General Letters to the prime Minister

[Fishbone Jones]

itenWell the PM stuck his foot in his mouth again, right up to his knee. I can think of no better person to call him on it, nor would I be able to be more succinct in my phrasing. Gen Clive always did have a way with words. To bad there is not more of these Blackhatters still working around the Puzzle Palace!

Today's Globe and Mail:
                   By CLIVE ADDY
                   Wednesday, December 26, 2001 ? Page A20

                   Perth, Ont. -- After reading Heather
                   Scoffield's report on the Prime Minister's end-year interview (Chré'©en
                   Defends Forces -- Dec. 21), I am afraid that our soldiers serving overseas
                   during the holidays in Bosnia and the Arabian Gulf would easily be able to
                   answer Mr. Chré'©en's final statement of the interview: "Why should I
                   leave?"

                   The Auditor-General of Canada, the Special Parliamentary Committee on
                   National Defence and Veterans' Affairs, the Finance Committee and no less
                   than five non-profit organizations, all parties unrelated to the arms industry,
                   have called for more funding for defence.

                   By the way, Mr. Chré'©en, Canada did use tanks in Kosovo and I am sure
                   that those who served in them will have a special holiday thought about the
                   worth of their service to a grateful nation.

                   Merry Christmas to all our Forces personnel who continue to serve us
                   better than we deserve.
                   
                   Clive Addy,
                   Major-General (retired)

Bet some staff weinie that told the PM his facts is already on his way to Alert. Probably the facts he's using for disbanding Sqns! We'll just have to lump this one in with the promise to get rid of the GST(Oh, dat der was jus a slip of de tung!) Hee hee

 

[bossi]

(in his interview, The Little Thug From Shawinigan asked "why should [he] resign?" Here‘s why.)


Man helped by Chrétien on most-wanted terror list
By GRAEME SMITH
With a report from Canadian Press
Thursday, December 27, 2001 – Globe and Mail


A Canadian citizen who was once personally helped by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has been named among nine of the most wanted terrorists in Afghanistan.

Ahmed Said Khadr has caused embarrassment for Ottawa since his name turned up among 39 people the United States branded as terrorists two months ago.

Now, the former charity organizer is included among a handful of top al-Qaeda masterminds on a list of wanted men circulated among militia groups in Afghanistan, The Washington Post reported yesterday.

Mr. Chrétien met Mr. Khadr‘s wife during a trade mission to Pakistan in 1996 and asked then-prime minister Benazir Bhutto for guarantees that Mr. Khadr would be treated fairly by Pakistani authorities, who suspected him of a deadly bombing at the Egyptian embassy in Islamabad.

Mr. Khadr was released shortly after the intervention.

Ottawa has said Mr. Chrétien was merely trying to make sure the Canadian citizen was being treated fairly, and didn‘t request his release.

Born in Egypt, Mr. Khadr immigrated to Canada in 1977 at the age of 29.

He married an Egyptian Palestinian refugee, Maha Elsamnah, and moved to Peshawar, Pakistan, where he served as the local head of Human Concern International.

The charity was one of many organizations that were helping refugees fleeing to Pakistan from Afghanistan and supporting the mujahedeen freedom fighters who waged war against the Soviet occupying forces throughout the 1980s.

Among those mujahedeen at the time was Osama bin Laden, who was featured at the top of the most recent list of wanted terrorists.

Under Mr. Khadr‘s direction, Human Concern ran food-for-work projects to help rebuild Afghanistan and give jobs to refugees.

Mr. Khadr, who lost a foot to a land mine in 1992, travelled frequently between Pakistan and Canada. His current whereabouts is unknown, but he is believed to have had contact with Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan.

Yesterday, Hamid Karzai, the Afghan interim leader, said terrorism "is largely defeated" in his country.

"Some may be still here, but I don‘t think they are in large numbers," he said. "There are remnants in the form of individuals or small groups. Those should be looked for and arrested and put to trial."

Mr. Karzai spoke after his second cabinet meeting since the temporary government took office on Saturday.

Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah reported progress on protracted talks to implement a multinational peacekeeping force in the country, adding that the delay in decision-making could not be attributed to disagreements concerning the details.
- 30 -

 

[John Nayduk]

I‘m sure our dictator will blame someone else.

 

[bossi]

General to PM: Don‘t insult me
Lewis Mackenzie ‘dismayed‘ to be dismissed as shill for arms industry

Andrew Duffy
The Ottawa Citizen


Friday, December 28, 2001

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien is under a heavy barrage of criticism for suggesting in year-end interviews that those who argue for a stronger military are pawns of the arms industry.

Retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis Mackenzie, in an open letter to the prime minister released yesterday, said he was "shocked and dismayed" by his remarks.

And he defended those who have called for robust new military spending -- among them historian Jack Granatstein, Liberal Senator Laurier LaPierre, Auditor General Sheila Fraser and Liberal cabinet ministers John Manley and Art Eggleton -- as dedicated public servants and patriots.

