Responses to Boots on the ground... but where?

[Mike Bobbitt]

Please post all replies to the "Boots on the ground... but where?" Editorial here.

 

[couchcommander]

That report is really getting a well deserved rough ride here at army.ca!

If only the media could be so critical.

 

[stevenstaples]

To “the Ruxted Group.”

Thanks for highlighting our report this week.

A couple of brief responses…

First, you suggest “the timing of the release of the ‘analysis’ is highly suspect, coming as it did immediately before a critical vote on the future of Canadian operations in Afghanistan.”

Not really fellas, because I began my press conference yesterday by saying we were urging MPs to vote “no” on the mission extension, and then cited the report’s findings as one of my reasons for making the recommendation – so no conspiracy here.

Regarding your point about omitting a “contextual analysis of the UN's current operations,” the report quite clearly compares our UN peacekeeping contribution to international contributions, and we even pulled out all of the NATO-members’ contributions (which arguably supports the government’s case – not ours).

In fact, the whole point of the report is to put Canada’s UN peacekeeping contribution in a larger context – both international mission spending and international UN contributions.

On the methodology, any reader of the report will see we were very transparent by including both the Full Cost and the Incremental Cost of missions in the study – in fact we put them side-by-side in the same table. Then, we listed in detail, every mission we used to calculate the numbers.

So, you can quibble with our “Afghanistan-related” definition, but the only reason you are able to argue this point is because we went to such lengths to show where our numbers came from (all DND numbers and definitions, you’ll note).

And anyway, when Stephen Harper chats with George W. Bush about Canada’s contribution to the war effort, which number do you think he uses – the full cost, or the incremental cost?

Cheers,

Steve

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Wow,
Just read the "report", I want my two minutes back. You know, before I came to work tonight I read my daughters book report and even in Grade 7 they teach them something the Polaris "Institute" seems to have forgotten,....a point.

The "Institute" seems to be what Steve Martin refered to John Candy as,..... a "Chatty Cathy Doll,...just pull the string and "blah,blah,blah".

 

[KevinB]

First, you suggest “the timing of the release of the ‘analysis’ is highly suspect, coming as it did immediately before a critical vote on the future of Canadian operations in Afghanistan.”

Not really fellas, because I began my press conference yesterday by saying we were urging MPs to vote “no” on the mission extension, and then cited the report’s findings as one of my reasons for making the recommendation – so no conspiracy here.

: -- Stephen so you admit releasing your report on that day with the intent of tampering with the vote via your skewed platform?

Regarding your point about omitting a “contextual analysis of the UN's current operations,” the report quite clearly compares our UN peacekeeping contribution to international contributions, and we even pulled out all of the NATO-members’ contributions (which arguably supports the government’s case – not ours).

In fact, the whole point of the report is to put Canada’s UN peacekeeping contribution in a larger context – both international mission spending and international UN contributions.

On the methodology, any reader of the report will see we were very transparent by including both the Full Cost and the Incremental Cost of missions in the study – in fact we put them side-by-side in the same table. Then, we listed in detail, every mission we used to calculate the numbers.

So, you can quibble with our “Afghanistan-related” definition, but the only reason you are able to argue this point is because we went to such lengths to show where our numbers came from (all DND numbers and definitions, you’ll note).

And anyway, when Stephen Harper chats with George W. Bush about Canada’s contribution to the war effort, which number do you think he uses – the full cost, or the incremental cost?

Cheers,

Steve

Steve - again its fine to snipe (even innacurately) from the sidelines - but you need to offer a real solution.

1) There is NO mission (UN or NATO or Colation of the Willing) in Sudan so what do you propose?

2) You offer no solution to the safe and secure environment in Afghanistan if Canada was to unilaterally pull out.

3) You sound more like Tim Robbins character in Team America ranting about "the corporations" when you talk about Harper and Bush.

4) The UN is a disgusting bloated pig -- anyone who wants to go out by the resevoir in Kabul can see the nice beachhouses the UN put up for themselves for "weekend retreats" -- having served with the UN before (and embarrassed for it) I cannot say I am surprised.  

 

[paracowboy]

"Peacekeeper"
I truly wish everyone would stop using that insulting term to describe the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Canadian Forces. Whether used as noun or verb, it demeans our service.

You highlight a number of problems (as you see them) Steve. What are your solutions?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Mr. Staples I have one clear and concise question.  What are your credentials that make you an expert in the military and what and how we should be doing things.  This is a serious question and not meant to fish or troll.  

