Def Min's "Architect" Statements (split fm Walts et. al.)

[PuckChaser]

It's also telling that both the CDS or MGen(ret) Fraser are refusing to comment on this story.

Its not telling that the CDS won't comment. Its telling that he'd rather answer questions about sexual misconduct than answer questions about his boss lying to the Canadian public.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Remember the online version of the now-notorious Def Min's speech in India?

Not exactly claiming a medal, but ...

What.  The.  F#$%^&*k???Here's the speech text (also archived) - also attached if links don't work for you.
:facepalm:

Even though it's (for now, anyway) clearly marked as "Notes" for the Minister, and it says, "Check Against Delivery" (a warning to reporters or anyone following the speech from the text to let them know the speaker may not be saying exactly what the text says), now, we hear something different from the Info-machine:

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan‘s controversial claim that he was the architect of Operation Medusa, a major offensive in Afghanistan led by Canadian forces in 2006, was not in the speech’s prepared text, according to a senior government source close to the minister.

Sajjan delivered the speech earlier this month in New Delhi.

Though the remarks are posted online and use the normal template for a prepared speech, the source told Global News it was actually a transcript of the speech that was uploaded.

The minister “deviated from the prepared text,” the person said.

Because of the online copy, it was widely reported that the remarks were prepared, which would have meant they were approved by someone who worked for public affairs before Sajjan delivered them. This information reveals that the minister’s decision to inflate his role was entirely his ...

Really?

Funny  - here's what appears to be the YouTube video of the speech posted by the host organization the day after the date of the speech.  Lots of words there that aren't on the "transcript" posted online -- 17:05 in is where he says the architect thing ...

Really?!?

Countdown to media ATIP for original notes, in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

 

[Good2Golf]

Wasn't "The True ArchitectTM" of Medusa actually an American S5 plans officer who slaved away for the US CG in RC(S), even before LCol Hope handed control of the Canadian Battle group over to (then) LCol Lavoie with (then) BGen Fraser watching from the TOC? ???

Regards
G2G

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Wasn't "The True ArchitectTM" of Medusa actually an American S5 plans officer who slaved away for the US CG in RC(S), even before LCol Hope handed control of the Canadian Battle group over to (then) LCol Lavoie with (then) BGen Fraser watching from the TOC? ???

Regards
G2G

:rofl:

 

[Good2Golf]

I don't know, HB, he could be a Green Tab, but with his collar popped so awesomely, he could be hiding his staff-trained credentials? ;D

This guy probably always selected the "Most Preposterous" COA. :nod:

Regards
G2G

 

[The Bread Guy]

More grist for the mill:  one political scientist's commentary, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42) ...

I spent much of November and December arguing that naming a very recently retired former general as Secretary of Defense is problematic--that there is much confusion to be had, by the former officer, the person who picked him, and the public.  Well, we see in recent days that this argument may have applied to the country to the north as well.

Harjit Sajjan has gotten into hot water for stating that he was the architect for a major effort, Operation Medusa,* in Afghanistan in 2006.  Whether he was or was not (probably not), this is problematic to those soldiers who serves because he is seen as taking credit for what was a multi-person effort.  So, either bragging or lying violates the sense of honor that Canadian soldiers have.  Today, Sajjan will be answering questions about it in Parliament.

So, what is my take?  Is this just a tempest in a teapot? No.  Is this a fireable offense? Probably not. Is this mostly distraction sauce?  Probably.  Let me explain my still confused take.

Sajjan is now a politician and not a military officer.  We tend to view politicians having more liberties with the truth than military officers, including defense ministers/secretaries. So, the sin of lying by Sajjan is not as grievous now as it would have been if he had lied to his commanders or subordinates.  Still, this is now a political problem that the opposition will have much fun playing with.  Will Sajjan lose effectiveness because of this crisis?  That depends on whether you think Sajjan has been effective thus far.  And that is where the problem really lies.

