So, You Say You Want a Revolution?

By Jim Scott

No. No you don’t. 

These days the relationship between the government and the governed is fraught with animosity and distrust. Not new, by any means, but taking on an intensity and immediacy with the advent of “social media”, or more properly: the anti-social media.

While the abuse of Twitter goes on apace, we witness the real-world implications of digital diarrhea in the current Saudi Spat that threatens trade relations between the Kingdom and the “Demented Dominion” (M. Steyn). By echoing the pronouncements of the UN on domestic issues in Saudi Arabia, our Global Affairs minister Chrystia Freeland has managed to upset Crown Prince Salman to the point of having him cancel flights to Toronto. Apparently, billions of dollars in oil exports and Canadian-built armoured vehicles will be unaffected. President Trump should consider dialling up his trade wars to such an intensity.

Closer to home Conservative gadfly Maxime “Mad Max” Bernier has managed to set tongues a-wagging on both sides of the aisle with tweets that question Canada’s sudden, and empty, embrace of ‘diversity’. Mr. Bernier had the temerity to point out that: “Something infinitely diverse has no core identity and ceases to exist.”

In a truly diverse world, Bernier would be entitled to his opinion, but of course, none of us live there. Instead we all live in Upside-Down World where the diversity of opinion has been narrowed down to the few paradigms endorsed by the Liberal Party of Canada and its paid agitators. University prof’s in the state-run education system, organisers in the state-endorsed public sector unions, advocates from state-funded NGO’s, all dutifully take their place on the virtual podium of the public square and take their turns heaving rotten fruit at the transgressor in the stocks. 

Rather than offer any support for a colleague, Conservative politicians pile on to pay homage at the gates of Virtue-Signalling Heaven. To be fair though, they are looking at the longer game than Bernier seems to be. They know that if you do not burn the straw-man (person?) down now, you will simply have to do it later in the midst of a vicious election campaign where daily sound bites take the place of any reasonable discussion of public policy. Campaign managers know that ‘whosoever grabs the headlines, grabs the votes’ and so strive to put clever quips in the mouths of fools. Those left to explain what they mean and who they agree or don’t agree with are left in the dust.

In Upside-Down world a virtue-signaller is allowed to say both that they love and cherish multiculturalism and that the culture of this particular country is offending them to the point where they cannot remain silent. Liberals were haughtily offended when the previous Conservative government considered the barbaric ritual of clitorectomy to be well, barbaric, but will mount the barricades to protect the sacred rights of all women. They are four-square in favour of abortion and strangely silent about countries where abortion is used to eliminate tiny little women.

Like the “refugees” pouring over the border with brand new luggage and Air Jordans, every cause de jour is stamped ‘untouchable’. Failing to cow-tow to the narrow, unquestionable virtue of the paradigm marks one as an apostate. You can’t just accept the paradigm; you must accept only on the terms offered. No opinions or variations on the theme are allowed. Pick-up trucks from Alberta are causing global warming. Try to introduce sunspot cycles or Jurassic-era climate and you will be marked out as a mentally-challenged individual threatening the electric car future of humanity.

So, we ask our politicians to stand up and show fortitude in the face of lunacy. When they do, and are set upon by the chattering classes, we disown them and block them from Twitter. According to polls the public doesn’t like unguarded borders or carbon taxes. Nonetheless we’ll get more of what we don’t want and like it.

“You say you got a real solution. Well, you know, we’d all love to see the plan.” (John Lennon) W

Crossing The Line

By Jim Scott

Everyone who has dabbled in politics has their favourite ‘rules-of-thumb’. One is: “if you’re explaining you’re losing your message.” Another: “If they’re making you angry, you’re losing your argument.”

Recently, PM Trudeau has found himself scrambling to explain what did or did not happen eighteen years ago while he was partying in British Columbia. His opponents are gleeful not so much because Trudeau has had to defend himself against charges that he “groped” a female reporter, but more so because he has since elevated himself to holier-than-thou status and now his feminist halo is slipping. Repeated attempts to downplay the female reporter’s version of events only highlight the conundrum facing celebrities and political figures recently. The #MeToo movement is trying to chastise all mankind, (not “personkind”), and “gee I didn’t know she wasn’t into my advances” isn’t going to cut it. The more ways the PM tries to slice this thing, the worse it sounds.

That’s not to say some explanations aren’t welcomed. It would be helpful for instance if Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen explained what cities and provinces can expect from the federal government to handle the influx of border crossers who started to show up last year. Now numbering in the tens of thousands, they have been offered temporary housing and other considerations that have begun to pinch on certain budgets. It was recently pointed out that some of these folks have been placed in student dorms, but of course, students will need those soon and someone is going to have to move. The province of Quebec has apparently racked up extra costs in excess of $146 million and Toronto has incurred $64 million. Somebody better start explaining soon what the Liberal plan is for this looming crisis besides accusing Canadians of being “irresponsible, divisive, fearmongering” and “not Canadian.” 

This pattern of angrily slinging buzzwords at opponents in lieu of actually saying something helpful is becoming Liberal strategy. Minister Hussen might be frustrated that Canadians are not thrilled with people strolling over the border and claiming refugee status but it is an issue that rankles many. Technically speaking, one is allowed to cross anywhere along the border as long as one reports to Canadian authorities. The common assumption is that all these folks are taking advantage of a loophole under false pretenses but the loophole is there for a reason.
In a National Post article on July 11, 2018, (“Irregular of illegal?”), Tristan Hopper uses the example of Soviet chess champion Igor Ivanov who leapt from a plane onto the tarmac at Gander NL in 1980. Obviously, jumping out of a plane without using the stairs and running across a busy runway would be frowned upon under ordinary circumstances. Instead, Ivanov, representing a Cold War coup, was “never prosecuted after being given political asylum.”

Not analogous to our new friends wandering across cornfields in Manitoba and Quebec these days, but we have to be cautious about any conclusions. Clearly, they are not being driven from a war-torn country, so much as being driven by cab and calmly dropped off. They appear to be under no threat in the US except for being called out for over-staying their welcome there. (Haitians were given temporary asylum after the horrific earthquake that shattered their island home in 2010. Many no doubt settled down into better lives in America and have no wish to go back). Average Canadians are questioning the motives of people who carry their luggage out of a peaceful country and claim to be ‘refugees’. The law stipulates that their cases must be adjudicated based on this claim, not on whether other Canadians are simply sceptical. That however, is not a basis for angrily denouncing the sceptics. Surely, the present influx from the US, unaccompanied by any humanitarian crisis on the other side of the 49th, calls for our refugee response to be re-examined. Certainly, we need more adult communication from the government whose purpose is to serve us, rather than invective and lecturing about how morally righteous they see themselves.

No Free Lunch

(Volume 25 Issue 6)

By Jim Scott

The Baltimore journalist and professional cynic, H.L. Mencken, once wrote: “The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, (and hence clamorous to be led to safety), by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”. In Ontario’s recently concluded provincial election we saw this practice fully and regularly implemented.

Not that there’s anything new about trying to strike fear in voters by accusing your political opponent of having evil designs on cherished programmes. After all, Mencken was writing in the first decades of the last century when political communication consisted of a whistle-stop tour, the daily newspaper and perhaps a radio speech or two.

With today’s ubiquitous broadband blathering about politics we can, unless we deliberately tune it out, be subjected to spam, tweets, robocalls, 24-hour “news” channels, as well as talk radio and good old print media.

We are supposed to be a more sophisticated and informed populace, but I’m afraid we have, on the contrary, descended into a cocoon of propaganda and blinkered ignorance that we actually cultivate with great passion. Good luck trying to propose anything innovative or imaginative.

During the election opponents claimed Progressive Conservative candidate, (and eventual winner) Doug Ford was in favour of “privatising” health care, and if elected would cut billions of dollars and thousands of doctors and nurses. That this had no basis in fact was irrelevant. Also, that our health care system was long over due for an overhaul was conveniently ignored to focus on the emotional implication of the charge: elect Mr. Ford and fire and brimstone will rain down from the skies. And there won’t be any health care workers around to treat your burns.

Since pollsters had the NDP “neck and neck” with the front-running Tories, no-one had time to break down the silliness inherent in the campaign.

As they thrust this imaginary hobgoblin into Ontario’s politics, the Lib/NDP duumvirate also raised their favourite shiny objects: free ‘this-and that’. Like jangling keys in front of a baby, no politician has ever failed to attract voters to the idiot idea that they are giving you something without payment or consequence. “Free” health care is only safe if Liberals are elected. (Their years of cuts and budget strangulation notwithstanding). Needing to outpace their cousins, the NDP add “free” drug care, “free” post-secondary education, and most alarmingly, NDP leader Andrea Horwath claimed her party would buy back all the hydro assets of the province and turn it into a Worker’s Paradise of cheap electricity!

Rarely does the Canadian media, (a few pundits excepted), question the sanity of handing stuff out with no regard to what it costs, not just in dollars, but in forgone opportunity or future indebtedness. People tune out the conservative position that governments cannot give you anything you don’t already pay for. Governments eager to expand their control over our lives cleverly call taxes something else, (“carbon pricing”) and wrap them in patriotic sacrifice. Older Canadians worry that tax cuts are a byword for ‘service cuts’, while the youngsters are convinced government is the font of largesse when dad and mom cut off the credit card.