 

[Infanteer]

Mr Staples,

I do admire and respect the fact that you take the time to come here and discuss what you've released.  Cheers.

I'm curious, your stance (or perhaps the Polaris Group's stance) on ending the mission in Afghanistan seems to be driven by the desire to maintain this "Peacekeeper" image that is often conjured up - an image I've yet to really see despite the fact that I've been deployed on a NATO "peace-support op" (or whatever it is called this week) and that most of the Canadian soldiers I've had the pleasure of serving with who donned the blue beret in the past abhor the idea of it becoming our raison d'etre.

Anyways, my views aside, from what I understand, the desire to pull away from the warfighting operation in Southern Afghanistan seems (and I may be wrong) tied to an effort to get a force of blue-hatted Canadian soldiers into Darfur to deal with the conflict going on there.  Is this course of action one that is supported by yourself or the Polaris Institute?  A quick scan through some of your published literature leads me to believe this to be the case, as it cites Jack Layton's criticism of our support of the "warlike" US OEF and the fact that our contribution to this mission is to the detriment of our "traditional support for the United Nations."  Today, criticism of this nature seems to come hand-in-hand with condemnation of Western governments for not deploying to the Sudan.

If so, why Darfur and not Afghanistan?  As well, how can you reconcile your criticisms of our mission to Afghanistan and US policy in general with the realities that would be entailed by a deployment to Darfur, which has been highlighted quite clearly by another member here:

Iraq "didn't attack anyone on 9/11" .. well, neither did Sudan. We're "warmongers" for wanting to attack Iraq after a broken cease fire agreement and many acts of war, but they are "peacekeepers" for wanted to attack Sudan after no threats against us. Are they advocating we "unilaterally invade" Sudan (with a coalition of 0) , like they nattered at us for "unilaterally invading" Iraq (with a coalition three dozen strong)? Do I see a UN mandate for this "illegal" war? Certainly would be less of a mandate than a broken cease fire agreement and about 16-18 resolutions. There's a genocide in Darfur? There was one in Iraq. Where's the international outcry at this "abhorant" "imperialistic" dialogue? We certainly can't attack the Janjaweed without a unanimous security council resolution (which has to explicitly outline the use of military force, btw.)

The hypocrisy and the double standards in this article and parroted elsewhere are astounding. So is the idea that stopping this conflict is somehow going to be "traditional peacekeeping", or at least more "traditional" than our actions in Afghanistan (Gee, I could ding them as "traditionalists" now too).  I don't recall any Invade Sudan plans being tabled by the NDP during the last election. Yet here is "warmonger" Layton wanting to abandon Afghanistan to the wolves and take on a considerably more difficult task (on our own, no less), all the while having no problem with a diminished CAF.

So go ahead, supporters of OEF and OIF, use every epithet and distorted catch-phrase that's ever been used against you. I have. It feels good. Thumbs up Ruxted Group.

If this is not the case and you are not opposing Afghanistan for the purpose of a Blue Beret mission to Darfur, then I apologize for making the assumption but then I guess I must then redirect you to the question posed by the Ruxted Editor in the above article:

"There is no contextual analysis of the UN's current operations, including the actual requirement for large, well-armed "peacekeeping" forces to conduct Security and Stabilization operations in the absence of a true desire for peace by the warring parties.  Given that there is no current UN mission in Darfur, where does Polaris suggest Canada begin to participate?"

Where are we to go?  If there is no suggestions for policy direction from the Polaris Group, am I to assume that a form of 1930's isolationism is your goal?

 

[couchcommander]

So, you can quibble with our “Afghanistan-related” definition, but the only reason you are able to argue this point is because we went to such lengths to show where our numbers came from (all DND numbers and definitions, you’ll note).

Such lengths? You've got to me kidding me. It's called a bare minimum, something I can get away with posting here, casually on a forum, but definitely completely 100% insufficient as far as a report from an "institute" goes.

Proper referencing would include specific pages, appendix's showing all of your calculations, and sources which validate your inclusion of the missions in question, all presented in a well recognized standard format.  The fact I had to go looking through the RPP's to find out exactly how you got your numbers is a testament to the fact that this was in fact not done correctly.