How effective has Sajjan been thus far?  The answer to that partly depends on the eventual release of the Defence Policy Review, but his decisions thus far have been slow and problematic.  The most visible one has been the effort to buy Super Hornets as an interim solution, rather than commit to the F-35 buy or a competition now for that next fighter plane purchase.  Other procurement decisions have been delayed as well, and delays increase costs.  In terms of what the CAF is actually doing in the field, Sajjan has been mostly fine.  Sure, he got stuck with the combat but not combat thing that seems to hit all leaders who are involved in reassuring publics that the democracies are not in Iraq to do conventional war.  The big challenge ahead for the CAF in Iraq is what to do after the Mosul operation, and delays on those decisions have probably limited Canadian options.

All this is to suggest that Sajjan is vulnerable because he has not been that effective.  I doubt he will get fired soon, but he may get shuffled to a new position this summer.

Is this a crisis in Canadian civil-military relations?  Sure, because any time it seems like the military is criticizing the Minister of Defence, we can call it a crisis.  But it is not a stark one and probably a temporary one.  It is certainly not the place for soldiers to call for the firing/resignation of their defense ministers, and all we have is retired officers on the record and maybe some active soldiers off the record.

The big problem here as I hinted above is that putting a recently retired officer in charge of the military creates the perception that the Minister of Defence is going to be an ally of the armed forces.  This is a problem since the job of the Minister is to do most of the oversight over the CAF.  The Prime Minister is too busy with other stuff.  The parliamentarians don't see oversight as their job--they see their job as holding the Minister to account.  There is no other elected official in Canada (and in many other democracies) who has the information necessary to oversee the armed forces.  So, the Minister should not be buddies with the armed forces nor should he be seen as such.  Yet the government made a big deal of picking a "badass" who might just be friends with his former crewmates.  Which creates expectations that not only cannot be met but should not be met.

The other big problem is that this episode will give the opposition an easy but empty issue to play with.  Lying or not about something that happened eleven years ago is really not that important compared to whether Canada is buying the most appropriate military equipment, whether enough money is being spent on operations/training/maintenance (there is no lobby pushing for that rather than spending on equipment (contractors as lobbyists) or personnel (retired soldiers as lobbyists).  But the built-in dysfunction in this political system is that it is far easier to focus on style and flash and not substance.

Is it a problem that the Defence Minister exaggerated or lied about his role long ago?  Sure.  Is it the most important thing going on today in Canadian defence?  Far from it. Not a sexy line for the radio apparently, but true nonetheless.

*  I have heard mixed reviews about the planning of Op Medusa.  Yes, it did clear out the Taliban from posing a threat to Kandahar City, but some people I have talked to over the years did not have a high opinion of General Fraser's tactics during the operation.  The criticism is that the effort was needlessly costly to Canadians because Fraser (and other architects?) did not adapt their plan once the Taliban sprung their own ambushes.  However, I do not really know enough to adjudicate the competing claims.  I am just reporting that there are competing claims.  And not "the earth is not warming" kind of competing claims.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

More grist for the mill:  one political scientist's commentary, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42) ...

I am of the opinion that military officers, as a matter of them possessing a Queen's Commission, should refrain from participating in politics.  In my mind, it's a huge conflict of interest having a former serving member as Defence Minister and undermines the entire idea of "Civilian Control" of the Armed Forces.  Has Minister Sajjan renounced his Commission?  I'm sure it proudly hangs on one of his walls.

 

[GAP]

I disagree.....having served he has a better perspective of the needs and wants.....the trick is to find a politician with some ethics that don't involve his/her reelection.....

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I disagree.....having served he has a better perspective of the needs and wants.....the trick is to find a politician with some ethics that don't involve his/her reelection.....

But it's actually contradictory, Harjit Sajjan is legally still a commissioned officer because he hasn't been decommissioned.  How can we have "Civilian Control" when the Minister of National Defence isn't a civilian?

I don't think Commissioned Officers should participate in politics at all but likewise I believe Officers should be entitled to speak publically about matters pertaining to Defence, regardless of whether the government likes it or not.   

