• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

"The Need for a Defence Advocacy Group"

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Inactive
Fallen Comrade
Reaction score
147
Points
710
Jack Granatstein of the Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century makes the case:
http://www.ccs21.org/articles/granatstein/2006/jlg_defence-advocacy_nov06.htm

The condition of the Canadian Forces looks to be on the upswing. The previous Liberal government pledged to repair the damage of decades with a five-year plan of equipment purchases and a small increase in personnel strength. The present Harper government accepted those pledges and added its own billions of dollars and thousands of additional regulars and reservists to the recruitment plans. The first C-17 long-range air transport is expected to be in the air force’s hands before the end of 2007, and a host of additional purchases are in train. And, the Canadian Forces say, recruiting is proceeding on track.

So what is there to worry about? Too much, unfortunately. The war in Afghanistan is a major bone of contention in the media and in Parliament, and there are many who call for Canada to get out of Kandahar now, no matter what that might do to Canada’s reputation with its allies (not to mention those Afghanis who might have worked with us and who would be left to the mercies of the Taliban). There is substantial support for the troops as individuals and even as a collectivity, but there is not much enthusiasm for the idea that soldiers sometimes must kill people. To Canadians, the preferred role for their men and women in uniform is as blue beret peacekeepers and agents of social development. Peacekeepers, not war fighters, in other words. Moreover, there is an overriding domestic concern with social programmes—improvements to the environment, medicare and childcare, to name only three, rank much higher on the public and parliamentary agenda than do the equipment needs of the military.

In other words, the political support for the Canadian Forces is tenuous at best and subject to change. Stephen Harper is not a prime minister devoid of principle, far from it, but his present enthusiasm for rebuilding the CF might need to be sacrificed to more palatable policy measures perhaps not today, but possibly tomorrow. And given the attitudes to defence of the single issue Greens, the pacifist Bloc Québécois, the timid New Democrats, and the opportunistic Liberals, all trying to secure power by appealing to anti-Bush, anti-Iraq, anti-Afghan War sentiment, no one can easily assume that a minority Conservative government is secure or certain of re-election.
So what is to be done? How can public opinion be changed enough to understand and accept that Canada will always require a well-equipped, well-trained military able to undertake operations ranging from aid to the civil power in Canada through benign peacekeeping and up to and including participation in war?

First, all those who care about defence issues need to recognize that they are small players in an off-Broadway show. The constituency for defence today is small, spread out, linguistically divided, and hampered by the reality that its ranks are made up mostly of ex-military men and representatives of defence industries. That is not a strength. To get a public hearing and to secure results, those who support defence need to advance their case in the same manner as other interests and groups in the pluralistic reality of present-day Canadian politics. Agricultural groups advocate; industry associations advocate; so too must those who are in favour of the Canadian Forces. Creating an independent, civilian, well-financed advocacy group is the only way to help build a broad national constituency for defence issues. Certainly, advocacy has worked for many issues much less important to the future of our democracy.

Such a group must not become the agent for those who are trying to sell the Canadian Forces a particular aircraft or light armoured vehicle. A proper defence advocacy group will support a strong CF, not one with a particular brand of arms. Only in this way can it become the media’s public sounding board for comment on defence issues. The existence of such a policy-driven body that can harness existing expertise while growing its own internal ability to influence the process has been long overdue and is uniquely absent from the Canadian political landscape.

This new defence advocacy group must begin digging into the political structure of all parties in Parliament, making the case for defence issues and educating M.P.s and Senators about the issues. Only a handful of Members of Parliament have served in the military and the number with genuine expertise in military matters can be counted on two hands. Parliament needs to be educated on defence, and the House and Senate need a defence caucus that cuts across party lines.

The new advocacy group must also build a strong degree of support across Canada in every region and every federal riding to put a human face on the complex issues that it will defend and promote. Its aim must be to create a strong and enduring national network that can reach out, advocate, and educate.

There is much at stake. Canada faces an uncertain future, the challenges to our sovereignty are increasing, and the world is as dangerous as it has ever been. A strong, competent Canadian Forces is desperately needed, and those Canadians concerned with defence and security, and all who believe that their country should play a creditable role in the world, need to be ready to persuade and convince their compatriots. A real defence advocacy organization can play a critical role in this effort.

