• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Is the "Fifth Column" at work in Canada ?

We've run into this problem with the DND firewall before - I had a friend who e-mailed me about a month ago to let me know he couldn't read The Torch from KAF anymore.  So I asked some folks at CEFCOM what was going on.  Here's what I was told via e-mail:

Damian,

Further to the DND blocking Blogspot sites discussion, it would seem that this is purely a technical issue rather than an attempt to specifically target site content.

Here is a brief explanation from a technical aspect:

Many sites use technologies which are not well supported by the current firewall configuration. For technical or security reasons these technologies are being blocked (ie.: JAVA, ActiveX, VBScript). This often results in poor functionality on certain sites. If an essential site functionality is being blocked, please contact your local Helpdesk with the specific URL of the site and a short description of the problem.

So, if The Torch posts a link to a JAVA script, it may be blocked by the firewall. If the next post is purely text, the site will likely be accessible. Regardless when a site is blocked, DWAN users do have the option to contact their IT help desk to get permission to view the site if there are no technical or security concerns. Over the coming days we'll see if the site continues to be blocked at KAF, or whether this is a result of site content at the time that the member was trying to access.

Hope this helps to clarify.

Whether that's the whole story, I don't know.  But the blocking seems to be intermittent, not constant - I had another friend who e-mailed me from KAF not a week later to tell me he was reading every day.  I can tell you, it's annoying a whole pile of people from Halifax to Kandahar that want to access the blog through the DWAN.  You could try talking to your IT help desk, or you could just read it from home.

The funny part is that there was a story written about The Torch in a recent issue of The Maple Leaf.  But when people tried to click on the link in the electronic version, they'd find their access blocked...  ::)
 
Thank you for the clarification.  Some of the blocks do catch me by surprise from time to time.  I found BBC News blocked for some time while in KAF.  Naughty words or something like that I was told when I bitched.
 
I've got things to say about a couple of points from earlier in the thread:

The CF has a Public Affairs branch.  It has some good people in it, who do their best to get the stories of ordinary soldiers, sailors, and airmen to the Canadian public through the media filter.  It also has some people who were shuffled into the trade because they washed out of something else.  Right now, the PA branch is getting largely gagged by the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office.  Micro-managing the day-to-day public communications of the CF is a bad idea, and I'm hoping they'll figure that out at some point.  My point is that PA is trying - well or poorly, depending on the individual - to do their job, and is being stifled by the bureaucrats, staffers, and politicians.

I'm not sure the press can be accurately referred to as a 'fifth column', since there's no co-ordination and no articulated aim to undermine.  But whether they're organized or not, there is a certain amount of bias and lack of professionalism among Canadian journalists when talking about the CF.  There are a few reasons for this.

  • First, the people attracted to journalism in the first place are naturally challenging of authority, so when they see a hierarchical organization like the CF, where deference to authority is the norm, it raises their suspicions.
  • Second, journalists naturally look for scandal, conflict, the expose, etc, so they can sell ad space.  Their business runs on "news" - and remember: it's not "news" that a million cars a day drive the 401 in Toronto, it's "news" that three of them crashed into each other and a couple of people died.  So when you're dealing with a journalist, you need to remember that that's what they're looking for - the dirt.  And even if the reporter themselves isn't looking for dirt, you can bet their editor is, which restricts which stories make it to print or to air, no matter what the reporter sends in...
  • Third, most journalists are politically left-of-centre, which in Canada tends to mean pacifist to one degree or another.  Many of the older ones running newsrooms today cut their teeth in the time of Watergate and Vietnam protests.
  • Fourth, most still have no first-hand experience with the military.  A couple of things are helping change that, but the change is happening slowly: the embedding program, and the training in Wainwright.  The embedding program at least lets reporters observe soldiers from as close to "the inside" as the journo will ever get.  The use of journalism students to act the part of real reporters in training at Wainwright is also helping familiarize another generation of journalists with the CF.  Whether it's being done in the best way possible is another question, but it's a start.  And familiarity is the first step in the process towards acceptance...

We spend a bunch of our time over at The Torch spanking the mainstream media for their exaggerations, shoddy research, bias and spin, and garden-variety errors.  So I'm not a huge fan of the Canadian journalism scene.  But there are a number of them who have engaged me in correspondence to make sure they're getting a story right, or who read for background every day - in other words, people who realize they don't know enough about the CF to report on it properly, and are looking to correct that.  I try to point them in the right direction where I can...