 

[mariomike]

For reference to the discussion,

(7) No member of the Regular Force shall:
a.take an active part in the affairs of a political organization or party;
b.make a political speech to electors, or announce himself or allow himself to be announced as a candidate, or prospective candidate, for election to the Parliament of Canada or a provincial legislature; or
c.except with the permission of the Chief of the Defence Staff, accept an office in a municipal corporation or other local government body or allow himself to be nominated for election to such office.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-01/ch-19.page

I believe he was ( is? ) in the PRes.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... the trick is to find a politician with some ethics that don't involve his/her reelection ...

And while many, if not most, may start their political careers wanting to make a difference, in the end, it tends to come down to the bit in yellow - no matter what team jersey.

I am of the opinion that military officers, as a matter of them possessing a Queen's Commission, should refrain from participating in politics.  In my mind, it's a huge conflict of interest having a former serving member as Defence Minister and undermines the entire idea of "Civilian Control" of the Armed Forces.  Has Minister Sajjan renounced his Commission?  I'm sure it proudly hangs on one of his walls.

The record says he released as of 8 Nov 2015. 

... How can we have "Civilian Control" when the Minister of National Defence isn't a civilian? ...

Re:  renouncing commissions, are all commissioned members expected to do that on release?  And if they don't, are they not civilians?

... I don't think Commissioned Officers should participate in politics at all but likewise I believe Officers should be entitled to speak publicly about matters pertaining to Defence, regardless of whether the government likes it or not.

Interesting concept -- and you think this would still be a good idea if you had someone working for you publicly (e.g., potentially to the media) disavowing/disagreeing with your orders/directions while in a leadership position over them?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

For reference to the discussion,

(7) No member of the Regular Force shall:
a.take an active part in the affairs of a political organization or party;
b.make a political speech to electors, or announce himself or allow himself to be announced as a candidate, or prospective candidate, for election to the Parliament of Canada or a provincial legislature; or
c.except with the permission of the Chief of the Defence Staff, accept an office in a municipal corporation or other local government body or allow himself to be nominated for election to such office.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-01/ch-19.page

I believe he is ( was? ) in the PRes.

Now your talking about service in the Armed Forces, I'm talking about possessing a commission, two very different things.  You may no longer be a member of the Armed Forces; however, you still hold a commission and can be asked to serve "at pleasure".

ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

To ........ .........

hereby appointed an Officer in Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces

With Seniority of the .... day of ......... ....

WE reposing especial Trust and Confidence in your Loyalty, Courage and Integrity do by these Presents Constitute and Appoint you to be an Officer in our Canadian Armed Forces. You are therefore carefully and diligently to discharge your Duty as such in the Rank of .............. or in such other Rank as We may from time to time hereafter be pleased to promote or appoint you to, and you are in such manner and on such occasions as may be prescribed by us to exercise and well discipline both the Inferior Officers and Non-Commissioned Members serving under you and use your best endeavour to keep them in good Order and Discipline, and We do hereby Command them to Obey you as their Superior Officer, and you to observe and follow such Orders and Directions as from time to time you shall receive from Us, or any other your Superior Officer according to Law, in pursuance of the Trust hereby Reposed in you.

IN WITNESS Whereof our Governor General of Canada hath hereunto set his hand and Seal at Our Government House in the City of Ottawa this .... day of .......... in the Year of our Lord ................... and in the .... Year of Our Reign.

By Command of His Excellency the Governor General

 

The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is the Governor General, The Chief of Defence Staff falls next in the military hierarchy.  Should the Governor General not publically spank a person who possesses a commission signed by his office?  How can you have a Minister of National Defence, who holds a commission given to him by the Governor General, in command of the Ministry of National Defence?  How does the Governor General strip a person of their commission in this instance for poor conduct?  See where the conflict is?

Note:  I'm not saying Harjit Sajjan should be stripped of his commission or should even resign, he made a small error and a formal apology should be enough.

