ON TARGET: Let’s be more creative in our retainment and recruitment of fighter pilots

Lieutenant-Colonel Darcy Molstad, from 425 Tactical Fighter Squadron, 3 Wing Bagotville, Quebec. Lieutenant-Colonel Molstad’s hometown is Edmonton, Alberta. PHOTO: DND

By Scott Taylor

On June 10, Lieutenant General Al Meinzinger, the Commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force, sent out a message to all personnel outlining several new initiatives which are intended to address the military’s chronic shortage of experienced pilots and ground crew.

As of last fall the RCAF were admittedly short of at least 275 pilots, and the Auditor General report claimed that due to the shortage of qualified personnel, Canada was unable to fully operate the current fleet of CF-18 Hornet fighter jets.

The Liberal government solution to this was to announce the acquisition of 18 used CF-18 fighters from Australia to add to the number of parked planes that we cannot fly or maintain now. But I digress.

The gist of Meinzinger’s latest message is that the RCAF will implement signing bonuses to attract trained fighter pilots back into the service and offer cash retention bonuses to keep those experienced pilots and ground crew in uniform.

The root cause of the present shortage is the worldwide boom in demand for commercial pilots. Some Canadian defence observers have pointed the finger of blame at the singular inability of successive Federal governments to acquire a modern replacement for the thirty-five year old fleet of CF-18’s. The gaping hole in this theory is the fact that when they leave the RCAF they are heading to jobs wherein they will be flying passenger planes. Instead of engaging in high speed maneuvers, vertical climbs and dives they will be making gradual ascents and descents and looking to avoid turbulence.  This is the career change equivalent of a formula one race car driver getting a retirement job driving a school bus.

There was also never a drought of volunteers to learn how to pilot a Sea King helicopter, and those things were in service for over 50 years. What the airlines offer former RCAF pilots is far more than just a lucrative paycheque, they also offer for far more flexibility in terms of where these individuals can reside. At present, if you are going to be part of a fighter Squadron you are stationed at either Cold Lake, Alberta or Bagotville, Quebec.

Neither of these remote centers could be considered an urban hub. This means that employment opportunities for pilots’ spouses is severely limited as are schooling options or special needs facilities for the kids.

During the Cold War, Canada had three fighter squadrons stationed in West Germany; posting to which afforded personnel and their families easy travel access to all of Western Europe. The current options from Bagotville and Cold Lake are, well, a lot less exiting.

I understand the operational necessity of having our fighter aircraft based in these northern bases. However, the question begs, do our pilots and their families need to be permanently based there?

What if our fighter squadrons were officially based in major urban centres for all of their administrative duties, with simulator training capabilities, like firefighters who rotate shifts living at the fire hall? Why not simply transport the pilots and ground crew into Bagotville and Cold Lake when they are to conduct their actual flying operations? Obviously, in a time of crisis it would be a case of all-hands-on-deck, and in such circumstances you would really not want all the families there anyway.

Even flying for the airlines, flight crews spend days away from their families if they are on the long haul routes. Under such a system of commuting in and out of forward operating fighter bases, the spouses could enjoy the career opportunities of a major city, which they are denied under the current arrangement.

Cash bonuses for signing and retention of personnel might work in the short term, but it is necessary to sort out a longer-term solution. There is no indication that the global demand for skilled aviators is going to diminish in the foreseeable future, and RCAF pilots are among the best in the world. It costs a fortune to train such pilots, so perhaps it is time we get more creative about keeping them in uniform. Dangling a cash carrot won’t fool them for long.

ON TARGET: U.S. Absurdity and Hypocrisy In Cuba

By Scott Taylor

On Tuesday, June 4, the Trump administration made the surprise announcement that it was imposing a new set of travel restrictions on Americans wishing to visit Cuba. Effective almost immediately, group educational and cultural trips are no longer permitted, and perhaps most significantly, cruise ships, private yachts and fishing vessels are no longer allowed to visit Cuban ports.

Following Fidel Castro’s revolution 1953-1959, the U.S. had imposed a total travel ban and a crippling trade embargo on Cuba. President Barack Obama relaxed those restrictions in 2016 when his administration opened the door for American tourists to visit the island. Since that juncture, the initial trickle of U.S. visitors has grown into a veritable flood. In the first 4 months of 2019, more than 250,000 Americans travelled to Cuba, and that figure does not include that of Cuban-Americans visiting family.

Last week’s announcement will have the intended consequence of financially punishing the Cuban tourist industry.

