24th annual Conference of Defence Associations Institute (CDAI) Seminar

[daftandbarmy]

Please circulate/Prière de circuler

NOTE: Registration is still open!

Dear Colleagues,

We are pleased to announce that the 24th annual Conference of Defence Associations Institute (CDAI) Seminar and the 71st annual general meeting of the Conference of Defence Associations (CDA) will be held 21-22 February 2008 at the Fairmont Chateau Laurier in Ottawa, Canada.

This year’s theme for the CDAI Seminar on 21 February 2008 is “Canada’s National Security Interests in a Changing World,” and will feature, among others:

-        Mr. Thomas d’Aquino, Chief Executive and President of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives

-        General Rick Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff

-        Mr. David Mulroney,  Head Afghanistan Task Force (Invited)

-        Major -General Tim Grant

-        Mr. Jean-François Bureau, NATO Assistant Secretary General

-        Lieutenant-General (Retired) Talat Masood, Pakistan

-        Mr. Joseph Cirincione, Center for American Progress

-        Dr. John Cowan, Principal, Royal Military College of Canada

-        Dr. Piotr Dutkiewicz, Carleton University



General (Ret’d) Paul Manson, President of the CDA Institute, will preside over the Seminar.



The 71st AGM of the CDA will be held on 22 February 2008, and will be on the theme, “Afghanistan and Beyond – The Impact on Canada’s Regular and Reserve Forces.” Speakers will include:



-        Admiral William Fallon, Commander US CENTCOM

-        General Raymond Henault, Chair of NATO’s Military Committee

-        CF Environmental Chiefs, Director General Land Reserves, Commander Canada COM, Commander CEFCOM

Lieutenant-General (Ret’d) Richard Evraire, Chairman of the CDA, will preside over the AGM.

Registration is open to all. The updated agenda, forms and other information is available online at:

http://www.cda-cdai.ca/AGM_Agenda.htm

For more information, please contact the CDA Institute’s Project Officer, Mr. Arnav Manchanda, at +1 (613) 236-9903 or by email at projectofficer@cda-cdai.ca

REGISTER NOW – SEATING IS EXPECTED TO BE AT A PREMIUM!

Alain Pellerin, Colonel (Retired)

Executive Director, CDA-CDAI

+1 (613) 236-1252

director@cda-cdai.ca

www.cda-cdai.ca







Chers collègues,



Nous sommes heureux d’annoncer que le séminaire de la 24e conférence annuelle de l’Institut de la Conférence des associations de la défense (ICAD) et la 71e assemblée générale annuelle de la Conférence des associations de la défense (CAD) se tiendront les 21 et 22 février 2008 à l’hôtel Fairmont Château Laurier d’Ottawa, Canada.



Le 21 février, le thème du séminaire de l’ICAD portera sur « Les intérêts de sécurité nationale du Canada dans un monde en changement », et mettra en vedette, notamment :



-        M. Thomas d’Aquino, chef de la direction et président du Conseil canadien des chefs d’entreprise

-        Le Général Rick Hillier, chef de l’état-major de la défense

M. David Mulroney, Groupe de travail sur l’Afghanistan (Invité)

-              Major-général Tim Grant

-        M. Jean-François Bureau, secrétaire-général adjoint de l’O.T.A.N.

-        Lieutenant-Général (ret.) Talat Masood, Pakistan

-        M. Joseph Cirincione, Center for American Progress

-        M. John Cowan, Ph.D., principal, Collège militaire royal du Canada

-        M. Piotr Dutkiewicz, Ph.D., Université



Le Général (ret.) Paul Manson, président de l’Institut de la CAD, présidera le séminaire.



La 71e a.g.a. de la CAD se tiendra le 22 février 2008 et aura pour thème « L’ Afghanistan et au-delà – l’impact sur les forces régulières et les forces de réserve du Canada ».  Nous aurons, parmi les conférenciers :



-        L’Amiral William Fallon, Commandant du US CENTCOM

-        Le Général Raymond Henault, président du comité militaire de l’O.T.A.N.

-        Les chefs des éléments terre, mer, air des FC, Directeur Générale – Réserves de terre, le commandant de COM Canada, le commandant de CEFCOM

Le Lieutenant-Général (ret.) Richard Evraire, président de la CAD, présidera l’a.g.a.

