# Responses to The Iceberg of Ignorance editorial



## ruxted (14 Jul 2006)

Please post all replies to the "Iceberg of Ignorance" Editorial here.


----------



## GAP (14 Jul 2006)

We have probably put it in a hundred different ways, but this sums it up nicely


----------



## Centurian1985 (14 Jul 2006)

Nice one - total agree with the evaluation of the Polaris Institute, completely lacking in expertise on military affairs.


----------



## techie (14 Jul 2006)

kathleen.harris@tor.sunpub.com <kathleen.harris@tor.sunpub.com>

thats the writers email addy at the paper if anyone would like to send her a reply. I think maybe an "offical response" from Mike, or someone from the DS, from army.ca would be a good thing.


----------



## big bad john (14 Jul 2006)

Very well written and informative.  Sums up my view and the view of most of the people I know.  The people that I know are getting fed up with this type of journalism.  Doing half the job and then expecting to be put on a pedestal for it.  It simply won't wash any more.  Excellent editorial.


----------



## Red 6 (15 Jul 2006)

Great editorial! It could easily apply to the "journalistic" situation int he US. It's a shame what the media will post, write, publish, broadcast to make a buck. It doesn't matter to them, whether they show the face of a dying Soldier on the nightly news, as happened a couple of years ago while he bled out on a street in Iraq. It's not the reporter's son, right? A certain part of our media in the US has been trying for years to point out the (incorrect) idea that minorities and lower socioeconomic groups are carrying an unfair burden in the military service. Even though the Defense Department has been releasing enlistment and promotion statistics for decades, it has no impact on these stories. And of course, since enlistment and retention is voluntary, people do so of their own free will. And of course, that fact is ignored in most stories on this topic.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Jul 2006)

..and for another black eye to reporters everywhere see,
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/47479.0.html


----------



## North Star (16 Jul 2006)

I challenge Mr. Staples, as well as this other analyst (Bill Something) to present their credentials - I've had a hard time finding details regarding their educational background, any potential party affiliations, etc. Everytime I wrote a study at the post-grad level or at work I have to name my biases and expose my background so colleagues could try to identify any biases I may have. 

So Mr. Staples, speak up.


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Jul 2006)

North Star said:
			
		

> So Mr. Staples, speak up.



Don't hold your breath. They don't have any real qualifications.


----------



## Centurian1985 (17 Jul 2006)

Or probably dont feel that they have to justify their credentials to the likes of us!  :


----------



## couchcommander (17 Jul 2006)

Re: Mr. Staples Presentation to the Standing Committee on National Defence, June 8, 2006

The hope had been that after the thorough trouncing “Boots on the Ground: Canadian Military Operations in Afghanistan and UN Peacekeeping Missions” was given by both experienced veterans and not so experienced observers alike on Army.ca (see http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/43950.0.html and http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/43927.0.html), as well as by other notable organizations, Steve Staples and the Polaris Institute would shy away from blatantly spouting the numbers found in the report. As was discussed and pointed out repeatidly, the numbers presented are misrepresentative of the situation and are bordering on blatantly fallacious. Nonetheless, in his June 8th address, Mr.Staples apparently chose to cite this specific report in an attempt argue against the $1.8 billion put forth by the Hon. Mr. Mackay as the cost of the Afghanistan missions.

Mr. Staples then moved onto the topic of defence spending. Though his statements in this regard are not completely false, they are, as usual, misleading. Mr. Staples tries to make the point that defence spending in Canada is a run away train, already taking up far too many resources than it should. He goes so far as to state that in regards to total defence spending “we are the seventh highest within the 26-member NATO alliance”. This fact, while true, does not truly portray the burden placed on other countries as compared to our own, which is undoubtedly the purpose of Mr. Staples bringing up this little statistic. 

The fact is, according to information from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, when compared with our GDP, our defence spending ranks twenty-third out of twenty-four member states with available data. We only spend more, as a percent of our GDP, than Luxembourg (Iceland of course, does not have an army, airforce, or navy). The vast majority of our allies are forced to shoulder a much higher cost, relative to the size of their economy, than we are. If Mr. Staples was trying to say that we are spending too much when compared to other nations, he is sorely wanting on facts to back such a viewpoint. 

