ON TARGET: Inappropriate Indeed

Twitter/@tarekfatah

By Scott Taylor

Last week the social media platforms were set abuzz over a photograph depicting a squad of armed Canadian soldiers in combat uniforms, seemingly on patrol on the streets of Toronto. The majority of these soldiers wore regimental turbans adorned with the cap badges of several different militia units. They were in loose order, rather than in formed ranks and they carried their C-7 assault rifles at the ‘low-ready’ as if on patrol.

The photo was first posted by Toronto Sun columnist Tarek Fatah along with his commentary on this as being “Canadian Sikh soldiers march in Toronto’s Khalsa Day Parade. What’s next? Jewish soldiers to mark Yom Kippur or Hindu soldiers marching for Diwali? Stop it please. Trudeau is turning our Canadian Armed Forces into an ethnic vote getting spectacle. Stop ghettoizing our military.”

Admittedly, at first glance the photo appeared to be a fake news story, a bit of doctored click bait which Fatah had fallen for. My colleague David Pugliese of the Ottawa Citizen, undoubtedly Canada’s best defence reporter, retweeted Fatah’s twitter post with a cautionary alert to it possibly being a fake, and a promise that he would follow up the story with Public Affairs.

Turns out that photo was indeed authentic, and that the participation of these Sikh-Canadian soldiers in the April 28, Khalsa Day parade had been authorized by no less than the Commander of 32 Canadian Brigade.

The approval for participation is easy enough to understand, as the Khalsa Day parade is a significant annual event for the Sikh community, drawing a crowd of over 100,000.

Where the wheels came off this cart was when the Commanding Officer of the Lorne Scots Regiment was tasked to fulfill his Brigade Commander’s commitment. Apparently, this Lieutenant-Colonel wanted to demonstrate to the Khalsa Day parade audience that Canada’s Army is a well equipped, capable combat force. To facilitate this he authorized the participants to march in ‘full fighting order’, with assault rifles. Who instructed them to carry these weapons at the ‘low-ready’ is not clear.

For those familiar with such things, it is well known that on the rare occasions in which soldiers are authorized to parade in public with weapons, there are strict guidelines to follow. As one would expect, the Canadian Armed Forces manual on Drill and Ceremony is very specific about every movement and proper sequence. Hence the surprise among the military community to see this squad posed more for an actual war-zone, than on ceremonial parade in the streets of Canada’s largest city.

In responding to media questions about this incident, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, himself a Sikh-Canadian veteran, stated that “While the intentions to participate in this event were good, the choice that was made was inappropriate.”

A military spokesperson confirmed that the incident is currently under investigation and could result in administrative or disciplinary measures being taken.

In response to the military’s admission of this being ‘inappropriate’ some would be army supporters began questioning why this particular parade was being singled out by the top brass. Several other photos appeared online showing similar scenes – one included a fully geared up Special Forces operative on the streets of Edmonton – as if somehow these multiple wrongs would somehow make a right.

Personally, I don’t agree with Fatah’s assertion that participation in such events ghettoizes our military. Nor do I agree with Balpreet Singh Bopari of the world Sikh organization in Canada, who commented to media in the wake of the parade “If this was a group of white soldiers, people who don’t look different, it wouldn’t have been an issue.”

Turbans have been official headgear in the Canadian Military since 1986 and Sikh-Canadians in uniform are a familiar sight within the military community.

What upset people was the image of Canadian soldiers casually displaying lethal weapons, in ragged formation on a civilian street.

This case will not need a lengthy investigation to determine who made the ‘inappropriate’ blunder. That is the beauty of a clearly defined chain of command. It should also not result in a re-writing of the guidelines. Those are already clearly defined – they just need to be followed.

ON TARGET: Not all war crimes are equal

By Scott Taylor

On Easter Sunday Radio-Canada aired an interview with Omar Khadr wherein the former boy-soldier and subsequent detainee discussed his captivity in Guantanamo Bay. There was nothing new about Khadr’s tale, but simply appearing on the airwaves of our national broadcaster was enough to set off a frenzy across the social media spectrum.

The standard lines from the hate-Khadr crowd are that he is a terrorist who committed a war crime, who was then rewarded by the Canadian government with a $10.5 million settlement.

For Radio-Canada to interview him, and for the studio audience to have given Khadr a standing ovation was enough to spark a grass roots campaign calling on the Liberal government to defund the entire CBC Radio-Canada network.

For the record, Khadr was just 15 years old when U.S. troops captured him following a firefight in the village of Ayub Kheyl in 2002. That makes him a boy-soldier, a minor who was put in harm’s way by his father who was admittedly a member of al-Qaeda. That is on the father, not the boy.

The action that took place was conventional combat between U.S. Special Forces and the insurgents. Khadr was not planting bombs in a marketplace, he was fighting a battle, and ergo he is not a terrorist. The ‘war crime’ to which Khadr plead guilty in order to obtain his eventual release was the killing of U.S. Special Forces Sergeant Christopher Speer.

At the time of his death, Speer and his comrades were in the process of killing Khadr’s colleagues, and Khadr, the sole survivor was grievously wounded in the firefight. The weapon Khadr is alleged to have used was a grenade, which is a short-range area weapon, meaning Speer was not singled out as a target. To call his death in battle a ‘murder’ is ludicrous and to label that action as a ‘war crime’ is insane.

As for the $10.5 million payout, this was not a reward to Khadr for killing Speer, but rather compensation for Canada having violated his rights by allowing him to suffer torture and a 10 year long illegal detainment at the hands of his U.S. captors.

In a perfect world, the U.S. would have paid to compensate Khadr, but alas, such is not the case.

Another recent stretch of the definition of a ‘war crime’ is that of Boutros Massroua. The 54-year-old resident of British Columbia is originally from Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, which borders Syria. Prior to claiming refugee status in Canada in 2015, Massroua plied his trade as a vehicle mechanic in his hometown.

He is a Catholic Christian who was allegedly hired by Daesh (aka ISIS or ISIL) to repair pick-up trucks. No one has ever accused Massroua of picking up a weapon or harming anyone personally, but as a result of fixing up trucks for the Daesh evildoers, this mechanic has been deemed to have committed a crime against humanity by a Vancouver-based Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada tribunal.

The Board’s ruling noted that “If it weren’t for [Massroua’s] work on these armed vehicles, these vehicles would not be returning to Syria with guns on top of them – to shoot unarmed women, children, men of every religion, to blow up buildings.” I understand that it is a crime to aid and abet a criminal in the direct commission of a crime, but to link the fixing of vehicles – for money – to the evil acts of Daesh seems a bit over the top.

On the flip side of this, we have the story of decorated U.S. Navy Seal, Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher who was arrested in September 2018 on over a dozen charges of premeditated murder and attempted murder. The atrocities which Gallagher allegedly committed took place in Iraq in 2017 as the U.S. led alliance, including Canada’s special forces, were driving Daesh fighters out of Mosul.

The shocking allegations were brought forward, not by left-wing, liberal pacifists, but by seven elite fellow Navy Seals. According to these eyewitnesses, Gallagher deliberately gunned down a young schoolgirl and an unarmed old man. He would indiscriminately spray machine gun bullets and rockets into civilian neighbourhoods and on one occasion he allegedly stabbed to death an unarmed, wounded teenage captive.

Initially, the reports of Gallagher’s actions were ignored by the Navy brass, and the accusers were warned that their careers could be impacted should they pursue matters.

However, when threatened with it being disclosed to the media, the investigation was launched which led to Gallagher’s arrest. Supporters of the accused include 40 Republican Members of Congress who have signed a letter calling for the Navy to release Gallagher from jail pending his trial, and President Donald Trump who tweeted out that the imprisoned SEAL would be moved to a ‘less restrictive confinement’.

To date, a crowd funding initiative has raised US$375,000 for Gallagher’s defence.

If all war crimes were treated equally, one can only wonder when they will arrest the mechanic who fixed Gallagher’s vehicle?

ON TARGET: U.S. Claim To Moral High Ground Is Pure Hypocrisy

By Scott Taylor

For those who read through to the back pages of the world affairs section, the conflict in Libya has been back in the news of late. For a country that has been consumed by violent anarchy since NATO led rebels toppled the Moammar Gadhafi regime in October 2011, a renewed outbreak of hostilities hardly seems worthy of note. However, this time around there was a bizarre new twist.

The capital Tripoli is presently under heavy attack from the Libyan National Army, which is commanded by a warlord named Khalifa Haftar.

Defending Tripoli is a collection of tribal militias, and troops loyal to the UN recognized government of Libya.

There is a second self-proclaimed Libyan government based in the eastern city of Tobruk.

In actuality, these rival regimes are impotent administrations with the real power lying with the militia leaders, and warlords like Haftar.

So far, there is nothing really new about this situation since the former anti-Gadhafi rebels began fighting among themselves immediately after their common enemy was murdered in the streets of Sirte: Libya quickly devolved into a failed state divided into a myriad of armed fiefdoms.

What did make the latest Haftar offensive against Tripoli newsworthy was the U.S. reaction.

On Sunday, April 7, it was announced that the American military was going to withdraw a contingent of troops from Libya. “The security realities on the ground in Libya are growing increasingly complex and unpredictable,” noted a U.S. Marine Corps General Thomas Waldhauser. “Even with an adjustment of the force, we will continue to remain agile in support of existing U.S. strategy.”

First of all, who even knew that the U.S. had a contingent of troops in Libya in the first place? Even during the rebellion in 2011, the deployment of U.S., British, French and yes, even Canadian special forces, troops on the ground was officially denied. Canada unofficially let the cat out of the bag by having members of the Special Operations Regiment (CSOR) march in the Nov. 24, 2011 victory parade on Parliament Hill, but no official announcement was ever made.

As for the U.S. troops in Libya, no mention was made of how many were withdrawn, or how many remain on the ground.

While I understand that tactically the U.S. commanders would hate to tip off the enemy, the fact is that America is not presently at war with Libya. If U.S. troops are fighting and killing people in Libya, exactly who are they battling? Just as important is the question of who exactly are they fighting in support of, and under what legal authority?

General Waldhauser states that his command will still be able to support “existing U.S. strategy.” Given the past seven and a half years of instability and widespread carnage perhaps it is time for the U.S. planners to revisit that “existing strategy.”