And while many, if not most, may start their political careers wanting to make a difference, in the end, it tends to come down to the bit in yellow - no matter what team jersey.

Officers manage a vital national institution, do Judges become politicians once they leave the bench?  I think anyone working as a Judge or holding a Commission from the Head of State should abstain from participating in politics for life.  It's the reason the Monarch has "placed special trust" in you. 

The record says he released as of 8 Nov 2015.

Even if you release, you still hold a commission.  It's the reason he can call himself LCol (Ret'd) Sajjan.  He serves at the "Queen's Pleasure".

Re:  renouncing commissions, are all commissioned members expected to do that on release?  And if they don't, are they not civilians?

Nope, it's the reason I can release from the military then five years later, join as if I never left.  Otherwise I would need to be awarded a new commission.  Commissions have a start date and end date, the end date is when the Monarch says I'm done or I die. 

Interesting concept -- and you think this would still be a good idea if you had someone working for you publicly (e.g., potentially to the media) disavowing/disagreeing with your orders/directions while in a leadership position over them?

Disagreement is different than not actioning though.  If a person tells me to do something, I can tell him that it's a bad idea for XXXX; however, I will carry it out because it's my duty.

I think debate is healthy.  The government controls the Armed Forces through budget allocation and directing us to undertake missions.  How does a military run an Academic Institution such as RMC if it can't critique government policy.  Situation:  "I'm a student undertaking a Masters in War Studies at RMC and I also happen to be a member of the Armed Forces.  I produce a paper critiquing the methodology used in the upcoming Defence Policy Review".  I need to write this paper to fulfill my academic obligations but I'm also violating the CSD by doing so.  How is this just in a democracy?

 

[jollyjacktar]

But it's actually contradictory, Harjit Sajjan is legally still a commissioned officer because he hasn't been decommissioned.  How can we have "Civilian Control" when the Minister of National Defence isn't a civilian?

I don't think Commissioned Officers should participate in politics at all but likewise I believe Officers should be entitled to speak publically about matters pertaining to Defence, regardless of whether the government likes it or not. 

He retired from the CF before he took the position of MND, so he's no longer commissioned.  This was so there would be on conflict with his having one etc.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is the Governor General, The Chief of Defence Staff falls next in the military hierarchy.  Should the Governor General not publically spank a person who possesses a commission signed by his office?  How can you have a Minister of National Defence, who holds a commission given to him by the Governor General, in command of the Ministry of National Defence?  How does the Governor General strip a person of their commission in this instance for poor conduct?  See where the conflict is?...

And where's it say the GG/C-in-C can't appropriately spank the current Minister if he's released but still holding a commission?  And if the GG, as the Crown's rep, can't take way a Royal commission, who can?  If he can take it from a serving officer who's moving into no-longer-serving status, why can't he from a non-serving one if required, especially if something happened that would warrant (no pun intended) taking back a commission?

... Even if you release, you still hold a commission.  It's the reason he can call himself LCol (Ret'd) Sajjan.  He serves at the "Queen's Pleasure" ... it's the reason I can release from the military then five years later, join as if I never left.  Otherwise I would need to be awarded a new commission.  Commissions have a start date and end date, the end date is when the Monarch says I'm done or I die. 

This is new to me, in spite of my previous (non-commissioned) service - thanks for that.

... Disagreement is different than not actioning though.  If a person tells me to do something, I can tell him that it's a bad idea for XXXX; however, I will carry it out because it's my duty.

I think debate is healthy.  The government controls the Armed Forces through budget allocation and directing us to undertake missions ...

But I asked you if you'd be OK with a subordinate officer publicly disagreeing with you or criticizing one of your day-to-day decisions, not just discussing pro's & cons (which I suspect is par for the course), based on what you said:

... I believe Officers should be entitled to speak publically about matters pertaining to Defence, regardless of whether the government likes it or not.

... How does a military run an Academic Institution such as RMC if it can't critique government policy ...

