Ruxted’s Response to Lawrence Martin

[ruxted]

Link To Original Article On Ruxted.ca

Ruxted’s Response to Lawrence Martin

The Ruxted Group has taken Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin to task for his views on military matters.  We respect his right to hold his views, we respect his right to express them – we wish we were able to write as well.  We object to his personal attacks on a ‘defenceless’ Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Rick Hillier.  Gen. Hillier is a public figure but he is unable – as is proper – to defend himself against public attacks on his personality and views – as Martin did in his 5 April 2007 column.  Ruxted objects even more to his misuse of the ceremonies surrounding the Vimy memorial to take partisan shots at the government of the day and its apolitical servant, Gen. Hillier.

The Ruxted Group offers a few points in rebuttal.

First: Lawrence Martin started to make a valid and important point:  war can be glorified for partisan political purposes.  Canadians should be wary of politicians ‘spinning’ Vimy to justify something else.  It’s a pity he didn’t use his considerable skill and well known political judgement to discuss that.

Second:  We agree with Mr. Martin that, “The commemorations at Vimy Ridge are important. In a country that is short on defining moments, Vimy certainly serves as a shining one. But the event should not be politicized ...”  It’s a pity he decided to politicize them.

He is politicizing the commemorations.  He is using them as a ‘hook’ upon which he can hang his well established animus towards this government and towards Gen. Hillier.  Many Canadians share his distaste for the government of the day, the Conservative Party of Canada and, indeed, for the CDS.  That’s their right, it’s the right for which 100,000 Canadians died in the 20th century in Africa, Asia, Europe and on the world oceans.  Gen. Hillier and many, many friends of The Ruxted Group have risked  their lives, are risking their lives today, to defend the right of Canadians, including Mr. Martin, to dislike people and parties.  We simply invite him to be bold and honest; to say: “I hate Harper and his minions.  I think they're taking Canada in the wrong direction.  I urge my readers to vote against them.  I detest Gen. Rick Hiller because he’s just far too ‘American’ for me.  I want him replaced by a more comfortable Casper Milquetoast type of military commander.”  That’s fair; Ruxted would take note of such a comment and consider it fair dealing.  What’s unfair is to use the Vimy commemorations as cover while he insinuates the same thing.

Third: He says in ‘trashing’ Gen. Hillier that, “He doesn't mention that what he considers darkness included one of the most luminous decisions any of our governments ever made: staying out of Iraq."  Mr. Martin forgets the see-sawing in the days prior to that "decision".  The MND was in Washington, giving positive signals about joining the "coalition of the willing".  The facts are: Prime Minister Chrétien forgot about  the unilateral decision to bomb Yugoslavia, a sovereign nation, without UN approval in 1999;  we were in Afghanistan for six paltry months in 2002, announcing that we couldn't replace those troops because we didn't have enough resources, only to recommit them in greater strength just eight months later.  That enabled the PM of the day to say that we were fully committed in Afghanistan, so even if we wanted to go into Iraq, we couldn't.  Only when the insurgency became bad around Baghdad did the government of the day cash in on their "luminous" decision.

Fourth: Mr. Martin says, “After the Second World War, we became the country that stood for peace, a middle-ground arbiter.”  This is revisionism of the worst sort.  Mr. Martin ignores the facts that Canada had a large army brigade group and an air division stationed overseas as part of a very partisan alliance: NATO.  We "fought" the Cold War, and part of that "fight" was to intervene in certain wars in order to keep that alliance from bursting at the seams.  The greatest example was in Cyprus.  Greece and Turkey, two allies in NATO, nearly went to war over that island.  Canada, along with other UN nations, intervened.  It also allowed us to keep safe the two UK Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs), locations of some of NATO's nuclear strike force.  Hardly a noble "middle-ground" arbiter of peace indeed!

