Panglossian Notes

The CBC: Canada, Afghanistan, Da PLAN, da plan

This CBCs Sunday Edition broadcast a "town" forum this morning, September 23, 2007, dealing with the question: "Afghanistan: What Are We Doing There?". The forum was held here at UofOs Tabaret Hall.

Although I've been a regular listener to this program since it's inception 25 or 30 years ago, originally as Sunday Morning, I haven't listened lately.

But this Sunday I made an exception because I was interested to hear what the commentators might say about our Canadian involvement in Afghanistan.

I was also very interested to know what a group of potentially thoughtful Canadians, i.e. ones who had to make an effort to get down or into Tabaret Hall, might ask or say about us being there.

I began listening with trepidation, expecting first to be frustrated by the commentators who could spout the usual canned and politically packaged tripe handed to Canadian citizens by our current government and the military.

I was surprised, though. (The podcast of the program maybe be up at the CBC in a couple of days. The CBC never seems to put up the entire show. But here is where all CBC podcasts can be accessed in case you maybe interested just scroll for Sunday Edition.)

Other than the Afghanistan Ambassador to Canada, who with, I think, rare exceptions maintained the Karzai's public view of the world from Afghanistan, the other commentators were not pre-packaged cheerleaders.

The other commentators seemed like real observers and analysts. I could say that they seemed like serious people but using the adjective "serious" to modify the description of a human is now, it seems, de rigueur to actually dismissing them as serious, that is thoughtful, reflective ... .

I think the best way for me to phrase what I heard would be to say the commentators seemed as puzzled as most Canadians are about:

why we are there,
what we are doing,
what the PLAN maybe, and
why can't those in charge of our involvement tell us exactly what is happening.

The audience's response to the discussion, in the first half of the program, as well as their questions of the commentators were also interesting - meaning: thoughtful, probing, curious, reasonably knowledgeable, and non-partisan (so refreshing).

To me the forum seemed like a success because it was just that an exchange of both some information and opinion which was then probed and questioned. There were no general conclusions at the end other than, I think, that at least those who showed up at Tabaret Hall are sick of being handed the pre-packed tripe doled out by the federal government and military.

I know I'm fed up with the completely partisan nature down which our government seems to be directing Canadian concerns and debate about us being in Afghanistan. It is absolutely non-productive and just makes me angry.

There was also little hand wringing about our deaths in the place which allowed the forum to proceed in an emotionally uncharged manner. The guy from Esprit de Corps magazine, Scott Taylor, did however at some point say that Canada had a higher than average death rate than other countries involved. No one asked about his methodology for determining this which was good because it allowed the discussion to stay on track. [My quick calculations using deaths as a % of troops on the ground in Afghanistan ranks the US 1st, Canada 2nd and Spain 3rd. There are, of course other ways of calculating the death rates all so far are very very low relative to other declared wars in which we've been.]

Technorati Tags: Afghanistan, CBC, Chaos, Ottawa, Taliban, The Plan

General Richard Dannatt - the military/civilian cultural "gulf" plus who is really being engaged in Iraq & Afghanistan

At times, recently more so, I've wondered of myself why I seem to have more general respect for the UK senior army personnel than I do for the current, what I think of as almost cartoon like, Canadian senior officer types. I wonder if it could be that the UK senior types, or some that speak in public appear to have brains, that commodity which seems dearly short at our saintly Canadian Department of National Defense.

Whatever, eh, just my impressions of our our current military senior types. But they do look charming in their red shirts or strutting around with that other well know cartoon-like Canadian - Don Cherry - waving a replicate of yet another Canadian symbol which is now usually resident in the US, the Stanley Cup.

But I should keep on topic.

_________________________________

Yesterday, Friday, September 21, 2007, General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, gave a presentation at the International Institute For Strategic Studies as part of a Military Leaders Forum in London. Unlike our cartoon like senior officer types, the UK General seems articulate, appears to have a knowledge of recent history and of international affairs, wow.

The entire speech can be found, in wvm format or as a text transcript at the IISS site here.

Aspects of the General's speech relating to a "gulf between UK citizens and troops" were reported on the BBC last night, see the short clip below the excerpt from the BBC print story:

"Gen Sir Richard Dannatt said soldiers were sometimes greeted with indifference on returning from service.

He contrasted the attitude in Britain with support for soldiers among people in the United States.[**see footnote]

A "willingness to serve in such an atmosphere again" could be sapped, he said in a speech in London.

Army chief warns of social 'gulf'
BBC

Although the General indicates that this "gulf" is from his perspective a UK problem which may make it harder to get people into the military and keep them there, in the future, I think he is wrong.

I agree that some in the US seem to show what could be characteristed as strong "support for the troops" but frankly I suspect what the General sees is the usual passing fad of just a very few mixed with the perennial illusion about the grass being greener other places.

Since the General's concerns are the UK army, he didn't mention any of the downside in the US, for example, the fiasco at Walter Reed nor the fact that some US military depend on charitable hand-outs to make ends meet. Nor did he mention that one side of the US political elite in effect dismisses and belittles those who actually served in the military if they don't think the same as them and the sentimental, fair-weather, flag waving, "support the troops" crew accept this humiliation of yesterdays troops.