"To state that our efforts were motivated by financial self-interest was both wrong and insulting," Gen. Mackenzie wrote.

The former commander of UN forces in Bosnia, Gen. Mackenzie said the PM is free to ignore his advice and the advice of all other well-meaning analysts and politicians, including NATO Secretary-General Lord George Robertson and U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci, who have criticized Canada for failing to significantly bolster its military budget.

"I cannot accept, however, that it is your right to question the integrity and intelligence of those of us who disagree with you on some of the critical defence issues of the day," Gen. Mackenzie said.

"To do so is not in keeping with the dignity of your office, which represents us all," Gen. Mackenzie said.

Historian Jack Granatstein, in a telephone interview yesterday, echoed Gen. Mackenzie‘s disgust with Mr. Chrétien‘s characterization of his government‘s military critics.

"It was, in fact, absolUte Twaddle," Said Mr. Granatstein, the Former Director of the Canadian War Museum.

"I am frankly astonished," he added. "I think it is simply bizarre. It misunderstands what is happening in the world. It is, frankly, disgraceful."

Mr. Chrétien told Global TV in a year-end interview that the Armed Forces have the budget and equipment to protect the country, serve in peacekeeping missions and fight in Afghanistan. And, in response to a question from Global‘s Kevin Newman, the prime minister suggested that critics who want a huge increase in military spending are part of a powerful arms lobby.

"There is an industry that is very important that produces armaments for government ... that (says) you should buy more of our stuff," he said. "There are a bunch of guys who are lobbyists who are representing those who sell armaments who tell you that ... but it is not my money. It is your money, and when you spend on defence, you don‘t have it for health care."

In a separate interview with CTV, Mr. Chrétien criticized Canadian military officers for demanding a larger budget rather than finding new strategies to fit today‘s newfangled warfare.

"I was elected in 1963, and they (the military) always complain that they don‘t have enough money, but we have to adjust our policy in defence to the needs," he said. "We have to adjust to the new reality of 2001, but some are still thinking of the same strategy of 1939. We are not having wars of the same nature."

In Afghanistan, for instance, tanks were not a feature of a military campaign conducted almost exclusively from the air. It raises the question, Mr. Chrétien said, as to whether Canada should pay to replace its aging Leopard tanks.

"Do we need tanks today? I‘m not so sure," the prime minister said. "It‘s all airplanes. It‘s all bombardment. No troops on the ground, virtually."

Mr. Chrétien made the statements in defence of the Liberal government‘s decision in the Dec. 10 budget to provide the Canadian military with $1.2 billion in additional funding over five years. Only $300 million of that money was earmarked for capital spending on military hardware, while the rest went to anti-terrorism measures and special emergency operations.

Critics, including both Gen. Mackenzie and Mr. Granatstein, have decried the Liberals‘ budget commitment as insufficient. The Conference of Defence Associations said $1 billion in annualized funding was needed to make up for years of neglect.

Mr. Granatstein yesterday accused the prime minister of failing to respond to the public‘s growing disquiet over the state of the Canadian military.

"I think the prime minister is simply out of step with a growing mood in his government and in the public," he said. "We are, after all, fighting a war at the moment, whether he‘s noticed or not. And I think the Canadian people would like us to hold up our end and do our best."

Mr. Granatstein pointed out that in a recent poll conducted for Macleans magazine, more than two out of three Canadians agreed the federal government "must substantially increase the amount of money we spend on the Armed Forces."

Gen. Mackenzie said he was infuriated by Mr. Chrétien‘s assertion in his year-end television interviews that military spending would somehow diminish health care in Canada. It was, he said, an unfair and inflammatory way in which to frame the debate.

"It‘s unfortunate that the case against increased funding for the military is so weak that facts have to be made up, imaginary facts that when uttered by the prime minster are understandably believed by many," Gen. Mackenzie said in his open letter to Mr. Chrétien.

"You and I know that it is not a choice of one or the other. There are literally thousands of other sources of revenue within government spending priorities to source increases in defence spending."

Mr. Granatstein argued that, in times of war, governments have always had to make tough choices between expenditures such as health care and the military.

"And, traditionally, in this country, when we‘ve had a war, we‘ve put money into fighting a war," he said. "But maybe it‘s not a big enough war for the prime minister yet."

A spokesman for the Prime Minister‘s Office said yesterday that Mr. Chrétien stands behind his comments.
- 30 -

 

[bossi]

(frankly, I suspect the PM‘s spin-doctor weasels are to blame, however the PM must take ultimate responsibility for having uttered the slur)

An open letter to the PM:
Don‘t insult me, Mr. Chretien

Dear Mr. Chretien,
You and I have dedicated more than half of our lives to public service. Mine was spent within a profession that, quite rightly, will not tolerate open criticism of government policy. As a result, my post-retirement freedom of expression has been somewhat of a unique experience.

For the past eight years, as a frequent freelance media commentator, I have sought to be objective in my utterances, particularly regarding the Canadian Forces. If I disagreed with someone‘s opinions I made a point of not questioning the individual‘s integrity or intelligence. If I could not refute their facts and prove them wrong I felt I had no right to criticize their views in public.