It was similarly announced last December by U.S. President Donald Trump that U.S. troops were to be withdrawn from Syria. It was simply accepted without question that America somehow had the legal authority to deploy their troops on foreign sovereign territory.

In 2014, the U.S. had been invited back into Iraq to lead a multinational coalition in the fight against Daesh (aka ISIS or ISIL). This coalition included Canadian fighter jets and special forces personnel, and it is by extension under this agreement that Canadian military personnel remain as trainers in Iraq today.

However, even though Daesh operated on both sides of the Syria-Iraq border, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad never invited U.S. forces to assist him in battling Daesh. In fact, Assad instead enlisted the military assistance of both Russia and Iran.

If the U.S. truly respected international law, they would not be withdrawing troops from Libya and Syria, because they should never have been deployed there in the first place.

The NATO cheerleaders and apologists pride themselves on claiming that we, as alliance members, are part of a ‘rules-based international order.’ This, they tell us, is what sets us apart from rogue states like Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Pakistan, etc. who simply play by their own set of rules.

If the true rule of the jungle is that ‘might is right’ then let’s start being honest with ourselves and quit the hypocritical moral posturing.

Rules are only for the weak.

ON TARGET: Beards And Bare Legs: This Ain't Grandpa's Army

By Scott Taylor

In an attempt to boost recruitment and to shore up retention, the Canadian Armed Forces have recently made several changes to regulations regarding the dress and deportment of uniformed personnel.

First, it was allowing male service members to grow beards. Previously it was only sailors on shore duties and in the pioneer section in infantry regiments that were allowed to grow facial hair. However, during the lengthy deployment in Afghanistan Canadian Special Forces operatives began sporting beards, and the ‘cool factor’ generated by these elite commandos led to the practice being authorized in theatre for all frontline soldiers as a cultural recognition for local Afghan custom.

This trend continued among Canadian Special Forces operatives when they deployed to northern Iraq in 2014, and continues to this day despite the fact that the vast majority of Iraqi males are clean-shaven. But I digress.

The fact is that among Canadian servicemen it has become cool to grow a beard, and it coincides with the current hipster wave in Canadian society. To boost morale among those already in uniform and to entice hipster recruits to join, the rules have now been changed.

In situations where personnel require the use of gas masks, obviously common sense will prevail.

Last week it was reported that female service members would be allowed to wear their hair in a ponytail. Previous regulations required any hair hanging below the shirt collar to be either braided or worn up in a bun.

Again, it is assumed that in cases where dangling hair could be caught in machinery, practicality will dictate the hairstyle.

The CAF also made it permissible for female personnel to go bare legged on extremely hot days. Under the previous regulations, nylons were required to be worn at work at all times, regardless of the temperature and resultant discomfort.

An allowance has also been made in the case of female footwear, wherein personnel are now authorized to wear flats, rather than the previously specified 5 cm heels. The one exception to this remains the prohibited wearing of ballerina style shoes.

Again the stated intention of making these dress code amendments is to improve the morale of the currently serving women, and to make the military a more attractive career option for the younger generation of female recruits.

When you throw in the recently revised policies recognizing the legalization of marijuana and the resultant new regulations concerning its use for CAF members, it is safe to say this is no longer your grandfather’s armed forces.

I dare say that it is a slippery slope once you start making allowances to accommodate individual tastes in an institution that’s core value is disciplined conformity.

Not that I believe we should remain tied to tradition. Were that the case, the CAF would still be flogging soldiers lashed to cannon wheels.

The U.S. is facing a similar crunch in terms of maintaining their military manpower levels, due to widespread disinterest in the current generation to embark upon a martial career. In an effort to get recruits in the door, the U.S. has begun to offer signing bonuses of up to US$40,000, as well as incentives to pay off student loan debts. Last year the Pentagon spent a whopping US$600 million on signing bonuses, along with US$1.6 billion on recruiting.

For the first time in history, even the U.S. Marine Corps has had to start enticing recruits with cash incentives. More alarmingly, since 2017 the Marine Corps has had to reduce its minimum admission standards and offer 25% more medical, mental health, recreational drug and misconduct waivers just to meet their minimum manning levels.

Canada led the way down this path when they set the basic fitness recruitment to zero back in 2006. That’s right folks, even if you cannot perform a single sit-up, you can still enlist in the CAF. The premise for this is that, should you desire a career in uniform, they will invest the time and energy required to get you into shape prior to beginning basic training. We also upped the maximum age for recruits to 57 years. As long as you can still fulfill a three-year basic engagement before the mandatory retirement age of 60, you can join the CAF.

I still believe that the Canadian military is not just among the best in the world – it is the best in the world. However, I fear that if we change our recruiting ideology from the ‘be all that you can be’ to ‘be what you want to be’ we will soon lose that edge.

People won’t join or stay in the Forces just because they can grow a beard, wear a ponytail and smoke dope. However, belonging to an elite, professional military formation should generate its own positive morale boost.

ON TARGET: NATO's Not So Stellar History

By Scott Taylor

This past week there was much back patting and harrumphs of self-congratulation from the self-appointed cheerleaders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The reason for this latest round of celebration is that the venerable old military alliance turned 70 on April 4.

On that date in 1949, Canada along with the eleven other original members, signed a collective defence agreement aimed at deterring Soviet Union aggression into Western Europe.

In the interest of full disclosure I volunteered to serve in the Canadian Military during the Cold War and I am proud to wear my NATO service medal on formal occasions.

That said, the primary objective of NATO – the containment of the Soviets – was achieved in 1990 when the Soviet Union imploded through an economic collapse of the communist system. Despite this essentially bloodless victory over the collective nemesis, NATO not only continued to exist as a military alliance, it has also continued to steadily increase its membership.

There are now 29 full-fledged member nations in NATO with a combined annual defence expenditure well in excess of $1 trillion (USD).

To put this in perspective, the Putin regime of Russian aggressors spends around $68 billion annually on its defence forces, which is less than one-sixteenth of what NATO spends to defend itself.

If we look at the NATO alliance’s track record, we certainly can list the Cold War in the ‘win’ column.

However, over the past seven decades NATO has had a less than stellar record as a purveyor of world peace.

In 1956 there was the Suez Crisis wherein two NATO members – Britain and France invaded Egypt and pushed the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon. The situation was defused by Canada – a third NATO member – when Prime Minister Lester Pearson created the concept of a United Nations Peacekeeping force.

Turkey and Greece – both NATO members – clashed on the Island of Cyprus in 1974. That still simmering dispute remains a powder keg to this day with opposing forces separated and monitored by UN Peacekeeping troops.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO felt confident enough to use its military might to redraw the map of Europe. In 1995, NATO used airstrikes to intervene in the bloody civil war in Bosnia. By bombing in support of Croatian and Bosnian Muslim forces, the Bosnian Serbs were forced to accept the Dayton Accord Peace proposal. NATO cheerleaders claim this to be a victorious campaign to end a war. Fair enough.

However, then we had the 1999, 78-day NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in support of Albanian separatists in the autonomous region of Kosovo.  

This military air-assault, followed by NATO’s occupation of Serbian sovereign territory, led to the 2008 unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo. Despite the NATO leadership’s best intentions, to date Kosovo remains anything but independent.

At present only 102 countries recognize Kosovo as a state with 93 still regarding this to be a Serbian province. As such, Kosovo cannot be admitted into the UN, or the European Union. It has the poorest economy in Europe, the highest rate of unemployment and not surprisingly the highest crime rate.

The long suffering Serbian minority reside in enclaves protected by E.U. troops, and the massive U.S. military base known as Camp Bondsteel serves to house illegal combatants deemed to be enemies of American interests.

In other words, the NATO bombing of Serbia did not produce a positive result. Far from it.

The next major effort for the NATO alliance began in 2002 when the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was established to rebuild Afghanistan. Seventeen years later, the NATO led ISAF has yet to come close to fulfilling its objective.

For twelve of those years, Canadian troops - some 30,000 in total – deployed as a party of ISAF to prop up the puppet regime, which the U.S. had installed in Kabul.

In theatre, Canada lost 158 soldiers killed, 2,000 (+) wounded or physically injured, and countless others inflicted with the invisible wounds of PTSD. In a new report released earlier this month the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan (SIGAR) cites the NATO trained Afghan security forces as one of the major threats to achieving peace in that country.

According to SIGAR, Afghanistan cannot afford to maintain the 300,000(+) soldiers currently on payroll. These armed individuals would pose a “serious threat to Afghanistan’s stability” should the international community stop funding their pay-cheques. Are we to seriously believe that after seventeen years committed to this conflict, no one at NATO saw this coming?

In the case of Libya in 2011, NATO happily launched an air campaign to help the Libyan rebels oust Moammar Gadafi.

Unlike Afghanistan, in the post-Gadafi celebrations, NATO never even bothered to install a puppet regime. Instead we simply let Libya collapse into a failed state, awash in violent anarchy.

Presently Canada is leading a NATO training mission in Iraq. One of the oft-repeated quips as to why NATO in general and Canada in particular are taking on this task is because of the success we had in Afghanistan. Again, does nobody read the SIGAR reports?

Ah well, NATO did win the Cold War. I’ll drink to that.

ON TARGET: Is The Omar Khadr Case Finally Closed?

By Scott Taylor

On Monday, March 25, an Alberta judge ruled that convicted war criminal Omar Khadr has completed his eight-year sentence.

The final four years of Khadr’s sentence were served on conditional release in Edmonton.

When Court of Queen’s bench, Chief Justice Mary Moreau gave her ruling, which pronounced Kadr’s punishment completed, she ignited the powder keg of polemic emotions that have shrouded this young man’s controversial case for a decade and a half.

For many Canadians, Omar Khadr deserves no pity. For those in the ‘hang ‘em high’ camp, Khadr fought in Afghanistan as an Islamic extremist, with links to al-Qaeda. He was captured following a firefight in Afghanistan in July 2002, by U.S. Special Forces. During that skirmish Khadr committed a war crime when he threw a grenade that killed U.S. Army Sergeant Christopher Speer. At the scene of the battle, the U.S. Military found a video depicting Khadr being instructed on how to build an Improvised Explosive Device (IED).