Interestingly enough the whole matter of "gulfs" between the military and civilians was just a topic on the ABCs (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Late Night Live, with Phillip Adams:

The Civil-Military Divide

As a result of the drop in American public support for the war in Iraq, members of the military and their families are feeling increasingly isolated and misunderstood as they bear the brunt for simply carrying out orders. However, this also highlights a divide which has existed between members of America's civil and military establishments since Vietnam. In fact surveys reveal that elite members of civil and military institutions remain suspicious of one another, and continue to harbour strong negative stereotypes about the other. It turns out this has wide-reaching implications for government policy, particularly on the way wars are waged. On Late Night Live we explore the history of this divide and look at how a more coordinated approach to Iraq - one which included greater civilian and even humanitarian input - might have turned out.

Late Night Live
September 19, 2007
ABC

Kristin Henderson, one of the people on the LNL broadcast, writes fairly regularly about the "gulf" from a US perspective.

In one of her WaPo pieces this summer she began with a fact and then a question:

Less than 1 percent of the U.S. population serves in our military. In a time of war, what should that mean to the rest of us?

Their War
July 22, 2007
WaPo

Neither the clip nor the BBC print story report on a couple of the move interesting aspects of the General's speech i.e. the fact that he didn't demean the people the UK are engaging in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

For example, of those faced by the UK in Iraq, he says:

So, because as an Army we are enemy focussed, some words on our adversaries in southern Iraq.

The militants (and I use the word deliberately because not all are insurgents, or terrorists, or criminals; they are a mixture of them all) are well armed – certainly with outside help, and probably from Iran.

By motivation, essentially, and with the exception of the Al Qaeda in Iraq element who have endeavoured to exploit the situation for their own ends, our opponents are Iraqi Nationalists, and are most concerned with their own needs – jobs, money, security – and the majority are not bad people.

In amongst them, however, are a hard core of well trained, well motivated, ruthless individuals who have the capacity to organise and control a highly effective campaign, or perhaps better described as a matrix of campaigns, of violence and intimidation.

and of those in Afghanistan:

In Afghanistan, we fight a rather different campaign.

Again our adversaries are also quite complex and I would prefer to once more use the term militant and to be careful not to demonise the people we fight in Afghanistan.

There is a lazy tendency for them all to be lumped under the term “Taliban”, but it is not as simple as that.

Yes, there is a hard core of Islamist extremists of varied ethnic and national origin, but the great majority of the people we are engaged against are those who are fighting with the Taliban for financial, social and tribal reasons.

So we must beware of tarring them all with the same brush, as I am sure that one day we will need to deal with and eventually reconcile the elected Government with the majority of these people.

And the character of the people who oppose here is different to that of the people in Iraq.

Afghans are a hardy people, who respect force and the warrior ethos. They are generally more impressed by a company of infantry, fighting bravely with bayonets fixed than by high tech ISTAR and offensive support.

Their current choice is to fight in the cultivated areas where the visibility and fields of view can be measured in tens of metres, where basic skills, not technical prowess are most important. Indeed, it is a form of operation that our fathers would recognise from the Normandy bocage – indeed on their part it is clever, because we are denied the hi-tech advantages of stand off and range, but our training gives us the edge.

I contrast the General's view with the collective Canadian crew who believe following on our great general Hillier's view that Canadians only engage "scumbags". We also mimic US handling of detainees which some of our red shirt flag wavers associate with "supporting the troops".

I don't agree with everything the UK General said yesterday but I do appreciate what seems like a thoughtful speech and delivered articulately with none of the usual cute stupid meaningless caught phrases.

_________________________________

** The General also mentioned Canada, though not the red shirt "support the troops" bullshit, supported by the federal government, rather, he mentioned the Ontario provincial government's renaming a section of highway 401, between Trenton and TO, the route the hearses travel on their way to have the military corpses autopsied prior to handing them back to families.

Technorati Tags: Afganistan, BBC, Britain, Canada, Iraq, Military, warfare

Arctic Sovereignty Canada Struggles?

Just mention the Arctic, then add that tricky word sovereignty and you are bound to get lots and lots of media coverage particularly in the global warming adjusted dog days of summer. Most people haven't, nor will they ever, see the Arctic, hey, in the summer who would want to, and as for sovereignty - doesn't that have something to do with .... I don't know royalty, so a recipe for something kinky maybe? All eyes and ears start twitching.

So, when our illustrious, "new", Prime Minister, Harper. announced that he was going to create an Arctic fleet to defend Canada's claim on its forgotten frontier, by having his spinners pass the word around that "Steve was standing up for Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic" you'd hardly need to wonder why so much attention, I guess.

(Remember Stevie went up to see the place, the Arctic, last summer and once a Canadian conservative has been someplace they are experts on every detail of it. But, you do remember, I know you do, he was in the Arctic to avoid having to go to the AIDs conference in Toronto. Yes, it was a year ago now, that time before he had his conversion. He now understands that AIDs isn't passed on by a handshake and that Global warming maybe a problem outside of Alberta.)