The reason for re-imposing the ban was explained to the media by U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. “Cuba continues to play a destabilizing role in the western hemisphere, providing a communist foothold in the region and propping up U.S. adversaries in places like Venezuela and Nicaragua by fomenting instability, undermining the rule of law and suppressing democratic processes.”  Mnuchin said in a statement.

To be blunt, the only thing that outweighs the absurdity of Mnuchin’s statement is the hypocrisy.

How exactly is the dirt-poor island nation of Cuba “propping up” America’s oil, gas and gold rich adversary in Venezuela?

If Cuba is a communist foothold where is the other foot?

Are we to expect bankrupt, embargoed North Korea to form an alliance with bankrupt, embargoed Cuba enroute to a communist wave engulfing the planet?

As for the allegation of suppressing democratic processes, I’m guessing that Mnuchin is referring to the recent political upheaval in Venezuela. For their part, Cuba continues to recognize Nicolas Maduro as the ruling president of Venezuela. For the record, Maduro was elected in what has been called a flawed election in 2018. The major “flaw” in the exercise of democratic process was that the opposition boycotted the polls.

Since Maduro’s predecessor and mentor, Hugo Chavez was elected president in 1998. Venezuela has propped up the Castro regime in Cuba with the provision of heavily discounted oil and gas. So, it is no mystery why Cuba would support the status quo in Venezuela.

On the flipside of that we have the Canadian led Lima Group of fourteen continental American countries, which has simply selected Juan Guaido as the legitimate President of Venezuela. There was no democratic process, as the charismatic, U.S. educated Guaido was simply chosen by a committee of fourteen foreign countries, whose selection process was in turn ratified by the U.S.

As events have since unfolded, Guaido remains an unwelcome choice even to the sanction suffering Venezuelan people. Guaido’s farcical attempt to overthrow Maduro by effecting a military coup April 30 failed embarrassingly and could hardly be labeled as anything close to a democratic process.

Getting back to Cuba, if the Trump administration wants Americans out of there they should start by closing down their naval base and detention centre at Guantanamo Bay.

The very existence of this U.S. military base on occupied foreign soil sorely undermines America’s denunciation of Russia doing the same thing in the Crimea. For the record, the U.S. took possession of this 116 square kilometer site in 1898 after capturing the island from the Spanish.

The U.S. set up a rental agreement with Cuban authorities to pay $2,000 in gold coins per year for the use of the land. In 1934, they raised that rent price to USD$4,085 and dropped the proviso that it is paid in gold. A simple cheque will do.

When Castro seized power in 1959, he demanded that the Americans vacate Cuban soil.

Instead the U.S. have continued to convince themselves that this is not an illegal occupation because every year they dutifully send a cheque for the $4,085 made payable to the “Treasurer General of the Republic”.

The cheques go un-cashed and that bureaucratic position was eliminated when Castro took power.

Nevertheless, if we are to believe Mnuchin, Cuba is the meddler in our Western Hemisphere.

ON TARGET: Canadian Government is Failing to Protect the Privacy of Journalists

By Scott Taylor

Last week the Globe and Mail broke the story about Irving Shipbuilding being allowed to claim a CAD$40 million industrial benefit for a French fry factory as part of a contract to build navy ships. As odd as this might sound, that was not the bizarre part of this news story.

Shortly after the Globe and Mail had asked the government to confirm the investment in an Alberta French fry plant was considered an allowable industrial offset for the navy contract, a lawyer from Irving contacted the newspaper. The message was that the shipbuilder was prepared to take legal action if necessary.

This was the second time in recent weeks that Irving resorted to the tactic of libel chill in the form of threatening reporters with lawsuits over potentially damaging stories.

Back in March my colleague David Pugliese from the Ottawa Citizen made an inquiry to the media liaison desk at the Department of National Defence as well as to Public Services and Procurement Canada. Sources had told Pugliese that there was some alleged welding problems with one of the newly built Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) and he was seeking to confirm the story.

Just hours later, Pugliese was surprised to receive a phone call from none other than Kevin McCoy, the President of Irving Shipbuilding. According to Pugliese, McCoy threatened to sue the Ottawa Citizen if they published a story, which contained false information.

What the Citizen did publish instead was the story of how the government had shared not only the question about welding problems, but also the identity of the reporter working on the story.

In this more recent case of the Globe and Mail French fry story, it was the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development that breached the privacy of the reporter by providing the information to Irving. The fact that Irving did not learn from their earlier public relations fiasco with the Citizen makes me question the competence of their communications department.