Fifth: Mr. Martin tries to make political hay out of the fact that BQ, Liberal and NDP leaders could not manage their own schedules well enough to join him at Vimy.  The Vimy anniversary has been planned far enough in advance that thousands of school children have been able to schedule attendance, are the leaders of Canada's political parties so inept as to be eclipsed by the planning abilities of 9th graders?  It is customary for the PM of the day to make room for opposition leaders when (s)he travels to events like the Vimy commemoration; there is no indication that PM Harper did not plan to act in the customary manner.  Messers Dion, Duceppe and Layton are, as politicians are wont to do, ‘spinning’ this for their own partisan political advantage.  Mr. Martin is helping them.  It appears to Ruxted that Mr. Martin is defending the indefensible on the basis that ‘the enemy of my enemy (PM Harper) is my friend.’  Mr. Martin should ask why M. Duceppe, M. Dion and Mr. Layton are afraid to be seen honouring our war dead? 

Finally, Mr. Martin says, “Our obligation to the dead is hardly war boosterism. It is finding solutions other than war.”  We agree again.  The Ruxted Group also consider that our obligation to our war dead means that we do not use them as partisan political props.

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

 

[MarkOttawa]

Jim Travesty of the Crvena Zvezda has a similar hate for the CDS and the Conservatives:

Whether new or old, tanks just not for this war
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/200180

...Having planted the Conservative flag alongside Canada's in Afghanistan, the Prime Minister now has little choice but to write monster cheques when the military argues publicly that its fighting machinery isn't up to the job.

That raises interesting questions. Did the military not know that its aging Leopards would be unusable in Afghanistan's summer heat? Or was it an exercise in planned failure, one that would put irresistible political pressure on the government to acquire the tanks that, in more cost-conscious times, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier deleted from his already-long shopping list?

Whatever the answers, this week's abrupt and typically secretive change of course demands far closer scrutiny. Canadians need to know if a mission already heavily skewed toward war and away from reconstruction is morphing into the kind of protracted, all-out conflict alien armies don't win in Afghanistan...

What's more uncertain is what useful role battle tanks can play beyond offering thicker insulation against explosives and providing a psychological show of superior force. It's hard to fathom how a weapon too heavy for roads, too large for village streets and primarily designed to fight other tanks can effectively advance Canada's goals of defeating an insurgency indistinguishable from the local population while reconstructing a shattered society.

More than just a solution to the twin problems of heat and security, the new Leopards are also central to Canada's Afghanistan conundrum. In protecting its troops from an innovative enemy, this country is deploying weapons that alienate soldiers from the Afghans they must make friends.

In the best-case scenario, modern tanks will keep troops cooler and safer. In the worst, Canada will lease expensive weapons it decided it didn't need and lose a war that must be fought and won among the people.

Then there's this classic:

Putting a swagger into foreign policy
http://www.thestar.com/article/192963

Rick Hillier is a splash of colour in an anonymous, grey capital. Outspoken and contentious, he's the toast of the barracks and the first chief of the defence staff in decades to consistently poke his head above the public parapet.

Raised in Newfoundland and seasoned in the base camp hoorah culture of Fort Hood, Texas [emphasis added], Hillier is more than the sum of military clichés. A soldier's soldier, Canada's top general also has what counts in a government town now under Conservative command and control: influence.

Promoted past more cautious rivals in 2005 by then-Liberal prime minister Paul Martin, Hillier is now the most visible member of the elite group helping Stephen Harper transform this country's international image. They are doing a remarkable job...

No longer the good-scout peacekeeper, there's new toughness and even some swagger in the way Harper's government's and Hillier's troops walk through the global village. It was obvious last summer when the Prime Minister abandoned Canada's traditional neutrality and nuances to take one side in the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. It is even more evident in Afghanistan where reconstruction is the rhetorical sugar coating on a bitter conflict...

...there will be no better time than the coming election to test support for a policy fast drifting south. The other is that Canada is now spiralling deeper into the complications of an insurgency in Afghanistan that looks a lot like a civil war.