The address goes on to spout what is, quite simply, opinion, and nothing more. Mr. Staples has an agenda, and he has chosen to try and portray this agenda as “fact” or “research”. He then makes arguments, apparently to back up these opinions, that in actuality have nothing to do with the position he was taking. Mr. Staples does not provide sufficient arguments for why we should be undertaking UN missions rather than helping the millions of Afghan's in desperate need of our assistance. Most astoundingly to this author, he doesn't even state where he thinks the UN could use our manpower. Mr. Staples then beguiles our “US war-fighting” tactics in Afghanistan, but offers no solution to dealing with the armed insurgents that are burning schools and killing civilians. 

Now, the moral of all of this is simple. This is a plea. This is a plea to any and all persons in the media, and as well as to any person with decision making power. Do not rely upon the Polaris Institute for analysis or comment. They have a clear and ever present agenda. They will twist and manipulate fact, statement, and research to fit this agenda. They should not, under any circumstance, be considered expert or even informed on the topic of defence. Their statements over the years have proven them not to be such. 

Take one recent episode, in which when responding to questions about the recent defence spending, Mr. Staples asked “How many tank divisions does Al Qaeda have?”.  This question continues to confuse this author, as he is unable to identify what support ships, helicopters, transport aircraft, or trucks have to do with fighting a tank division rather than a blood thirsty insurgency? Surely he isn't so blind as to the utility of these purchases in furthering even his aims? 

Once again, the point; if you are wanting for comment or analysis, there are a vast number of academic defence research institutes and organizations to call upon. The Polaris Institute should not be seen as a reliable source for defence related comment or analysis.

The address in question: http://www.ceasefire.ca/atf/cf/%7B0A14BA6C-BE4F-445B-8C13-51BED95A5CF3%7D/DNND_8_June_06.pdf


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Jul 2006)

I do get the distinct impression that Mr Staples and his fellow travellers view anyone in uniform as a knuckle-dragging, intellectual inferior.

It's just one more thing in a long list of things he has wrong...


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Jul 2006)

Don't expect the media to abandon Mr Staples.  He was on CTV's Question Period July 16, with Lew Mackenzie and David Bercuson, discussing Afstan.  Craig Oliver did everything he could to call the mission into question.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=/ctv/mar/video/new_player.html&cf=ctv/mar/ctv.cfg&hub=QPeriod&video_link_high=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2006/07/14/ctvvideologger3_152871435_1152888700_691kbps.wmv&video_link_low=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2006/07/14/ctvvideologger3_152871434_1152888303_218kbps.wmv&clip_start=00:13:05.95&clip_end=00:07:02.92&clip_caption=CTV's%20Question%20Period:%20Panel%20discussion%20of%20Afghanistan&clip_id=ctvnews.20060714.00154000-00154370-clip2&subhub=video&no_ads=&sortdate=20060712&slug=QP_afghanistan_060716&archive=CTVNews#ctvnews.20060714.00154000-00154370-clip2

There was also an interview with Chris Alexander, UN official in Afstan and former Canadian diplomat, in which Mr Alexander did a very good job of explaining and supporting international action there.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=/ctv/mar/video/new_player.html&cf=ctv/mar/ctv.cfg&hub=QPeriod&video_link_high=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2006/07/14/ctvvideologger3_152871435_1152888700_691kbps.wmv&video_link_low=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2006/07/14/ctvvideologger3_152871434_1152888303_218kbps.wmv&clip_start=00:03:42.45&clip_end=00:09:17.92&clip_caption=CTV's%20Question%20Period:%20Chris%20Alexander%20in%20Kabul&clip_id=ctvnews.20060714.00154000-00154370-clip1&subhub=video&no_ads=&sortdate=20060712&slug=QP_afghanistan_060716&archive=CTVNews#ctvnews.20060714.00154000-00154370-clip1

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jul 2006)

After watching that CTV interview, and Stephen Staples twisting of facts, I came to the conclusion, after hearing his comments at the end that "the Solution in Afghanistan is not a military one." that we should all contribute to the "Send Stephen Staples to Afghanistan Fund" and purchase him a one-way ticket so that he can go over there and solve all their problems.   ;D


Come On Everybody!  Dig deep.  It is for a good cause.