L’inscription est ouverte à tous.  L’ordre du jour mis à jour, les formulaires et autres renseignements se trouvent en ligne à l’adresse :

http://www.cda-cdai.ca/AGM_Agenda.htm

Pour en savoir davantage, veuillez communiquer avec l’agent de projet de l’Institut de la CAD, M. Arnav Manchanda, au +1 613-236-9903, ou, par courriel, au projectofficer@cda-cdai.ca

INSCRIVEZ-VOUS DÈS MAINTENANT – LES PLACES DEVRAIENT PARTIR VITE !

Alain Pellerin, colonel (retraité)

directeur général, CAD-ICAD

+1 613-236-1252

director@cda-cdai.ca

www.cda-cdai.ca

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Conference of Defence Associations (CDA) holds its annual conference in Ottawa this week. Guest and speakers will include Prime Minister Harper, Defence Minister MacKay and General Rick Hillier.

CDA is a lobby group – it is a bit different from e.g. Earnscliffe or CGI (both of which have been much in the Canadian political news over the past few years). They (Earnscliffe and GCI) lobby our government on behalf of corporate clients and communicate (plant friendly ‘news’ stories with journalists, etc) with the media on behalf of the same clients. The corporate clients pay the tab – this causes many a furrowed brow in Canada, we are worried about private money being used to shape public policy. CDA also lobbies the government and communicates with the media, but it does so on behalf of one client: DND.* Thus we have public money, your money, being used by an arm of government to try to shape public policy.

This causes Prof. Amir Attaran to furrow his brow in a ‘commentary,’ which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080221.wcomili21/BNStory?cid=al_gam_globeedge

Commentary

When think tanks produce propaganda
At the very least, credible public intellectuals should disclose the source of their funding

AMIR ATTARAN

From Thursday's Globe and Mail
February 21, 2008 at 5:48 AM EST

The war in Afghanistan is one of ideas and ideologies. Ideologies, in that the Pashtun extremist worldview is far from our own. Ideas, in that our society is likely to prevail only if it makes wiser and cleverer decisions than theirs. That is why, when one adds up Canada's advantages in this war, there is none greater than our values of inquiry and debate.

But recently, a new threat has emerged. The Department of National Defence is intruding on academic financing, spending millions of dollars sponsoring think tanks and scholars to offer up agreeable commentary. When these intellectuals comment, they are not always quick to disclose that the military funds them.

Take the Conference of Defence Associations, a think tank that got $500,000 from DND last year. That money comes not with strings, but with an entire leash. A current DND policy reads that to receive money, CDA must "support activities that give evidence of contributing to Canada's national policies." Apparently, if CDA's activities were neutral and unbiased, or even-handedly supported and questioned government policy, DND would refuse to pay!

Attendees at CDA's annual conference, which begins today, will hear speeches by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Defence Minister Peter MacKay and MP Laurie Hawn, a retired lieutenant-colonel. Curiously for an organization that calls itself "non-partisan," no opposition politicians will speak. Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier will lecture, as will NATO's military head, General Ray Henault. The agenda includes a session titled "Contemporary Security Concerns" -- a discussion on Russia and Iran.

Now consider: If the Prime Minister staged a government event and declared Russia and Iran "contemporary security concerns," some Canadians would be made uneasy by the signal that sends. But if the government finances CDA, which stages an "independent" event where the Prime Minister rubs shoulders with military officers, weapons company executives and intellectuals addressing those same security concerns, it might just pass without Canadians noticing. CDA gets away with shilling because it is so discreet. Nowhere on its website does CDA disclose its half-million dollars of DND sponsorship.

The Harper government knows what the money is for, because cabinet reviewed the funding agreement between DND and CDA, and it has been secret ever since. Nonetheless, Maclean's got CDA's executive director, Colonel Alain Pellerin, to admit that the contract obliges it "to write a number of op-eds to the press" -- propaganda paid for by you and me.

More disturbing still is the manner in which DND spends money to elicit friendly comment by Canadian scholars.

Most people would find it strange that DND sponsors the salaries, research, travel and tuition of dozens of professors, postdoctoral fellows and graduate students. But DND's Security and Defence Forum does exactly this. The list of Canadian universities getting over half a million dollars of SDF money is extensive: York University ($580,000), UQAM ($630,000), Wilfrid Laurier University ($630,000), Université Laval ($655,000), McGill ($680,000), UBC ($680,000), University of Manitoba ($680,000), UNB ($680,000), Carleton University ($780,000), Dalhousie University ($780,000), University of Calgary ($780,000) and Queen's University ($1,480,000).