Those issues meet in the Kandahar mission Hillier was instrumental in convincing Liberals to join and Conservatives to extend. Canadians have a right to know, and this government has a duty to explain, how much of this country's Afghanistan effort is driven by values and how much by interests. Are troops there to stabilize and reconstruct a failed state or is the primary purpose to gain leverage in Washington?..

Canada created a unique international persona by co-operating with Washington while thinking and sometimes acting independently. That character is now at risk in Harper's foreign policy and Hillier's forces...

For the armed forces, the project is already more advanced. It's not exactly what Martin had in mind but the muscular military he agreed Hillier should begin constructing and Liberals began funding is designed to fight beside the U.S. and is heavily dependent on Washington's logistical safety net.

There are clear defence, security and political benefits. There is also the liability that this country will be less able or inclined to intervene in places where the U.S. can't or won't go [emphasis added--what is the reasoning behind this? CC-177s, C-130Js, Chinooks and JSSs will increase our capability to act with others and without the US] – even if those missions reflect Canada's values or its interests.

Escaping dreamland is one thing, sliding into the nationalist nightmare of becoming a mini-me America is quite another [so why are we still not in Iraq? And what was our Air Force doing over Kosovo and Serbia under the Liberals?].

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and mail, is another provocative column from Lawrence Martin:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070419.wxcomartin19/BNStory/National/home

How long can the PM tolerate his Minister of Defence?

LAWRENCE MARTIN
From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Watching the descent of Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor is like watching the slow political death of former environment minister Rona Ambrose.

In what turned out to be two critical portfolios, Prime Minister Stephen Harper saddled himself with ministers not up to the task. It has served to weaken his government's performance.

Mr. O'Connor has been shelled in the Commons this week for his ill-advised and ill-timed remarks suggesting the country could be at war -- if not in Afghanistan, then elsewhere -- for another 10 or 15 years. The observation, which came soon after the deaths of eight Canadian soldiers, added to the confusion over when the government will end the Afghan mission. Mr. Harper has had to dodge questions on the matter, making him look uncharacteristically uncertain.

Mr. O'Connor's latest stumble followed his apology for misleading the House last month over his insistence that the Red Cross monitored the treatment of prisoners handed to Afghan authorities. The Red Cross did no such thing, but Mr. O'Connor held to the fiction for the better part of a year.

Prior to this, the Defence Minister was under fire over his past as a lobbyist for global weapons manufacturers -- the same companies who have been approaching his department for military contracts in the billions of dollars. (More is likely to be revealed on this file.)

Though a career military man himself, Mr. O'Connor is not well liked within the forces. In the Commons, he comes across as a stubborn, cantankerous grouse from a bygone era -- a relic of the Cold War. You can see the squirming on the front benches every time he gets up to answer a question.

He is being kept on, according to insiders, because he cultivated a close companionship with the Harper family. But if the PM is putting personal loyalties ahead of professional judgment, he is only asking for more headaches from this minister.

The O'Connor troubles come on top of those of Public Works Minister Michael Fortier, who is facing conflict-of-interest allegations over his department's awarding of a $400-million high-tech contract.

Mr. Harper's cabinet, in many instances, is letting the Prime Minister down. Whatever one's assessment of the PM's policies, he is a strong leader, organized, strategic, in command of the files and a much improved communicator.

But the qualities do not extend to his ministers. Beyond the weak performances in defence and, formerly, in environment, there are a range of other problems.

The government could benefit from a strong Quebec leader. None has emerged. Neither the troubled Mr. Fortier nor Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon, who has been low key, has assumed the role. Industry Minister Maxime Bernier has shown some pizzazz but is still too inexperienced to take the command spot.

The government could use a strong deputy leader. Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice has not developed, as some predicted, into a muscular No. 2. While apparently able behind the scenes, he looks ill at ease in the House and has had difficulty, as have so many ministers, in managing the nettlesome Indian Affairs portfolio -- a fact that is likely to become more evident with the native national day of protest on June 29.