----------



## GAP (17 Jul 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> that we should all contribute to the "Send Stephen Staples to Afghanistan Fund" and purchase him a one-way ticket so that he can go over there and solve all their problems.
> Come On Everybody!  Dig deep.  It is for a good cause.



We need to give him a mandate... he could be our representative to negotiate with the Taliban directly, just so that there would be no misunderstandings.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jul 2006)

Blogospheric response by "Small Dead Animals". Comments section is interesting.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/004293.html


----------



## MPIKE (18 Jul 2006)

well done

time for another challenge.. Project ICEBERG-  a media ethics challenge..


----------



## 54/102 CEF (24 Jul 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> After watching that CTV interview, and Stephen Staples twisting of facts, I came to the conclusion, after hearing his comments at the end that "the Solution in Afghanistan is not a military one." that we should all contribute to the "Send Stephen Staples to Afghanistan Fund" and purchase him a one-way ticket so that he can go over there and solve all their problems.   ;D
> 
> 
> Come On Everybody!  Dig deep.  It is for a good cause.



I`m with you on invite all the lame brains over - and post the names of those who do go vs. those who don`t. This would allow the govt to say with some certainty that since you`ve not been their your opinion lacks certain facts - in person visits usually change ideas. 

Want to critique the overseas missions from the wine and cheese deck of the SS Lollipop tied up at the CN Pier in Toronto? By all means - but get your boarding pass from SF2006 Special Flight to the Dusty Airfield to prove you`ve at least sucked in some of the dusty airfield.

The image below is more fuel for the fire - the latest Globe and Mail pseudo poll on these missions. Maybe a crazy question but its real people clicking the numbers.


----------



## GAP (24 Jul 2006)

'I know the risk'
Barb Pacholik, The Leader-Post  Published: Monday, July 24, 2006 
http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=9c1051f6-25e7-4de1-9d9b-8dc8eb882b1e&k=65572

Amid Afghanistan's death and stifling dust, reservist says he's doing his generation's duty

Despite the loss of two more Canadian soldiers on the weekend and his own close brush with a bomb, a Regina area reservist says he has no second thoughts about volunteering to serve in Afghanistan.

"I know the risk," Jim Sinclair said in a telephone interview Sunday from Kandahar, Afghanistan. One day earlier, two Canadian soldiers were killed by a car bomb just west of that city as a convoy of soldiers returned to their base. Sinclair was part of the convoy, but was amongst a group that arrived before the blast.

"If this means the world's going to get better and my life is taken to better my niece's and nephews' lives down the road, then so be it," Sinclair said firmly. "When it's your time, it's your time."

The 36-year-old Regina Beach bachelor said he'd rather die "honourably . . . trying to accomplish something."

"At the end of the day, no soldier wants to go to do this kind of work. But it's got to be done. Every generation has a part to play in global stability. This is my generation," he said.
More on link


----------



## KevinB (24 Jul 2006)

Jimmie's a good shit -- ex PPCLI, 2CDO (dying days)
I did a PSD course with him -- good man.


----------



## cplcaldwell (24 Jul 2006)

RE: 54/102 CEF's post, specifically the Globe poll.

*THIS IS GREAT NEWS!*

With popular support for NATO at this low Canada should pull out from NATO and become non-aligned. Of course this would mean Canada would have to double or triple or defence budget to come more online with other neutral countries and probably have to introduce national service (viz, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland), but who cares then _we_ would have tonnes of toys to play with!!!(LMAO)

I wonder if this fact ever occurred to the lame-brains voting on the poll? Not too scary to think that this is a straw poll on a website, what is truly scary is that each and every one of these folks would put the same amount of thought into a General Election vote.

IMHO, a lot of these folks think that voting out of NATO would make the Canadian world a lot simpler, too bad they are completely wrong.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jul 2006)

I am more likely to think that the Globe and Mail Poll was 'Spammed' by a bunch of Lefties.  Five or six twits posting numerous votes and then spreading the word amongs their like minded 'friends'.