In defending the decision to threaten lawsuits, Irving Shipbuilding spokesman Sean Lewis told reporters “We did advise reporters that we would pursue legal action because we knew the reporters had highly inaccurate information that would cause our company, and the reputation of our hard working employees considerable reputational damage.”

Fair enough, a company should have the right to protect its public image. The problem is that in both cases, the reporter’s information was not “highly inaccurate”. Irving did indeed receive a $40 million credit towards its industrial benefit obligations on a navy shipbuilding contract, from a $425 million investment in the Cavendish Farms frozen potato-processing plant in Lethbridge, Alberta. Nobody has ever alleged that there was any misconduct on the part of any of the parties involved.

The crux of the matter is the way in which the AOPS contracts are structured on this major crown shipbuilding project – valued at over $2.4 billion that allows for investment in french fry jobs to offset re-investment obligations. If there are any questions about how that is the case, then it is the government of Canada that has the explaining to do, not Irving.

In the case of the alleged welding problems with the AOPS, DND did subsequently admit there were indeed some minor problems. In other words, without the threatening call from McCoy, which revealed a breach of privacy on the part of DND, there would likely have been no story.

In both instances, suffice to say that Irving overreacted and behaved like a schoolyard bully. Had they simply provided the requested information to their client – the government of Canada, who in turn would respond to the media, they would have avoided controversy.

However, it is also true that had DND, Procurement Services, and the Department of Science, Innovation, and Economic Development simply safeguarded the identity of the journalists as per the existing guidelines under the Privacy Act, Irving would not have known whom to threaten.

The Canadian Surface Combatant project has only just begun and there are bound to be countless more media requests made regarding Irving in the coming decade of production. Let’s hope that government officials have learned from these two lessons that Irving is unrepentantly self-protective.

Public Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough tried to deflect the blame on to Irving when she told reporters that their threat of a lawsuit was “certainly not a behaviour I would engage in, and I wish there was respect shown to journalists for doing their jobs.”

I’m sorry Carla, but that respect would start with government officials not turning over the names of media requests to industry.

ON TARGET: Kandahar Monument Belongs At Beechwood

By Scott Taylor

On Monday, May 13, a low-key, invitation only, VIP ceremony took place at the Department of National Defence’s new Carling Campus. This was held to re-dedicate the monument, which had originally stood on the Kandahar airfield during Canada’s decade long commitment to the conflict in Afghanistan.

The cenotaph began as an impromptu tribute to fallen comrades, and it continued to grow as Canadian casualties mounted. In the end, the Kandahar monument displayed the individual grave markers of all 158 soldiers killed in theatre.

While it was never meant to be permanent, once Canada concluded the mission in Afghanistan, the military felt it was only fitting to repatriate this symbol of sacrifice, which had been created by the comrades of the fallen.

Once back in Canada the problem arose as to where to relocate the Kandahar memorial.

Most potential sites required approvals from multiple government departments, which inevitably got bogged down in the bloated Ottawa bureaucracy. The decision was thus made, and announced, while the Harper conservative government was still in power, that the Kandahar memorial’s new home would be at DND’s new headquarter facility in the sprawling campus that was once Nortel.

For those who were even aware of this project at the time, this decision met no objection and set off no alarm bells. It was simply seen as this touching tribute, made by soldiers, for their fellow soldiers getting a permanent relocation. No biggie.

Three days after the low key, May 13 2019 ceremony was held, DND posted up details of the event on Facebook, and quickly this whole memorial issue became an explosive affair throughout the entire Canadian defence community.

Suddenly people became aware that if this monument is inside a secure military headquarter facility, it will not be accessible to the general public. Families of the fallen were outraged – and rightly so – that they were not invited to attend the dedication, and the vast majority would remain unable to even visit the site. Questions were asked and no answers given as to why DND would quietly put this notice on Facebook rather than the more conventional process of issuing a press release. Columnists and commentators took up the cudgel to bash the brass for their insensitivity over the handling of such a sensitive and emotional issue.

By Wednesday, May 22, the backlash and anger forced the Chief of Defence Staff, General Jonathan Vance to make a vow to set this right. “We’ll turn this around,” Vance told reporters. “Where we want to get to is that anybody who wants to visit that memorial can visit.”

For his part, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that he wanted answers as to why the decision was made to hold the May 13 ceremony in secret and to not include the families of the fallen. Ironically, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, the man who should be able to answer for those decisions, was standing directly behind Trudeau as he made that pledge.

