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

[milnews.ca]

... 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.

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. 

... 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?

... 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]

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 is ( was? ) in the PRes.

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 ........ .........

hereby appointed an Officer in Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces

With Seniority of the .... day of ......... ....

WE reposing especial Trust and Confidence in your Loyalty, Courage and Integrity do by these Presents Constitute and Appoint you to be an Officer in our Canadian Armed Forces. 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 and use your best endeavour to keep them in good Order and Discipline, and We do hereby Command them to Obey you as their Superior Officer, and you to observe and follow such Orders and Directions as from time to time you shall receive from Us, or any other your Superior Officer according to Law, in pursuance of the Trust hereby Reposed in you.

IN WITNESS Whereof our Governor General of Canada hath hereunto set his hand and Seal at Our Government House in the City of Ottawa this .... day of .......... in the Year of our Lord ................... and in the .... Year of Our Reign.

By Command of His Excellency the Governor General

 

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.

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]

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.

[milnews.ca]

... 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?

... 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.

... 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:

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

... 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]

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]

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]

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.

[milnews.ca]

... 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]

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

Regarding,

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

[HB_Pencil]

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.

[milnews.ca]

... 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.

[milnews.ca]

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.

Conversations with the ethics commissioner typically remain private, but in a Feb. 27 letter obtained by the National Post, Dawson summarizes her conversation with the defence minister: “Mr. Sajjan informed me that he was deployed as a reservist to Afghanistan where he was responsible for capacity building with local police forces. At no time was he involved in the transfer of Afghan detainees, nor did he have any knowledge relating to the matter,” she wrote.

In public, Sajjan has described his time in Afghanistan in significantly different terms. He told military historian Sean Maloney he was involved in intelligence gathering and worked regularly with the the governor of Kandahar and the head of the National Directorate of Security, both of whom have been accused of organizing the torture of suspected Taliban fighters in violation of international law. In a 2006 letter Sajjan’s commanding officer in Afghanistan, brigadier general David Fraser, described him as an intelligence officer who “singlehandedly changed the face of intelligence gathering and analysis in Afghanistan.”

After questioning Sajjan, Dawson decided there was insufficient evidence and closed her investigation ...

Holy "wheels within wheels", Batman ...

[Humphrey Bogart]

Regarding,

"Commission Upon Release"
https://army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=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

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.

 

This is my point.

[HB_Pencil]

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.

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.

[milnews.ca]

... 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?"

But Trudeau said Sajjan has served his country in a number of ways, as a police officer, a soldier and now as a cabinet minister. He made a mistake, apologized and took responsibility for it, the prime minister said.

Sajjan briefly met with reporters before entering the House of Commons, again apologizing and saying he was "not here to make excuses."

"I'm owning it. I'm learning from it and I'll be a better person for it," he said.

He reiterated his apology in the House ...

[Humphrey Bogart]

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.


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.

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]

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]

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.

 

[Loachman]

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]

dileas

tess

[Humphrey Bogart]

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.

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.

 

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]

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.

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?

 

[dapaterson]

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]

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.

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?

 

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]

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?