Having met you for the first time in 1993 when you graciously asked me to run for your party in that year‘s federal election, I instinctively assumed that you would apply the same rule when dealing with your non-elected critics.

With the above firmly held beliefs, perhaps you can understand my shock and dismay on hearing your recent, highly inaccurate and inflammatory remarks regarding critics of the inadequate funding of our nation‘s defence policy.

I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt following your interview on CTV, but when I heard you repeat the same unsubstantiated accusations on Global, I realized you really meant what you said.

Directly linking recommendations for increased funding for the Forces to lobbyists for the armaments industry, as you did in your year-end interviews, might appeal to uninformed members of the public, but the statement is blatantly untrue. Your own Liberal-chaired Commons Finance and Defence committees; the Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century, co-chaired by two of our mutual friends, the distinguished historian Jack Granatstein and Liberal Senator Laurier LaPierre; your government‘s own Auditor General; the American ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci; the NATO Secretary General, Lord George Robertson; your own senior cabinet ministers, John Manley and Art Eggleton; and yes, yours truly, to mention but a few, are not -- repeat not -- lobbyists for the armaments industry.

Our analysis of the state of the Forces and their outstanding shortfalls was driven by patriotism and, in a number of cases, a life-long obligation to the men and women in uniform who made us look good during our careers. To state that our efforts were motivated by financial self-interest was both wrong and insulting.

While attempting to recover from your first unwarranted accusation, I heard you say that senior officers wanted more dollars for equipment because they were mired in the strategy of 1939 and had not adjusted to the new reality of 2001. As someone who, in 1966, wrote his first paper on the need for an elite, light, strategically mobile, combat-capable army, I suggest that perhaps some of us were 35 years ahead of your own recent conversion.

Those who currently press you for new or updated equipment are merely doing so in order to meet the requirements of your government‘s own 1994 White Paper on defence. I hasten to emphasize that the forces and capabilities demanded by that paper are modest to the extreme and well short of our international obligations and potential capabilities as a important member of the G8 group of nations.

At this stage of your interview you can appreciate that I was a bit s****shocked, unaware that more was yet to come. The final straw that caused me to put pen to paper was your pronouncement that if you spent more on defence you wouldn‘t have it for health care!

If you were trying to scare the segment of the public that would actually believe such a blatantly untrue and sensationalist statement, you probably achieved your aim. It‘s unfortunate that the case against increased funding for the military is so weak that facts have to be made up, imaginary facts that, when uttered by the prime minister, are understandably believed by many.

You and I know that it is not a choice of one or the other. There are literally thousands of other sources of revenue within government spending priorities to source increases in defence spending if deemed necessary.

If you don‘t mind, sir, while I‘m at it, would you please tell the "spin" folks in DND, including the minister, to stop repeating the erroneous statement that our current deployment in the war against terrorism is Canada‘s largest military deployment since the Korean War.

Even the most generous calculations of our current deployments do not approach 50 per cent of our overseas deployments in the early ‘90s. At that time we had more than 10,000 of our military personnel deployed in Germany, Cyprus, Cambodia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Somalia, the Golan Heights and a multitude of additional smaller United Nations missions around the world.

On a positive note, I am encouraged by Mr. Manley‘s statements, partially endorsed by Mr. Eggleton, that there is a need for a major, concurrent and broad review of foreign and defence policy leading to new White Papers for both.

Unfortunately, the frequent statements from senior ministers, including yourself, that any new Defence White Paper should only recommend capabilities that a predetermined budget can afford suggests a less-than-serious exercise in determining our nation‘s role in the world.

Mr. Chretien, as prime minister, it is your right to ignore advice, even when it‘s creditable, unbiased advice given freely and in the best interest of Canada. I cannot accept, however, that it is your right to question the integrity and intelligence of those of us who disagree with you on some of the critical defence issues of the day.

To do so is not in keeping with the dignity of your office, which represents us all.

Respectfully,

Lewis MacKenzie

Retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie commanded United Nations troops during the siege of Sarajevo in 1992.

This letter appeared in The Ottawa Citizen on Friday, December 28, 2001.

 

[Spr Earl]

On my E.O.D. course I shared a room with a Quebecer and lucky for me he spoke english and over 6 week‘s I learnt a lot i.e the Quebecor name for Chretien is Petit Jean,also what he say‘s in the french press is not the same for the english press.

As the Newfies say he‘s an EEdiot!

As for Gen. MacKenzie he was forced out of the military due to his sense of honour,truth,and dedication to real peace and was more populer than the P.M. and most of all, all RANK‘S loved him and in Canada this is not allowed as the power‘s that be see this as a threat.


Why is it we are not allowed Heroe‘s ?


In my I eye‘s there are only two heroe‘s in Canada right now,Gen. Mackenzie and Gen.Delerd [ed note - Dallaire] (Rwanda) These two men did thier best and got shot down by those who asked the best of them which they both gave !

