I believe she was seconded out of the Dept when that article was published....and one might ask why she was seconded in the first place
Because she achieved what she set out to do with her opinion piece?
I respect your insight and perspective operating in similar circles, but a couple things come to mind, but I’ll limit it to two major points that come to mind:
1) I believe the title of her opinion piece was unnecessarily inflammatory. While she didn’t have the experience of the likes of Vincent Rigby or Dick Fadden, she went in tactically guns blazing and an issue that could have been more convincing without the bombast; and
2) She most likely would have been consulted on the draft of the G&M article following up on her secondment and know that she was described as the ‘principle author’ of the policy. Technically, would that not have been ADM(Pol) themselves, with her (DG Def Pol), PCO Ln, DG IS Pol, Cab Ln and others also participating? While she wasn’t a mere secretary taking notes, I think she stretched her purported pivotal ‘architectural work’ in the publication of the DP.
This is not to say that she doesn’t have a case, she most likely does, as you point out, but she absolutely knew she was poking the bear, as it were. I’ll continue to look for the writings of Rigby, Fadden, Vigneault and others to make well-considered and communicated cases for Canada getting more serious with foreign intervention and nefarious work by our adversaries and the place that economic factors and policies have in that space.
2¢