadership to the highest of standards how can you hold your own behavior to the highest of standards?
> 
> Whatever happened to the RCR saying 'Never pass a fault' ?




Bollocks.  The Minister is not my leader.  The CDS is.  The vast majority of the CAF could not name the last MND, let alone the last three.  Let's try and keep a bit of perspective here


----------



## Jed (4 May 2017)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Bollocks.  The Minister is not my leader.  The CDS is.  The vast majority of the CAF could not name the last MND, let alone the last three.  Let's try and keep a bit of perspective here



Sorry. I don't buy your sentiment. I can recall most of the MND's for the past 30 years. They were always the face of civilian overwatch to the military. They have always had a huge impact on what happens in the CAF.


----------



## GAP (4 May 2017)

Jed said:
			
		

> Sorry. I don't buy your sentiment. I can recall most of the MND's for the past 30 years. They were always the face of civilian overwatch to the military. They have always had a huge impact on what happens in the CAF.



I think they have very little impact other than to convey the desires of the PM, et al......they are nothing more than a representative and that is how they operated.


----------



## Jed (4 May 2017)

GAP said:
			
		

> I think they have very little impact other than to convey the desires of the PM, et al......they are nothing more than a representative and that is how they operated.



I would hope, this may be a forlorn hope, that they would be persuasive in the back room meetings of the Cabinet. Maybe in the heady days of WWI, WWII and the 50's they had more sway.


----------



## Remius (4 May 2017)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Bollocks.  The Minister is not my leader.  The CDS is.  The vast majority of the CAF could not name the last MND, let alone the last three.  Let's try and keep a bit of perspective here



Exactly.  the CDS leads the CAF not the minister. 

Personally I think that the government puts someone in place with a military background when they are planning to deliver bad news or make unpopular decisions.  Thinking that maybe the messenger will be a familiar face and one that can relate.


----------



## Journeyman (4 May 2017)

No matter how much people currently dislike the Minister...... it's not Leslie.


----------



## Jed (4 May 2017)

I think I detect a lot of political party bias kicking in here.  [ Possibly from all the parties.


----------



## Lightguns (4 May 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> No matter how much people currently dislike the Minister...... it's not Leslie.



Thank God......


----------



## Rifleman62 (4 May 2017)

> No matter how much people currently dislike the Minister...... it's not Leslie.



Yet.


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 May 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Thank God......



To both Lightguns and Journeyman above :goodpost:  Rifleman62... bite your tongue the good idea fairy might be listening   :tsktsk:

While the CDS is my leader, he still gets his marching orders from the MND.  Sort of a chicken or egg idea, no?


----------



## Kat Stevens (4 May 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> No matter how much people currently dislike the Minister...... it's not Leslie.



Yet. Who do you think is the next liberalogical choice if The Great Architecht steps down over this?


----------



## Lumber (4 May 2017)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Yet. Who do you think is the next liberalogical choice if The Great Architecht steps down over this?



My money's on Judy Foote.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 May 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Yet.


So young to be so cynical  ;D

That said, I have to agree - never say never ...


----------



## Altair (4 May 2017)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Yet. Who do you think is the next liberalogical choice if The Great Architecht steps down over this?


karen mccrimmon?


----------



## cavalryman (4 May 2017)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Yet. Who do you think is the next liberalogical choice if The Great Architecht steps down over this?



Maryam Monsef  [


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 May 2017)

I guess we just can't slap 6 months of extra duties on the MND and be done with it? 

As for him being a yes man, I suspect everyone in Cabinet will fit that description to a point, for all we know he might be doing a decent job of defending the military despite the best efforts of the rest of Cabinet to stick a knife into them. We knew the Liberals where going to repeat the decade of darkness, we hoped he could put up a good fight and make them see reason, I suspect that they will use him as the lightening rod for all the problems of the CF and let him be consumed by it. After all he is hardly part of the core Liberal heart, being a west coaster and being different.


----------



## FJAG (4 May 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ...
> As for him being a yes man, I suspect everyone in Cabinet will fit that description to a point,  ...



I presume with time everyone becomes a "yes man" when there's such a thing as a "party whip"  ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## sandyson (4 May 2017)

After the defence policy is published with or without dollars, we will know whether or not he was effective as MND. Until then, we now know he's not perfect vet. If he had had his foot on a bar rail, no notice would have been made of the remark.


----------



## dapaterson (4 May 2017)

Sandyson said:
			
		

> If he had had his foot on a bar rail, no notice would have been made of the remark.



Best comment on the whole affair.


----------



## Kat Stevens (4 May 2017)

And if me auntie had bollocks she'd be me uncle.  He said it where and when everyone was likely to get wind of it. Fluffing up your feathers in the mess over a few G ant Ts and a polite game of cabbage football is not what he did. Decorum and all that, dear boy.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 May 2017)

Sandyson said:
			
		

> After the defence policy is published with or without dollars, we will know whether or not he was effective as MND. Until then, we now know he's not perfect vet. If he had had his foot on a bar rail, no notice would have been made of the remark.



He lied to an international audience of government officials while acting as a representative of the Canadian government. More than once if I read things correctly. That's the bottom line no matter how people try to slice it. His valour and commitment are not in question. It seems to me people are upset about his integrity, which is understandable.