Both have recieved no recognition from our own Gov. due to the fact both men are to Honost and told the truth and embarest to the Gov. and we can‘t have that!!!!!

All the above is my own opinion.

 

[bossi]

(how can you tell when the PM is lying? When his lips are moving)

Ottawa neglecting military, poll says

Canadian Armed Forces poorly equipped in wake of terror attacks, 66 per cent say


By INGRID PERITZ


Friday, December 28, 2001 – Print Edition, Page A1


Two-thirds of Canadians believe Ottawa has not done enough since Sept. 11 to equip the nation‘s armed forces properly, a new poll suggests.

Reports of rusting military gear, missing batteries for fighter jets and dire underfunding appear to have have seeped into the national consciousness.

Despite Canadians‘ view of themselves as a non-militaristic nation, they appear dissatisfied with the way their leaders are dealing with their military.

"People are saying, ‘We‘re not a warring nation, but when called upon, we want to be able to do the job,‘ " said pollster John Wright of Ipsos-Reid, which carried out the poll for The Globe and Mail and CTV.

"Canadians know that the men and women serving in the military are brave and operate in hostile conditions, but their helicopters don‘t fly and machine parts aren‘t available," Mr. Wright said yesterday. "The issue is whether the military is living up to its responsibilities."

Sixty-six per cent of respondents said Ottawa had not done enough to ensure the military has what it needs. Only 28 per cent said the government had done enough. The responses come after Canada has sent six warships and more than 1,400 personnel to the Persian Gulf.

Experts say the results signal a shift in Canadian public opinion, which has historically been that the U.S. military protected Canadians adequately.

"Canada traditionally slept under the blanket of security provided by the United States," Laure Paquette, a political science and military expert at Lakehead University, said yesterday. "I‘m really astonished [by the poll results]. It would be a significant reversal from the past."
The catalyst for the shift appears to be Sept. 11, which jolted Canadians from their feelings of security.

"Sept. 11 meant the end of feeling completely safe all the time domestically. North America had been a fortress since Confederation," Ms. Paquette said.

"Now we‘ve had a striking example of how we might need the military."

Military analysts, the auditor-general, opposition politicians and even Liberal MPs have criticized Ottawa for leaving the Canadian Forces ill-equipped and poorly funded.

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien dismissed the criticism last week by saying that those who advocate more defence spending are either arms lobbyists or living in the past.

"This [the new poll] undermines whatever bluster the Defence Minister may have," Mr. Wright said. "With the world as unstable as it is, Canadians are saying to the government, ‘The emperor has no clothes.‘ "

While displeased by their government‘s handling of military preparedness, most Canadians are satisfied over all with Ottawa‘s backing of U.S. actions in Afghanistan. The survey found that 62 per cent say Ottawa has done enough to support that effort.

The findings suggest that Canadians are satisfied with Ottawa‘s stepped-up border controls, security at airports and other measures, but feel that federal leaders should maintain a degree of independence from their southern neighbours.

"Canada always has this balancing act: making sure we stay on side with our most important ally, and still maintain our independence," said Darrell Bricker, president of public affairs at Ipsos-Reid.

The poll results indicate that Ottawa is striking the right balance, he said.

It was conducted between Dec. 18 and 20 using a sample of 1,000. Statistically, the results have 19 chances out of 20 of approximating accuracy within 3.1 percentage points, upward or downward.
Too little, too late
One thousand Canadians were asked "Do you think that the federal government has done too much, not enough, or enough with respect to its efforts to make sure that Canada‘s military is properly equipped to do their job?"

Too much 3%


Not enough 66%


Enough 28%


Don‘t know 3%

 

[bossi]

December 28, 2001


King lives on in PM‘s weak defence policy


David Bercuson and Barry Cooper
National Post

No one outside Prime Minister Jean Chrétien‘s small inner circle knows if he derives the inspiration for some of his pungent comments on current issues from the memoirs of statesmen past or from Bazooka Bubble Gum wrappers. Wherever it comes from, his talent for the witty remark is as sharply honed as ever.

When peaceful demonstrators at the APEC summit in Vancouver were mercilessly pepper-sprayed so Asian dictators would not hear offensive remarks on Canadian soil, Chrétien joked that he, for one, liked pepper, especially on steak.

When asked last week why his government threw table scraps to the military in the last budget, Chrétien told reporters the critics are "a bunch of guys who are lobbyists ... representing those who sell armaments."

Chrétien‘s "merchants of death" lobby includes Canada‘s Auditor-General, Sheila Fraser, whose report earlier this month raked the government over the coals for chronic under-funding of the military, and David Pratt, Liberal member of Parliament and chairman of the House of Commons standing committee on National Defence and Veterans‘ Affairs, who has urged defence spending increases of at least $1-billion each year over the next three years.