Khadr is a Canadian citizen, and since Canadian soldiers fought alongside American troop inside Afghanistan, he is a traitor. The fact that the vast majority of Canada’s 158 soldiers killed and 2,000 wounded during our twelve year deployment to Afghanistan were the result of IED’s makes Khadr’s treason all the more despicable in the eyes of his haters.

This is why it is important to remove the emotion from the Khadr equation and to analyze the actual facts of the case.

Yes, Khadr was born in Canada to immigrant parents from Egypt and Palestine. His father, Ahmed was an Islamic extremist with ties to al-Qaeda. Without question, Omar would have grown up in a household wherein he was indoctrinated by his father’s Islamic fundamentalist teachings.

That said, at the time of the 2002 firefight Omar was only 15 years of age. He was a boy in a war zone, and that can only be blamed on the father.

As a former soldier myself, I have always found it strange in the extreme that the U.S. authorities would have charged young Khadr with “murder in violation of the laws of war.”

The circumstances surrounding the July 22, 2002 battle in the eastern Afghanistan village of Ayub Kheyl was not even a surprise ambush. In fact, the U.S. Special Forces had surrounded the village knowing it contained Taliban and other foreign fighters. The collection of huts were engaged by  U.S. Apache helicopter gunships and A-10 Warthog attack aircraft which dropped multiple 225 kilogram bombs.

It was the final stages of this combat, as the U.S. commandos were mopping up, that the grenade was thrown, which took the life of Speers. There is no eyewitness testimony claiming Khadr threw that deadly projectile, but he was the only enemy fighter captured alive. Barely so at that. Khadr was shot three times in the chest and only survived thanks to the skill and professionalism of the U.S. Army medics.

I’m thoroughly baffled as to how killing an enemy soldier in battle constitutes ‘murder’. Especially when the ‘murderer’ was himself a fifteen-year old boy who was grievously wounded in the firefight.

Following his capture, Khadr was detained in the notorious Guantanamo Bay prison at the U.S. base in Cuba.

Despite the fact that he is a Canadian citizen, and a minor in the eyes of the law at the time of infraction, the U.S. considered him and “illegal combatant”.

As such, he was not afforded the basic rights of a recognized Prisoner of War as defined by the Geneva Convention, nor those legal rights afforded to the U.S. citizens charged under the Criminal Code.

In 2010, eight years into his custody in Guantanamo Bay, Khadr plead guilty to the war crime charges as part of a plea bargain that would ultimately repatriate him to Canada.

It is worth noting that at the same juncture, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a Canadian Intelligence interrogation of Khadr while he was in custody at Guantanamo “offended the most basic Canadian standards of treatment of detained youth suspects”.

It was the gist of that ruling which resulted in Khadr’s successful lawsuit against the Canadian government for their failure to protect his rights as a Canadian citizen.

In 2017, Canada agreed to pay Khadr $10.5 million in compensation for his suffering at the hands of the U.S. authorities.

This payout generated howls of indignation from Canadian veteran’s groups and their supporters who pointed out the discrepancy in payments made to the families of those soldiers killed in Afghanistan.

The lump sum death benefit for a Canadian soldier killed an active duty is only $400,000.

In my opinion this is a valid argument, but on the flip side what dollar value would you put on the lost youth of a fifteen year old boy soldier who was first victimized by his radicalized father, then tortured and abused by the U.S. Military, and ultimately – according to the Supreme Court of Canada – neglected by his own government?

According to a Utah State Court ruling, Tabitha Speer, Christopher Speer’s widow is entitled to $134 million (USD) from Omar Khadr as compensation for her husband’s ‘murder’.

In an unrelated observation, last year boxer Floyd Mayweather made $285 million (USD) for a single fight. Just a reminder that life is not always fair – nor equitable.

ON TARGET: Canada Strongly Condemns Latvian Glorification of Nazis

By Scott Taylor

On Saturday, March 16, Canadians were still coming to grips with the shocking news of a terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand. A white supremacist had gunned down 100 Muslims – 50 killed and 50 wounded – at two separate Mosques during the Friday prayers. The extremist responsible for this massacre - (and like New Zealand Prime Minister Janica Ardern, I refuse to grant him the notoriety he craves by naming him here) - published a 74-page manifesto outlining his right-wing racist views.

The international community was quick to condemn this slaughter of innocents as an act of terrorism. This monstrous act also served to highlight the growing threat stemming from the rise in alt-right, neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic groups around the world.

The Christchurch terrorist himself made a direct link to Canada by lionizing the Quebec City Mosque murder rampage conducted by 28-year old Alexandre Bissonnette on January 29, 2017.

It was indeed a sobering reminder that terrorists come in all colours and from all walks of life.

In stark contrast to this grim reality, mere hours after the Christchurch shootings, over a thousand people marched through the streets of Riga, Latvia to commemorate Hitler’s WWII SS Latvian Legion.

This controversial annual parade to celebrate perpetrators of the Holocaust has taken place since 1990, when Latvia gained independence from the Soviet Union. In 1998 this event was declared the official Day of Remembrance by the Latvian government. Not surprisingly, such a blatant glorification of Nazi’s drew a stern rebuke from the European Union, and in 2000, the SS Latvian Legion parades were once again made “unofficial”. Nevertheless they are allowed to continue. Photographs and videos from this year’s parade – one of the biggest in recent history – show several marchers sporting swastikas on their arms.

Latvian diehard nationalists who defend these parades claim that these Swastikas are in fact the Cross of Thunder, an ancient Central Asian symbol.

Nice try. Since WWII and the adoption of the Swastika by Adolph Hitler’s Nazis, we all know what this symbol has come to stand for.

Many of the SS Latvian Legion apologists argue that this particular military unit was not directly involved in Hitler’s Final Solution to exterminate the Jews.

This is a bit of a moot point as the 27,000 Jews in Latvia were slaughtered in 1941 and 1942 by a Latvian militia known as the Arajs Kommando.

By the time SS leader Heinrich Himmler formed the SS Latvian Legion in 1943, Latvia had been proclaimed “Juden Frei” or “free of Jews” by Hitler’s Third Reich.

The central core of the new SS Latvian Legion was none other than the killers of the Arajs Kommando. That Kommando included a bloodthirsty anti-Semitic officer named Herberts Cukurs, who Holocaust survivors directly link to the murder of Jews.

Latvian supporters of the SS Legion make the point that many members of these two combat divisions – 120,000 personnel in total – were forcibly conscripted by the Germans. That is a historical fact, which is not in dispute.

However, I will argue that if you were forced to wear an SS uniform against your will during WWII, it is unlikely that you would dig it out of your clothes closet to proudly wear it down the streets of Riga 45 years later.

No, those SS Latvian Legion veterans who participate in the parades in ever dwindling numbers were the hardcore SS volunteers.

One argument offered by Latvia’s apologists for their glorification of a Nazi unit is that it is a commemoration of the sacrifice they made. The problem with that logic is that November 11 remains the official national day of remembrance in Latvia, wherein all fallen warriors are grieved.

Needless to say, B’Nai Brith were never fooled by the obfuscation and distortion of history offered up by those Latvians who have so actively sought to re-write history.

Last July 4, B’Nai Brith Canada wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Trudeau on the eve of his visit to Latvia, urging him to condemn these annual parades.

This sentiment was repeated by a Sun newspaper editorial penned by B’Nai Brith President Micheal Mostyn on March 15, 2019 just ahead of this year’s parade.

Well, lo and behold, Global Affairs Canada has now issued a formal condemnation to Latvia.

“Canada is strongly opposed to the glorification of Nazism, and all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, intolerance and extremism”, stated Amy Mills, spokesperson for Global Affairs Canada. “This is why we condemn the parade to commemorate the Latvian SS Brigade [sic] held in Latvia on March 16th”.

Canada currently has 540 troops stationed in Latvia with the stated mission to protect our NATO partner from Russian aggression and to protect our shared values.

Turns out we don’t share the same viewpoint as Latvia when it comes to glorifying Hitler’s SS. Let’s hope that Canada follows through with the discussions intended to develop what Mills said will be a more “inclusive Latvia”.

ON TARGET: SNC Lavalin Bribery Allegations are Dwarfed by the fact Canada Helped to Destroy Libya in 2011

By Scott Taylor

Almost lost in the current media storm surrounding the resignation of former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould, sparked by allegations that she faced political pressure from Prime Minister Trudeau’s office, is the timeline of events surrounding the original infraction.

Yes, we are all aware that Quebec based engineering giant SNC-Lavalin was lobbying Trudeau’s inner circle hard in order to secure a deferred prosecution agreement, rather than face a possible criminal conviction for bribery charges.

In turn Wilson-Raybould has testified before the Commons Justice committee that Trudeau’s Principal Secretary Gerald Butts, and Chief Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick pressured her on this file. Their argument was that a criminal conviction in court would preclude SNC-Lavalin from bidding on future Federal government tenders. Should that occur, SNC-Lavalin executives had suggested they would fold up their headquarters tent in Montreal, and some 9000 skilled jobs would vanish from the Canadian landscape. This would of course not sit well with voters in an election year.

The recent allegations of attempted political interference in this case have made this a decidedly Liberal Party scandal, with the Conservative opposition circulating petitions urging Trudeau to resign.

Upon closer examination however, the actual accusations of SNC-Lavalin having bribed their way into lucrative Libyan construction contracts spans the period of 2001 to 2011. During that decade it is alleged that SNC-Lavalin representatives paid an estimated $48 million in bribes to members of the Gaddafi family.

During a 2008 visit to Canada it is believed that Garda World was hired by SNC-Lavalin to protect Saadi Gaddafi, the former Libyan President’s third eldest son. That protection by Garda is alleged to have included some $30,000 worth of prostitutes and some tickets to a Spice Girls concert.

The timeframe also puts this sordid affair back onto the Harper Conservatives. Fast forward to the Spring of 2011 and the start of the Libyan uprising. At that juncture, no doubt thanks in part to the $48 million in palm grease paid to the Gaddafi family, SNC-Lavalin had secured billions of dollars’ worth of construction in Libya. Heck, they were even in the process of building a big new jail for the very President we were now labeling as a bloodthirsty despot.