Regardles, this statement is pointless and designed to try and diffuse a major flaw in your methodology by redirecting the argument, Mr. Spokesman. You either:

A) Didn't know that most significantly OP Apollo, as well as other operations, had significant elements or were in their entirety unrelated to our mission in Afghanistan.

or

B) Purposefully misrepresented, at the very least, 400 million dollars of mission spending to try and push your agenda.

Please excuse me if I seem a little on edge regarding this, but I have heard a lot of ignorant statements come out of the Polaris Institute, even for a relatively ignorant civvie like myself.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So, ideally, we should expect the full weight of the fully informed, practically experienced, non partisan researchers of the Polaris Institute to respond to our reasoned and, so far, intelligent and educated debate? Let Polaris, who've never served a day, never drank putrid water, nor ate mouldy IMPs, wondered whether today was their last, or even considered a soldier's job or what it would be like to be the one on the wire at 00:dark thirty responsible for two thousand lives, respond to our criticisms. Their job is not to protect Canada and it's citizens or soldiers, but to protect their political bosses and the warped view they wish to project.

The Lieberals, NDP and the BQ have been pushing their anti Afghan agenda for weeks. Finally, Harper called them on it. Oh!! We didn't have time!!! This isn't fair!!! This was no more than a case of "Put up or shut up!!" and the opposition lost. The majority of Canadians agree with what we are doing and how we are doing it. Polaris and CBC be damned. Most of the countries radio and newspaper polls for the last two days supported Harper, by a large majority.

S. Staples has real experience to speak to the true issues that the soldier on the ground nor the diplomat in the field has experience in. If he can defend his status otherwise, he can post here, with the rest of us that have "Been there, done that" and can "Walk the walk, not just talk the talk". Otherwise, he and his ilk are nothing more than high paid mouth pieces for the opposition.

I could be wrong, and more likely am, but it wouldn't suprise me. The Polaris Institute came on line when the lieberals realized they were in major trouble. Nothing they have ever put forward has been proven in fact, but has always been against Harper. The best they've been able to do is the world according to the Cretin or Martin, both proven liars and cheats. They are paid for by, possibly, more money that has been, hidden, moved, buried, double booked or flat out stolen by the previous dictators, that tried to subjugate the people of the country. The Polaris Institute seems to be nothing more than a last ditch effort, of a now forgotten, supporting the lost, immoral and unpopular ideas of a now dead and defunct (hopefully not to be resurrected) lieberal government.

Any other time, I would push for such a poser to be banned. However, simply because of the supposed national status of this so called psuedo institute, I'll leave it be. Really, they are nobody. A thrown together consortium of like minded, self proclaimed, know nothing commoners. They have no real political or more importantly, military status. They have no time in the troops. No doubt, they have more time in the political trenches than most, but their Generals are all paper tigers, with no combat time. Their arguments and statistics are only valuable and important to the ignorant and uninformed, and don't stand against the scrutiny and examination, or real world experience, of the informed veterans and true experts on these subjects.

Staples and the "Institute" are not even worth the time it took to type this response. They are not the experts, nor do they speak for the majority of informed and patriotic Canadians. They speak only to their political masters.

 

[MJP]

So, ideally, we should expect the full weight of the fully informed, practically experienced, non partisan researchers of the Polaris Institute to respond to our reasoned and, so far, intelligent and educated debate? Let Polaris, who've never served a day, never drank putrid water, nor ate mouldy IMPs, wondered whether today was their last, or even considered a soldier's job or what it would be like to be the one on the wire at 00:dark thirty responsible for two thousand lives, respond to our criticisms. Their job is not to protect Canada and it's citizens or soldiers, but to protect their political bosses and the warped view they wish to project.

The Lieberals, NDP and the BQ have been pushing their anti Afghan agenda for weeks. Finally, Harper called them on it. Oh!! We didn't have time!!! This isn't fair!!! This was no more than a case of "Put up or shut up!!" and the opposition lost. The majority of Canadians agree with what we are doing and how we are doing it. Polaris and CBC be damned. Most of the countries radio and newspaper polls for the last two days supported Harper, by a large majority.

S. Staples has real experience to speak to the true issues that the soldier on the ground nor the diplomat in the field has experience in. If he can defend his status otherwise, he can post here, with the rest of us that have "Been there, done that" and can "Walk the walk, not just talk the talk". Otherwise, he and his ilk are nothing more than high paid mouth pieces for the opposition.