Government has no money except what it takes from its citizens.  We grudgingly give up some of our wealth with the understanding others will benefit as well as ourselves. We appreciate the fact we can contribute in small, regular amounts and derive the larger benefit when something bad happens; like any other insurance. But like every other human endeavour, no system is perfect. In order to improve it we must ask questions and have adult conversations about what can be done better. In the present super-charged atmosphere, fuelled by money paid to provocateurs and single-minded advocates, will it ever be possible to even raise an issue without being burned at the stake?

Shame On You Seamus

(Volume 25 Issue 6)

By Michael Nickerson

Seamus O’Regan has a dream: an end to homelessness in our time. Of course not for everyone, as he’s just the minister for veterans affairs and not minister for universal housing. No, his mandate is limited and so is his budget. But gosh darn his words flow like water, his aspirations soar high and far; a limitless horizon of hope. If benevolence were bricks, homeless veterans would be moving into mansions as we speak.

The thing is, they’re not. By the federal government’s own estimates from 2014, almost 3000 veterans used shelters that year. But whether they’re in shelters, surfing couches, or living rough in back alleys, the fact is they’ve “fallen between the cracks” as Seamus likes to put it. Others might say they’ve been betrayed by the government and the country they served, but let’s not split hairs here. 

No, this is important stuff to Seamus, a problem he wants to “get rid of,” to “eliminate,” sounding more Mafioso than ministerial in his word choice, though passionate nonetheless. As he recently opined in St. John’s, “there should never be a veteran that’s homeless in Canada.”  Alleluia brother! Let’s go whack some homelessness!

For veterans looking for a roof over their head and some stability in their life, this should seem very encouraging news, perhaps even inspiring. As Seamus put it, “I think we’ve got the tools that we can do it, but we’ll do it together, a whole bunch of groups together.” And there are no shortage of groups and people who want to “do it,” most notably Veterans Emergency Transition Services (VETS). Founded in 2010 to provide aid and support to homeless and at risk veterans, they’ve been putting volunteers on the ground, in cities and towns, shelters and the street, reaching out to veterans with veterans. They’ve helped hundreds across Canada to get off the street, into housing, get the benefits and the resources they’re entitled to. They’ve made sure homeless veterans at least have a meal and an understanding ear. Not bad for an eight-year-old non-profit with limited resources but a lot of willing volunteers.

If nothing else they have a proven strategy - one Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) has contracted with to some extent to help solve what VAC can’t - one that saw Seamus O’Regan waxing eloquent while seeing volunteers off to do outreach during VETS annual Tour of Duty national campaign in June. So a little more money and support should be able to “eliminate” the problem entirely, don’t cha think? Where there’s a will there’s a way and all that.

Perhaps you’ve noticed that when it comes to Team Justin™ there’s much in purported “will,” but not much in “way.” Consider if you will the recent news that the government has left some $2.3 billion dollars budgeted for military spending to sit idle over the last two years, even while the military asks its members to turn in their sleeping bags due to a shortfall in available kit. And what about the fact that the already delayed and scaled down peacekeeping contribution to Mali is still working on Justin Time™ and seems to be delayed indefinitely?

So, when it comes to VAC and its official plan on veteran homelessness, it might not be much of a surprise that the plan has a five-year rollout, after two years of planning and debating, and like everything else promised to the military and its veterans, it is well over the horizon, past the next election, past another mandate, another carrot to stick with the team.

Seamus recently suggested that the government might dip into its promised $40 billion national housing budget to help build housing specifically for veterans, but stated that “If we can get veterans off the streets now, then we’ll do it now. We’re not waiting on a strategy.” Well shame on you Seamus, because you are waiting. You’re waiting for another day, another time, another stalling tactic. The money, the resources, the people are there to fix the problem. For once all it needs is real will, not the lip service you’ve been giving the people you serve. 

But that isn’t going to happen, is it Seamus?

Solving The Problems Of Canadian Defence

(Volume 25-06)

By Sean Henry

In the June issue, (Vol. 25, Issue 5), Colonel (Ret’d) Pat Stogran discusses Canadian defence policy in the context of peacekeeping operations in the new world of digitization, social media and asymmetrical threats. His analysis is valid, but it is suggested that larger issues are involved beyond peacekeeping, and they need to be addressed first.

Those who understand the evolution of Canadian defence policy, and the state of the Canadian Armed Forces, know that the situation has been unsatisfactory since the early 1970s. In fact it is a mess (too few people and equipment shortfalls). Only the sacrifices of serving members prevents major crises. Despite the optimistic outlook presented in the recent Strong/Secure/Engaged document the situation is unlikely to improve in the near future.

There are a number of negative forces impacting defence matters in Canada, and until they are removed   improvements will be sparse – thus corroding the security and well-being of the nation and its ability to advance in a world facing daunting change. The factors emerge from historic trends: anti-military sentiment embedded in the public consciousness; ongoing action to exploit that sentiment by pacifist interests; the “demilitarization” of the armed forces fostered by policies emerging from government reorganization initiatives in the 1970s.

Anti-military sentiment was unleashed in the aftermath of the horror of World War I. A movement known as “liberal internationalism” spread throughout the Western world. Its precepts are based on the concept that it is morally wrong and should be illegal to employ military force in the conduct of international relations. In Canada it was embraced by an emerging class of powerful federal civil servants. The “Ottawa Men.”

Anti-military tendencies were reinforced in the 1960s by fallout from the war in Vietnam. Canadian youth thought it was stylish to support their peers in the US, while draft dodgers from the latter joined Canadian universities, media outlets and arts organizations to give the movement a boost. Peace activists  joined the fray after the election  of  an apparent ally, Pierre Trudeau, as prime minister. They were funded and trained by the Soviets to exploit a perceived weak link in NATO.

In 1943 C.D. Howe, the Minister of Munitions and Supply had authorized the (then) three ministers of defence to bypass government regulations in order to win the war. Scandalized senior civil servants vowed to have the policy rescinded. It took them thirty years, but in 1973 they succeeded. From several government reorganization schemes a new policy defined DND as “just another government department” and classified members of the armed forces as civil servants in uniform. The policy was implemented through Treasury Board Directives and other Central Agency regulations.  

The policy denies that in spite of unlimited liability related to duty, including death, inherent in military service, it is not relevant in matters of government operations. This outlook is driven by self-interest in the realms of power and money on the part of the bureaucrats. Joined by the older factors of anti-military sentiment, it has been a dominant driver in the ongoing decay of the Canadian Armed Forces. It is at the heart of problems ranging from veterans benefits to stalled procurement projects. Most importantly, it is responsible for up to one quarter of the DND budget being spent on projects that have no military utility. 

Finally, these trends are linked to Canadian public reluctance to accept death in defence of national interests. Historically this tendency has been a symptom of the decline and fall of societies. It is so entrenched in Canadian government’s thinking that even peacekeeping is avoided or restricted if there is a risk of casualties.

The public must be convinced its vital interests are at stake, and political pressure needs to be applied to the prime minister to take strong action to rehabilitate the armed forces.
Unfortunately, Justin Trudeau and his ministers do not seem inclined to do this. Their original policy was to restructure the CAF to be “light and agile,” focused mainly on national and North American security issues. Overseas commitments would be limited to peacekeeping. Proposals for improved forces, that emerged in the Strong/Secure/Engaged document, are being diluted, and will likely disappear if President Trump fails to be re-elected.

Pro-defence actors need to close ranks and co-operate to produce public information programs (well beyond academic treatises) using all modern digital means (see Ford’s success in recent ON election) to convince the public that reasonably sufficient armed forces are critical to preserve and advance the well-being of Canadians. The focus needs to be upon defeating enemies, such as Islamist radicals and renegade powers determined to acquire nuclear capabilities. Canada has a special interest in removing threats to international stability since they weaken the process of international trade. Canadians live or die on the success of international trade.

Justin Trudeau has already demonstrated that he will not commit Canadian military forces to combat operations overseas. In this respect he follows his father’s example and thus weakens Canada’s ability to defend itself and influence international affairs. W

John Boyd And The F-35

Vincent J. Curtis

After the development of guided missiles in the 1950’s, fighter aircraft came to be seen as a “platform” for carrying weapons systems.  The Avro Arrow was conceived as a weapons platform. Designed to carry missiles in a pod fitted at the bottom of the airframe, the Arrow would destroy an enemy aircraft by dropping a missile from the pod.  The modern F-35 is designed similar to the Arrow.

The F-4 Phantom was the first fighter jet to rely completely on a missile system of engagement - when it was first produced.  Experience in the air war over North Vietnam proved that a pure missile platform was ineffective.  MiG-17s, and -21s flown by the North Vietnamese were agile dogfighters.  If an American F-4 Phantom got close enough in a dogfight to fire a missile, it was often too close to arm, or it simply missed the agile Russian-built jets.  Eventually, the Phantoms were fitted with Vulcan M-61 20 mm rotary cannons to compensate for the failure of the missile technology of that age.