If Chrétien does derive his inspiration from any dead Canadian statesman, it is most certainly William Lyon Mackenzie King (1874-1950) who, if measured by election wins, was the New York Yankees of Canadian politics. King accumulated some 22 years in the prime minister‘s chair from 1921 to 1930 and from 1935 to 1948, winning six elections in the process.

King‘s success derived from an uncanny ability to steer the country right down the middle of just about any issue. He almost never strayed from a beaten path.

F.R. Scott, a one-time Canadian intellectual, law professor, social democrat and poet, put it this way in a ditty penned after King‘s death in 1950: "He blunted us because he had no shape ... he never did things by halves he could do by quarters."

Like Jean Chrétien, King was a superb orchestrator of Cabinets that contained men (they were all men in those days) of apparently much greater talent and even intelligence than he himself and, with rare exceptions, had them all marching to his beat all the time. Like Jean Chrétien, King was also an exceptionally bad orator -- a master of the mundane -- who invariably bided his time while the world fell apart around him, waiting until a consensus emerged before acting.

But by far the closest parallel between Chrétien and King is how both men related to the military. Both were deeply distrustful of the military; both hog-tied it in peacetime with severe defence spending cuts and major constraints on defence planning; both made flippant decisions regarding military matters, such as Chrétien‘s cancellation of the helicopter contract as soon as he came to power in 1993.

King allowed Canada‘s military to deteriorate badly between the First and Second World Wars. He believed Canadians were severely divided over military spending and defence was not an important enough issue to upset the delicate balance of national unity. Canada did enter the war in September, 1939, as a united nation. But thousands of Canadians were killed in action in the first half of the war due to the bad equipment, poor training and ill-prepared military leadership that flowed from that lack of military preparedness.

In that war (as in the First World War), Canadians‘ national pride demanded that Canada shoulder a fair share of the fighting and dying in the cause of freedom. When they did, King eventually provided the leadership and the resources to do that. After the war, no nation on Earth could complain that Canada had shirked its responsibility.

As Chrétien so astutely points out, this is not 1939. But then, he isn‘t Willy King, either. King hated the notion that war and fighting might be the measure of Canadian national pride, but he was at least capable of bowing to the stark reality that in wartime such feelings are not only inevitable, but necessary and sometimes even good.

Chrétien‘s concept of national pride is different. It doesn‘t emerge from self-reliance or from a willingness to take risks to achieve great goals. It is created instead by a government that buys flags for its citizens and organizes "patriotic" demonstrations on Canada Day.

The net result is that Americans and Britons will continue to go in harm‘s way and take the gaff while Canadians hang back to safeguard their medicare benefits.

Barry Cooper is with the political science department at the University of Calgary, where David Bercuson is director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies.

 

[bossi]

(add another log to the fire that‘s going to fry The Little Thug From Shawinigan):

December 30, 2001
The final straw
RICK GIBBONS -- Ottawa Sun
Not satisfied with merely ruining this country‘s military capability, Jean Chretien has now set about adding insult to his injury.

How else to interpret his bizarre year-end proclamations impugning the motives of those who support increased military spending or his ludicrously superficial linkage between defence spending and health care funding shortages.

Taken together they provide irrefutable insight into the twisted logic of a prime minister intellectually corrupted by too many years at the public trough.

But then again, I happen to believe this government has dangerously underfunded the military for the better part of a decade. And that, according to the prime minister, exposes me as a money-grubbing arms merchant **** bent on selling his government a cannon or two. After all, no one else cares about defence spending unless they‘re a paid lobbyist for the armaments industry, right?

If so, I‘m in good company since no less than the auditor general, the U.S. ambassador the NATO secretary-general and his own Liberal-dominated defence committee have complained about the Liberals‘ underfunding of the military.

Ditto the growing legion of retired military officers who are finally standing up to a government that is systematically eroding military capability to the point of irrelevance. Granted, the military might not find itself so thoroughly dismissed by this government had a few of them taken a stand on principle before hanging up their uniforms.

For those who actually care about the dangerous erosion in military capabilities, the final straw came in the last budget and the subsequent announcement that the government will devise a new defence policy aimed, not at addressing the country‘s minimum defence responsibilities, but at making sure the brass hats at DND learn to live within the constraints of minimal funding. Of course, once they get their new marching orders you can bet this government will immediately set about chopping defence spending even further. It is the next logical turn in the slow death spiral for a military that is fast approaching the point of no return -- even though its leadership lacks the courage to say so.

"When you have money for defence, you don‘t have it for health care," Chretien explained in his annual year-end interview with CTV.

Now, I‘d be inclined to suggest that this country could have hospitals on every street corner and a nurse in every home had this government not blown billions mismanaging bogus programs and writing cheques for Shawinigan hoteliers. In fact, the annual patronage bills alone would likely cure half the ills of our health care system. But then again, I‘m just an arms merchant with some ammunition to hustle.

Chretien has selected his own straw man to shoulder his government‘s shortcomings in health care. And it‘s the military, for which there is no political constituency worth exploiting.