What's the money for? It's not for the technical work that militaries obviously require -- building better airplanes, for example. Instead, it sponsors policy scholars, who create the ideas, news and views that shape Canadians' perception of the military and the war. And the evidence suggests that the military and government have politicized some SDF grants. The same bureaucrat who administers SDF grants to scholars also manages DND's liaison with cabinet and Parliament. When DND needs a kind word in Parliament or the media -- presto! -- an SDF-sponsored scholar often appears, without disclosing his or her financial link.

There is one Canadian professor who received an $825,000 SDF grant. For that money, DND expects the professor to "conduct outreach activities with the Canadian public ... and Parliament about security and defence issues." And reach out he does -- eloquently, but not always disclosing that he is funded by DND. He made no disclosure when he testified to Parliament that the government's Afghanistan policy "is the right mission for Canada and the right mission for the Afghan people." He also made no disclosure in a published op-ed where he praised former Conservative defence minister Gordon O'Connor as "an outstanding success," and assailed "years of Liberal [party] neglect of ... defence policy and the Canadian Forces."

I don't ever want this professor to stop saying and writing what he believes. But I do want Canadians who encounter his interventions to know how he has been funded.

That is why, at the very least, credible public intellectuals owe disclosure to their public.

But the government, too, should know better. Rather than have DND dole out cash to public intellectuals -- and risk tainting their scholarship and their conferences -- it should give the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council that money, to award grants on an arm's-length basis. This is how other public intellectuals in Canada get funded.

Parliament, the Auditor-General and journalists need a watching brief on this file. As the war in Afghanistan becomes bigger and longer, it will prove dangerous to let DND sponsor intellectuals. Canada needs fresh ideas - not groupthink - to win.

Amir Attaran, Canada Research Chair in Law, Population Health and Global Development Policy at the University of Ottawa is funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and not by DND.

Prof Attaran is being hyperbolic and self serving in this article, but:

We should understand that DND funds its own lobby group to help it make its case to Canadians. This is not unique, the same happens in most Western countries. It is not unique to the military, either. Other government departments also fund research and scholarship in policy areas of interest to them; and

All public intellectuals and scholars should disclose their funding. It’s no big deal, there’s no scandal, but what’s sauce for the goose (regarding say, pharmaceutical researchers funded by drug companies) ought to be sauce for the gander (like e.g. the University of Calgary’s Centre for Military and Strategic Studies that does acknowledge that it is “part of a division of the Department of National Defence's Security and Defence Forum”).


----------
* Not quite. CDA is funded by DND and by a number of private associations. I, personally, am a contributor to CDA because I am a member of The RCR Association and that makes me, automatically, a contributor to the Canadian Infantry Association which is, in turn, a member of the CDA. It is very likely tham many Milnet.ca members also help fund the CDA – even they don’t know about it. 

 

[Penny]

For those of you who are following this conference, CPAC Video coverage is available online at the following link:

http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=vod&lang=e&clipID=434

This video in particular is General Peter Schoomaker, Chief of Staff of the US Army.
There are other videos available and I think that over the next week more will be added.

 

[Penny]

Link to article: Hillier asks Ottawa for clear Afghanistan mandate
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080222/afghan_hillier_080222/20080222?hub=Canada

 

[GUNS]

Watched the CDS give his presentation. As usual, he still has the ability to keep peoples attention.

He is always praising the soldiers by having a few of them at his presentations. The soldiers family members were there also.

The CDS also announced that this would be his last appearance as CDS at the CDA conference.

Job well done, Rick.

 

[Penny]

Watched the CDS give his presentation. As usual, he still has the ability to keep peoples attention.
He is always praising the soldiers by having a few of them at his presentations. The soldiers family members were there also.
The CDS also announced that this would be his last appearance as CDS at the CDA conference.
Job well done, Rick.

Agreed. I especially liked the personal touch when he offered to write a note for the little girl's teacher to explain why she missed school.
He recognized, again, the important part that family plays in support of the soldier. I admire how he consistently includes the view beyond the ranks to the sacrifices occurring behind the scenes.

 

[GUNS]

The CDS is a soldiers, soldier.

He cares about all military personel and their families.

He asked the employers of this country to consider hiring the family members of posted personel.
He explained how difficult it is on the families of posted personel having to give up their jobs and move to a new posting.

Curious as to what Rick's second life will be when he hangs up his uniform for the last time.

 

[LJ15]

Maybe the Maple Leafs are looking to emphasize the "General" in General Manager...........

 

[Penny]

Maybe the Maple Leafs are looking to emphasize the "General" in General Manager...........

They could offer him a new folder for his notes. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Gliobe and Mail, is Jack Grantstein’s rebuttal to Prof. Attarn’s attack on the CDA and the SDF.