During that time, John Boyd became one of the most influential colonels of the USAF.  Boyd learned his trade as a fighter pilot during the Korean War flying F-86 Saber jets and engaging in dogfights against the better performing MiG-15s of that day.  Out of his experience, Boyd developed his famous OODA loop theory, (i.e. Observe, Orient, Decide and Act).  Boyd became an instructor, and head of the academic section, at the USAF Fighter Weapons School. He had a standing challenge for any of his students: meet him at 30,000 feet at a position of advantage, and if Boyd could not get gun-camera footage of his opponent’s tail within forty seconds, he would pay $40 to the student.  No one collected. 

Boyd also developed his famous Energy-Maneuverability theory which posited, mathematically, the combat performance possibilities of aircraft based upon their speed, thrust, drag, and weight.  Boyd was able to generate graphs and tables illustrating what fighter pilots ought to do in given situations. He accelerated his students’ OODA loops; and the results were seen in improvements in the air war over North Vietnam. His Aerial Attack Study showed that an agile fighter could out-maneuver missiles.

The fame of his success led him to the Pentagon to rescue the so-called F-X project, the jet that would succeed the F-4 Phantom.  Boyd tore the proposed F-X design apart, and restarted the project from scratch.  Boyd’s work led to the F-15 Eagle, and then, when he became disappointed with design bureaucrats adding bells and whistles, to the F-16.  Both these aircraft will perform front-line service into the 2040s.

Boyd grew disenchanted with the F-15 when it became, he thought, too complex, too expensive, too big, and too reliant on missile technology.  Boyd drew around him Pierre Sprey, and Everest Riccioni, who called themselves the “fighter mafia” to design an inexpensive, simple, lightweight fighter.  Boyd could see that the F-15 would be too costly to fully equip the USAF with them, and an inexpensive dogfighter would be necessary to fill the deficiency in combat aircraft.  Thus, the light-weight F-16, and also, indirectly, the F/A-18.

Even the F-16, embellished by the bureaucrats, became heavier than Boyd wanted it to be.  He wanted a stripped-down air-to-air specialist, not a multi-role fighter-bomber; and he wanted passive, rather than active radar.  Nevertheless, an inexpensive and reliable F-16 conducted most of the missions in the 1991 Gulf War.

Boyd died in 1997 when the F-35 was known as the Joint Strike Fighter, but his colleague Pierre Sprey became famous for his criticism of the F-35.  Based upon Boyd’s E-M theory, Sprey argues that the F-35 is a dud of an aircraft: it is too heavy, has too much drag, is too complex, has too high a wing load to be maneuverable, is utterly reliant on technology unproven in combat, and its stealth is defeatable.  Sprey holds the F-35 would be torn apart in a dogfight with a MiG-21.

Sprey believes that the USAF bureaucracy is so enamoured with expensive technology and with the “hi-lo” mixed force concept (F-15, F-16; F-22, F-35) that the F-35 program drops big money in pursuit of a false ideology. Sprey does not believe the “platform” concept and thinks that actual aerial combat will see the resumption of dogfighting, in which the F-35 would be overwhelmed.  He holds the original concept, light-weight F-16 with a more powerful engine than is currently in production is the best air-to-air fighter in future aerial combat.

Despite his vocal opposition, no one who favors the F-35 has come forward to refute Sprey’s argument. Boyd’s proven theories haven’t been repealed. And this should give budget makers pause. The Air Force bureaucracies of their own countries can be as bewitched by expensive technology as those of the USAF. There is no guarantee that ‘toys for the boys’ video game technology will work in actual combat, as was seen in Vietnam. Flying skill, E-M, and OODA loops may still
matter.

The case for a Canadian F-16 is that we have no reason to take a risk on an expensive dud whose capabilities we will never need or use - after a stripped-down air to air specialist met 99 + percent of the RCAF missions over the past fifty-five years, will meet them for the next thirty years, and can be had for a third of the price of the F-35. W

MISSION TO MALI: Inherent Vices And Overlooked Advantages

(Volume 25 Issue 6)

By Joe Fernandez

Scott Taylor did well in his 26 March 2018 “On Target” column “Mission to Mali: What Is Canada’s Long-Term Objective?” Specifically, he points out that politicians are deploying Canadian troops abroad in harm’s way once again, not directly to protect tangible Canadian interests, but rather in the furtherance of intangible political ideals. That Trudeau is deploying Canadian air assets and 250 Canadian troops in the name of the UN differs from Paul Wolfowitz sending American troops to Iraq in exactly that manner in which Coke and Samsung respectively differ from Pepsi and Apple.

Once more, the armchair Rambos are flexing the definition of the word “combat” in a manner that even Gumby would tip his hat to in order to placate a Canadian public hostile to the prospect of Canadian casualties.  

As regards questioning Canada’s long-term objectives in Mali, which have yet to be specified, this cuts both ways. For one thing, the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) issued in February 2018 a document titled Human Rights And The Peace Process In Mali (January 2016-June 2017). This document notes that the Malian defence and security forces (MDSF), with which MINUSMA nominally cooperates, have been implicated in
human rights abuses in terms of illegal detentions and illegal treatment of detainees in the name of “counter-terrorism.” In this regard, Trudeau’s support for the MDSF-allied MINUSMA UN mission directly flies against his refusal to sell Filipino strongman Roderigo Duterte Mirabel Québec-manufactured helicopters on “human rights” grounds.

On the other hand, CAF participation in MINUSMA would be far from the first time a military engaged in operations which ended up looking nothing at all like what the objectives were going in. In 1914, the Germans had the Schlieffen Plan and the French had Plan XVII. Little in the ensuing four years resembled either plan. 

Furthermore, as Mr. Taylor alluded to, France has an operation distinct, but not entirely separate, from MINUSMA in Mali. This is France’s Operation BARKHANE, wherein France, since 1 August 2014, has cooperated with Mali, as well as Burkino Faso, Niger and Chad, against “Armed Terrorist Groups” in the region. As Jean-Marc Tanguy pointed out in his article “Au coeur de ‘Gorgonnes 2017’” (“At the Heart of ‘Gorgonnes 2017’”) in the December 2017 edition of the French military magazine RAIDS, key French units have a shortage of helicopters.
Having Canadian air assets and personnel in Mali, irrespective of what the official, political, objective may turn out to be, may at least have the effect of operating in one area and thereby liberating French assets and troops for use elsewhere in BARKHANE. 

Along the same line, the December 2017 French Ministry of the Armies Press Release “Dossier de Presse Opération BARKHANE” emphasises the word “partnership.” This press release speaks of partnership, not merely with the local countries, but also with MINUSMA, which has around twenty French soldiers under the command of French Général de Brigade (BGen) Marc Ollier. France is a NATO, and longstanding traditional, ally of Canada. In this sense, Canadian participation in MINUSMA, irrespective of official explanations as to why, could materially operationalise Paragraph 0606b of pages 6-2 and 6-3 of Canadian Forces Joint Publication (CFJP) 01: Canadian Military Doctrine which specifically gives the Canadian military the mandate to conduct Combined Operations with Allied and United Nations-mandated missions. While Trudeau’s political pronunciamentos certainly satisfy the “United Nations-mandated” aspect of Combined Operations in Canadian Military Doctrine, the fact that CAF participation in MINUSMA will also associate them, however tangentially, to the military efforts of Canada’s ally France additionally satisfies the “Allied” aspect of these Combined Operations. Furthermore, CAF MINUSMA participation would work in parallel with Operation FREQUENCE, wherein RCAF CC-177 Globemaster III’s are supporting France’s BARKHANE.

THE END OF CONFEDERATION? If Our So-Called Leaders Don't Care, All Bets Are Off

(Library and archives Canada 3624693)

By Jim Scott

In recent weeks what passes for the ‘pillars of Confederation’ in Canada have been shaken to their foundations. A New Brunswick man’s Supreme Court challenge of our idiot booze laws has been struck down. On the ‘Left Coast’ British Columbia continues to obstruct the petroleum industry of Alberta and Saskatchewan while paying stratospheric gas prices.

Now you can be a fan of neither alcohol nor oil and still realise that when the political leaders of a country abandon any pretence of constitutionality, the people will be forced to shift for themselves. Confederation was meant to eliminate this ‘beggar-thy-neighbour’ stuff. What do we do when politicians throw the reason for having a country out the window?

It is a fact of history and geography the BC encompasses our western coast. It is also a fact in the 21st century Asia represents our best bet for future sales of oil sands products. Getting them across the Pacific is vital.

Rather than oppose BC’s qualms about oil shipments off their shores, I’m sure most Canadians sympathise with demands for best practices for pipeline construction and environmental monitoring. There are shared federal/provincial jurisdictional issues here that should have been resolved years ago. Petroleum corporations can and do accommodate a variety of such issues and only require that resolutions be reasonable and dependable. What they ask is that the adults at the political table make decisions and stick to them.

Grown-ups seem to be in short supply these days. Debate now consists of screaming matches and ad hominem insults. Facts are not just conveniently ignored but are deliberately excluded. They are replaced with hyperbole and horror stories meant to frighten flighty politicians. (Environmental group Greenpeace has admitted in open court to using these techniques as a matter of policy. Not surprising to followers of Saul Alinsky and his 1960’s radical agenda). British Columbians want their coast kept clean but ignore the existing tanker traffic carrying foreign oil now. They are willing to obstruct fellow Canadians while facilitating the trade of repressive regimes in other parts of the globe.

