CANADA UNDER ATTACK

[armyvern]

Stoney, thank you for the reasoned comments. 

How anyone could suggest that pointing out government failures to support the CF was an attack on the troops is utter nonsense.  Indeed by the time any reader had reached that portion of the book should have readily seen the support being given to the CF by pointing out government failures to properly fund, equip and man the CF. The suggestions of dishonesty, etc. are in exceptionally poor taste.  I guess they think Major General (retired) Clive Addy who wrote the testimonial for the book doesn't know squat, Major General (retired) Lew MacKenenzie who reviewed at least one draft and encouraged the author to proceed doesn't know his stuff, Col. (retired) Howie Marsh who supplied some graphs on funding for the book is not to be trusted either, nor does Jack Granatstein and many others who saw the drafts before it was published for FREE on the Internet as a public service.

I will move to other topics, and hope that repetition of this behaviour isn't the norm.  Oh yes, to some of the doubting Thomas's, I started viewing this board when I joined.  That is how I have worked on the Internet in military, police, and other forums since the late 1980's, including being on various forum staff.  If I have used words that may have offended some through miscommunication, then I apologize.  Enough said.

Your post reveals quite a bit about your own reasoning here. In that apparently you believe that only those who agree with your point of view are capable of forming and voicing "reasoned comments" and that the rest are doubting Thomas' with behaviour you hope isn't the norm.

That's very interesting seeing as how the comments are coming from some very reasoned pers who were very involved with and quite intimate of the goings-on regarding Op Peregrine who have questioned the authors judgement of that event. That is reasonable. Especially if the author's judgement is flawed in it's reasoning.

You, on the other hand, seem to be quite intimate with the goings on regarding this book...are you the author perchance? Maybe not the author, but your posts certainly seem to lead me to the belief that you were involved in it's production somehow and thus, may be holding a bias in it's favour.

My .02 worth.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Griffin, since you seem fairly familiar with this book, could you relay some of the support-to-the-CF parts which you were mentioning?

 

[Griffin]

Griffin, since you seem fairly familiar with this book, could you relay some of the support-to-the-CF parts which you were mentioning?

The book is about 440 pages in length, including photo's and graphs, and covers not only shortcomings in government policy, but also makes a wide variety of comments concerning manning levels, funding, and new equipment of sufficient quality and number to return the CF back to prior levels of capability. This has included everything from getting new Leo's and Puma's, increasing the number of LAVIII, to getting on board with the JSF, getting US built and tried and proven Amphibious warfare vessels, etc.,  and of course obtaining a large increase in manpower to run things, etc. 

The ideas were sound enough for Clive Addy to make the following Testimonial, which is on its own hyperlink on the book's web site:

"I have read Paul Cook's "Canada Under Attack" not once but twice.  It is the best compendium of what a loss Canada has suffered in capacity, sovereignty and credibility among its allies and its own citizens through the wilful neglect of it armed forces.  But criticism is one thing, proposing positive, and credible solutions is far more important and, thoughout, Paul shares with us his comprehensive research and expertise in all elements of military capabilities and their pertinent organization for the security of Canadian interests.  He has opened and filled much of the serious debate about the role and future of our Canadian Forces.  It is not just a good read, but an excellent and required read for those who profess to call themselves informed and concerned Canadians."

I think Clive put it best when he said one needs to read the entire document.  The author quite clearly states he is not an author by profession, and would readily agree that many elements of the book would be up for debate and some may have chosen to add this or that, or take this item or that item out.  However, the intent was to get Canadians engaged in understanding the military, understanding how politics directly affects the forces and potentially their welfare, and how an informed public may be less gullible when a Prime Minister troddles out the statement that we don't need strategic transport aircraft, like Jean Chretien did post the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. 

One only need to read the Acknowledgements page to understand the author's deep desire to support the CF.  Throughout the book comparisons are made with other military as to equipment we should get the CF, and Chapter 7 goes into more detail as to rebuilding the CF.  Some of the items will be controversial and that was also the intent so as to garner further debate and thought and hopefully gain more public support for the CF.

 

[Journeyman]

So, in response to...

could you relay some of the support-to-the-CF parts which you were mentioning?

...you require five paragraphs to say

I think Clive put it best when he said one needs to read the entire document.

In other words, you found it easy to post a snippet, which was pointed out as mistaken, in a rational non-attacking manner by the way, by people intimately familiar and directly involved in the operation. Yet, you cannot find a single similar quote to respond to a request to show some CF support? The only option is for interested parties to wade through the entire "440 pages in length, including photo's and graphs."

Does this mean any "support" is so deeply buried and/or convoluted that you just can't find it.....or would posting it here be counterproductive to the book's apparent purpose of merely muckraking?

You claim that the book's intent is to "garner further debate." Hmmmm.....so debate is understood to mean those who agree provide "reasoned comments"; anyone who points out it's shortcomings is a "Liberal government apologist"....  :

Enough said.

Hope springs eternal.


~JM (apparently incapable of reasoned comment, since I've seen no evidence to contradict the doubting Thomas' camp).