Still, it seems a tad shameless to be dispatching soldiers, sailors and airmen off to the world‘s hot spots while blaming the cost of them for the crisis in our health care system. Shame on him. And shame on Canadians for letting him get away with it.

--------------------------------------------------
Rick Gibbons is Editor-In-Chief of the Ottawa Sun and can be e-mailed at rgibbons@sunpub.com.
Letters to the editor should be sent to oped@sunpub.com.

 

[bossi]

(hmmm ... unless I‘m mistaken, this editorial makes it unanimous - the Star, Globe and Mail, National Post and Sun have all published editorials in this vein ... hmmm ... I hope the f artcatchers in Ottawa are paying attention ...)

Dec. 30, 01:00 EDT
PM misfires on military
Jean Chrétien‘s cozy year-end fireside chats with TV personalities are feel-good exercises, not serious policy discussions. But even so, the PM displayed an unsettling flippancy this past week as he brushed off questions about the sorry state of the military.

Polls suggest that 2 out of 3 Canadians want Ottawa to spend more on defence. Sept. 11 had an impact.

Yet Chrétien seemed dismissive. People are being rattled by the defence industry, he told interviewers. They don‘t realize that defence takes money from health. They think of refighting old wars, not new ones.

But the public is right to be concerned. Even Defence Minister Art Eggleton concedes that we ask too much of our underfunded, understaffed and underequipped military.

He proposes a defence review (the last was in 1994) with an eye to trimming operations to match his $11 billion budget. He has to. Just last month a parliamentary committee called for $1 billion more for the military, right now. Ottawa plans to spend $1.2 billion, spread over five years. Something has to give.

Will it be more cuts to Canadian Forces personnel, now at 53,000, down from 90,000? Fewer fighting ships, aircraft and armour? A smaller, weaker force all around?

That‘s just what people don‘t want.

No doubt some of the military‘s $11 billion could be shifted around, for better impact. A defence review makes sense, provided it isn‘t hijacked by officers scrambling to protect vested interests by chipping away unimaginatively at all three services. Let‘s have some seriously innovative thinking from outside experts and close allies. But let‘s also be prepared to spend more if need be, to field a modern, combat-ready force.

With three coasts, Canada must be able to project naval power. That said, would we buy our current patrol frigates (built for Cold War antisubmarine warfare), if we were redesigning the navy today? Do we need submarines at all? Would we be smart to invest in a small U.S. Marine-type aircraft/helicopter carrier that would let us deploy troops, armour and air support to trouble spots? Should we have more coastal patrol craft? Should the coast guard be armed? Let‘s hear from the experts.

Our CF-18 fighters, designed to intercept Soviet bombers, are being upgraded. Should we buy some ground-attack aircraft that can be launched from carriers? How about speeding up acquisition of cargo jets to ferry troops and armour?

And does the army, with its higher-risk role in peacemaking as well as peacekeeping, need more up-to-date firepower, in the form of fighting vehicles? Combat helicopters?

Just asking. We don‘t pretend to have the answers. But Canadians don‘t want a smaller, weaker military. They want a better-equipped, more closely integrated one, capable of projecting force in a troubled world.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I‘m not an expert, but I just read an article on the USMC. With their almost 800 LAV 25 variants and a new landing craft type veh/ship in the works, this one US entity has developed and put into practice the role of the modern expeditionary force. They‘re light, mobile and equipped. They can be anywhere on short notice and within days of securing a proper landing site, air or sea, can deploy their vehs and command structure. I don‘t know, but it almost sounds like a model for our scaled down forces. This is provided we can spring the $‘s loose from Ottawa and get the equipment we need. All combat arms can find a niche within an organization like this. I think the days of full blown battle formations have past, not that we may not need them again, but the current policy makers are not willing to cut us the slack. Not until we‘re caught with our pants down like before, oh let‘s see, South Africa, WW I & 2, Korea. We should develop a policy and put it forward, not wait for some spin doctor politician SOB and his scrambled egg wearing pension panderers to decide how we fight. The old maxim of "Don‘t complain if you don‘t have a solution" fits this to a T.

Just beer fortified conjecture at this point. Not overly thought out, but it makes sense to me at the moment! :blotto:

 

[enfield]

I personally don‘t believe wars have changed all that much. There are small ones, and every once in awhile, when it really counts, there are big ones.
Right now, we happen to be in an era of relatively small wars - but hanging up all the MBT‘s is a little premature. Look at the wars fought by Western powers 1815-1914, and 1919-1939. A series of small wars, conflicts, and expeditions in places no one had ever heard of. A big one is coming, probably within our lifetimes.

The CF obviously needs to be expeditionary - we will NEVER fight in or near Canada (the US will make sure of that). I think the USMC is a good model, but so are some others - Australia keeps popping up.

Our lack of prepration is what is called the "myth of the volunteer", and is firmly believed by most Canadians. It is the idea that, when a war arises, civilians can be trained and will meet the challange and meet it well - as, most people perceive, we did in WW1, 2, and Korea.