Our founding document, an act of British parliament, was a workable model. What was not enumerated in specific terms in the Act, (e.g. radio and TV) became residual powers to the federal government. When federal and provincial jurisdictions were in dispute, the federal statutes were to be supreme. Over 150 years disputes arose and mutually agreeable settlements were arrived at. Especially where the provinces could make out like bandits, they conspired to take over the jurisdiction. The federal government agreed to let each province run booze in the 1920’s and gambling in the 1970’s. Al Capone is spinning in his grave.

Thanks to Gerard Comeau we are now aware that the RCMP can be used to hunt down citizens who deign to look after their self-interest by trying to buy booze in cheaper jurisdictions. Mr. Comeau received a fine of $292 for carrying 14 cases of beer and 3 bottles of booze from Quebec to New Brunswick. Not sure what Mr. Comeau’s typical consumption is, but the ruling in the case endorsed each province’s ability to oppress its citizens. As a resident, you are bound like a medieval serf to the regime that distributes adult beverages in your province. As a citizen of Canada, you may buy such products of other citizens of Canada only at the sufferance of the self-appointed monitors of your booze intake. 

Rather than create a nation where the national economy can prosper as a whole, we have slowly descended into a nation of petty fiefdoms where narrow interests can be abused to put the screws to other narrow interests. This is not the great project that we set out to build. If BC makes the best wines, all Canadians should be able to purchase them. If Alberta needs a route to the coast, then, like the railroad so welcomed in its day, a pipeline should be built. We still have a chance to build a prosperous Canada. It seems we’ll have to take it back from the politicians first.

A Case For The Canadian Volunteer Service Medal

“Still, our Canadian youth continue to volunteer to serve and this says a lot about their courage and character.”

(Volume 25 Issue 5)

By Dave W. Palmer

In reflection, I think of our ancestors, the many thousands of Canadians that in the spirit of service for their nation did what was needed when called upon to protect and defend our country our freedoms and the democratic principles that are far too often taken for granted. Our former sisters and brothers-in-arms who volunteered to serve were acknowledged and recognized by the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal (CVSM). Since that time thousands of young men and women did exactly the same thing as those that served before them and took up the torch of service and dedicated a portion of their lives to uphold the same rights and freedoms as those that served before. 

Sadly, on March 1st, 1947, they did away with the CVSM and the tradition of acknowledging and honouring volunteer service by our comrades. Our fellow veterans were no longer recognized. The tradition of honouring the act of volunteerism and treating new volunteers to serve in Canada’s Armed Forces was nixed by the government leaving a gaping hole in the heritage of those that did exactly the same thing as those serving in the past. Since March of 1947, our nation and our government has done little to recognize the loyalty and dedication to one’s country when Canadians elect to join our country’s armed forces. This leaves a huge void, an abyss of forgetfulness when it comes to Canadians that have done what most will never do, to volunteer to serve in the military. Why would we not honour our veterans in the same manner as their forefathers, foremothers and ancestors were honoured with a medal for volunteering?

Not a single person knew what might happen to them when they enlisted and prepared to dedicate a portion of their lives by service in the military. The world was on edge back in the 1940’s as the Manhattan Project created a working atom bomb. Not long after, the Americans used two of these nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in Japan and that quickly brought an end to WW II. It was not long before Russia obtained this capability and the Cold War erupted. Nonetheless, with nuclear annihilation as a potential weapon, our youth, (now ageing veterans and many more of our comrades that passed away) still continued to volunteer to serve with pride, dignity and honour. For many, who served and did so honourably, they left the military in the pursuit of other interests, yet for their service, they were never once acknowledged or honoured in the same manner as those before them … with a medal.  

Our world seems at times to be going crazy with terrorism and renewed sabre rattling by the big nuclear powers. North Korea sends missiles over Japan and threatens the Americans with nuclear strikes. Sadly, the recent act of criminal outrage in Toronto showed our nation how insanely dangerous things can be. Still, our Canadian youth continue to volunteer to serve and this says a lot about their courage and character. Thousands of veterans have served since the cessation of the CVSM and have not a thing to show for that service. Nothing by way of having a family heirloom to leave their children as a testament to the legacy of having a family member who once served their nation.  

I truly believe that the same honour and dignity that was afforded to our ancestors is surely warranted to our veterans of the past century, yesterday, today and tomorrow. Veterans from the past and today and into the future will continue to volunteer and to serve our great nation so that we may continue to all stand together. In light of fairness and equality for their service and the acknowledgement by the CVSM, our veterans have served and should not be treated any different than their comrades that served before them.

Including The Canadian Public In The Defence Of Veterans

View fullsize

“Britain also offers a coherent model to act to protect Veteran’s interests.”

(Volume 25 Issue 5)

By Joe Fernandez

On 6, April 2018, Pierre-Karl Péladeau’s TVA Nouvelles, and a satellite newspaper, published a story “Le fédéral dépense 1,3M$ pour se defender contre les vétérans” (“The Federal government spends $1.3 million to defend itself against Veterans.”) The article then specifies “Despite a campaign promise to not oblige Veterans to fight in order to obtain indemnities, the Liberal government spent more than $1.3 million in legal fees since 2016 in order to contest Veterans’ requests for help.” It goes on to cite Sylvain Chartrand of Canadian Veterans’ Advocacy as commenting: “This is not normal.”

As per McGill University neuropsychologist Dr. Daniel J. Levitin’s book A Field Guide To Lies/Weaponised Lies, one must consider, not only a statement, but who is making that statement. Pierre-Karl Péladeau is a former Parti Québecois leader who will take, and geometrically amplify, any grain of salt to attack any Canadian government of the day.

Péladeau aside, M. Chartrand has been independently corroborated as being a member of Canadian Veterans’ Advocacy who testified before Parliament on 27 March 2014. This indicates that there is something to Péladeau’s story. The question becomes what to do.

Years ago, Jeff Martland-Rose penned a piece for Esprit de Corps wherein he correctly described and rightfully deplored the treatment of Veterans in this country. But he also unwisely spoke of the numbers of Veterans and former RCMP Constables in the context of their putative anger at being mistreated. This was unwise because there is already a wide gap of experience and of worldview between the veteran and the former constable on the one hand, and the majority of Canadians on the other, reinforcing a sense of isolation and alienation on the part of the former. Someone who is heavily disillusioned with the de jure government would tend to have little faith in elections. Reinforcing the sense of separation from the rest of society; the sense of isolation, among any group of survivors, additionally causes individual survivors to not trust other survivors and other groups of survivors, seeing them as rivals instead of allies. This is why there is an entire constellation of rival Veterans’ groups in Canada and America and, to a lesser extent, in Britain.

Britain also offers a coherent model to act to protect Veteran’s interests. On 31 January 2018, the Democrats and Veterans’ Party (DVP) was officially registered in the United Kingdom. The DVP was founded by Colour-Sergeant Trevor Coult, who won the Military Cross while serving with the Royal Irish Regiment in Iraq. The DVP website (https://dvparty.uk/ ) shows that this is not a single-issue/limited traction political party. On top of the Care of Veterans, and Defence of the Realm, the DVP also advocates for direct democracy, stating “Gone are the days when we sent an MP by horse for three days to Parliament.” The DVP also emphasises “Helping Those In Need,” under which rubric falls “the elderly, the disabled and those in genuine need.” The DVP proposes “mutual benefit programmes and other initiatives where Veterans can be employed to help.”

“We will always be a voice for the most vulnerable in our society, including those that work hard on low incomes.” On healthcare, the DVP emphasises a “focus on prevention rather than just cure. We will put to work our Veterans in helping the youth get fit, and will encourage a healthy, active society.” On education, the DVP, note that “around 50% of graduates work in jobs that do not require degrees,” and proposes “ensuring that every youth leaving education will be equipped to apply directly for a job or create one for themselves.”

Time and propitious circumstance will tell how far the DVP advances electorally. The mere model of the DVP, however, offers Canadian Veterans a concrete alternative to ribbons, stickers and demonstrations in terms of more fully aligning public support with their cause, for the ultimate benefit of wide segments of Canadian society. Militarily, the DVP model is consistent with the successful British civic affairs/anti-partisan model used to win over the civilian population in Malaya. As civic affairs/anti-partisan expert Bernard Fall said in Streets Without Joy: “A dead partisan is spontaneously replaced by his environment. A dead special forces sergeant is not.”

Of Sacrifice And Tragedy

“…the cruelty of random events taking from us worthy sons who should have enjoyed long lives and great achievements.”

(Volume 25 Issue 4)

By Jim Scott

Poet T.S. Eliot wrote that “April is the cruellest month,” and so far, he has not been wrong.

In the Ottawa area we were all informed on April 6th that a courageous young man, Jonathan Pitre, had died. Jonathan lived his nearly eighteen years with a severe case of epidermolysis bullosa, a painful skin disease that caused his entire body to break out in wounds at the slightest touch. Despite his constant pain, he was well known in the Ottawa area for his dream of playing hockey and his unyielding effort to find joy and some positive upside to his travails. His mother, Tina Boileau, gave everything, including her stem cells, to give her son a semblance of happiness and hope for the future. Heroic medical interventions were not enough to give Jonathan one more day of life, but his legacy of selflessness and courage will be eternal.