Mark
Ottawa
 
Is there anyone/group that presently does it, even in an ad hoc manner? (other than Army.ca and the Ruxted Group)
 
An interesting article from Dr. Granatstein.

One of the points I find interesting, GAP, is that it somes from the CCS21 website, which states

Mission:

To encourage Canadians and their government to provide adequate numbers of well-equipped, well-trained, regular and reserve forces able to protect Canada's national interests.

Implementation:

To contribute in a non-partisan way to the public debate on defence.

To advocate strongly an increased defence and security effort.

Activities:

Key objectives include public presentations and the preparation of reports, papers, and articles for circulation to government, the media, and the interested public.

Founding Members:

Russ Bannock   
Norman Hillmer 
Sonja Bata 
Hon. Laurier LaPierre 
LGen (Ret'd) Charles H. Belzile
MGen (Ret'd) Lewis MacKenzie 
D. J. Bercuson
Gerald Maier 
Murray Burt 
Fred P. Mannix 
Paul Buteux
Gen (Ret'd) Paul Manson 
Martha Cohen 
Linda McKnight 
Alex Colville
Marc Milner 
Terry Copp 
Dean Oliver 
Jocelyn Coulon 
William J. Pettipas 
Thomas D'Aquino 
Guy Pratte
Fredrik S. Eaton 
Hugh Segal 
LCol (Ret'd) John A. English 
Arthur R. Smith 
Diane Francis 
Denis Stairs 
Hon. John A. Fraser 
VAdm (Ret'd) Charles Thomas 
J. L. Granatstein
Jonathan F. Vance 
David Haglund 
A. Samuel Wakim
VAdm (Ret'd) Ralph L. Hennessy


 
Everyone needs to understand the difference between advice, of which there is plenty, and advocacy, of which there is also plenty.

Advice, solicited or not, needs to be:

1. Pertinent;

2. Expert; and

3. Unbiased.

Advocacy is, be definition, biased towards a specific position – be it commercial (“Buy my plane!”) or policy oriented (“Transform the military into a _____ force, ready and able to: _______ and _____.”)  Advocacy ought to be expert, too, but the normal way for advisory groups to be expert is to have a sufficiently broad base so as to be able to peer review the Advice, internally, before it is proffered.  That same broad base usually helps to give advisory bodies their requisite unbiased nature, too.  Advocacy groups, almost by definition, are narrowly based so no matter how many PhDs one might have on staff there will be a significant and equally expert contrary position – advocated by someone else – consider Greenpeace vs. the Canadian Petroleum Association or Ruxted vs. Polaris.

Prof. Granatstein is proposing a policy advocacy group to address, as he points out, an unpopular policy.  These are the most difficult sort.  Commercial/product advocacy is, relatively, easy – you have a product, the aim is to ‘sell’ it to the press, the public, the politicians and the bureaucrats (uniformed and otherwise).  Many politicians and some of the bureaucrats are, on defence matters, an easy sell – the press and the public are much, much harder to convince.  Granatstein and the Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century and the Conference of Defence associations (DND’s ‘own’ taxpayer supported advocacy group (albeit far less supported than back in the ‘80s)) and others have been trying to advocate on behalf of a bigger, better military for decades – since 1932 in CDA’s case.  That he calls, now, for another advocacy group says, to me, that he is unsatisfied with the results to date.

What about Army.ca and its stepchild: Ruxted?

In my opinion Army.ca is an information (and opinion) exchange group – it neither advises nor advocates, although its declared aim is, inter alia to “to provide accurate and timely information of interest to serving and potential members of the CF …”

Ruxted says that it aims “is to correct the all too prevalent errors in the media …” but it does, it admits, comment, even advises, perhaps advocates on some policy issues.  Ruxted might morph into an advisory body if it can establish credibility by providing pertinent, expert and unbiased opinions on issues of importance to the defence community.  Unless I miss my guess Ruxted is not equipped (money, staff, etc) to play any sort of advocacy role.

I wish Prof. Granatstein well in his quest to advocate better military policies for Canada.
 