Foreign Affairs minister John Baird was among the loudest and most bellicose of western voices demanding that ‘Gaddafi must go!’.

To help make that happen, Canada was among the first countries to participate in the NATO air campaign aimed at destroying the Gaddafi loyalist forces.

It took a hell of a lot longer than anyone would have imagined for the world’s most sophisticated air armada to defeat a fourth-rate African army, but by early October 2011, the end was clearly nigh. The last of the Gaddafi loyalists were contained alongside their embattled leader in the town of Sirte.

On 11 October, 2011, a full nine days before Libyan rebels would capture and murder Gaddafi, Baird made a secret visit into the rebel held Libyan capital of Tripoli. During that whirlwind trip Baird met with and praised several of the Libyan rebel leaders and he announced Canada’s commitment of $10 million to secure Libyan weapons once the war was finally won.

Travelling with Baird were a number of Canadian business executives, including representatives from SNC-Lavalin, eager to start a new round of lucrative Libyan projects under the new post-Gaddafi leaders. Keep in mind that at this point Gaddafi was still alive and fighting.

So, if we are to believe that paying bribes to corrupt third world leaders in order to obtain contracts is criminal nature, how do we define using military force to effect regime change, and then bringing in the carpet-baggers to profit from the puppet regime which we installed next?

The only problem with the Libyan caper was that Baird and company failed to listen to Ambassador Sandra McCardell. She was with Baird in Tripoli as he used that same visit to reopen our Embassy.

Her prophetic statement to the Canadian Press at that time was that getting the guns out of the hands of young, heavily armed rebels would be the best way for Canada to contribute to Libya’s post-Gaddafi reconstruction. That’s right, the best way to help Libya would be for us to disarm the rebels we had armed.

Baird never did say just how his $10 million pledged funding would actually secure the Libyan arsenals, but suffice it to say whatever he had planned, failed miserably.

Once Gaddafi was dead, the various rebel groups, Islamic extremists, human traffickers and tribal thugs began fighting among themselves. Libya quickly plunged into a failed state of violent anarchy, where it remains to this date.

The Trudeau Liberals tried to avoid a possible criminal conviction for SNC-Lavalin’s alleged bribery. That’s bad.

Canada, along with the U.S., UK and France toppled a dictator and destroyed Libya. That’s worse.

ON TARGET: The Vice-Admiral Mark Norman Saga Continues Unabated

By Scott Taylor

It is interesting to compare the very different circumstances surrounding the two individuals at the centre of the current political scandals in Ottawa. I’m referring, of course, to former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould and Vice Admiral Mark Norman.

In terms of similarities, both cases begin with information being leaked to the media. They also stem from allegations that major corporations were attempting to use their political clout with the Trudeau Liberals to influence key government decisions.

In the Norman case, it is alleged that the admiral breached trust by leaking news to the CBC that Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax was trying to scuttle a contract with Davie Shipbuilding of Quebec to build an interim supply ship for the navy.

The original $700 million deal had been agreed to by the Harper Conservatives, but following the Liberal election victory of October 2015, newly-minted Treasury Board President Scott Brison allegedly suggested to Cabinet that perhaps the Davie deal be revisited. When the news broke of this possible reversal, Davie reminded the Trudeau government that they had a stiff cancellation fee clause in the contract, and Navy planners reminded their political masters of the urgent necessity for a supply ship. Subsequently, there was no attempt to cancel the Davie deal.

For the Canadian public and the sailors of the RCN, the decision to proceed with the interim supply ship deal has proven itself to be a major success. The MV Asterix was delivered to the RCN on budget, and on time, and has just completed 14 months of operational service.

As for Vice Admiral Norman, things have not gone so swimmingly. Stung by the embarrassment of the alleged leak, Privy Council Office called upon the RCMP to investigate the source.

In January 2017, Chief of Defence Staff General Jonathan Vance publicly announced that Norman was suspended from his post as Canada’s Vice Chief of Defence Staff.

The announcement was made without providing the media with any context, and thus Norman ended up being the unfair recipient of wild speculation by many pundits. The good admiral was accused of everything from being a sexual abuser to a treasonous spy. Mercifully, albeit ten days later, official word was disseminated that the alleged wrong-doing involved the leak of information regarding a civilian contract.

It would take a full year of RCMP probing before Norman was formally charged with a single count of Breach of Trust.

The kicker to all this came when Norman sought financial assistance from DND for his mounting legal bills. In 2017, that request was denied because, according to a Justice Department letter leaked to my colleague David Pugliese of the Ottawa Citizen, Norman was guilty of disclosing confidential information. Keep in mind, this denial of legal financial assistance due to the accused’s preconceived “guilt” came even before Norman had been formally charged with any crime.

To put this in even clearer perspective; in the past two years, there have been a total of 25 requests by military personnel for legal fee assistance. Of that number, only Norman and two others have been denied.

Now, getting back to the Wilson-Raybould saga, this too started with a leak to the media. According to Robert Fife’s breaking story in the Globe and Mail, two unnamed sources from inside Wilson-Raybould’s office alleged that the former Attorney General had been inappropriately pressured by the Prime Minister’s Office. The crux of the matter was the PMO’s desire to stave off a possible criminal prosecution for the engineering firm SNC Lavalin. The charges of bribery date back to 2008 when SNC Lavalin officials allegedly procured hookers and Spice Girls tickets for the son of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddaffi. According to those unnamed sources, and subsequently through Wilson-Raybould’s own testimony before the Justice Committee, the PMO wanted her to suspend the pursuit of a criminal conviction in favour of a ‘deferred prosecution agreement’, (DPA). Such a deal would allow SNC Lavalin to plead guilty and pay a fine, but avoid a conviction record and thereby continue to qualify as a bidder on federal government contracts. Wilson-Raybould instead stood her ground and was subsequently shuffled out of the Attorney General’s office.

The final decision on SNC Lavalin’s legal fate has yet to be determined, but Wilson-Raybould’s revelations have already badly shaken the senior ranks of Trudeau’s government. Not surprisingly, two of her primary alleged protagonists, Trudeaus’ former Principal Secretary Gerald Butts and Chief Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick, are being singled out as key obstructionists in the Norman case.

In fact, the same morning that the recently resigned Butts was testifying at the Justice Committee in rebuttal to Wilson-Raybould’s allegations, Norman’s lawyer, Marie Henein was issuing an ultimatum to both Butts and Wernick. She has demanded that they either produce the documents and phone records that were subpoenaed by her last month, or she will call upon the two men to testify in open court.

In the meantime, Norman remains suspended, pronounced guilty by his own department in advance of his trial and thereby denied assistance for his steadily mounting legal costs. Did I mention that the MV Asterix project is a complete success and is currently providing yeoman’s service to the RCN?

To date I have not heard any mention of an investigation into who breached Cabinet confidence in the Wilson-Raybould story. In terms of relative damage, I would think that the Wilson-Raybould revelation was far more destructive.

So, why continue to scapegoat Norman?

ON TARGET: SNC-Lavalin allegedly offered bribes in Libya in 2008. The real crime was NATO destroying that Country in 2011.

By Scott Taylor

In the wake of astonishing testimony by Jody Wilson-Raybould at the February 27 Commons Justice committee hearing, there has been plenty of finger pointing and howls of indignation leveled at the Prime Minister and his senior officials.

As a result of the increased scrutiny, we are now aware of many of the more sordid details of the alleged bribery, at the centre of this burgeoning scandal. According to media reports, back in 2008, Saadi Gaddafi, the third son of the late Libyan President, came to Canada as a guest of SNC-Lavalin. The Quebec based engineering corporation was seeking to curry favour with Gaddafi the younger in order to land lucrative construction contracts in Libya worth millions of dollars.

Hired to protect Saadi during his stay was GardaWorld, but the services actually provided went far beyond close-in protection. It is alleged that Garda submitted bills to SNC-Lavalin totaling approximately $30,000 for debauchery ranging from high-class escorts, to tickets for a Spice Girls concert.

It was for the provision of such bribes that SNC-Lavalin faced criminal charges, which if convicted, would preclude this crown jewel corporation from bidding on any future Federal infrastructure programs.

Such a result would lead to a potential loss of jobs and even a relocation of SNC-Lavalin’s headquarters outside of Canada.

Thus, if we are to believe the frank testimony of Wilson-Raybould, Justin Trudeau and his top officials attempted to pressure the Attorney General into resolving this through a deferred prosecution arrangement: SNC-Lavalin pleads guilty, pays a fine and the criminal conviction is stayed.

While I applaud Wilson-Raybould’s courage and determination in standing her ground to preserve the independence of Canada’s judiciary system, I find it incredible that everyone involved in this saga seems to have lost sight of the Libyan elephant in the room.

Canadian corporations should not bribe foreign officials with prostitutes and Spice-Girl concerts to obtain contracts. That is sleazy business practice, which has no place in Canada, which prides itself as being part of the rules-based international order. So far, so good.

If found guilty, then SNC-Lavalin should suffer the forfeiture of future federal contracts. This would not eliminate jobs per se, but rather direct those same engineers and tradespersons to corporations that don’t gift prostitutes to foreign clients.

However, if we want to re-visit Libya and the Gaddafi family and start handing out punishment for indiscretions, we might find ourselves in a bit of a bind.

Canada took great pride in the fact that we led the NATO effort to effect regime change in Libya in 2011. The approved United Nations Resolution 1973 only authorized NATO to enforce a no-fly zone over the skies of Libya to prevent Gaddafi from bombing the Libyan rebels.

Led by Canadian Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard, the NATO Commanders jokingly boasted that they were in fact enforcing a ‘no-drive’ zone so that they could openly bomb Gaddafi’s troops on the ground.

We also armed the Libyan rebels in violation of the UN arms embargo, and it soon became apparent that the anti- Gaddafi rebels included more than a few unsavoury characters.

Far from being the democracy loving freedom fighters we wanted to assist, the rebels were a murderous collection of Islamic extremists (including al-Qaeda), human traffickers, and other criminals.

It was impossible to hide the true character of the rebels when their first act of victory was to film themselves brutally beating the 69 year-old Gaddafi to death on the streets of Sirte on October 20, 2011.