Within days a wider tragedy unfolded when the team bus of the Humboldt Broncos collided with a tractor trailer on a Saskatchewan highway. Young men, likewise in the prime of their lives, were killed and injured in numbers that shook the entire country. Sixteen players and team officials lost their lives. The families of whom they were a part were shattered, and so too were the hundreds of families who hosted them, and others like them, in their homes.

In this hockey-mad country, there are few who do not feel a personal perspective on the theme of tragic loss, opportunities cut short, and the cruelty of random events taking from us worthy sons who should have enjoyed long lives and great achievements. Hundreds of thousands of Canadian girls and boys play hockey and attempt to rise up its ranks to fulfill dreams of glory at premier levels.
(Older versions continue to fool themselves that their personal skill levels have simply gone unrecognised). It is a tie that binds our population, including newcomers from parts of the world where ice is only otherwise known to cool drinks.

As a military magazine Esprit de Corps has spent nearly thirty years making Canadians aware of the young men and women who work diligently to be the world’s best in the profession of arms. Like their sports counterparts, they enter voluntarily into a world where the physical and mental demands are beyond the scope of the average citizen’s daily life.
In the military world it is accepted that the risk of death and injury is not ancillary to their activities, but indeed is an ever-present corollary to training in the first place. Recruits are trained on vehicles and weapons whose purpose is to survive combat and deliver death and injury to others. Even peace-time missions ask more of vehicles, ships and aircraft, and the people who operate and maintain them, than the rest of us encounter on city streets and country highways ever.

I will say on behalf of all Esprit de Corps staffers past and present that our editorial mandate has never been to glorify military exploits. We are proud, of course, of our nation’s military achievements but the record is too redolent of family and personal loss to offer a solid grip on ‘glory.’ The hope instead is that the general reader is reminded of the daily minutiae and decades-long efforts that go into preparing a country and its people for the variety of contingencies that may befall it. We know the military is a tough business. We believe we shouldn’t wait until a plane crashes or a soldier is wounded for our recognition to be re-ignited.

As we watch millionaire hockey players contend again for Lord Stanley’s illustrious mug, we sometimes forget these young men are from small towns. They worked hard and suffered much and rode on buses like the one that was shattered in Saskatchewan. Many are called, says the bible, but few are chosen. Most only dream of what could be and carry on with the more mundane task of getting by. For those who get to don a uniform or a prized jersey, let us never forget the sacrifices made by the person within it.

Just A Cheerleader

“A military nerd would have passed out by half-time given all ordnance and aircraft in play.”

(Volume 25-04)

By Michael Nickerson

Go team! Pass the beer! Let’s have ourselves a tail-gate party! Forget about football. That’s for wimps. We’re talking a full bore coalition attack on that evil monster of a dictator, Bashar al-Assad. One bad hombre, don’t cha know; a murderous tyrant by all reports. Plays fast and loose with his chemistry set, he does. Damn easy guy to root against, if you ask me. Feel free to boo.

I refer of course to the recent U.S.-led air strike on Syria in response to alleged chemical weapons use by al-Assad forces in the Syrian town of Douma. Serious stuff, presented with all the spin and analysis one would expect of an internationally televised grudge match. Experts and retired generals provided no end of stats, details and interactive game boarding to keep the fans interested: 105 missiles, including 57 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 19 JASSM-ER missiles (first time in combat!) all hitting the field (literally!) and taking it to that Syrian scum. A military nerd would have passed out by half-time given all ordnance and aircraft in play. What a game!

Of course no gaming spectacle would be truly complete without cheerleaders, those fit, good-looking sideshow attractions that keep the mind from wandering when there’s a break in the action. And gosh darn, count on Justin Trudeau to step right up and lead the squad. Give me a T, give me an R, give me an UMP…go TRUMP!

Not that Justin was waving literal pompoms, because in this game, that would be a bit unseemly (leave that to FOX news). What’s called for is somber, stately support of a difficult job well done. “Unfortunate but necessary” was how Justin put it while in Peru at the Summit of the Americas, getting a thank you handshake from U.S. Vice President Mike Pence before heading off for more NAFTA trade discussions and a plate of cassava.

So what is this game exactly? Over 500,000 dead, ten times that number refugees, even more displaced within their own country and nothing more than a wink from the rest of the world. But forty people die from a chemical weapons attack, and now it’s time to drop bombs and wax eloquent about the horrors of the First World War and how it should never happen again. Bit confusing that, even if you’ve been supplied the conventional weapons rulebook.

Ironically, one Canadian has been trying to understand this very question, if tangentially, charged with doing so at the behest of Justin Trudeau as his special envoy to Myanmar. Name’s Bob Rae. Odds are you’ve heard of him; had a bit of a controversial political career. But recently he was sent on a mission to actually figure out the game, or at least Canada’s role in it, specifically with regards to the plight of 671,000 displaced Rohingya now trying to find shelter in Bangladesh.

Now Bob is a smart man, and he came up with some excellent ideas for easing the refugee crisis in the short term and engaging with the Myanmar government in both “principled and practical” ways, as he describes it, to foster a long-term resolution. His recommendations could reasonably be applied to any number of international crises, including the one that has existed in Syria for some seven years now. It’s a good read. You should look it up.

Problem is, Bob not only got the game wrong, he didn’t seem to know he was merely a pawn. Arguing his findings on CBC Radio he opined that “if Canada wants to play a role we gotta up our game a bit.” Cheerleaders don’t get on the field and “play a role,” be it in Myanmar, Syria, Mali, or any number of humanitarian crises that churn on year in and year out. And as Team Justin™ has demonstrated, they don’t even do it at home, our First Nations’ continued suffering being a prime example.

No, cheerleaders come up with slogans, chants, and supportive words to the players on the field. They don’t have to actually play the game, nor even try to understand it. And they certainly don’t factor in the outcome. Go team!

Does Peacekeeping Put Canada On The Jihadi Radar?

“Mali is beset with a serious, almost existential, threat from jihadist violence, as is much
of the Sahel…”

By Phil Gurski

(Volume 25 issue 4)

Canada was long known as a nation of peacekeepers, of the multinational kind. We used to send lots of our men and women to conflict zones around the world to do our part in keeping warring parties from slaughtering each other in the hopes that the UN, under which we served, could cobble together some kind of arrangement that would lead to national or regional stability. Heck, we even erected a monument to peacekeeping right across from that hideous spider outside the National Art Gallery in Ottawa.

Our nation as a peacekeeping stalwart has long been in abeyance. As of February 2018 Canada, had a grand total of 41 soldiers on various missions, compared with over 7,000 from Bangladesh and almost 5,500 from Nepal. A country at the coalface of peacekeeping we clearly are not. Nonetheless, the Trudeau government just announced that we will send an unspecified number of helicopters and support troops to Mali, part of the PM’s promise last fall to commit up to 600 Canadian soldiers to UN missions. Woo-hoo! The world needs more Canada and we are delivering!

Our return to the world of peacekeeping may indeed be a good sign, but it is not clear that going to Mali is a good idea or has anything really to do with peacekeeping since it is not clear that there is a peace to keep. Mali is beset with a serious, almost existential, threat from jihadist violence, as is much of the Sahel (that area of North Africa just south of the Sahara) and parts of West Africa (i.e. Nigeria). A number of nasty Islamist extremist groups are very active in the region and some of Canada’s allies that have already sent troops to Mali and Niger have suffered casualties. In October 2017 four US Special Forces were killed in an ambush in Niger and two weeks ago two French soldiers were killed when their vehicle hit an IED in Mali. Canadians should prepare for the possibility of death: in August 2017 two Canadians were killed in a terrorist attack on a restaurant in neighbouring Burkina Faso, and that was on the heels of a similar attack on a hotel in Ougadougou that killed six members of a Quebec humanitarian group in January 2016.

Peacekeeping implies that there are parties that are open to the idea of peace and negotiations. Terrorist groups seldom hew to this notion: in fact, the ideologist behind Al Qaeda, Abdallah Azzam, once famously said “Jihad and the rifle alone; no negotiations, no conferences, and no dialogues.” Al Qaeda-linked terrorist organisations are active in the Sahel and there are other entities tied to Islamic State. This does not bode well.

The danger to our troops is real and I am sure that the Canadian Forces are all too aware of the peril. At the same time, we have to consider whether the presence of our military also raises the general threat level to Canada. Jihadi groups make a lot over the deployment of foreign forces in Muslim-dominant lands as it fits their narrative that the West (a broad term) is at war with the Islamic world. Regardless of their intent or their mandate, our men and women will be targets for terrorist violence and I would be very surprised if jihadi social media posts do not start listing Canada as a legitimate aim for attacks. Having your country and people named as the object of terrorism is seldom a good thing. We have seen plots and successful attacks on our soil by those inspired by jihadi groups abroad. It is not beyond belief that we will see more, perhaps tied to our Mali mission.

We are thus damned if we do and damned if we don’t. Mali and its neighbours need our help and we should do something. By doing something, however, we paint a bulls-eye on our torsos. Which is worse: stay out and let the region continue to suffer and perhaps descend into more jihadi hell on earth or send troops which may be killed and which at the end of their mission may not be able to point to real progress on the ground (just look at Afghanistan 16 years later)? I do not envy the Trudeau government for having to make this decision. I just hope that our men and women in uniform can help the locals and come back safely to their homes and families.