As a group, reporting on military issues, they're not often stellar.  In fact, they're barely competent in many cases.  But they're not as malicious, as a group, as some might suggest.  Oh, there are bad apples, but they're not the majority.

The problem with most Canadian journalists is ignorance, not sedition.
 
Babbling: "The problem with most Canadian journalists is ignorance, not sedition."  Generally true, but I'd say the Globe under editor-in-chief Eddie Greenspon has a definite anti-Afghan mission agenda, which spills over into what coverage is given the CF.  Steady Eddie seems to see the paper going after the mission the way the American media eventually went after the US in Vietnam--for example:

Who's out to get the Canadian Forces?
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/008845.html

Eddie the Ego: Up to no good?
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009349.html

Mark
Ottawa


 
Blocking JAVA, ActiveX, VBScript? In that case not many sites are getting through.....a whole lot of overkill......
 
TCBF said:
No.  But, you probably knew that already.

Not really. If you truly believe that "The Media are  "...useful idiots" used by the so-called fifth column..." than I would not presume to know what you think about those other members of the "media."  Actually I would disagree, and say that they are somewhat used by the CF, and the CF would be stupid not to try and influence the media, that is the way the world works.  Look at how we won the media war in Oka in the last decade.  We were just as good at using the media, as the Warrior Society.  Therefore the CF demonstrated/advertised the calm professional image that was necessary for the opposition (warrior society) to realize that the public wasn't going to rally to their cause, and they eventually had to give in.  Very distant from today's situation, but the principal remains, the CF had better be good at "using' the media to get our view out.
 
- I'll go for that. 
- My initial post was intended to convey the message that I did not believe the media per se was a Fifth Column, but that some could no doubt be used by the fifth column.  My use of the term "useful idiots" was not intended to be all-encompassing.  I regret any confusion.
 
Globe and Mail at it again:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080606.wdefence07/BNStory/National/home
...
Gen. Natynczyk, who will take over formally in early July, has rare battlefield experience for a Canadian soldier, having fought in George W. Bush's U.S.-led war in Iraq...

It's not the facts, it's the phraseology, stupid.  Check the comments to see the foreseeable result.  I do think though it was ill-advised of Gen. Natynczyk to say:

In a brief encounter with reporters Friday, Gen. Natynczyk said that what he learned in Iraq is instructive for fighting in Afghanistan, where Canada is battling the Taliban just as the United States wars with insurgents in Iraq.

“The tactics and techniques and procedures are exactly the same – so are the risks.”

I would also argue there a large differences between Iraq and Afstan. Unlike Iraq almost no combat in Afstan has been in urban areas; in Afstan there is not large scale sectarian-motivated violence; in Afstan suicide bombings are much rarer and on the whole less deadly than in Iraq; the insurgency is generally much more geographically confined in Afstan than it was for a long time in Iraq; I don't think there have been any brigade-level operations in Afstan; air strikes are used much more frequently in Afstan;
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2007_04_13.html#006136
etc.

Mark
Ottawa
 
Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk's remarks also opened the door for St. Steve Staples!
http://winnipegsun.com/News/Canada/2008/06/07/5800721-sun.html
...
Steven Staples, president of the Rideau Institute,
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/02/conference-of-defence-associations-vs.html
remains worried about what Natynczyk may bring to the job.

"In his comments he said he saw the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan as exactly the same and that the solutions would be the same," said Staples.

"The last thing Canadians want is to see a U.S.-style from Iraq transplanted onto Canada's forces in Afghanistan."

Expect quite a bit more comment like that, at least for a while.

Mark
Ottawa
 
MarkOttawa said:
Globe and Mail at it again:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080606.wdefence07/BNStory/National/home
It's not the facts, it's the phraseology, stupid.  Check the comments to see the foreseeable result.  I do think though it was ill-advised of Gen. Natynczyk to say:

I would also argue there a large differences between Iraq and Afstan. Unlike Iraq almost no combat in Afstan has been in urban areas; in Afstan there is not large scale sectarian-motivated violence; in Afstan suicide bombings are much rarer and on the whole less deadly than in Iraq; the insurgency is generally much more geographically confined in Afstan than it was for a long time in Iraq; I don't think there have been any brigade-level operations in Afstan; air strikes are used much more frequently in Afstan;
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2007_04_13.html#006136
etc.