General Vance has said that the Kandahar Memorial will not be moved, but rather his team will be tasked with finding ways to allow more public access. While a noble gesture, this will ultimately prove an impossible task. A functioning military headquarters facility needs to be secure from the public by its very nature. Vance has since offered a lengthy apology and insists that they are working to provide continuous scheduled visit opportunities for those who wish access the memorial.

A face saving solution could be to move the monument to the Beechwood National Memorial Center. This is Canada’s equivalent to the U.S. National Military Cemetery in Arlington Virginia. It is an incredible facility that takes great pride in preserving Canada’s military heritage. It is also the final resting place of 27 Afghanistan veterans, the highest concentration of fallen warriors from that conflict in any Canadian cemetery.

Thus it would only be fitting if tributes to all 158 fatalities, in the form of the Kandahar memorial, could have a place of honour in Canada’s national military cemetery. Given that Beechwood is publically accessible, a place where our warriors are buried and soldiers are mourned, I think it would be a perfect fit. It is also a private sector enterprise, which means, if desired, the Kandahar memorial could be relocated there without having to cut through a Gordian’s knot of bureaucratic red tape.

ON TARGET: Trump’s reckless sabre rattling with Iran is all the excuse we need to bring Canadian troops home from Iraq

By Scott Taylor

Almost unmentioned in Canadian mainstream media is the steadily escalating tension between the U.S. and Iran. In recent days the Pentagon has deployed an additional Aircraft carrier battle group and strategic air assets to the Persian Gulf region, citing an increased albeit undefined, threat from Iran. The Americans have also taken the unusual step of withdrawing all unnecessary personnel from their massive embassy in Baghdad, Iraq.

This has prompted the German Defence Ministry to suspend their training mission in Iraq. There were approximately 160 German military personnel assigned to that mission.

Canada has decided to go in the opposite direction by extending our military commitment to Iraq until March 2021. Between the approximately 250 Canadians assigned to the NATO training mission, and Special Forces personnel still assisting Iraqi forces in northern Iraq, Canada has an authorized strength of up to 850 personnel in theatre.

Despite the best efforts of the Canadian Armed Forces Public Affairs branch to promote this ongoing commitment, the Iraq mission has become a forgotten front. The threat of Daesh (ISIS or ISIL) has almost been completely stamped out, and mercifully, Canada has only suffered one friendly fire fatality since first deploying troops to Iraq in 2014.

A year ago Canada agreed to take command of the NATO led training mission in Iraq because the Liberal government knew they could not sell the Canadian Public on sending troops back into the Afghanistan war. That is where the NATO leaders wanted us, which seems an incredibly ironic twist in that we originally agreed to go into Afghanistan because it was not Iraq. But I digress.

The problem with the current NATO plan for Iraq – no matter how masterfully it is commanded by Canadians – is that it is doomed to fail. The root causes of the ongoing violent strife in Iraq – devastated infrastructure, rampant unemployment, inter-factional hatred and the resultant failed economy – will not be rectified by training thousands of more young Iraqi males how to kill.

Did we learn nothing from our failed decade long involvement in Afghanistan?

In the bitter fighting which pitted the U.S. led coalition, (including Canadian Special Forces operatives), against the Daesh stronghold of Mosul, that entire city was reduced to rubble. The Iraqi government estimated it will need US$88 billion to rebuild the basic infrastructure yet a mere US$30 billion has been pledged to date by international donors. No one can guess where they will make up the US$58 billion shortfall, but in the meantime Canada will spend more than $400 million a year having our best soldiers teach Iraqi youth how to keep destroying and killing.

For the record, the Iraqi regime in Baghdad recently sought to ban violent video games to prevent their youth from becoming de-sensitized to violence. On the flip side, Canada is leading a mission to teach Iraqi youth how to use real weapons.

Canada’s tenuous grasp of the complex Iraqi equation was perhaps best illustrated back in 2014 when our military trainers first deployed to northern Iraq. A senior level decision was made to allow our soldiers to wear the green, white, and red, with a yellow sunburst flag of Kurdistan on their desert camouflage uniforms. First of all, such a splash of colour defeats the premise of camouflage, but more importantly, Kurdistan is not a recognized independent country. It is rather, the desired end state for the separatist Kurds, whose quest for statehood runs counter to Canada’s official policy of supporting a single unified Iraq.