Future Air Combat

“…is it better to spend money on capabilities you might never use, or to keep it in your pocket for future contingencies?”

(Volume 25 Issue 4)

By Vincent J. Curtis

Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project is proceeding without any agreed upon idea of the future of air combat.  Deciding which fighter to acquire, then, is like trying to decide which tool you are going to buy without having much knowledge of the job you need it to do.  Any discussion of the relative merits or capability of the tools will end up being a discussion about undeclared, underlying beliefs instead.

So it is worthwhile to spend some time thinking about what are the likely needs Canada will have for air power, and then decide what the best fit is.

What we know for sure is that NORAD and NATO are not going to go away within the next thirty to forty years, because Russia isn’t going to go away.  Canada’s role within NORAD is the air defense of North America in cooperation with the United States.  Practically, this means that the RCAF needs a high flying and fast interceptor with long range.  The RCAF needs to be able to intercept Russian bombers flying over the high Arctic.

Canada’s air role in NATO has been to contribute to the gaining of air superiority against Russian-made fighters.  The air superiority role once placed a requirement on a fighter for tight turning or for speed in diving; but missile technology and the “platform” concept may be changing that.

A third demand upon fighter aircraft has been for surface to ground attack.  After air superiority has been gained, fighters don’t have much other practical use except to attack targets on the ground.  Any aircraft equipped with guns, bombs, or missiles is capable of attacking targets on the ground, though some are better adapted to it than others.

For example, in World War II, the P-47 Thunderbolt, because of its toughness, was better adapted to strafing ground targets than the similarly armed P-51 Mustang.  The Hawker Typhoon underperformed at high altitudes, but turned into an excellent ground attack fast mover. 

In South Vietnam, jet fighters were used exclusively for ground attack, while over North Vietnam most of the missions of jet aircraft were for attacking targets on the ground.  Some air combat did occur over the North, but a concentrated effort by the USAF eliminated the North Vietnamese Air Force and thereafter the North relied exclusively on surface to air missiles for its air defense.

It seems, then, that the question the RCAF needs to answer is whether or to what degree it wants to be able to engage in tactical air-to-ground combat. The RCAF has shied away from that role. In the last forty years, the only significant occasions when CF-18s were so employed was in Libya (2011) and in Iraq against ISIS (2014-2016). The electronic suites in the Hornets had to be changed and upgraded for this role because the original avionics of the Hornet was for air combat
only.

At this point it is useful to differentiate between real air power and special operations involving air assets. Real air power requires mass. Real air power means literally hundreds of aircraft and thousands of sorties.  Special operations involving air assets involves a small number of aircraft equipped for special missions. The Israeli attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor was such a mission that involved F-15s and F-16s. A single CF-18 intercepting a Russian Tu-95 (Bear) bomber is another example of a special operation.

The F-35 seems to be an aircraft of the special operations category. One platform is supposed to be able to simultaneously track, scan, and attack multiple targets both in the air and on the ground and be invisible to radar. It can fly a long way on internal fuel and carry up to 18,000 pounds of ordinance. It is rather maneuverable.  One plane can do a lot. But you pay for all these capabilities, and that means that on a limited budget you can buy only a few of them.
In addition, all these capabilities make for a complicated aircraft, and so the operational up time may be less than for a cheaper, simpler aircraft due to the higher maintenance requirements and costs.  In choosing the F-35, Canada sacrifices mass.

The acquisition question comes down to this: Is it better to spend money on capabilities you might never use, or to keep it in your pocket against future contingencies? The F-16V and the Block III F/A-18 Super Hornet will be able to meet 98 to 100 percent of the operational requirements of the RCAF over the next twenty to thirty years. We can say this because the US Navy is purchasing new Super Hornets and the USAF is buying new F-15E Strike Eagles and refurbishing older F-16s for service into the 2040s. They are doing so because the “augmented reality” software, sensors, and networking that make the F-35 so
cutting-edge have not been completely de-bugged.  All the operational testing of the F-35 has been with small numbers of friendlies and targets; engineers do not know if network overload would occur when large numbers of aircraft flew together.  And we assume that stealth remains undefeatable over the next forty years.

Does RCAF see itself as a kind of special operations force stealthily taking on multiple targets in the air and on the ground simultaneously alone?  If so, then a force of F-35s makes sense.  But as a component of the total air power of NORAD, NATO, or a coalition with the United States, then the F-16V or Super Hornet makes more sense because Canada isn’t going to be the lead air power or conduct independent missions.  If stealth isn’t essential to the RCAF mission, and the more the mission profile is of a fast air-superiority fighter-interceptor, the more the F-16 is favored. W

Operation Nighthawk reveals Canadian Naïveté

“The fact that elements not under government control might access ordnance and expertise is indeed worrisome”

(Volume 25-03)

By Joe Fernandez

On 16, January 2018, the CBC’s French-language 24-hour service RDI ran a story “Des soldats canadiens tissent des relations avec des motards criminalisés” (“Some Canadian soldiers are weaving links to criminalised bikers.”) The story reported that the “Canadian Armed Forces police” has been investigating links between soldiers and Veterans who form or join Motorcycle Clubs (MCs) since 2012 under Operation NIGHTHAWK, confirmed in English to be an investigation of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service by the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal Report—January 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013.  The story quoted an “officer commanding of military information of the CAF” as saying that a) very few of the troops and Veterans who form and join an MC are actual causes for concern, and that b) the main concern is that “1%ers” MC’s (often referred to as “outlaw bikers/outlaw motorcycle clubs” by tabloid journalists and police desk jockeys) will exploit their friendly associations with these troops and veterans to gain access to ordnance and tactical expertise. The story further quotes a retired Colonel, a military lawyer who once commanded a unit in Germany during the Cold War, (though bereft of operational experience), as deploring this situation for allegedly bringing a bad name to the Canadian military.

The fact that elements not under government control might access ordnance and expertise is indeed worrisome because innocent civilians in Canada could die as a result. Nevertheless, the tone of the RDI story elucidates Canada’s and Canadians’ general naiveté when it comes to warfare-other-than-Fulda-Gap.

Many books have been written about the Allies’ conventional campaign in Italy during the Second World War, but very few of them highlight the centrality of FDR’s alliance with the Mafia to these Allied operations. Likewise, many books have been written about the French resistance during the war, but not all of them mention that prominent Résistants included the Guérini “family” of the Corsican underworld and North African gangster Jo Attia, who was deported  to Mauthausen by the Nazis. The Guérinis and Attia also figure prominently in François Audigier’s Histoire du SAC, about the Service d’action civique (SAC), the paramilitary arm of Charles de Gaulle’s Rassemblement du Peuple Français party in the 1950’s and 1960’s. As part of the SAC, the Guérinis worked with French foreign (SDECE) and domestic (DST) intelligence in combating FLN terrorists and militant OAS conservatives. Jo Attia kidnapped the OAS’ Antoine Argoud from his German sanctuary, as described by West German intelligence chief Reinhard Gehlen, and then took part in neutralising a Moroccan renegade on French soil.

If one looks at Canadian authors Yves Lavigne’s and Jerry Langton’s books on 1%ers (who got the name after the American Motorcycle Association said that “99% of motorcyclists are well-behaved” in response to the 1947 Hollister riot), two things stand out from a military point of view: a) these are organisations whose ability to precisely surveil and neutralise specific targets of interest is generally far more precise than that of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle piloted from thousands of miles away, b) these are organisations that readily transcend borders undetected in ways that uniformed personnel, and personnel with diplomatic passports, do not. As well, Mr.Lavigne gives an explanation as to why, despite decades of effort, no law enforcement organisation and no prosecutor has been able to shut down any of the major international 1%er MC’s. Law enforcement personnel and prosecutors work for the government and have a government bureaucrat’s mentality, which means that they stop thinking about work at Close Of Buinsess (COB.) 1%ers, by contrast, are private sector entrepreneurs, which means that they think of business 24-7.

Succinctly, in wars where the enemy does not oblige us by wearing a uniform, 1%ers have the ability to effect substantial direct action in a manner that an infantry or armoured division, an artillery battery and an entire wing of bombers/Combat Air Support planes cannot. The experience of FDR with the Mafia in Italy during the Second World War, of the French Resistance, and then of Charles deGaulle and French foreign and domestic intelligence, with the Guérini “family” and Jo Attia demonstrates that using 1%ers does not constitute a threat to democracy.

After 9/11, the pedantic Robert Mueller told President Bush “We are going to get evidence to try them.” Attorney-General John Ashcroft said “No, the priority is to stop them from doing this again.”

Potty Training 101

“You acknowledge the problem, deal with it, learn from it, and move on…”

(Volume 25-03)

By Michael Nickerson

So you’ve just dropped a boat on your neighbour’s house. Well not a boat per se, but an inflatable life raft. And since you’ve taken the time to lift said raft high in the air with a helicopter before starting your little misadventure, it punches a fairly sizable hole into their roof. What’s your next step? Now take a deep breath and think for a minute. Do you pretend it never happened? Do you admit your mistake, pay for the damages, and learn from it so your neighbourhood is henceforth safe from airborne flotation devices? Or do you ban the sale and usage of both life rafts and helicopters in their entirety for all eternity?