The government needs a strong finance minister. Jim Flaherty has all the makings of one -- he is able, quick, bold and charismatic. But his recent budget left him wounded. It angered several provinces and alienated, with its liberal spending, elements of the business community and the party's conservative base.

On the female side, Mr. Harper has nothing approaching a strong minister. For youth, it's the same.

There have been some impressive performances, most notably by Rob Nicholson, who is now in Justice, and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day. John Baird is star material and is now being put to the test on the global-warming file.

But overall, it is hardly a shining cabinet. Because he made the appointments, and because he holds everyone on such a tight leash, Mr. Harper shares some of the responsibility. As talented as he is, he cannot go solo. His government moved along crisply under his direction but, because of the indecision surrounding an election call, the surefootedness has lately been missing.

The Prime Minister has only recently shuffled his cabinet and is not about to do so again. But he must at least find a way of unloading his Defence Minister. It is too important a portfolio to leave in the hands of Mr. O'Connor.

lmartin@globeandmail.com

Martin is well within his lanes here – this (O’Connor’s performance and image) is an important political consideration.  I sense that O’Connor is unpopular with Canadians.  I heard, on the rumour net, that he is especially unpopular with the press gallery because he plays favourites.

That being admitted I think Martin is off base for two important reasons:

First – the defence lobbyist canard is just that.  It is irrelevant, I’m sure Martin knows that be he cannot let go of his animus for the Harper Conservatives and so he digs out a baseless Liberal lie to tarnish O’Connor.  It’s unfair. It’s dishonest.  It’s yellow journalism and, in repeating it, Martin makes himself into nothing more than a paid Liberal press agent.  Elections Canada should insist that the Globe and Mail bill the Liberal Party of Canada for his salary; and

Second – Martin misses the key point: O’Connor is in the process of changing his strategic outlook.  His position (and the government’s, too, I think) has been that Afghanistan is a sui generis event – not part of a global war on barbarism.  I think he has, just recently, come around to the (LGen/CLS) Andy Leslie position – this is part of a long, global conflict, long enough to be the work of at least a generation.

I’m not a great fan of Gordon O’Connor – not even after his much needed mind change.  But I do not think Harper can or should replace him just yet.  There should be one more cabinet shuffle before the next general election – in fact I would see such a shuffle as a signal that the PM is about to engineer a defeat in the HoC.  In that shuffle I suspect Harper will want to replace unpopular (with the press/public) ministers.

As I have said elsewhere the new minister needs three attributes:

1. The support of the Prime Minister – if the PM doesn’t want defence ‘pushed’ then nothing else matters very much;

2. Good sales skills – assuming the PM supports her/him the MND must be able to sell the defence programme in the cabinet’s Planning and Priorities committee; and

3. Good administrative skills.  As I have mentioned before, in the context of O’Connor’s apology to the HoC for misleading it re: the Red Cross, DND needs some bureaucratic house cleaning.  I believe that some very, very senior bureaucrats are either less than competent or, even worse, politically biased against O’Connor.  The MND needs to convince the Clerk and his/her own DM that some reform must be done.  Second, and even harder, the MND needs to form cabinet and bureaucratic alliances aimed at reforming the defence procurement system. That’s a tough job.

 

[GAP]

I agree with most of your points ER. O'Connor, to a non CF person, comes across looking very uncomfortable as MND. I know nothing about alternatives, but right now it would be a PR disaster to replace O'Connor. It would make all the DND progress suspect.

I think you are closer to the truth when you comment on the bureaucrats and mandarins of Ottawa....without a majority, Harper can do little to correct that, if even then. There needs to be something other than people who for 25-30 years have done nothing but CYA on each and every issue, to the point that little gets done, because that way it is safer.

I think the RCMP fiasco is an excellent example of senior bureaucrats manipulating the issues and not being answerable. Don't think that something similar does not go on in each and every major department. (I am not talking about criminal actions so much as power politics)