Following Gaddafi’s death, Canada and the rest of the NATO alliance turned their back on the Libyan people and simply proclaimed “victory”.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper was so overjoyed with Canada’s defeat of Libya that he staged a lavish victory parade on Parliament Hill, and bestowed the Order of Canada on General Bouchard.

Back in Libya, the fighting never stopped. That once prosperous nation devolved immediately into a failed state. The various militia groups refused to disband and instead established their own fiefdoms. At present, there are no fewer than three rival Libyan governments – all impotent – and an estimated 300 different militia factions in a country with fewer than 6 million citizens.

In terms of widening the crisis, in 2012, Taureg fighters armed from the unsecured Libyan arsenals, allied themselves with al-Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) to seize a vast swath of northern Mali. This brings us full circle to the current deployment of 200 Canadian military personnel to support the U.N. mission in Mali, which saw its origins in the fiasco we created by deposing Gaddafi in Libya.

So yes, let’s punish SNC-Lavalin if guilty of providing bribes to the Gaddafi family. But let’s also establish a full parliamentary inquiry to hold accountable those Canadian officials who participated in the 2011 destruction of Libya.

That’s the real crime.

ON TARGET: Why Is Canada Leading The Charge For Regime Change In Venezuela

By Scott Taylor

I must say that I find it quite disturbing that Canada has positioned itself at the forefront of what appears to be an imminent regime change in Venezuela. I say this not because I am a supporter of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, but rather because I consider myself a proud Canadian.

We were born out of a British colony and as such we do not have imperial legacies like those of the U.K. and France. We are also not a military superpower like the U.S., Russia, or China and we rightfully condemn all three of these nations when they flex their martial might to expand their territory or invade sovereign states.

That is what makes the actions of Global Affairs minister Chrystia Freeland so troubling. As the co-chair of the Lima Group – which is essentially a subset of the Organization of American States (OAS), and is comprised of a total of 14 North, South and Central American countries – Freeland held a meeting in Ottawa on February 4th.

The consensus from this Lima Group summit was that Juan Guaidó must be recognized as the interim President of Venezuela. The basis for Guaidó to claim top office is lodged on a clause in the Venezuelan constitution that in the event of a power vacuum created by a vacant presidency of the country, the President of the National Assembly is to act as interim President.

That all sounds good, but the vacuum they described remains filled with the bulky frame and a very much alive and defiant Nicolas Maduro.

The Lima Group’s stated support for that of the 35-year-old Guaidó was quickly echoed by the U.S. State Department. A bit of a stumbling block to our choice of Guaidó is the fact that the Venezuelan military is still loyal to Maduro.

Technically, Maduro won the Presidential elections last May in what were admittedly dubious circumstances. The opposition boycotted the polls and much of the international community - including Canada - denounced the results as fraudulent. That said, Canada had no problem accepting the failed results of no less than three farcical Presidential elections, which the U.S. staged in Afghanistan.

When no result could be verified, we simply stuck with the puppet of choice and sent in our soldiers to prop up the corrupt Afghan regime in Kabul. In the case of Venezuela, Maduro can still count on the support of his own troops – for now. 

Canada has led the chorus of the international voices calling upon Venezuelan troops to switch their allegiance to Guaidó, because he is the man of our choosing.

We have been told repeatedly that the Russians rigged the U.S. election, which made Donald Trump great again. Despite this, no one could imagine a scenario where a Freeland-led Lima Group announces that we recognize Bernie Sanders as the interim U.S. President, and we urge the U.S. service members to disavow their oath of allegiance to the Commander-in-Chief.

For the record, Guaidó, like Sanders, never ran in a Presidential election and was only named President of the National Assembly on January 5th. In other words, just in time to declare himself the interim President. Members of Venezuela’s National Assembly were not elected through a national vote, but rather by regional committees.

Again, I am not stating any implied support for Maduro, and history may yet prove that Guaidó is the answer to the Venezuelan’s problems. The question remains why Canada feels it must take the lead on this?

On January 29th, U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton publically stated that things will be better off for all involved once U.S. oil companies are back in Venezuela.

It is true that Venezuela has the largest proven and unproven reserves of oil, and the sixth largest reserves of natural gas. Prior to the current crisis, Venezuela was pumping over 3 million barrels per day, and in the period following the U.S. invasion of Iraq (2003-2004) oil was trading at well over $100 USD a barrel.

The plummet in oil prices certainly crippled Venezuela’s economy but so too did the U.S. ban on Venezuela importing the diluent chemicals necessary to thin the viscosity of the thick Venezuelan oil. Without this diluting agent, Venezuela is now producing barely 1.5 million barrels per day.

The standard written media line on Venezuela’s present bankruptcy is that Maduro’s regime is a kleptocracy and that their over ambitious social programs to alleviate poverty have bankrupted the treasury.

Whatever the reality, this is not something Canada should be entering into with the same old shop-worn cliché that we are doing this for the Venezuelan people.

Carrying the humanitarian torch on high seems a tad hypocritical when it aligns us in this case with the ultra-right nationalist government of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. It also runs counter to Bolton’s honest admission that all will be well again once the U.S. companies set that oil flowing again.

All hail Juan Guaidó!

ON TARGET: Holocaust Horrors Must Never Be Forgotten

By Scott Taylor

Just prior to the January 29 International Holocaust Remembrance Day commemorations, a shocking study was released which revealed that nearly half of Canadian’s cannot name a single Nazi concentration camp. 

Commissioned by the Azrieli foundation and conducted by Schoen consulting, the study was based on over 1,100 interviews of randomly selected individuals to reflect Canada’s diverse demographics.

According to the findings, millennials or those adults aged 18 aged 34 were the most un-informed regarding even the basic details of Hitler’s Holocaust.

In their January 24th story about this study, the New York Times noted that when Canada inaugurated its first National Holocaust Memorial in Ottawa in 2017, the plaque somehow omitted any mention of Jews or anti-Semitism. Following public outrage, that plaque has since been replaced with one more accurately reflecting the victims of the Holocaust.

It is this ignorance of the horrors of the Holocaust that is allowing for a rise in neo-Nazism across Canada. It is estimated that there are currently as many as 300 such hate based groups operating in our country.

In mid-January, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale issued an appeal to high-tech firms to aid authorities in halting the online activities of these right wing, anti-Semitic factions.

Ignorance of the Holocaust is also allowing for many deniers to re-write history, a trend which is taking place in many European countries, often with official sanction.

One refreshing counter to this deliberate historical revision came out last week in the form of an official announcement by the Government of Finland. After an appeal to Finland’s President by an Israeli historian, a study was conducted to examine the role of Finnish volunteers in the Nazi Waffen SS during WWII.

The recently published results conclude that the 1,408 Finns who volunteered and fought as part of the 5th Panzer Division Wiking were indeed implicated in the slaughter of Jews, thus making them perpetrators of the Holocaust. This was a brave move by the Finnish Government, as these wartime SS volunteers had previously only been considered frontline soldiers, albeit allied with Adolf Hitler.

In stark contrast to the Finnish position, is that of the Ukrainian government’s celebration of Stepan Bandera. During WWII, Bandera was a Nazi collaborator who’s Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) participated in the mass execution of thousands of Jews in 1941. Bandera later fought against both the Germans and the Soviets in his quest for an independent Ukraine. He is now being revered for his efforts to create a nation, with streets named after him, his birthday declared a national holiday, and in his hometown of Lvov, 2019 has been declared the ‘Year of Stepan Bandera.’ 

In a recent scuffle between Ukrainian police and right-wing demonstrators in Kiev, one officer was caught on video shouting “On the ground, Banderite!” as he apprehended a rioter. Banderite is the name used to describe Bandera’s followers. The policeman’s use of the term as a derogatory slur caused an angry backlash across western Ukraine. In response the police chief announced that the officer in question would be disciplined, and then proclaimed himself to be a Banderite. This prompted the Minister of the Interior to follow suit and also proclaim his public support for Bandera.

Whatever Bandera did for Ukrainian nationhood cannot be allowed to erase the fact that he was a rabid anti-Semite who slaughtered Jews. Canada currently has approximately 200 military trainers based in Ukraine and according to the stated rationale for our military assistance is to help Ukraine defend our common values from Russian aggression. 

Surely that does not allow us to turn a blind eye to such very public celebrations of a man who slaughtered Jews? 

Similarly, we have over 500 combat soldiers based in Latvia and next month, on March 16, there will be a parade to honour those Latvians who fought in Hitler’s SS Latvian Legion.

A group known as the Arajs Commando formed the core element of this SS Unit. The Arajs Commando is credited with exterminating the Jewish population of Latvia to such an extent that by 1942 SS leader Heinrich Himmler pronounced the country “Juden frei”  (Jew free).

As that recent study clearly shows, far too many Canadians know far too little about the Holocaust. How else can one explain allowing our allies to stage parades and name streets after perpetrators of the worst crime ever committed against humanity?

ON TARGET: "Taliban Jack" Layton Had The Right Idea After all

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Jack_Layton_at_Kensington_Village.jpg

By Scott Taylor

Way back in 2005, when Canadian soldiers suddenly found themselves engaged in combat in Afghanistan with a resurgent Taliban, former NDP leader Jack Layton questioned why we wouldn’t try to negotiate with this resistance force.

At the time, the newly elected Harper Conservatives were at their bellicose best, insisting that Canada would not “cut and run” from a fight. The media quickly began beating the war drums, and Layton was pilloried soundly and given the moniker “Taliban Jack.”

Fourteen years have passed since then, Layton is deceased, Canada did finally cut and run in 2014, and a revitalized Taliban now controls or threatens up to 70% of Afghanistan’s territory.

Most importantly, the U.S. is now doing what Layton had suggested: They are attempting to negotiate with the Taliban. 

After talks in Qatar and Moscow between senior Taliban leaders and the newly appointed U.S. Special Peace Envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, it was announced that the two sides have cobbled together the framework of an agreement. The essential platform in this pathway to peace is that the U.S. will agree to a full withdrawal of troops as per Donald Trump’s stated objective – in exchange for a promise from the Taliban to never again harbour a terrorist entity such as al-Qaeda. 

Given that the Osama bin Laden directed 9-11 attacks on the Twin-Towers in 2001 which were likely conducted without the knowledge of, and certainly without the blessing of his Taliban Afghan hosts, this seems an easy request for the Taliban to fulfill. 