Mark
Ottawa

While I agree with your observation on phraseology I am not sure that I can find common ground in your second paragraph.

While there has been, and are, operations in large urban areas in Iraq there are also operations in small villages and open country. 
While there is less of a Sunni/Shia split in the Afghan situation the Taliban, with their religious focus certainly could qualify as a sect - and a sect that doesn't play well with others. 
While the tactics of Iraq may be less assiduously applied and less effective that doesn't mean that counter-tactics from Iraq aren't applicable in Afghanistan.
I think that your own maps on safe zones in Afghanistan point to a fairly broadly distributed problem with anti-government forces even though most of the action seems to be happening in the south, and the east, and the centre, and occasionally the west, and once in a while the north and even in Kabul.
As to Brigade level operations - Musa Qala has seen at least one Brigade level op and in Helmand somebody is coordinating the activities of Brit Battalions and a US MEU.
Finally - wrt air strikes - you leave yourself open to the suggestion that the NATO in Afghanistan is more "American" in their approach than the Americans in Iraq.

The Yanks have figured out Co-In, again, in Iraq.  If they apply the same tactics to Afghanistan that are succeeding in Iraq, is that a bad thing.  Having said that things don't seem to be going so badly in Afghanistan, combining Brigade Level operations, air strikes and civil support.


 
TCBF said:
- I'll go for that. 
- My initial post was intended to convey the message that I did not believe the media per se was a Fifth Column, but that some could no doubt be used by the fifth column.  My use of the term "useful idiots" was not intended to be all-encompassing.  I regret any confusion.

Roger that, and I'll admit I was being a bit of a smart ass ;-).  I also have to often shake my head at the left wing bias in the press; but then I count on those who I feel have a more 'realistic' look at the real world to try and enlighten our fellow Canadians.  Years ago I took OPDP 6 (National and International Studies) and savoured the section on journalism.  I hope it is still required reading under the new development system.  The best quote related to the fact that everyone has prejudices, and the worst thing "...is a bias denied..."  Where some of our CF friendly journalists will often be willing to report on something the CF has done wrong, I wish the less friendly journalists (to the CF) would be so willing to give credit when the CF, more often than not, gets it right.
Cheers
 
An excerpt from something recent, touching on some of the same themes, pitched into the stew pot in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

Trying the Suspect or the Government? The Media’s Approach to the Trial of al-Qaeda’s Canadian Operative
Michael Scheuer, Jamestown Foundation Terrorism Focus, 1 Jul 08
Article link

(....)

"In sum, much of the Canadian and Western media seem to be reverting to their pre-9/11 role as first and foremost critics of their governments. This is, of course, an essential and invaluable part of the media’s role in democratic societies, but it is not the whole of the media’s responsibility. By stepping away from the commendable, fire-bell-in-the-night role they played after 9/11 by describing how Western leaders had vastly underestimated the Islamist threat, the media have done their readers and countries a disservice. By resuming a tight focus on condemning, for example, the Canadian government’s prolonged silence about evidence against Khawaja; the UK government’s quest for a longer period in which terrorist suspects can be held; and the U.S. government’s admittedly bumbling, often disingenuous efforts to deal with the serious issue of what to do with prisoners of war who probably can never be released, the media is doing part of their job. They are, however, also causing readers to resume navel-gazing and become more focused on over-wrought, often-uneducated analyses of government misdeeds rather than on the growing threat in the West from educated Islamists, some of whom—like Momin Khawaja—have penetrated sensitive departments of Western governments, are detected only because of sheer good luck and are associated with or inspired by al-Qaeda."
 
A post by Babbling Brooks at The Torch about a certain professor beloved by our media:

At what point does he become a partisan, I wonder?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/07/at-what-point-does-he-become-partisan-i.html

Babbling's conclusion:

Watch and shoot, folks.

A true bilgemeister:
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/010551.html

Mark
Ottawa
 
From the Afghanistan Debate: Why we should be there (or not) & how we should conduct the mission (or not) thread:

Teddy Ruxpin said:
Not this again.  There's no pipeline.  There may be a plan for a plan for a pipeline, but nothing more...  See here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/70803/post-674252.html#msg674252

Even buried within the story itself is this gem:

...not to mention a need for a firm contract, funding, a Pakistan-India rapprochement, surveys and the myriad other things that need to be done before a pipeline could even be considered.