I could be wrong, and more likely am, but it wouldn't suprise me. The Polaris Institute came on line when the lieberals realized they were in major trouble. Nothing they have ever put forward has been proven in fact, but has always been against Harper. The best they've been able to do is the world according to the Cretin or Martin, both proven liars and cheats. They are paid for by, possibly, more money that has been, hidden, moved, buried, double booked or flat out stolen by the previous dictators, that tried to subjugate the people of the country. The Polaris Institute seems to be nothing more than a last ditch effort, of a now forgotten, supporting the lost, immoral and unpopular ideas of a now dead and defunct (hopefully not to be resurrected) lieberal government.

Any other time, I would push for such a poser to be banned. However, simply because of the supposed national status of this so called psuedo institute, I'll leave it be. Really, they are nobody. A thrown together consortium of like minded, self proclaimed, know nothing commoners. They have no real political or more importantly, military status. They have no time in the troops. No doubt, they have more time in the political trenches than most, but their Generals are all paper tigers, with no combat time. Their arguments and statistics are only valuable and important to the ignorant and uninformed, and don't stand against the scrutiny and examination, or real world experience, of the informed veterans and true experts on these subjects.

Staples and the "Institute" are not even worth the time it took to type this response. They are not the experts, nor do they speak for the majority of informed and patriotic Canadians. They speak only to their political masters.

Quit holding back...tell us how you really feel.

+1 btw

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

Folks, let's stick to using facts here. We don't do anyone favours if we fall back to name calling, and it drags the discussion away from it's true aim. Let's let the details of the Polaris report and the Ruxted editorial duke it out and proclaim a winner based on that. Falling back to ad hominem responses gives the impression "we" don't have enough facts to make our case.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So, to summarize the report:

1) We commit a lot of money and people to non-UN operations in southeast Asia, and
2) We don't commit very much money or people to UN operations.

That's very exciting, but so what?  Is this supposed to be a collective national penis-measuring contest at the UN in which we're failing to place well?

Having read Daillaire's accounts of UN behaviour in the matter of Rwanda; having compared UN proficiency and behaviour during the humanitarian response to the Indian Ocean tsunami to the proficiency and behaviour of ad hoc "coalitions of the willing"; having read of the UN's novel approaches to bartering with destitute and desperate children and women to provide them with food; and having read of the UN's notable unwillingness to live austerely in the field in order to better focus funding on relief efforts, I can't imagine why anyone would want to go near UN operations.  Is one supposed to be proud of reinforcing such corruption and failure?

 

[HDE]

Apparently lots of militaries in the third world love sending troops on UN missions, given how much the UN pays for each soldier there's money to be made, so when Staples uses a blunt object like "numbers of troops sent on UN peacekeeping" he's blowing smoke and hoping nobody notices.  Where/how does he compare effectiveness :

 

[GAP]

I have recently made a point of listening to some of the full speeches on CPAC of Senator Daillaire's.
I now understand why the press only quotes him in little snippets. Not to begrudge his previous rank and experience, but you need a scoreboard to follow his speech. It is pure bureaucratize. Every sentence is past and present referenced to the degree you forget what the sentence was originally about...really frustrating to determine exactly what he was trying to say. Maybe that was the point

I am not focusing on Daillaire, so much as the rhetoric and non-speak of anything relating to Darfur. Lots of empty words, little of substance, except that which is read between the lines and is completely subjective.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Mr Staples fails to give any reason why it would be preferable for Canada to take part in operations that are run directly by the UN rather than those (both Enduring Freedom and NATO ISAF) that are authorized by the UN Security Council but not run by the UN.

The UNSC imprimatur is the same in both cases; the latter however are better run.

Everyone who is advocating for a UN mission in Darfur (Dallaire, Keith Martin et al.) is demanding that it be a Chapter VII mission and thus not "traditional peacekeeping".  Indeed such a mission would almost certainly involve combat.  So can Mr Staples explain the essential difference from the mission in Afstan, other than who is in direct charge?

Mark
Ottawa

 

[HDE]

I saw the Dallaire speech on Rwanda on CPAC.  During the Q and A portion he mentionned he received units from Ghana and Bangladesh that didn't have any equipment and couldn't be used.  These are two of the units Staples refers to as supplying so many more "peacekeepers" than NATO countries..  Do the research, Stephen!

 

[GAP]

Harper just announced on CPAC that there will be increased support for the African Union force and increase in medical and food contributions

 

[vonGarvin]

I just checked online.  Is there anything out there in the usenet or internet?

 

[GAP]

on Rutherford right now