  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080227.wcodefence27/BNStory/specialComment/home

Commentary

There's nothing improper about educating Canadians on defence

J.L. GRANATSTEIN

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
February 27, 2008 at 3:27 AM EST

Defence – the very word seems to get under the skin of many Canadians. The Canadian Forces is expensive, its actions abroad sometimes involve casualties, and its military operations sometimes interfere with the Canadian perception that we are peacekeepers first and foremost. Defence is so, well, so American.

You could feel all these undertones in the article by University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran on this page last week, in which he attacked the Conference of Defence Associations and the Department of National Defence's Security and Defence Forum.

The Conference is an amalgam of defence organizations, most related to the reserve forces. The CDA has an advocacy and educational pro-defence role, and it now receives $100,000 a year from the Defence Department. The Security and Defence Forum is a Department of National Defence program that offers financial support to university centres that work on defence-related topics. Neither is secret, both operate publicly, and in Prof. Attaran's eyes, both do nothing but generate pro-defence propaganda.

If it was only one complaint, it might pass unnoticed, but David ********, the Ottawa Citizen's defence correspondent, has published similar criticisms about the CDA, and so has Maclean's. Predictably, Steven Staples of the anti-defence Rideau Institute has also complained that the SDF program constitutes a federally funded defence lobby in the universities. So what's going on here?

First, it needs to be said that the federal government funds many different kinds of activities. It finances scholarly research through a host of agencies (including the Social Science and Humanities Research Council that drops lavish annual funding into Prof. Attaran's pocket). It has funded the Court Challenges Program that gave funds to organizations to oppose the government in court. The Department of Foreign Affairs gives grants to non-governmental organizations, and a host of other departments fund associations and groups that lobby the government and educate the public. With the exception of the now defunct Court Challenges program, no one says a word about this. Nor should they: This is a proper use of public funds to create an educated, informed public on the issues that matter to Canadians.

Second, it also must be noted that the Conference of Defence Associations is not a tame mouthpiece for the government or the military. CDA publications have vigorously attacked government policy on many occasions, and in its educational efforts CDA has tried to push and prod policy-makers to act in ways that serve the national interest and enhance Canadian security. This is education, and there's nothing remotely improper with this.

Finally, the Security and Defence Forum is even more bulletproof. In the universities across the country where it operates, a host of professors and students have been granted funds to do research in the areas they choose. These range from climate change and conflict to international law and world religions. No one in Ottawa twists academics' arms and demands they study this topic or that one. No one orders them to spout a party line (as if academics could be made to do so). An independent peer-review process run by scholars decides which centres get – or lose – funding, and the decisions are properly based on their track record in publication and research.

DND's only reward for all this has been the creation of more experts out there who can praise – or damn –the department's work. The Defence Department's view, quite properly, has been that it is better to get informed criticism than none at all.

Why all the criticism of funding defence research or defence education then?

The Canadian self-image is that we are a nation of peacekeepers, different from our more warlike American neighbours; that we have no national interests, such as other nations do, only universal values that we should propagate around the globe. It is, therefore, good for government to support NGOs with public funds since they uplift the downtrodden. But it is, by definition, wrong to fund any organization that might believe that defence is necessary to protect and advance the nation's interests at home and abroad or even that defence ought to be studied.

This is naive in the extreme. Canada has national interests to protect and advance. It has the Canadian Forces that can and should do peacekeeping when that is possible or necessary, but also must be prepared to do vigorous peacemaking when that is required – and when it serves our national interests. Learning how to define our interests and calculating how best to serve them is a proper role for scholars. So, too, is reminding Canadians that their Canadian Forces are a necessary adjunct to our government and, indeed, to all our lives.

J.L. Granatstein writes for the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, which gets no program funding from the Department of National Defence.

I have one quibble with Dr. Granatstein. I do not think Stephen Staples and his fellow travellers are just anti-defence; I don’t think they disapprove of wars waged against the US or the US led secular, capitalist West. I think Staples and his like are anti-military, anti our military, quite likely for the reasons Granatstein offers – our military, the real one, not the let’s pretend baby-blue beret, baby-feeding one so beloved by the press and public, reminds them of the USA, the great Satan. Despite his public protestations I think Staples, like his hero Pierre Trudeau, actually despises soldiers. He may not, I’m sure he does not actually and actively wish harm to Canadian soldiers, but I suspect he sheds no tears when they are maimed and killed in their country’s service.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Good old Jack, once again pointing out the great Canadian irony: The country that was created based on providing a viable military defence against revolutionary US expansionism undervalues it's own armed forces.

Let's go, Canada!