----------



## thequietpoet (31 Jul 2006)

I am proud of all the members of the Canadian Forces, living and dead.  When any member of the Canadian Forces dies, I feel a lump in my throat.

Kathleen Harris' article motivated me to check via web to verify that the forces/reserves "drill" the dangers of the job at a number of steps along the training process to ensure that the men and women in the forces are aware of the dangers.  I am satisfied (I believe more than any other armed force in the world) that the Canadian Forces do not "market" men and women to become recruits.  And we do not have an economy (yet) that requires the poorest to become recruits in order to have any meaningful opportunity in life.  The men and women who enlist do so because they want to.  I believe my nephew will be one of these fine young recruits one day.

But the voices of opinion/opposition, regardless of political leanings, cannot dishonour the work that our forces undertake. They cannot dishonour the memory of brave young men and women who choose to put their life on the line for their beliefs.  I encourage more, not less, voices to be heard, and in true intelligent Canadian fashion, the truth - like cream rising in fresh milk - will surface to the top.  Both my grandfathers survived WWII: one conservative-leaning, who served as a Canadian Engineer, and one left-leaning, who served as a British Army Regular Master Sergeant, and both told me to always believe 25% of what I read - and to read from all sources (and to consider who sponsors those writings) to obtain a picture that is closer to the truth.

I have come to the conclusion that it is extremism - far left, far right, and now religious fundamentalism that is the enemy of peace and opportunity.  Left and right extremism have traditionally been represented in a linear model, but the truth is they are far more represented by a circle - a point at the top of the circle is balance, and a point at the bottom is co-occupied by the far left and the far right (who exhibit the same internal and external repressive tactics and where true power is exercised by a few - typically the wealthiest and most privileged unmitigated by concern for others).

The newest threat, religious fundamentalism, cannot be overcome solely on the battlefields of this planet.  When individuals cannot hope to have economic prosperity or even sustainability on a family level, they will look to the next life for their happiness.  As a collective, they are potent beyond their numbers.  In contrast, the opponents of fundamentalism generally look to this life for their happiness (or the happiness of their families back home).

I suppose my model will have to change from a circle to 3D - to that of a ball - but the result is the same: the top is balance, and the bottom is extremism demonstrated by subjugation, repression, and impoverishment of the many by the few.  And we must recognise, perhaps reluctantly, that since annihilation or genocide will never be OUR goals, the point and the butt of the spear will always have to be diplomacy.  The space between is the domain of our Canadian Forces and our mission allies.

The current role for the Canadian Forces does cause me some concern.  I support the Afghanistan mission, but I have always supported the "Powell Doctrine", and adapted for the Canadian context, I believe this should mean providing the Canadian Forces the numbers of troops and materiel sufficient to support a well defined mission.  Essential to the end game is a follow-up modern economic "Marshall Plan" for Afghanistan - to provide for a non-drug based economy.  I always have been intensely proud of Canadian Peacekeeping operations throughout the world.  Again UN policy does cause me some concern.  Rather than simply being a roadblock between belligerents, peacekeeping forces should "enforce the peace".  This does come with its own political dangers and economic costs.  I am saddened by the conditions our veterans endured, and are still enduring, from Somalia, the Balkans and Rwanda.

Again, the voices of opinion/opposition, regardless of political leanings, cannot dishonour the work that our forces undertake. I encourage more dialogue, not less.  The very reason we should use our Forces is to preserve this fundamental freedom.  Leave the tar and feathers at home.  These are tools that are used by our opponents to convey the illusion of criminality to legal acts.

To all of you who serve in the Canadian Forces now, who have served in the past, or are about to enlist and serve around the globe, a sincere personal THANK YOU from me, a private citizen.


----------



## HDE (31 Jul 2006)

Polls don't leave much room for anything other than a yes/no option.  Sadly some things don't easily fit into that pattern.  Imagine how the result might have changed if the lives of females under the Taliban was described, then folks were asked if they believed Canada should pull out.  Suddenly things are less clearcut.  The chief goal in the media increasingly appears to be to stupid things down to fit into the 30 second sound bite.


----------



## RCD (3 Aug 2006)

It sounds like the Vietnam syndrome 2006 style


----------