It is interesting to note that no representatives of the current Afghan regime were present at the talks in either Qatar or Moscow. This would appear to indicate that the U.S. is now prepared to walk away from what was arguably the most corrupt political cabal on the planet. Without U.S. military force to prop them up, President Ashraf Ghani, Chief Executive Officer (read co-President), Abdullah Abdullah and Vice-President Abdul Rashid Dostum will be overrun by the Taliban in a matter of weeks.

That is unless in true Afghan tribal form, deals are cut and loyalties revisited. Dostum in particular has a nasty track record for personal survival at the expense of his allies.

It is also worth noting that the Special Envoy Khalilzad, an Afghan-American has close ties to the conflict in his home country dating back to the Soviet invasion of 1979. At that juncture, Khalilzad worked for the Carter administration and later for the Reagan administration in providing arms to the brave Mujahedeen of Afghanistan.

Following the U.S. supported Mujahedeen defeat of the Soviets in 1989, Khalilzad found employment at the RAND Corporation where he wrote at length about the importance of U.S. global leadership.

He also provided a risk analysis report for Unocal (now Chevron) for a proposed trans-Afghanistan gas pipeline. This 1,400 kilometer-long pipeline was to connect the gas fields of Turkmenistan to Pakistan, and would run right through Kandahar.

A key member of the George Bush administration, Khalilzad helped to establish the post-Taliban Presidency of Hamid Karzai in 2002. Khalilzad was then appointed as an ambassador at large for Iraqi diaspora in advance of the U.S. invasion in 2003 

Once U.S. troops were on the ground, Khalilzad set up shop at the Embassy in Baghdad, and we all know how swimmingly that little operation worked out for the Americans.

Now, we have Khalilzad in Moscow of all places discussing a future agreement with the Taliban in the presence of the former U.S. appointed Afghan President Hamid Karzai. One has to wonder if that old pipeline proposal is about to be dusted off in exchange for more Taliban concessions at the peace talks.

Now that this is coming full-circle, it would seem that Taliban Jack Layton was not far off the mark. It will also become increasingly difficult for those media voices who sold the Afghan mission as a crusade to save the women of Afghanistan from the Taliban, to justify their enthusiasm for bloodshed.

It will be even harder for our military to reason away the 158 dead, 2,000+ physically wounded and untold number suffering the invisible wounds of PTSD suffered in a needless war.

ON TARGET: Weaving a Tangled Web with Admiral Norman Case

By Scott Taylor

Last week there were numerous twists and turns in the legal tribulations of Vice Admiral Mark Norman. Formerly Canada’s second highest-ranking officer, Norman was relieved of his duties in January 2017 and subsequently charged with a single count of Breach of Trust. The charge stems from the allegation that back in 2015, Norman leaked information about a shipbuilding contract to an acquaintance at Davie Shipyard and to a journalist at the CBC.

Earlier in 2015, the Harper Conservatives had penned a memorandum of understanding with Davie Shipyard to modify a civilian vessel for use by the Royal Canadian Navy as an interim supply ship. The contract was valued at $688 million, and contained a cancellation clause of $89 million.

At the time, Norman was the Commander of the RCN, and the Navy’s old supply ships, HMCS Protecteur and Preserver had recently burned-out and rusted-out respectively. Canada had desperately resorted to renting at-sea resupply services from the Spanish and Chilean Navy in order to conduct sustained operations.

When the Trudeau Liberals came to power in October 2015, Scott Brison, the newly appointed President of the Treasury Board asked Cabinet to reconsider the Davie deal and perhaps take a closer look at an unsolicited proposal from Irving Shipyard to build the interim supply ship instead.

Word of this possible delay, and a reminder that this would come with an $89 million cancellation cost was leaked and then reported publicly by James Cudmore at the CBC.

The airing of this information in public was enough to force the government’s hand, and the final contract was signed with Davie.

For the record, the result of this initiative was the reconfiguration of the MS Asterix, which was completed on budget, on time and has just completed an impressive full year of service to the RCN.

The crux of the Crown’s case against Norman rests upon the fact that he allegedly leaked information that was considered Cabinet confidence. Ironically, the news of Norman’s suspension from his post was made public through a similar leak to the media. As there was no initial context given to his firing, pundits wildly speculated for ten days that the good Admiral may have been involved in anything from sexual impropriety to international espionage.

Eventually an official statement clarified that the investigation into Norman involved a shipbuilding industry contract, but the reputation-damaging speculation had already run its course. No one investigated the source of that leak.

Instead, in the lead up to his actual trial, the legal proceedings surrounding the Norman case have served to reveal a culture of cover-up at the highest levels of the Defence Department.

Last month we heard the startling testimony of a witness – who requested their identity be protected for fear of retribution – that those individuals involved had used code names for Norman so that searches for key documents would come back as ‘nil’. A supervisor was alleged to have told the witness “This is not our first rodeo.”

It was in pursuit of this hidden paper trail that Norman’s ace legal council Marie Henein, subpoenaed several high profile witness to last week’s pretrial hearings.

We now know that Norman was given a number of coded monikers – “The Kraken”, “The Boss”, “C34”, “MN3” and “The substantive VCDS”.

 Chief of Defence Staff, General Jonathan Vance explained to Henein that there was nothing sinister about these coded abbreviations; they were simply military acronyms and ‘jargon’. The “Kraken” is a fictitious sea monster, but we are to believe it is the phonetic pronunciation of CRCN, the acronym for Commander of the RCN. The use of “C34” should be obvious to everyone that this means Admiral Norman because he was 34th Commander of the RCN. Equally obvious should be “MN3” which is allegedly an abbreviation of his email address, which includes the number three owing to the fact that there are at least two others who share the name Mark Norman with Canadian Forces emails. Therefore, we should naturally understand that “N3” is just an abbreviation of that same abbreviated email code.

So you see folks, it is not a ‘spider’s nest’ as described by Henein to the court. It is simply some very clear staff work conducted by senior officials who admit to frequenting the rodeo – presumably as clowns.

This all promises to be a very intriguing exercise as Admiral Norman’s legal team sheds the light into some deliberately dimmed chambers. That said, at the end of the day, leak or no leak, the MS Asterix is a profoundly unique procurement project, in that it is a complete success.

ON TARGET: Canada’s Weaponization of Information

By Scott Taylor

Last week Canadian Brigadier-General Jay Janzen gave a presentation at Mount Royal University in Calgary wherein he exhorted all Canadians to be wary of Russia’s disinformation campaign. Janzen’s official title is the Director General of Military Strategic Communications, so it is safe to say the he is dutifully spouting the party line.

According to Janzen, average Canadians need to be aware of the fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin has “weaponized” information and his trolls are actively targeting Canada’s upcoming Provincial and Federal elections. 

Ironically, it was Canada’s own Chief of Defence Staff, General Jonathan Vance who implemented a policy in 2015 wherein he called for the “weaponization” of the Canadian Armed Forces Public Affairs.

This effort is headed by none other than Brigadier-General Janzen, hence it would seem the pot is calling the kettle black.

Reading a transcript of Janzen’s Calgary presentation, I was startled to see just how far this strategic communicator was prepared to stretch the truth in order to dis-inform his audience. At one point, Janzen asks, “Does Russia have the right to invade Crimea and Ukraine? To seize terrain for the first time since the Second World War by force?”

That’s right folks, not only did Putin grab this land, but according to Janzen this is the first such occasion anyone has used military force since 1945.

In response to his own rhetorical question, Janzen shook his head and said, “We can’t let [Russia] destroy the rules we have set up.”

So, off the top, Janzen makes a ridiculously wrong overview of the past 74 years and then points to the west as the purveyors of peace and the ones who set up the rules for the world to follow.

On his first claim that Putin and the Russians are the first to use military force to seize terrain since the Second World War, how is it possible that this man rose to the rank of Brigadier and yet remained completely unaware of the multitude of wars which have taken place, not only in his own lifetime, but also while he served in uniform? Even if you want to stick with the ‘bash Russia’ theme, how could Janzen not remember the Soviet Union’s decade long occupation of Afghanistan from 1979-1989.

In 1982, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands to seize terrain. Thanks to the martial prowess of the British military they didn’t get to keep it. In 1983, the U.S. invaded Grenada, which to this day remains a U.S. protectorate.

There was a series of bloody conflicts in the 1960’s between India and Pakistan, the result of which being that East Pakistan is now Bangladesh.

Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980 and he invaded Kuwait in 1990. He didn’t get to keep it, but he did seize terrain with military forces.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1991 led to the military seizure of a lot of terrain by a multitude of various factions. This resulted in widespread ethnic cleansing, and in many cases, ongoing instances of frozen conflicts and unrecognized breakaway separatist states.

As for Janzen’s assertion that we in the West set up the rules, let’s hope that Putin does not follow in our footsteps.

In 1999, NATO bombed the bejeezus out of Serbia in order to wrest away the sovereign territory of Kosovo. That entity declared independence in 2008, but remains a failed state awash in crime, corruption and poverty. 

In 2001, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, toppled the Taliban and established the most corrupt regime on the planet. Canadian soldiers fought and died propping up those Afghan criminals from 2001-2014. The U.S. remains in Afghanistan; the Taliban is resurgent; the drug trade has flourished and the country remains embroiled in a bloody civil war. 

In 2003, the U.S. lied to the world by claiming Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to justify an invasion based on self-defence. That once progressive country has been reduced to a failed state awash in violent anarchy.

In, 2011, a Canadian-led NATO mission bombed the crap out of Moammar Gadhaffi in order to ensure a victory for the Libyan rebels. Then it turned out those rebels were a collection of criminals and Islamic extremists. To this day, Libya remains awash in violent anarchy.

According to Janzen, the way for Canadians to defeat the Russian campaign of disinformation is to get their news from credible sources. 

I second that motion.

ON TARGET: Canada needs to focus on who our troops are fighting for…and not simply demonize those who we are fighting against.

By Scott Taylor

Last Friday there was news out of Libya a top leader of al-Qaeda had been killed in a military operation in the southern city of Sabha. Known as Abu Talha al-Libi, this senior al-Qaeda terrorist was allegedly killed in a raid mounted by troops loyal to General Khalifa Haftar.