Edward Campbell said:
Commercial/product advocacy is, relatively, easy – you have a product, the aim is to ‘sell’ it to the press, the public, the politicians and the bureaucrats. 
But what if you don't actually have a product.....like, say, the Airbus A400M  >:D


OK, I'll go back to my corner  ;D
 
Edward Campbell said:
In my opinion Army.ca is an information (and opinion) exchange group – it neither advises nor advocates, although its declared aim is, inter alia to “to provide accurate and timely information of interest to serving and potential members of the CF …”

Ruxted says that it aims “is to correct the all too prevalent errors in the media …” but it does, it admits, comment, even advises, perhaps advocates on some policy issues.  Ruxted might morph into an advisory body if it can establish credibility by providing pertinent, expert and unbiased opinions on issues of importance to the defence community.  Unless I miss my guess Ruxted is not equipped (money, staff, etc) to play any sort of advocacy role.

I wish Prof. Granatstein well in his quest to advocate better military policies for Canada.

Does not the constituancy of Army.ca prelude it from being relevent, simply because it's base has a built in bias?

Ruxted, since it has blossomed on it's own, would have more "net cred" than Army.ca, even though Army.ca tends to be of wider range in soliciting the opinion of the CF members and those with an interest.

I dunno....just asking people who know far more than me.
 
I'm not 100% clear after reading Granatstein's piece...

How about the The Conference of Defence Associations - "the oldest and most influential advocacy group in Canada’s defence community, representing thirty one associations from all parts of the country. It is a non-partisan, independent, non-profit organization. The CDA restricts is aim to one specific area - security and defence issues. The CDA expresses its ideas and opinions with a view to influencing government security and defence policy."

Or how about The Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute, "a charitable, independent, non-partisan, research institute ....  (providing) Canadians with factual and comprehensive policy analysis to promote their understanding of Canada’s foreign policy and the state of our military preparedness and national security by developing and sponsoring authoritative research and education programs. The institute studies these areas through a full range of national and international applications with an emphasis on their economic, political and social impact on individual Canadians."

Is it a question of there already being enought EDUCATING/INFORMING being done, and more need for ARM TWISTING behind closed doors? 

Also, if it's JUST about the AFG mission, some of those who should be doing the "advocacy" and "lobbying" would be AFG national representatives and interests.  Who wants Canada's presence the most?  I'm guessing there's already more of this than meets the eye (like any lobbying work on the Hill and its environs).

Can the military do more to advocate?  I don't think it's the military's job, in a small "l" liberal democracy, to "lobby" in the traditional sense.  Offer up best advice?  Yes, and aggressively.  Arm twist while in uniform for positions contrary to what those elected by the masses (for better or worse) want?  Dicey, at best ....
 
As the author of the CCS21 column on the need for a new defence advocacy group, may I make a few comments in response to the postings here? First, I do happily acknowledge the fine work done by CDA over 75 yrs, but it is made up of ex-military men and women, and hence is seen as more than slightly biased by decision-makers. The new group, while it will have some ex-mil types and while it will cooperate with existing defence organizations (especially including CDA), will be civilian-directed. It will also be an advocacy group, like CDA (but unlike CDFAI which is obliged by its tax status and charter not to lobby). The difference is that the new organization, Canadians for Defence and Security, will find and hire professional advocates and communications experts  to make the case for defence to M.P.s , the media, and the public. We think professionalism will matter. The new group will also make an effort to build a national membership and to attract youth, women, francophones, vis mins--all groups that  no existing organization has managed to reach. I don't underestimate the difficulty here or the very great problem of raising the substantial sums of money needed to operate a professionally-directed group. But the game is worth the candle, and we will try our damnedest to make it work. We should be ready to go public in the new year, and Army.ca members' support will be welcomed.
Jack Granatstein
 
Thank you Jack.  I hope you all the best of success.  I surely hope any fears of this group devolving into a group such as the Polaris Institute are misplaced and we will not see ignorant little people espousing knowledge of the military and Foreign Policy as they have put forward in the Media.
 
Thanks for the extra detail, Dr. Granatstein!
 
Back
Top