Tough call that one. Funnily enough the Royal Canadian Air Force was faced with just such a quandary. Seems they bombed an unsuspecting Florida resident with a dinghy while on a training exercise near Miami last month. And wouldn’t you know it, the RCAF fessed up; Miami-Dade Police spokesman Detective Lee Cowart was pleased to report they’ve been “really up front with us.” They’re assisting the unsuspecting (and mostly unscathed) resident, with an investigation already in progress. And in case you’re worried, they also recovered the raft (mostly unscathed).

A perfectly reasonable response that. You acknowledge the problem, deal with it, learn from it, and move on. Just like it was during those heady days of potty training years ago. You don’t ignore it because it’s eventually going to stink. And you certainly don’t ban it (feel free to ask your doctor for clarification on this).

Now as absurd as this all sounds, too many times have the options of willful ignorance or preemptive nullification been the go-to responses when it comes to how the military deals with its problems. A list involving the former could go on for pages, but the subject of sexual harassment and assault in the ranks will suffice. Up until recently it didn’t exist. Not in the forces I served with, no sir, as none other than General (ret.) Hillier opined not so long ago. It took a scathing report and no small amount of public shaming to get leadership to acknowledge the obvious. There was and is a problem. Only now are there encouraging signs that the issue is finally being addressed.

However, like any pendulum governed more by the laws of nature than reason, things have swung far to the other side of weird. No doubt stinging from myriad bad press and public relations missteps, the powers that be at National Defence have issued a general order that bans fraternizing with just about everyone short of puppy enthusiasts To wit, forces members are to avoid any group or association that promotes “racism, sexism, misogyny, violence, xenophobia, homophobia, ableism and discriminatory views with respect to particular religions or faiths.”

At first glance that all seems reasonable, particularly in this new century of understanding and empathy. But let’s parse this a little. Racism, violence and xenophobia are certainly hard to argue for in this day and age, but sexism, misogyny, and homophobia might keep military personnel from visiting their local church, mosque or synagogue. And given the military’s dogged adherence to the principle of universality of service, that ableism thing would logically keep just about everyone in the Canadian Armed Forces from showing up for work.

In short, it’s an asinine order born more out of fear of public embarrassment than concern that CAF members will be upholding a set of values in step with the society they are there to protect, particularly when said society has barely begun to sort things out itself. But there is a longstanding and frankly childish fear in the military of metaphorically soiling one’s diapers in public. And in a time of smart phones, social media, and 24/7 news coverage, it’s impossible to pretend ignorance. And irrational solutions will just look silly under such an unrelenting media glare.

So let’s just admit mistakes happen. Don’t hide them. Don’t be ashamed. Don’t overreact. Just deal with it, learn from it, and move forward. And before you know it? No more diapers.

KOSOVO TEN YEARS AFTER: Not Even A State, But Already "Failed" His Excellency Mihailo Papazoglu

(Volume 25 Issue 3)

By His Excellency Mihailo Papazoglu

True, just above 100 countries recognised Kosovo Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) ten years ago, but recently some three of those revoked it - Guinea Bissau, Surinam and Burundi. I am not saying this is a trend but it is a reality. Kosovo officials are denying it; explaining that recognition cannot be revoked. That is fake reality.

 Reality of “ten years after in Kosovo” is completely different - defined by the most recent “signature” killing of a prominent democratic Serbian leader. In such a clan-based society, a high profile political assassination could not happen without “somebody pushing the button”. We consider it as a terrorist act and as a message to the other 220,000 Serbian Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) expelled from Kosovo in 1999 that they will never return to their homes. First consequence of slaying Oliver Ivanovic is that his family moved to Belgrade for good.

Part of the problem is that almost all Albanian political leaders from Kosovo are former warlords. There is no such example in Balkans!

 Their fear of prison is the main reason for the Albanian refusal to cooperate with International tribunal that is set up to bring justice for war crimes perpetuated by the UCK guerrilla over Serbs and non-Albanians. Hope that this is enough arguments for those who consider voting in favour of Kosovo joining Interpol.

 Unfortunately, the practice of copy-pasting reports from internationals organisations in Kosovo throughout last ten years was not helpful either. The reality is this, as well as unwarranted embellishments of the situation in Kosovo and Metohija, could not cover the stalemate.

 Another danger is Kosovo’s wish to create an army or “big Albania” by unifying Kosovo with Albania is an obvious casus belli. If there is no big Croatia or big Serbia, there should not be big or bigger Albania. Pretty much all the countries in the region are against it. Just recently, Kosovo’s PM Haradinaj obtained Albanian citizenship through an urgent procedure. Four high level Albania’s government officials are from Kosovo (ministerial level). A smoking gun? There is no such thing as good or bad nationalism - they should all be addressed with firm opposition.

 On the other hand, support of China and Russia over blocking Kosovo accession in the UN and other international organisation is often presented as a cliché of East-West cleavage here in Canada. But the reality is that another almost 100 countries did not recognise UDI: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Chile. These are states far from our region and no Serbs live there, yet they opposed it.

Further, by intervention of five EU countries that did not recognise UDI: Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Slovakia and Spain, Kosovo is, if not set out, then set a side from EU WB Enlargement strategy. We see that not as a will to create another frozen conflict but as incentive for Albanian leaders in Kosovo to continue dialogue with Belgrade in a way to find solution together with us. As a frontrunner in EU enlargement for 2025, together with Montenegro, Serbia should not be punished for unwillingness or unpreparedness of Albanian leadership from Kosovo to strike a deal.

We expect Canada to encourage Albania to approach these negotiations in good faith but not by looking over its shoulders for others to put more pressure on Serbia. That is why we confirmed in writing our support for Canada’s candidacy for a UN Security Council (SC) non-permanent seat. We hoped if an agreement could be reached by that time, it could be supported by Canada within SC. International guarantees would be certainly part of the deal.

We are ready for a historical deal, not for a defeat of any of our two sides. That is why recognition of Kosovo’s UDI is not an option for us. For all politicians involved in this process there is an opportunity to become true statesman’s in the interest of better life for people of both nations. This rationale should not be easily discarded. In the Balkans, moments like this are too rare to be wasted.

Boeing, Airbus, And Bombardier

“Canada is not going to get into the business of supplying the world with fighter aircraft.”

(Volume 25-03)

By Vincent J. Curtis

Besides announcing that the interim replacements for used-up Canadian CF-18s would be used-up Australian F/A-18s, the purpose of the DND press conference of Dec 11th, 2017, was for the Federal government to publicly invite bids on Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project, or FFCP.  The deadline for submitting bids was Feb 9th, 2018, and the qualified bidders were, unsurprisingly, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Airbus, Dassault, and Saab.

These suppliers were invited to submit proposals for the replacement of Canada’s fleet of CF-18 aircraft with 88 new-builds.  In a “competition,” the Trudeau government, or its successor, will evaluate the proposals for “cost, technical requirements, and economic benefits to Canada.”  Apparently, the Trudeau government is ambivalent about the differing technical merits between Gen 4 and Gen 5 fighters, considering them both of them to be more or less the same.  Perhaps it will come up with an ad hoc cost/benefit ratio between the two types.

Boeing, while participating, remains wary of the Trudeau government’s intentions.  In a press statement, Boeing says it “will continue to evaluate our participation in the FFCP as the Government of Canada outlines the procurement approach, requirements, and evaluation criteria…” while maintaining “…the Super Hornet is the low-risk, low-cost approach and has all the advanced capabilities the Royal Canadian Air Force needs now and well into the future.”

Boeing is not looking to burn any bridges, saying also that it “values Canada as a customer and supplier-partner…”

Airbus is part of the consortium that makes the Eurofighter Typhoon.  Boeing fell afoul of the Trudeau government when it asked a U.S Trade disputes panel to slap tariffs in the amount of nearly 300 percent on C-Series commercial jets made by Liberal favorite, Bombardier.  Before the panel even had a chance to reject Boeing’s suit, which it quickly did, Bombardier slipped the rights to make the jet to Airbus.  Bombardier’s jets will be made by Airbus in the United States, thus bypassing the rules governing importation regardless of the trade panel’s decision.

An Airbus bid would seem to have an inside edge with the Trudeau government through Airbus’s friendly commercial relationship with Bombardier.  The “economic benefits to Canada” angle could be met in Airbus’s bid by subcontracting assembly to Bombardier in Canada, with the parts being shipped in from Europe.

Boeing already supports some 2,000 jobs in Canada. The “economic benefits to Canada” as a result of an FFCP contract could come about by placing an off-setting amount of work at its Winnipeg facility as the Block III Super Hornets rolled off the assembly line in St. Louis, as happened with the Boeing CC-177 Globemaster III transport and CH-147F Chinook helicopter purchases.

Because of Boeing’s suit against Bombardier, the Trudeau government went out of its way to publically embarrass Boeing executives, and cabinet members accused the company of being “harmful to Canada’s economic interests,” forgetting altogether the company’s longstanding workforce in western Canada. The prospective evaluation of proposals baldly states that bidders so accused will stand at a “distinct disadvantage.”