Haftar is just one of numerous ruthless warlords vying to control Libya which has been gripped by violent anarchy since Muammar Gaddafi was ousted and executed in October 2011.

On the surface, the elimination of Abu Talha must been seen as a good thing: One less nasty al-Qaeda sleazebag to walk the planet.

Unfortunately, his death also allows us to recall his career highlights as a terrorist. It turns out the Abu Talha was first apprehended by Libyan security forces in 1996 when he attempted to kill President Gaddafi.

He was safely behind bars until the NATO –backed Libyan rebels overthrew the Gaddafi regime and emptied all the Libyan jails.

Technically, Abu Talha was a political prisoner and his anti-Gaddafi street credit was solid since he had attempted to kill him.

The fact that he was also an avowed Islamic extremist matters not because at that juncture, Western media had so demonized Gaddafi and his loyalists that anyone opposed to him simply had to be a good guy.

Fast forward to 2013 and Abu Talha is somehow transported from war-ravaged Libya to Syria where Western backed rebels were attempting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad.

Canada’s then Foreign Minister, Conservative John Baird was among the loudest of the international voices demanding, “Assad must go!”

Abu Talha and other members of al-Qaeda were quick to heed Baird’s call-to-arms. These extremists soon created a new fighting force known as the al-Nusra Front and they quickly became the most effective of all the anti-Assad factions on the Syrian battlefield.

Despite their known links to al-Qaeda, the Western media had so demonized Assad by this point, that it seemed to matter naught that his enemies were in fact Islamic extremists.

By 2014, certain elements of al-Qaeda and al-Nusra in Syria created an even nastier gang of evildoers known as Daesh (aka ISIS OR ISIL). Daesh fighters soon swarmed into Iraq and captured vast tracts of land in what is known as the Sunni Triangle, including the city of Mosul.

In response, Canadian fighter jets and Special Forces troops joined a U.S. led international coalition to contain and ultimately defeat the Daesh threat.

Abu Talha’s work was done in Syria however and in 2014, he returned to the still war-ravaged Libya. Coincidentally, it was at that juncture when Daesh emerged as a fighting force in Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan.

Now that Abu Talha has been killed he is once again categorized as a vile member of al-Qaeda, the Osama bin Laden led terror organization that attacked the Twin Towers on 9/11. Bad guy dead equals good news.

What it also exemplifies is the power of our propaganda to oversimplify conflicts into good versus evil scenarios.

We were told Gaddafi was bad, we needed to fight him, and since we know that we are intrinsically the good guys, by extension anyone else fighting him must be good too.

There was plenty of evidence at the time that the rag-tag forces fighting Gaddafi were comprised of unsavoury elements – Islamic extremists, criminals, etc – but everyone acted surprised when the war ended and this truth could no longer be hidden.

The numerous militias, which the West armed and supported with a Canadian-led NATO air armada – refused to disarm in the wake of Gaddafi’s murder. Instead, they immediately began fighting amongst themselves to establish personal fiefdoms and criminal empires.

Had the Western media been more diligent in their duty and questioned whom we were fighting for in Libya rather than simply regurgitating the demonizing press lines about what a bad guy Gaddafi was, Abu Talha would never have been released from his Libyan jail.

In Afghanistan, for more than a decade Canadian soldiers fought and died to prop up the most corrupt regime in the world. This was in part due to the media again focusing on demonizing those who we were fighting against – the Taliban, rather than providing an equally honest look at the scumbags we were fighting for.

This is in no way the fault of our military. As an institution, the Canadian Armed Forces are to obey authority without question. It is the media’s role in a democracy to question authority. In this they have failed.

ON TARGET: Ukraine Re-Writes History by Celebrating Nazi Collaborator

http://wikimapia.org/5634593/Stepan-Bandera-Monument

By Scott Taylor

For the approximately 200 Canadian military trainers currently deployed to Ukraine, it is likely that on the first of January they would have witnessed a torch lit procession. Throughout Kiev and numerous other towns in Western Ukraine, thousands of civilians took to the streets – not to usher in the New Year – but to celebrate the 110th anniversary of the birth of a man named Stepan Bandera.

This was not the first time Ukrainian nationalists marched with torches to celebrate Bandera’s birthday, but it was the first time such a spectacle was an officially sanctioned affair.

On December 28, 2018, Ukrainian Parliament passed Resolution 9234, which, among several other notable dates, made January 1 a formal holiday in Ukraine.

The city of Lviv, which was Bandera’s birthplace, went one step further by declaring 2019 to be the ‘Year of Stepan Bandera’.

Ukrainian Independent News Agency (UNIAN) described Bandera as “a Ukrainian politician, one of the ideologists and theorists of the Ukrainian nationalists movement in the 20th Century.”

Missing from this abbreviated resume is the fact that during World War II, Bandera was not only a Nazi collaborator, but also a direct participant in Hitler’s Holocaust.

Israel’s ambassador to Ukraine, Joel Lion published a statement announcing that he was “shocked” by this official honouring of a notorious Nazi. “I cannot understand how the glorification of those directly involved in horrible anti-Semitic crimes help fight anti-Semitism and xenophobia,” wrote Lion.

In June 1941, when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, Bandera was the Chairman of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). The Nazis saw Bandera and his fellow Ukrainian nationalists as natural allies in defeating the Soviets. In advance of the invasion, these ex-patriots were armed and equipped by the Germans and formed into a special unit called the Nachtigall battalion.

Roman Shukhevych was the commander of Nachtigall and he, like Bandera is currently revered as a Ukrainian nationalist hero. Unfortunately for their thousands of victims both Shukhevych and Bandera were bloodthirsty anti-Semites.

For several days at the end of June 1941, when Nachtigall had captured Lviv from the Soviets, a brutal extermination of Jews took place in the city. An estimated 4,000 - 6,000 Jews were slain in an orgy of bloodletting that shocked even the Nazi Germans.

Ambassador Lion noted that Bandera and Shukhevych are currently seen by many Ukrainians as “heroes who fought for Ukraine’s independence; whereas they were both historically a horror for the Jews."

When the fortunes of war turned against Hitler, both Bandera and Shukevych turned against the Germans, and then in turn resisted the Soviets.

After Ukraine gained its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, their initial collaboration with the Nazis and participation in the slaughter of Ukrainian Jews prevented Bandera and Shukevych from being considered national role models. However, much to the consternation of the Jews, and the Poles – whom Bandera’s OUN also massacred in the thousands – over the past three decades history in Ukraine has been revised.

At the time of the Maidan uprising in 2014, the spirit of Bandera was revived by the right wing, ultra-nationalists, and, just five years later, his past crimes have been whitewashed to the point where his date of birth is a national holiday.

In Canada, we have been joining in exactly the opposite direction with regard to re-assessing our historical figures. Only last year, the City of Halifax removed a statue of Lord Cornwallis from a central park.

He is still recognized as the founder of Halifax, but his policy of putting a bounty on the Mi’kmaq tribe was deemed contemptible in retrospect. Therefore, his likeness is no longer afforded public reverence.

Canada is committing military resources to the government in Kiev. Surely this does not amount to a blank cheque wherein Canada’s Global Affairs refrain from criticizing such a questionable policy as that of glorifying a Nazi with an official holiday? A good friendship often requires a good dose of plain talk and bad manners.

In this case, Canada would be wise to side with the Israelis and the Poles in condemning torch-lit parades to commemorate the birthday of a man responsible for slaughtering Jews.

One of the justifications for our military trainers being in Ukraine is to defend and support Canadian values. Last time I checked, Canadians still reviled Nazis.

ON TARGET: Canadian Military Is In Way Over It's Head In Iraq

CTV photograph led the Canadian Military to rethink the wearing of Kurdish flags

By Scott Taylor

It was reported last week that a weapons cache valued at over $10 million is sitting in limbo in a Montreal warehouse. This arsenal includes .50 caliber sniper rifles equipped with silencers, 60mm mortars, Carl Gustav anti-tank rocket launchers, pistols, carbines, thermal binoculars, cameras, scopes and medical supplies.

The intended recipients of this sophisticated, lethal hardware was the Kurdish militia in northern Iraq. At the time that Prime Minister Trudeau pledged to provide this weaponry – February 2016 – the Kurdish militia were battling Daesh (aka ISIS or ISIL) with assistance of Canadian Special Forces advisors.

So far, so good. Canadian troops were training Kurdish fighters, and to assist them in the fight, Canada scrounges up $10 million worth of high-tech weapons. The lethal aid package was assembled at the Canadian Forces’ supply depot in Montreal, but that was as far as it got. Before flights could be arranged to transport this arsenal to the Kurds, Canadian officials got a sudden lesson in the Middle East complexities. 

The Iraqi government in Baghdad got wind of the weapon shipment and ordered it halted. While Canadian trained Kurds were fighting the common enemy in Daesh, they were also openly fighting to establish an independent state of Kurdistan.

On Canadian maps, the city of Erbil is in northern Iraq, but when our military trainers arrived there, the sign at the airport boldly proclaimed “Welcome to Kurdistan”. The flags flying atop every official building and military outpost was the red, green and white stripes with a central yellow sunburst, aka the flag of Kurdistan.

This same symbol of Kurdistan was worn as a Velcro patch on the combat uniforms of all the Kurdish militia which the Canadians were training. Despite the fact that these very colourful patches defeat the concept of camouflage in a tactical situation, our Special Forces troops soon added the flag of Kurdistan patches to their own uniforms.

The decision to allow Canadian soldiers to adorn their uniforms with this symbol was taken at the highest level and clearly illustrates just how naïve our commanders were at the time.

Given the complexity of ethnic and religious divisions in northern Iraq, this would be akin to a law enforcement agency having its officials wear a biker gang’s colours in the middle of an urban turf war.

Even if our troops wanted to bond better with their Kurdish trainees, the wearing of a symbol depicting a non-recognized, separatist entity should have never been considered. 

More importantly, the official policy of Canada’s Global Affairs department was, and remains that of supporting a unified Iraq in a post-Daesh era.

Knowing that the Kurdish militia would eventually turn their guns on the Iraqi Army, the Baghdad regime said ‘no dice’ to Canada providing the Kurds with all of that sophisticated weaponry. That prediction became a reality in the fall of 2017, when Kurdish leader Masood Barzani announced his intention to declare independence. The Iraqi Army clashed briefly with the Canadian trained Kurds and successfully recaptured the oil-rich city of Kirkuk. 