A Google search netted me about 330 articles on Harper's BC announcement. Gads even The Guardian had a piece on the PMs vitality called: "Canada flexes its muscles in scramble for the Arctic". I guess we have to use it (???) or we'll lose it. I have to think about that one for awhile - if you've seen some Arctic communities in the summer you might just want to lose them but that's another note.

Dave at The Galloping Beaver was out the gate almost immediately with a note on Harpers latest announcement followed up closely by Boris who maybe coming highly suspicious of the "new" Prime Minister and his antics.

We have moved quite quickly for us Canadians, winter is long gone and most should be feeling finally limbered up by now, I know, but the speed we paint hauls is amazing to me (defense of the North has moved from the Coast Guard to the Canadian Forces - the Canadian navy went the way of the tot long ago.) We maybe have missed our true calling as a nation. We are all ships painters. I, myself, prefer the Coast Guard red to the battleship grey of the "forces" vessel but whose to question the "new" Prime Minister, eh.

I'm waiting to hear where the planned new naval base may be. Harper during the election campaign said Iqaluit which had to be one of the dumber of his party's promises. A base about 1,000 to 1,600 km as the crow flies from the Northwest Passage, good idea very useful. The people in Iqaluit would love it but, I don't think, it makes any sense whatsoever.

O'Connor, the Canadian Defense Minister, said last summer, during his tour of Nunavut, that he would announce the location of the new base before the end of 2006. I guess he got too busy trying to figure out where the Afghan detainees went and had no time to think of the North.

The Nunavut government has provided the feds with 7 suggestions, all existing communities in the territory including Iqaluit, Kimmurit, Cambridge Bay - I'm not sure what others.

Neither Iqaluit or Kimmurit make any sense. Kimmurit is about 60 miles South of Iqaluit on the other side of mega incognito facing Northern Quebec. Maybe if we needed to protect our claim on Hudson and James Bay it would be reasonable to station something in the place. How about a big gun, but not a Northern naval base.

Resolute Bay would be the most sensible place (it maybe on the territorial governments list of recommended sites) - it's sort of the midway point in the NW Passage, with potential large oil fields in the neighbourhood, an airport with a gravel runway that can handle 737's fitted up for the purpose, C-130's of course, good hotels and accessible by ocean going vessels for re-supply in late summer (Desgagnés Transarctik, NEAS or maybe Woodward) but no existing docking facilities. In fact there are no docking facilities for any of the 26 Nunavut communities, even though, all but one - Baker Lake - is, in effect, a seaside community

If someone had decided the North was more urgently important sooner, a base could maybe have been situated at the old Polaris mine site on Little Cornwallis Island just a stones throw from Resolute. DND could have used and expanded the existing docking facilities connected to the mine site. But, see the pictures below everything has been reclaimed, now, and Cominco the mine operator, looks like it did a pretty complete job - it cost about $68 million to restore the site.

There is still the mine site at Nanisivik and its dock, buildings and tank farm which I think the Coast Guard still uses. It also has a paved jet port up in the mountains which I don't think is used now the mine is shut down. The Nanisivik mine site is at the eastern start of the Northwest Passage - i.e. at the top of Baffin Island, close to the community of Arctic Bay. Contamination might be an issue, but from the last pictures I saw of the place, on the surface, at least, didn't look too bad for a high Arctic community, see here for example.

Just to orient anyone unfamiliar with the communities in the high Arctic here are 3 maps which show Resolute, Little Cornwallis, Nanisivik and Bathurst Inlet:

If I was given a chance to pick a place for the new naval base, I'd pick Bathurst Inlet . It has a natural deep water harbour and it is, I think, close enough to the deep water Northwest Passage (the St Roch's 1944 route from East to West) route to serve the purpose of routine patrolling. With a port in Bathurst the whole Northwestern part of Nunavut would be open for exploration and development. Some people would be pretty unhappy, most I think from down South, but the Inuit in Cambridge Bay, Gjoa Haven, Taloyoak and Kugluktuk would likely be overjoyed. Western Arctic Inuit are the most hard headed practical aboriginals in the country. They don't want their land damaged but they want some of the economic benefits buried below the tundra and a port facility in Bathurst Inlet would open up the whole of the Northwest part of Nunavut. Pipe dreaming I know. Also one of the interesting clashes you see in the North between some aboriginals and Southerners. It isn't always clear who is pro or con regarding development.

Knowing Harper, and the DND crowd, likely want to avoid controversy, I hope, then that "common sense" wins and Resolute gets the nod for the base.

PS

Bathurst Inlet, though it is only really a summer camp for some Inuit, is supplied with fuel etc. during the summer sealift season because a few Inuit winter there. In Bathurst's case a barge comes in from the sea but it originates in Hay River the start of the summer highway into the Western Arctic on the South shore of the Great Slave Lake.

This PS is really just an excuse for me to include one of my favorite map pictures of the North, courtesy of NTCL (Northern Transportation Company Limited). It's a picture not confused by any of the land mass to the South and, I think, any one should easily be able to imagine what the deep water Northwest Passage is by just looking at it.

Where would you put a naval base, ever if it operates for just a few months in the summer - August and some of September?.