A major weakness of Airbus’s entry is cost.  The Eurofighter Typhoon is an expensive aircraft to build, to operate, and to maintain - more than the Super Hornet.  The flyaway cost of one, at the moment, runs in the range of € 100 million, making the cost of the acquisition at least $13.5 billion Canadian.  As with the F-35, so with the Eurofighter Typhoon, you pay for capabilities you don’t really need and can’t afford to use. Canada isn’t going to risk the loss of a $150 million aircraft to bust bunkers that cost little more than spadework and mud to build.  It would be foolhardy to do so, but you have to pay for that useless capability anyhow.

The “economic benefits to Canada” phrase can sometimes be a pleasant way of saying “graft.”  It is cheapest of all to build something on the production line presently operating.  To create an entirely new production line incurs capital costs over and above the cost of building the next 88 aircraft coming off the line.  Canada is not going to get into the business of supplying the world with fighter aircraft, and so the “economic benefit” of having Bombardier assemble Typhoons from parts is merely a way of having Canadian taxpayers shovel additional money into Bombardier and create some temporary jobs in Quebec.  The economic ‘benefit’ simply doesn’t last.

A Boeing proposal that incorporated offsetting work in Winnipeg has the inherent savings of avoiding unnecessary capital costs and the cost of teaching new workers a new job.

Because of Airbus’s links to Bombardier, a Eurofighter Typhoon assembled by Bombardier could have the edge in the “competition” due to its higher political visibility.  If the Trudeau government purchased new Super Hornets instead of refurbishing old Australian planes, it could either reduce the scale of the FFCP from 88 to 70, or saved itself the cost of refurbishment, which now is estimated to be between $500 million and $1.5 billion. It will take three years of analysis before we find out whether the Trudeau government has learned anything about technical merits, cost, and economics.

Be Honest Justin

“we have a self-declared feminist for a prime minister”

(Volume 25-02)

By Michael Nickerson

You have to hand it to that Justin. No, not Justin Timberlake, though his Super Bowl halftime show kicked some entertainment butt. And certainly not Justin Bieber, unless of course we’re talking about a cease and desist order to never to play music again. No, I refer to that other Justin, he of the Trudeau persuasion. Fit, personable, eloquent, the man can truly work a room. Not necessarily honestly mind you, but he can work it.

Now the good prime minister would no doubt take issue with that assessment. An honest, straight-up guy our glorious leader is, and no more so than on his recent cross-Canada town hall tour where he made it clear that he was there to give honest answers to honest questions. When the ‘Trudeau Train’ made a whistle stop in Edmonton he suggested as much to a booing crowd. “You are asking for honest answers,” he said, the implication being that he was giving some.

In this case the crowd was responding to his earlier answer to Corporal (ret’d) Brock Blaszczyk, a veteran who came back from Afghanistan minus a leg from a roadside IED (improvised explosive device). He had asked Justin why the PM was going back on his election promise not to keep fighting veterans’ groups in court like his predecessor. His answer was thus: “Because they are asking for more than we are able to give right now.”

The “they” in question here is the Equitas Society, a veterans’ group who has been fighting the lump-sum payout plan under the New Veterans Charter since the glory days of The Harper Government™. They are asking for recognition of a “social covenant” between military personnel and their government, and a return to the lifetime pension arrangement for wounded veterans in place since WWI. Their fight is now going to the Supreme Court of Canada, with Team Justin™ kicking and screaming all the way.

Ah, but that’s not the only lawsuit putting paid to Trudeau’s platitudes. No sir. Another class action case by current and former members of the military suggests that there is a long history of sexual discrimination and assault in the military, and not a lot of effort to make amends for it. Sure, we have Operation Honour doing its best to change the current military culture and make things right, if only because of a damning report by former Supreme Court Justice Marie Deschamps in 2015. And gosh darn, we have a self-declared feminist for a prime minister. Yet the legal struggle continues.

To wit, lawyers working on behalf of Team Justin™ have put forward the argument that the federal government does not “owe a private law duty of care to individual members within the CAF to provide a safe and harassment-free work environment or to create policies to prevent sexual harassment or sexual assault.” In short, you got raped? Tough luck, you can’t sue us.

Well not so fast there my friends, because the PM is on the case. “Obviously the lawyers’ argument does not align with my beliefs or what this government believes,” Justin opined under the glare of cameras and scrutiny when the legal argument hit the public relations fan. He even asked Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould to get busy making things right, or in alignment, or something like that. She says she can’t comment on the matter.

People are asking for honest answers, so here are a few: Justin Trudeau is full of it, and I’m not referring to sunshine and warm feelings. There is money to restore lifetime pensions along with the new supports being offered injured veterans, but the government chooses not to in favour of other priorities. The government could have not only settled lawsuits and grievances concerning sexual discrimination and assault in the military, but been proactive in heading off the lawsuit in the first place, and by doing so given more credibility to CDS Vance’s efforts with Operation Honour, but again chose not to. All the rhetoric in the world will not fix the damage already caused nor help bring military culture in line with the new century.

So let’s be honest Justin, shall we? Rhetoric is all you have to offer, isn’t it?

The Case For Defending The Baltics

“Why defend the Baltics and not Ukraine?”

(Volume 25-02)

By Joe Fernandez

Although I support a foreign policy that generally follows George Washington’s Farewell Address, which is to say avoiding foreign wars altogether, I argue that a case can be made for defending the Baltics.

In Between The Giants: The Battle For the Baltics In World War II, Dr. Prit Buttar details how the Germans in the Baltics, with only 146 tanks and 150 planes, and with “infantry divisions weak in terms of mobility and anti-tank firepower” fought against 650 Soviet tanks and 1,250 Soviet planes. The Germans not only managed to fight the Red Army in the region from January 1944 to May 1945, but to also attrite the Red Army so that, by September 1944, the Soviet divisions in the area only had 3,000 to 7,000 troops apiece instead of their nominal strengths of 12,000. This was at a time when the Red Army was 2 million strong.

In contrast, according to renowned Russia expert Dr. Mark Galeotti’s The Modern Russian Army 1992-2016, the Russian military in 2016 had only 766,000 troops, with the elite 4th Guards Kantemirovsk Tank Division and 2nd Guards Tamanskaya Motor Rifle Division of the First Tank Army of the Western Military District (which borders the Baltics) each only having 6,000–7,000 troops.

Galeotti’s report of his conversations with Russian flag rank officers in the January 19, 2018 Guardian article “Forget Britain’s Nuclear Deterrent: Here Is What Russia Is Really Afraid Of” is as important. One Russian officer told Galeotti, “Britain has always had the best light infantry in the world and the bastards get places faster than we would like.” A Russian naval officer told him that Britain’s new aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, “would make a great missile target,” which can be interpreted as a nuanced allusion to Russia’s access to China’s carrier-killing DF-21D missiles. Russian naval officers also told Galeotti that they were more concerned with the Royal Navy’s submarines and frigates and Britain’s ability to keep enough ships deployed at any one time. Lastly, another soldier told Galeotti, “these days, the Europeans have armies but no soldiers, while the British have always had warriors (‘boets’).”

The sum of the previous two paragraphs is that British and Canadian troops and ships in the Baltics could plausibly deter a Russia of only 144 million people (in contrast to America’s over 300 million) from getting bogged down in a drawn-out war for the region. The question then becomes, “Why defend the Baltics and not Ukraine?” My answer is that there are material Canadian interests in the Baltics and only a free trade treaty with Ukraine.

That specific material Canadian interest in the Baltics is Alimentation Couche-Tard, which operates 2,225 stores in Canada (each store employing multiple Canadian taxpayers), and which is also a leader in convenience store and road transportation fuel retail in the Baltics. Couche-Tard also has operations in Russia, which constitute another argument against the anti-Russian jingoism of habitual letter-writers. However, given Russia’s treatment of Anglo-American investor Bill Browder, it is in Canada’s interest that Alimentation Couche-Tard’s Baltic operations do not fall under Russian control as well.

Some would say that I am arguing for the exploitation of the Canadian Armed Forces as taxpayer-subsidised guarantors of a private multinational. This is based on the popular, and false, dichotomy of interests between “the rich” and the working class/“the poor.” If one looks at the holdings of the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan and of the Canada Pension Plan, one readily sees that union members and ordinary pensioners also benefit when corporations do well. The CPP also holds equity in Alimentation Couche-Tard, whose other shareholders include the Jarislowsky Fraser Canadian Equity Fund, Scotia Bank, TD Bank and the Bank of Montreal (BMO). In turn, Québec’s Desjardins Insurance is an investor in Jarislowsky Fraser, while Scotia Bank runs several funds, which can be used as retirement funds. BMO runs a Group Retirement Savings Plan and TD works with the Canada Pension Plan.

Furthermore, Alimentation Couche-Tard paid taxes in the amounts of $383 million in 2017, $398 million in 2016, and $306 million in 2015. Taxes pay for things like military salaries and veterans’ benefits.

I still personally oppose CAF deployment to the Baltics or anywhere else that would push Russia further into what Douglas Schoen and Melik Kaylan call The Russia-China Axis. That being said, I must acknowledge that there are tangible Canadian interests in the Baltics where there are none in Ukraine.