Since that juncture, Canadian Special Forces operatives have remained in Iraq, but they have removed their Kurdistan patches and ceased their direct assistance to the Kurdish separatist forces.

It should be noted that Baghdad was not the only voice which objected to Canada providing weapons too the Kurds. Turkey – a vital NATO ally, also expressed concern due to the on-going three decade long, armed Kurdish separatist insurrection in their eastern provinces. Since 1978, this conflict has claimed the lives of over 30,000 people, including over 8,200 Turkish security personnel. 

At the time of the official announcement, the Trudeau government said they would exercise controls to prevent the Canadian- provided weapons from falling into the wrong hands. Anyone familiar with the ebb and flow of loyalties and alliances in this region knows such a claim of controlling weapons after delivery was also hopelessly naïve.

The good news is that but for a few fanatical holdouts, Daesh is defeated in both Iraq and Syria. This scourge of evil-doers temporarily brought together an unholy alliance that included Kurdish separatists, Iraqi Shiite militia, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Putin’s bad old Russians, Bashar al-Assad’s murderous henchmen, his Hezbollah allies, the U.S. and of course Canada.

Now that the unifier has been eliminated, Canada should follow Trump’s lead and get our troops out of there. We have no skin in the game, and we will definitely not have a seat at the big boy table when an eventual resolution is drawn up.

Our policy makers have already illustrated their ignorance of this complex conflict in authorizing our soldiers to wear the Kurdistan flag.

Thank goodness we did not actually compound that error by pouring in another $10 million of weaponry to add to the endless killing. Simply put, if you don’t know the players, you have no place being in the game. Bring our troops home.

ON TARGET: Looking Back Before Moving Forward

Canadian soldiers from India Company, enhanced Forward Presence Battle Group Latvia, move toward the woods during Exercise SABER STRIKE 2018, near Skrunda, Latvia on June 11, 2018. Photo: Cpl Jean-Roch Chabot, eFP BG LATVIA Public Affairs RP15-2018-0140-059

By Scott Taylor

As we wind down 2018 and prepare to kick off the New Year, it is a good time to pause and take stock. This would be particularly true in the case of the Canadian Armed Forces. We have a sizable number of troops deployed on overseas missions, gobbling up a huge chunk of the defence budget and, sad to say, achieving comparatively little in return.

In fact, the one thing the military has failed to produce is a featured presence in the mainstream media. Long gone are the heady days of Canada’s 12-year military intervention in Afghanistan, when the coverage was so constant that in 2006 the Canadian Soldier was named “Newsmaker of the Year”.

We presently have over 1,500 service members deployed on seven major overseas missions, and yet in recent polls the vast majority of Canadians admitted to having little to nil knowledge of the Canadian Armed Forces’ activities.

From a soldier’s perspective, what is even worse is the fact that those missions to which we are committed either have no clear objective, no chance of success or are unnecessary in the first place.

For instance, we have 540 soldiers deployed in Latvia until at least the year 2023 as part of a larger NATO force aimed to deter a Russian invasion of the Baltic states. Having those Canadian soldiers endure six-month absences from their homes and families is completely unnecessary because Latvia, like Lithuania and Estonia, are all members of NATO.

That means that under the alliance’s charter all members, including Canada, are committed to the collective defence in the case of a third-party attack. In other words, if Russian President Vladimir Putin is crazy enough to invade the Baltic states and spark a nuclear armageddon it won’t matter where our 540 soldiers are stationed.

This deployment is costing Canadian taxpayers $400 million annually to keep those troops needlessly deployed in northern Europe. That $400 million could be better spent improving the infrastructure on bases we have in Canada for the benefit of our soldiers and their families.

We have also just extended the training mission in Ukraine where we have about 200 military instructors. Ukraine is not a member of NATO and is enmeshed in a simmering civil war. The western-backed regime in Kiev is battling pro-Russian separatists (mostly, in fact, ethnic Russians) in the eastern provinces. The West chastises — and rightly so — Putin’s support of the separatist rebels with weapons and instructors, while at the same time Canada prides itself in supporting our close ‘ally’ Ukraine with weapons and instructors. Total hypocrisy.

In a similar demonstration of martial deterrence, Canada has five CF-18 fighter aircraft operating out of an air base in Romania. On the one hand we have the Trudeau Liberal government telling Canadians that we have a capability gap in our fighter jet inventory, with too few aircraft to fulfil our commitment to NATO and NORAD. Then we have a recent auditor general report saying we have too few pilots and too few maintainers to keep even the fighter jets we have in operational service. Now we are to believe that we can spare five of those precious jets and aircrew to fly sorties over Romania?

Once again folks, no matter how much the tub-thumpers and warmongers want a new Cold War, if a conflict with Russia does erupt it will not be a flurry of aerial dogfights and glorious infantry charges. It will be a series of mushroom clouds.

We’re also committed to two separate missions in Iraq. One is a NATO initiative to train a new Iraqi army, while the second is a special forces mission, which remains somewhat in limbo. That is because of the Kurdish militia, which our special forces trainers were originally supporting. Once the alliance had successfully defeated their common enemy Daesh (aka ISIS, IS or ISIL), the Canadian-trained Kurds began fighting Iraqi government forces. These would be the same Iraqi government troops that our second mission is training and supporting. Whoops!

Canada has no stake on the Iraq equation now that Daesh is defeated. And if the U.S. could not create an effective Iraqi military in 15 years of occupation, I don’t believe a Canadian-led NATO team will be able to achieve success in one year.

As part of the Liberal party 2015 campaign promise to return to peacekeeping, this past July we began a one-year, $100 million deployment to the UN mission in Mali. The stated objective of that mission is for the 14,000 blue helmets to “help set conditions for durable peace, development and prosperity in Mali.” I’m no psychic but I will state with full certainty that by the time we bring home our 250 troops and helicopters next July, that objective will still be far from fulfilled.

Canadian soldiers are still the best in the world and they are our best ambassadors. However, because our combat resources are so limited in scope, they need to be sent on missions with achievable objectives, as opposed to the current series of fool’s errands.

ON TARGET: The Bizarre Case Of Admiral Mark Norman

By Scott Taylor

Last Tuesday, a witness at the pre-trial hearing of Vice Admiral Mark Norman dropped a bombshell when he told the court that senior DND officials had deliberately omitted Norman’s name from key documents in order to avoid a paper trail. In other words, an alleged cover-up in this case was pre-meditated and intentional.

This testimony certainly supports the assertion of Norman’s legal team that the government is deliberately stonewalling them from accessing documents which would be vital to the Vice Admiral’s defence.

The identity of the witness is protected by a court ordered publication ban, as the still-serving servicemember fears possible retribution career-wise from his Chain-of-Command.

On the plus side of this equation is the fact that this individual had the moral integrity to bring the truth forward, regardless of the damage this might do to his superiors and the institution.

The flip side of this is the depressing realization that there are still those in senior offices within the Defence Department that mistakenly think they can deliberately circumvent the access to information law, and then rely upon the loyalty of their subordinates to keep their subterfuge a secret.

This high-profile saga began almost two years ago when it was announced in January 2017 that VAdm Norman, then Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, was suspended with pay and under investigation.

At that time, DND offered no details as to why the number two officer in the Canadian Forces was so suddenly dismissed.

Without access to the facts, the media turned to speculation and within hours Norman was being branded guilty of everything from sexual misconduct to international espionage.

To dampen the feeding frenzy on Norman’s reputation, information was eventually provided that Norman’s alleged wrongdoing involved an information leak regarding a shipbuilding contract.

In March 2018, a full fifteen months after he was publicly fired, one charge of breach of trust was laid against Norman. It is alleged by the Crown prosecutors that Norman leaked classified government information regarding a $700-million contract to lease a supply ship for the Royal Canadian Navy. Norman has steadfastly denied the allegations.

To help prove their case, Norman’s defence team, headed by top notch lawyer Marie Henein, requested access to all of the pertinent emails, reports, memos, etc, which would have been generated at those top level DND offices in the two week window bracketing the admiral’s suspension.

Anyone familiar with DND bureaucracy will realize that something as touchy as public dismissal of a top officer would generate a flurry of correspondence between all of these very senior personnel who had to undertake this very sensitive task.

Thus it came as a bit of a shock to the officer assigned to collect all of these documents when his supervisor smiled and stated there was none.

In his testimony at the pre-trial hearing, the witness recounted his Commanding Officer’s reaction to the request which was filed under the access to information law, “He gives me a smile and says… Don’t worry, this isn’t our first rodeo. We made sure we never used his name. Send back nil return.”

Stunned not only by this blunt admission of premeditated obstruction by his Commanding Officer, and the fact that, “he seemed proud to provide that response,” the witness told the court that he felt compelled to do the right thing and come forward to testify in support of Norman.

Essentially this amounts to the witness’s unnamed Commanding officer telling a detective on a criminal case not to bother dusting for fingerprints because the culprits were smart enough to wear gloves when they committed the crime.

If true, and it must be kept in mind that the Commanding officer in question has yet to have his version heard in court – this would reveal a very dangerous culture of cover-up existing within the upper echelons of the Defence Department.

While the five-day pre-trial hearings were to have been wrapped up last Tuesday, there remain a number of unresolved issues concerning the defence team’s claim of obstruction on the part of the prosecution. Three days of additional pretrial hearings have been added and will be held in January.

The actual trial will not begin until next June.

In the meantime, the shipbuilding contract that sparked all of this intrigue and controversy has been completed, on time and on budget. From all accounts, the MV Asterix, converted at the Davie Shipbuilding in Quebec, and now leased to the RCN, is already providing our Navy with yeoman service.

That being the case, the leak allegedly made by Norman to the media is credited with thwarting an alleged 2015 attempt by Irving shipyard of Halifax, NS, to have the newly elected Liberal government scrap the contract which Harper’s Conservative’s had signed with Davie Shipbuilding.

If leaking info about Irving Shipyard allegedly trying to scuttle a project serves to keep that project on the rails, and in turn the MV Asterix project is an unqualified success, in the big scheme of things what actual harm was done?