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 May 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> He lied to an international audience of government officials while acting as a representative of the Canadian government. More than once if I read things correctly. That's the bottom line no matter how people try to slice it. His valour and commitment are not in question. It seems to me people are upset about his integrity, which is understandable.



“Mine honor is my life; both grow in one.
Take honor from me, and my life is done.” 

Richard II


----------



## ModlrMike (5 May 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> “Mine honor is my life; both grow in one.
> Take honor from me, and my life is done.”
> 
> Richard II



Seeing as we're quoting Shakespeare, perhaps Macbeth Act 5 Scene 5

I'll let you guess at the part I mean.


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 May 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Seeing as we're quoting Shakespeare, perhaps Macbeth Act 5 Scene 5
> 
> I'll let you guess at the part I mean.



Out, out brief candle!


----------



## Loachman (5 May 2017)

Sandyson said:
			
		

> If he had had his foot on a bar rail, no notice would have been made of the remark.



There are many things that many of us have said with a foot on a bar rail that, if said in a public venue, would have had severe consequences.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 May 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> He lied to an international audience of government officials while acting as a representative of the Canadian government. More than once if I read things correctly ...


Once internationally, once (at laeast) nationally ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 May 2017)

milnews.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 May 2017)

I have refrained on this one -

I am not a Liberal fan but rereading the start of this thread got me to thinking again.

Sajjan, in India says that he was "the Architect of the Operation"

Apparently, if we can believe him, he gained the phrase from a compliment the CDS paid him.

In terms of that compliment, it seems to me that, rather than the tactical planning of the operation he was specific, in the first instance, of claiming credit for shaping the battlefield through gaining the trust of the locals and thereby gaining intelligence that informed, and may even have prompted the decision to launch, Operation Medusa.  

The actual Operation itself would be still to the credit of all of the Commanders and Planners and Operators that made Medusa a success.

It seems to me that he may have a case for being one of the thousand fathers of a successful operation, and may even have a case for being seminal, if the CDS's compliment can be taken at face value.

On the other hand, it's never appropriate to blow your own horn.  Despite the influence of politicians.

My sympathies are with the MND on this one.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (5 May 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I have refrained on this one -
> 
> I am not a Liberal fan but rereading the start of this thread got me to thinking again.
> 
> ...









 ;D ;D ;D

Watching Fight Club should be part of a remedial training package for the MND.


----------



## Loachman (5 May 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> It seems to me that he may have a case for being one of the thousand fathers of a successful operation



Yes. Agreed.

Had he said "an" instead of "the", most likely nothing much would have been said. Such a claim might not be strictly correct, but it would be easily defensible if it was even noticed.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 May 2017)

Meanwhile, back in Canada ...


> Asked to appear on this weekend’s episode of The West Block with Vassy Kapelos, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan’s office said he was not available – for this or any other interviews – over the weekend.
> 
> Producers then sent a request to the minister’s former parliamentary secretary John MacKay, as Sajjan’s office suggested. The Prime Minister’s Office was looped into the interview request (this is not uncommon for broadcast bookings) and eventually came back with a confirmation not for MacKay, but for Transport Minister Marc Garneau.
> 
> ...


op:


----------



## sandyson (5 May 2017)

Just heard the similar Global National report. One option for Trudeau is to replace the MND and therefore delay the Defence Review publication until...  Which has more political worth: switch MND and delay a difficult policy or keep a now controversial personality and announce a policy that will  be even more controversial?  There is a potential opportunity for him to put off Defence again.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Dec 2017)

Wikipedia says 


> Sajjan was wounded during his service in Bosnia


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harjit_Sajjan

On the same page under Honours and decorations I don't see a wound stripe or sacrifice medal but I'm not sure if the former would be considered an Honour and decoration and the latter was just a recently issued medal I think?


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Dec 2017)

In the article at the link below the author claims Sajjan was "wounded in battle", but does not specify where or when. This would most likely be a representation by the author who is either quite skilled at expanding the narrative, or incredibly naive. She also writes that Sajjan stopped counting "close calls" "after 40".... I'm not sure if that means he had 40 close calls, turned 40 years of age, etc.    In general, there seems to be some puffery on the part of the media to overstate this man's experiences, which is a shame because they probably stand well enough on their own merits and seems to cause him reputational  stress when probably none is warranted.  

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/series+part+twelve+defence+rights+others+with+video/7209454/story.html?__lsa=8441-c112 

I couldn't get the video to play, maybe Sajjan says something about it in the clip.

 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Dec 2017)

He may have had a few close calls in the VPD as well


----------



## kratz (14 Jan 2019)

ref: CTV.ca

The info machine continues to repeat the MND's mantra, in today's review of who is part of the cabinet:



> “single-handedly changed the face of intelligence gathering and analysis in Afghanistan.”


----------



## brihard (14 Jan 2019)

kratz said:
			
		

> ref: CTV.ca
> 
> The info machine continues to repeat the MND's mantra, in today's review of who is part of the cabinet:



In fairness to the MND, that’s not his words. They’re quoting then BGen David Fraser, who was in charge of that whole particular schebang. That letter was written by Fraser to the chief of Vancouver Police, from whom Sajjan was on a leave of absence for his deployment to Kandahar in 2006.


----------