Of course, no amount of emperical data will allay the vast array of consipacies out there.  The G&M comments section is already filled with "gotcha" comments, saying that this story "proves" that our involvement in Afghanistan is indeed about "oil".  ::)

Given the sensitivies surrounding this subject, one would have hoped that the "journalist" (and his editors) concerned would have properly researched this piece before publishing.  Then again, I suspect that my expectations of the media remain too high.

Perhaps it's time for an Obama-like "fight the smears" website on Afghanistan aimed at an increasingly gullible public and the growing class of conspiracy theorists...

Ridiculous.

The Globe and Mail’s Lawrence Martin simply cannot resist coming out against the Afghanistan mission – even when the pipeline lie has been thoroughly debunked. Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Good Grey Globe, are his latest ravings:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080702.wcomartin03/BNStory/specialComment/home
Big Oil pumps up the ugly Afghan and Iraqi mix

LAWRENCE MARTIN

From Thursday's Globe and Mail
July 2, 2008 at 8:48 PM EDT

In the war zones, the oil deals are coming on stream.

Afghanistan recently signed a major agreement to build an American-backed pipeline. It will traverse the Kandahar region where Canadian forces are fighting. If they're still there, Canadians could well be called on to be a pipeline protection force.

In Iraq this week, the giant oil fields were opened to foreign bidders. U.S. conglomerates such as Exxon Mobil are about to sign no-bid contracts to move in. Big Oil, already brimming with profits, will have a fine Fourth of July.

The new Baghdad deals will trigger more wrangling over the real motivation for the Iraq invasion. There was a time when it was mainly just conspiracy theorists and other assorted weedy types who claimed the aggression was chiefly about oil. But along came Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board, who wrote last year in his book The Age of Turbulence, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil.” This week's entry of Big Oil in Iraq will only buttress this view.

The Afghan war wasn't all about oil. But that has certainly been among Washington's motivations and now, with the pipeline deal, it will be front and centre. As for Canada, oil wasn't on the radar screen in our war debate. Liberal governments didn't discuss it. “Never once heard mention of it from 2002 to 2006,” said Eugene Lang, who worked closely on the Afghan file with two Liberal defence ministers.

In the late 1990s, an American-led oil consortium held talks with the Taliban about building a pipeline from Central Asia – where oil and gas reserves are gigantic – through Afghanistan to Pakistan, from where it could be shipped westward. The talks broke down in mid-2001. Washington was furious, leading to speculation it might take out the Taliban. After 9/11, the Taliban, with good reason, were removed – and pipeline planning continued with the Karzai government. U.S. forces installed bases near Kandahar, where the pipeline was to run. A key motivation for the pipeline was to block a competing bid involving Iran, a charter member of the “axis of evil.”

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher said recently that Washington has a “fundamental strategic interest” in Afghanistan that extends well beyond ensuring it is not used as a base for terrorism. In Ottawa, energy economist John Foster recently released a report on the pipeline. “Government efforts to convince Canadians to stay in Afghanistan have been enormous,” he wrote, “but the impact of the proposed multibillion-dollar pipeline in areas of Afghanistan under Canadian purview has never been seriously debated.”

In November of 2006, the Conservatives seemed to take a stand. At a little-noticed meeting in New Delhi, they agreed to help Kabul become an energy bridge through the building of the pipeline.

With the Afghan war not going well, the likelihood is the $7.6-billion project might not proceed for a few years. Canadian soldiers could well be gone by then, though we could extend our deadline one more time. The Americans would certainly like us to help them defend the pipeline route.

What should also be considered is that Afghanistan stands to reap a windfall in transit fees if the pipeline goes ahead. Such a pipeline also would help the U.S. in its energy needs – needs that its entry into Iraq's oil fields would help replenish too.

But the plan should be to get off dependence on foreign oil. The Bush administration has utterly failed to move the ball forward on energy independence. Some war boosters predicted that a successful Iraq war would bring oil down to $20 a barrel. It is now about seven times that price. The war, which cut Iraqi production, contributed to the massive U.S. debt and the plunge in the greenback's value, a significant factor in the prices we now pay at the pump.

Both the American infiltration of Iraq's oil fields and the Afghan project might serve to increase the flow and eventually help stabilize prices to some degree.

War for oil is hardly a savoury option. But get ready. With the signing of the pipeline plan in Kabul, it will soon be part of the debate in this country.

Martin’s hatred for George W Bush and all his works, his general dislike of the USA and the Conservative Party of Canada (which he sees as “too American” and as “Bushites”) and his distaste for the Canadian Forces – as currently led and employed, leads him to repeat lies.