However, that is a load of ****. To see why, look at the cemetaries of Canadians who died because of inadequate training, equipment, and faulty leadership in 1915 and 1940-42. Motivated volunteers DO NOT "fight with the best against the best". unfortunatley, people are largely unaware of this fact.

 

[bossi]

Is PM fit to run our military?

A.S. Henry
The Ottawa Citizen
Wednesday, January 02, 2002

Re: Even Nintendo is better-equipped than our Canadian Forces, Dec. 27.

The remarks of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in his year-end interview raise doubts about his fitness to discharge the responsibilities of his office, particularly those applying to national security and the Canadian Forces.

Categorizing thousands of ordinary Canadians who argue in favour of a respectable defence establishment as "defence industry lobbyists" borders on slander.

Moreover, his claim that defence spending reduces health-care funding is highly misleading.

It can actually be shown that the two are complementary. Adequate contributions to defence produce domestic and international peace and stability, thus fostering the prosperity that funds social programs.

Finally, he demonstrates colossal ignorance of military affairs by apparently being unaware that the Canadian Forces deployed tanks to Kosovo. A nation that is a member of the G7 group, and seeks to make its mark on world affairs, deserves better than this.

A.S. Henry (Colonel ret‘d),

Ottawa

 

[bossi]

January 2, 2002
Canuck troops stuck in the mud
Blame PM, Eggleton for dormant military
By PETER WORTHINGTON -- Toronto Sun

The real reason why a battalion of the Princess Pats may not be asked to participate in the Afghan stabilization force is because we have no way of getting them there quickly.

Blame for that goes to a succession of governments, but mostly to Prime Minister Jean Chretien who likes to promise military participation when he hasn‘t a clue about logistics.

Also, blame Defence Minister Art Eggleton who is in that job primarily because he won‘t make waves or stand up for the military -- which means taking public issue with his boss.

Sending 1,000 soldiers to Afghanistan, even now that the fighting is supposedly over (but could erupt at the drop of an insult), is more than airline tickets for the troops.

An infantry battalion has a lot of vehicles, armour, heavy weapons and supplies. As a country, we have no way of transporting the material and couldn‘t effectively be on the ground within a couple of months.

Without transport planes, sea travel takes longer.

Now there‘s talk of sending a company of soldiers instead of a battalion. While politically feasible to enable politicians to claim symbolic representation, it would be a mistake to send a token force integrated with British or into a coalition force.

Our guys know peacekeeping and if allowed to, can do any job required. But we‘re best when we run things.

Whether the Afghan stabilization force is 3,500 troops or 5,000, it looks to be such a mish-mash of nations, styles, policies and traditions that it‘s hard to see cohesion.

The Americans, who did most of what fighting there was in Afghanistan, want no part of peacekeeping. Rightly so. Increasingly, the Americans are the police force of the world, without whom there would be chaos and disorder.

So maybe Canada should forget about Afghanistan. Let Europe assume leadership in peacekeeping or stabilization.

With the Brits in charge of a military smorgasbord of Muslims -- Turks, Jordanians, Malaysians, etc. -- coordination will be a nightmare, worse than Balkan peacekeeping because this is Afghanistan which historically resents foreigners calling the shots.

Eggleton and the PM have made a hash so far of Canada‘s military involvement -- apart from sending six warships to the Gulf of Arabia where they‘ve not been heard from.

This pair has hinted we had soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan when we didn‘t, then admitted we hadn‘t but soon would. Then they gave the impression that our "elite" JTF2 "commandos" were hunting caves for Osama bin Laden when there were only six explosives-demolition guys there.

Then they boosted the number to 40 or so, while all the time saying the Princess Pats in Edmonton were on 48 hours standby, or 72 hours, or maybe not on standby at all. Finally, maybe not even wanted.

What all this indicates is that we‘ve got to get someone in defence who is knowledgeable, who can lead and who can persuade the government to revive our dormant military with necessary equipment and wherewithal to do whatever job is required. That means spending money, not cutting budgets.

The human factor in our military is basically sound, the regiments able and eager. But the brass at the top is mediocre, unskilled at leading in the field and hamstrung when it comes to updating equipment because of budget restrictions.

Polls show conclusively that Canadians want a military that does more than fight floods, combat ice storms and shovel snow.

There‘s talk of a new Defence White Paper to replace the 1994 one which was never implemented but which is supposedly still in effect.

What is badly needed is a new defence minister.

Maybe John Manley should get the job -- it would be a step down from foreign minister, but restoring our military is more vital than supporting whatever the U.S. and British decide.

 

[bossi]

January 2, 2002
Chretien unlikely to show leadership
By PAUL STANWAY -- Edmonton Sun
Judging by Jean Chretien‘s continuing popularity as our national leader, one has to assume that a majority of Canadians have come to terms with his shortcomings and have stopped expecting much from the prime minister.

Fair enough perhaps, given the quality of the opposition in Ottawa, but even when measured against our horribly stunted expectations, Chretien‘s year-end pronouncements on the state of Canada‘s military were as nonsensical as they were arrogant. The Canadian military has everything it requires to meet the obligations placed upon it, claimed the PM, and those who suggest otherwise are nothing more than lobbyists for the arms industry.