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

How anyone could suggest that pointing out government failures to support the CF was an attack on the troops is utter nonsense.  Indeed by the time any reader had reached that portion of the book should have readily seen the support being given to the CF by pointing out government failures to properly fund, equip and man the CF. The suggestions of dishonesty, etc. are in exceptionally poor taste.  I guess they think Major General (retired) Clive Addy who wrote the testimonial for the book doesn't know squat, Major General (retired) Lew MacKenenzie who reviewed at least one draft and encouraged the author to proceed doesn't know his stuff, Col. (retired) Howie Marsh who supplied some graphs on funding for the book is not to be trusted either, nor does Jack Granatstein and many others who saw the drafts before it was published for FREE on the Internet as a public service.

No one has suggested an "attack on the troops"  What utter nonsense.  Moreover, no one made suggestions of "dishonesty" - intellectual dishonesty, yes.  There is a difference.

I think Clive put it best when he said one needs to read the entire document.  The author quite clearly states he is not an author by profession, and would readily agree that many elements of the book would be up for debate and some may have chosen to add this or that, or take this item or that item out.

I couldn't make it through the entire document.  However, I did make an attempt at the army portion (in the tradition of staying in my lane) and this is hardly a scholarly paper or analysis, as has been made out.  My random notes as I was reading:

• No discernable primary source material.  It relies almost exclusively on press reporting, which, as you can see on this site, is deeply flawed.
• Represents opinion as fact.  (Page 118 for example)
• The Stryker is not the equivalent of a LAV III – only the hull is the same.
• Conclusions regarding wheeled versus tracked vehicles without any analysis or justification.  No operational comparison of either.
• Erroneous and simplistic comparison of the Bradley and LAV III.
• Discussion of platoon and company structure doesn’t make sense.  Author fails to prove why the current structure is inadequate.
• Confuses US and Canadian terminology.  Incorrect use of “NCM”…uses the term Regiment as a manoeuvre unit.
• Takes single source material as gospel – Stryker vulnerability, for example.  Extrapolates US “experience” to comments on LAV III.  Wild extrapolation of data in support of heavy tracked vehicles.  Argument for tracked vehicles not made based on any operational input.
• Erroneous claim that the M109 was replaced by 81mm mortars.
• Artillery (unless using special munitions) does not have a “devastating effect” on tanks.
• Aardvark of “incredible use” in Afghanistan?  How?  What source leads to this conclusion?
• Ridiculous use of the BC Fires as an example of the requirement for an airmobile unit.  Accuses the military of “putting communities at risk (!!)” (page 151)
• Unjustified comments on temperate CADPAT based on no primary sources.
• Ridiculous blaming of the friendly fire deaths on the lack of Canadian CAS.
• Single line comments on equipment without background or data, aside from a single media report.
• Much Liberal bashing and quoting of editorials.
• Comments on MGen Ross without sources.
• States the ISAF mission was "woefully short" of resources, without sourcing or justification.  Brainless analysis of the threat in Kabul.

This is not an academic paper, despite Griffin's claims of extensive academic consultation.  It is so riddled with errors and erroneous extrapolations that it cannot be taken seriously as an analysis of defence issues.



You don't happen to be a member of the Legion of Frontiersmen, do you Griffin?

 

[armyvern]

Very reasonably put Mr Bear and JM,

I am still interested in an answer to this question posed earlier which is being evaded:

You, on the other hand, seem to be quite intimate with the goings on regarding this book...are you the author perchance? Maybe not the author, but your posts certainly seem to lead me to the belief that you were involved in it's production somehow and thus, may be holding a bias in it's favour.

Griffen, exactly what is your connection to the production of this?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Griffen, exactly what is your connection to the production of this?

Kinda curious about that myself. 

Plus, if you just want to get across "Liberals suck and are no friend of the CF" you could probably put that on a flyer.  We know the quandary we are in and the lack of many resources that we need.  Does the book offer any suggestions or solutions to the issues we face?  With all that research and analysis I would think that one could come up with a few new ideas?

 

[paracowboy]

I tried to wade through that pile of utter and complete crapola. I gave up pretty quickly and went to something more accurate and realistic: a Batman comic.  : Actually, a graphic novel. Pretty cool, too! It's the one with the "Hush" storyline, and Jim Lee's artwork is outstanding. The best part of the whole thing was seeing Krypto the Superdog hovering in mid-air, with his eyes glowing red.

Anybody else read anything worthwhile?

 

[STONEY]

Well i have finally managed to wade through the entire 440 pages and would like to make a few points also IMHO.
1. The author certainly seems to have a serious axe to grind and must have put a lot of time into the project but the results are disappointing to say the least.
2. Some points are valid but a lot of others he appears to be on crack, and he gives bizare solutions to solve problems that are worse than the one's he accuses the Gov. of.
3. If Gen. Addy did indeed read this book twice why didn't he inform the author that there were hundreds of errors of fact & inaccuracies
throughout the book or didn't he know.  Maybe the author should have gotten a few people with a broad range of military knowledge to proof read it or specialists to check each section.
4. The conclusions he reaches from the shaky evidence he lists defy reason.
5. To most of the unwashed masses with little or no knowledge of the subjects discussed it might have been an impressive tome. Conspiracy theory anyone.
6. Could have gotten his point across in a lot less than 440 pages , about 430 less.
7. I can't use spellcheck as this rant shows.

Cheers

 

[Journeyman]

...he gives bizare solutions to solve problems that are worse than the one's he accuses the Gov. of..

Could you provide an example or two? (you know...so your comment doesn't appear to be without any more justification than the original author's assertions)