As everyone familiar with the region predicted, once Daesh was gone, the Iraqi factions began fighting among themselves. Canadian trained Kurdish militia did in fact clash with the central government Iraqi forces that are supported by the Canadian government. Needless to say, the Canadian advisors quietly removed the Kurdistan flags from their combat uniforms.

Now that the U.S. is threatening to widen this conflict by engaging Iran, Canada should admit that this would change the existing parameters. We should follow the lead of Germany, and those non-essential U.S. embassy staff, and remove our personnel from harm’s way. Canadian troops do not shy away from a fight, but no one in their right mind simply jumps into a wood chipper for the hell of it.

The silver lining in this entire brinksmanship between the U.S. and Iran threatening imminent Armageddon is that the price of oil has risen to nearly US$65 a barrel.

ON TARGET: Party Plane Antics Go Unpunished: Tiger Williams’ Charges Dropped

By Scott Taylor

Last week the surprising announcement that the Crown Prosecutor’s Office was staying the single charge of Breach of Trust against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman ignited a massive media storm. This was indeed a major development in a saga that has gripped the attention of the entire defence community since Norman was first suspended from his duties as Canada’s Vice Chief of Defence Staff nearly two and a half years ago.

In the interest of full disclosure, I consider Norman to be a friend and I am pleased that he has been exonerated. This story is still far from over and I will continue to watch with great interest exactly how both the Liberal government and the Canadian Armed Forces chain of command will go about reengaging this fine officer to active duty.

Almost lost in the frenzied coverage of Norman’s case was the announcement that the Ottawa Crown Attorney was dropping the sexual assault case against former NHL hockey star Tiger Williams in exchange for an apology to the alleged victim. Effectively, the dropping of charges in this case closes the lid on a military incident now known as the ‘Party Plane’ scandal.

The particular flight in question took place in December 2017 and was part of an ongoing program wherein RCAF Airbus planes were used to transport VIP’s on morale boosting visits to Canadian troops deployed overseas. Then Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier first initiated the practice in order to inspire our soldiers fighting the war in Afghanistan. The VIP list usually included NHL old-timers like Tiger Williams along with Olympic athletes, rock n’ roll bands and various television personalities.

Over time, many of the VIP’s making repeat tours began to take advantage of the status afforded to them aboard these flights. Rules on drinking alcohol were at first bent and then by the time of the ‘Party Plane’ incident were completely broken.

Facebook videos surfaced showing the band Carpet Frogs playing the Doobie Brother’s 1970 hit song China Grove in the aisles of the Airbus while drunken VIP’s danced. Media soon got wind of the fact that a flight attendant had complained of being sexually assaulted by Williams during that flight, along with many of the other sordid details of the VIP’s urinating themselves and leaving behind coffee cups of tobacco spit.

The story proved impossible for the military to contain. Williams was eventually charged with sexual assault and Chief of the Defence Staff General Jonathan Vance put a hold on any future morale boosting junkets.

However, to his discredit, Vance also tried to justify what had happened on that flight. “The band was playing in the back of the plane, that’s team building for people who have never met soldiers before and are going to go into maybe a dangerous place” Vance explained to reporters. “So, it’s not Mardi Gras, it’s not a party. It’s a mission.”

While Vance tried to portray this as if the passengers were about to deplane into a war zone, on the flight in question they were enroute to Athens, Greece. Their first visit was to be aboard the HMCS Charlottetown in tourist friendly, Piraeus harbor.

The military also tried to downplay the actual cost of the flight by stating it was a mere $15,000 when in fact and independent estimate put that cost at $337,000 (not including the cost to fly the original flight attendant crew home from Riga, Latvia on commercial flights).

An RCAF flight safety investigation concluded that the drunken antics of the VIP’s had indeed put the other passengers at risk, but Vance inexplicably disagreed with that finding. I am not a safety expert, but I would suspect that fellow passengers inebriated to the point of voiding their bladders involuntarily would be a hindrance to others in an in-flight emergency. Just saying.

The worst part of this whole story is the fact that it all took place while the Vice Chief of Defence Staff, Lieutenant-General Alain Parent, and Canadian Forces Chief Warrant Officer Kevin West were on board.

In her witness statement at Williams’ court hearing last Tuesday, the flight attendant victim of the alleged sexual assault commented on the lack of support she got in this instance from Parent and West. “I was lost, confused and feeling pretty betrayed. I was overwhelmed by the lack of support from the higher ranks.” she wrote.

For the record, no disciplinary or administrative action was taken against Parent or West and both officers are now retired from the military.

The party flights remain on hold.

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.