"There are a bunch of guys who are lobbyists who are representing those who sell armaments, who tell you that (the military is underbudgeted and poorly equipped)," Chretien told CTV‘s Kevin Newman. "But it is not my money. It is your money and when you spend it on defence, you don‘t have it for health care."

OFFICERS ALWAYS COMPLAIN ABOUT MONEY

Later, he told another interviewer that, in his experience, senior officers "always complain they don‘t have enough money," but spending has to reflect reality. "We have to adjust to the new reality of 2001, but some are still thinking of the same strategy of 1939. We are not having wars of the same nature."

Where to begin dissecting this poorly-articulated load of nonsense? The "bunch of guys" who in recent weeks have criticized the Chretien government‘s continuing indifference to defence spending include the official Opposition, former generals, historians and other academics, Liberal MP David Pratt (chairman of the House of Commons defence committee), the secretary-general of NATO, the U.S. ambassador to Ottawa and Auditor General Sheila Fraser.

An impressive bunch! Given the Chretien government‘s penchant for oiling squeaky wheels, if this were indeed a co-ordinated lobby on behalf of the arms industry we‘d have an ICBM in every backyard.

About the only thing these people have in common is their recent rather mild criticism of the Chretien government‘s defence spending, but apparently that is enough to condemn them all as tools of the arms lobby. This requires breathtaking arrogance, but increasingly that has become the standard response of Chretien‘s regime: Ignore the issue and characterize those who disagree with you as morally and intellectually bankrupt.

What about the substance of Chretien‘s remarks? Was he really trying to suggest that Canadians must choose between defence and health-care spending? Those with memories longer than last week‘s NHL stats will recall that health care and defence spending were pruned after the Liberals were returned to power in 1993. Canadians have had to do without MRIs and the military has had to do without safe helicopters.

IT‘S NOT 1939

Chretien was right in suggesting that this is not 1939 and that we need new defence strategies for "the new reality of 2001." So why isn‘t our elected government offering any? Chretien would be doing Canadians a service if he defined this new reality and encouraged the military to respond to it, but it‘s monstrous to suggest that it is the military itself which is somehow responsible for its outdated hardware and lack of relevant defence policy.

The last meaningful decisions made in Ottawa with regard to defence policy were the post-Second World War downsizing of Canadian forces and allowing Washington and the American taxpayer to foot most of the bill for a continental defence system. For four decades, the Liberal party‘s record on defence policy has been marked by short-sightedness, disinterest and a willingness to let our allies do the heavy lifting. Chretien knows all this, as he‘s been in Ottawa since 1963. If he or the Liberal party were serious about crafting a relevant, affordable defence policy they would have done something about it over the past 40 years. They could still do it. Instead of dissing serious critics who both care more and know more about the state of Canada‘s military than he does, the PM might actually offer the country some leadership.

But as we all know, that‘s about as likely as Chretien spending time flying around in one of our incredibly "adequate" Sea King helicopters.

 

[bossi]

Chrétien insults us all

Sylvia Jean Smith
The Ottawa Citizen
Thursday, January 03, 2002

Re: Don‘t insult me, Mr. Chrétien, Dec. 28.

Retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie should not feel that he‘s been singled out. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has insulted us all. His empty words ring hollow in all our ears. This man has insulted our nation, which many of us have suspected but which became abundantly clear after Sept. 11. He has made us all feel ashamed to be Canadians.

Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley is quite correct that we are viewed "better than we deserve." We have crippled and compromised the military, and the world knows that. We did not come through and support our friends and neighbours in the United States as we could have following the attack on Sept. 11, but instead hid behind our shame by taking offence at President George W. Bush‘s omission of Canada in a list of supporters. Mr. Bush called it the way it was.

So Canada sends two CP-140 Auroras (a basic submarine-hunting aircraft) with crew and maintenance personnel. Has Afghanistan got submarines? And we are told of 75 personnel from another area, 95 from somewhere else, and on and on. How very pathetic for this vast country to find itself so terribly ill-equipped.

And what happens if Canada suffers a terrorist attack? I suppose we do have a fair number of scouts, Cubs and girl guides who might be recruited. Number-wise, they may be larger than our total military.

Thank you, Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie, for speaking out.

Sylvia Jean Smith,

Ottawa

 

[corporal]

IT does the heart good to see that many canadians are finally voicing their concern for the military,ive lost count the number of times ive seen our soldiers do without for lack of funding.Worse was the apathy canadians had towards people in uniform. i served 14yrs in the military and was disgusted with the pootics, and the lack of preparation we had for almost any situation.

Maybe just maybe if more people speak up we can stand as a nation again and show pride in our country by supporting our troops with the gear they need to get the job done.I say lets elect lewis mackenzie as our leader, i havent voted since the conservatives promised us good eqp for the forces,but id vote in an instant for a true leader like mackenzie.