Yes, Kabul signed a pipeline plan, but as Teddy Ruxpin points out (and as Martin, himself, acknowledges) despite the plan any potential pipeline is years, more likely decades away and beset by problems throughout the ‘neighbourhood.’

This is just part of a media and ”commentariat” campaign against:

• The Afghanistan mission, itself;

• The Conservative Government; and

• The militarization of the Canadian Forces.

Is there a fifth column? Well, I don’t know if I would use that phrase, but I do agree that many, many influential Canadians dislike what we some of you did, are doing and are getting ready to do overseas, and want to denigrate the mission and, by extension, many of you.
 
E.R. Campbell: Quite so, and poor Mr Martin made a rather silly mistake in his column, that says all one needs to know about the quality of much journalism in this country--a letter sent to the Globe today, wonder if they'll publish it:

Lawrence Martin, in his column "Big Oil pumps up the ugly Afghan and Iraqi mix" (July 3), goes on and on about the great American interest in an oil pipeline through Afghanistan; indeed he claims that oil "...has certainly been among Washington's motivations and now, with the pipeline deal, it will be front and centre."

There is one slight problem.  There have certainly been plans since the 1990s for a pipeline through Afghanistan.  But those plans have all been for a pipeline to transport natural gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, and now also India.

There are no plans for any oil pipeline through Afghanistan.  That makes Mr Martin's column a piece of perfervid nonsense, especially his conclusion that "War for oil is hardly a savoury option. But get ready. With the signing of the pipeline plan in Kabul, it will soon be part of the debate in this country."  Mr Martin's error is all the more inexplicable in light of the fact that the Globe and Mail ran a front page story June 19 dealing with the natural gas pipeline project, "Pipeline opens new front in Afghan war".

One expects rather better of a columnist in "Canada's National Newspaper".

References:
http://www.independent-bangladesh.com/200803313829/business/india-to-join-turkmenistan-afghanistan-pakistan-gas-pipeline.html
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/04/25/afx4933107.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FRTGAM.20080619.wafghanpipeline19%2FBNStory%2FAfghanistan%2Fhome&ord=71730704&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false

Mark
Ottawa
 
Globe did not publish the letter.  Here's some stuff about someone our media, for reasons one simply cannot imagine, take at face value:

Steve Staples and some usual suspects
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/07/steve-staples-and-some-usual-suspects.html

Mark
Ottawa
 
If we speak of the CF, we speak of a fairly monolithic organization, with common values, a common ethos and so forth.  It would be serious mistake to try to apply that to the media. The myth of media unanimity is no more correct than that of native unanimity before the white man arrived in North America.

The fact is that there are hundreds, if not thousands of media outlets, ranging from the international (eg CNN and to a lesser extent the CBC) all the way down to The Podunk Gleaner-Herald and Opinionator.  Each one has its own editorial slant (and let no one in the media try to tell you differently - compare coverage in The National Post to that in The Toronto Star, for instance). Moreover, the raw footage/stories submitted to the outlets come from reporters who also have their own belief system and thus always put some sort of spin on it. Lacking a central vision or a central ethos, with the exception of the major media chains, each one tends to be pretty independent and the tone of their coverage of any issue varies widely.

There are some reporters out there who I'd be happy to give my last sip of water to and others who can only expect a shortcut into the nearest unmarked minefield. That's little different from members of any other trade or profession; you've got good ones, bad ones and (in the majority) average ones doing their best to be fair.  Trying to lump them all together is not only silly, but counterproductive.  As has been noted before, we can work together with the better ones to our mutual advantage.

Oddly enough, the white-socks-and-sandals claque on The Globe and Mail news forum views the media as being completely slanted towards the military and its Afghanistan mission.  Embedding is taken as evidence of compromised standards and bias. 
 
At the NY Times?

Spinning for the Taliban
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/08/spinning-for-taliban.html

...
"A certain reporter, Carlotta Gall,
Portrays the Talib: ten feet tall."

Update: A bit of Globe and Mail romanticism added at the end of the post.

Mark
Ottawa
 
The media just as certainly necessary as well as evil.  I think the accusation is a VALID one, albeit dangerous to take to its opposite extreme (total state censorship).  On this extreme side (about the accusation having validity) one could argue that at times, they are being TREASONOUS.

That's right, I said it!
 
Back
Top