Good question, but I think officers publishing papers via an academic review system (and there are a number of military academics who can straighten me out on this around these parts) is quite a different beast than someone in uniform talking off the cuff criticizing the government and its policies.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

He retired from the CF before he took the position of MND, so he's no longer commissioned.  This was so there would be on conflict with his having one etc.

You're incorrect, he still has a commission.  Just because you release from the CAF doesn't mean you give up your commission.

Milnews to answer your question, yes I would be ok with that.  If I make a statement we are doing something and someone tells me that's a bad idea, I ask why? 

Again, public disagreement is totally fine.  Real leaders should accept challenges and be prepared to admit when they're wrong.

Writing a paper is the same as speaking it.  There is no differentiation in the law. 

 

[Rifleman62]

I believe you have to "resign" your Commission so you are no longer a "Commissioned Officer". i.e. in the old days a PRes commissioned officer resigned his commission to do a component transfer to the RegF. We had a number of RESO go RegF so they had to resign their PRes commission for a new RegF commission, with seniority from ..........

Their was a Reg F Offr in Edm DB. He wore no rank of course but was still a Commissioned Officer

 

[Rifleman62]

Extract from the Comments section of the NP today re this subject. Very good point I think.

Griffon11 May 2017 5:06 AM
I have just read this article on the Google news site along with 100 or so accompanying comments - the majority of which call for him to step down. Most of the comments point to the disservice his elaborations/fabrication have done to the military family and public and associated loss of credibility he will have with those audiences. However, not one addresses what is likely every bit as important to the role he plays in representing Canada's defence interests and that is the loss of credibility and respect he will suffer in his dealings with the international defence community, particularly with the Americans (several very experienced generals in the Administration) and the Brits. This impact cannot be apologized away and his continuance 'justified' by our ever skating and forgiving nominal PM. His ability to represent Canada on the international stage has been badly compromised and for that reason alone he should step down.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... Milnews to answer your question, yes I would be ok with that.  If I make a statement we are doing something and someone tells me that's a bad idea, I ask why? 

Again, public disagreement is totally fine.  Real leaders should accept challenges and be prepared to admit when they're wrong.

Writing a paper is the same as speaking it.  There is no differentiation in the law.

You're a bigger man than most if you'd be OK with someone going to the media (which is the context I understood when you said "speak publically about matters pertaining to Defence, regardless of whether the government likes it or not") about a decision of yours they didn't like.  Disagreeing with you in front of peers & subordinates is one thing, the next step up is quite another.

 

[mariomike]

Just because you release from the CAF doesn't mean you give up your commission.

Regarding,

"Commission Upon Release"
https://army.ca/forums/threads/123348.0
OP: "What happens to your commission when you release? Are you "de-commissioned"? Do you "relinquish" your commission?"

 

[HB_Pencil]

I am of the opinion that military officers, as a matter of them possessing a Queen's Commission, should refrain from participating in politics.  In my mind, it's a huge conflict of interest having a former serving member as Defence Minister and undermines the entire idea of "Civilian Control" of the Armed Forces.  Has Minister Sajjan renounced his Commission?  I'm sure it proudly hangs on one of his walls.

I think you see a similar discussions in theory emanating in the US over Mattis's appointment as SecDef. However I think the problem actually has manifested consequences that are the opposite of what the concerns are in the United States. This minister has presided over one of the poorest periods of senior civil-military relations since at least the mid 1990s (Jean Boyle, Somalia and the CAR), if not earlier. The Minister has allowed the government to ride completely roughshod over the military in areas that it believes should be its prerogatives. Senior Military staff have been completely sidelined and their advice disregarded on a wide range of issues. Marc Norman is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The decisions being made by this government are having deleterious consequences for the current and future CAF. I think part of the reason why the response on this has been so vicious is because of what Saideman has said: there are other issues that should be raised, but in absence of the Canadian public actually caring whether they will have a fighter fleet in five years' time, this is their way to plunge the knife and turn the handle. The only problem is that many people predict who will likely come after him, and envision the situation will become a whole lot worse than better.