FSTO said:
Mr Travers disdain for the military in general and PM Harper and Gen Hillier in particular always clouds his ability to be an objective journalist. He should stick to his shilling for the Liberal party, he is a shinning star in that capability.
Personally, I find this article quite
reasonable.
Bill Graham is quoted as saying,
” "Our military, to some level, lost faith in the UN to command those missions.". Speaking for myself and,
I think I’m on safe ground when I say for those around me (one or two up and one or two down) Mr. Graham should have said,
”Our military, at almost every level, saw its always limited faith in the UN to command our missions shattered by continued administrative and diplomatic ineptitude and institutional corruption.”
The idea that Hillier hoodwinked Martin is a canard spread by a former Liberal ministerial aide (Eugene Lang, Graham’s political chief-of-staff). Jean Chrétien decided – against military advice – to commit to ISAF in Kabul. He did so in order to avoid being asked/pressured to join the
coalition of the willing in Iraq. Martin wanted, indeed – for the same pressure resisting reasons – needed to stay in Afghanistan but he dithered,
comme d’habitude, when asked to decide on Kabul vs. PRT and then which PRT. Provincial Reconstruction Team sounded
soooo much better to the spin doctors so there we went but, by the time Martin had been briefed and re-briefed and had argued all the implications and ramifications into the ground all the nice, easy PRTs were gone – taken by the French, Germans, Italians, etc. That left Kandahar. There is no doubt that suited Hillier’s
view that we should be away from the ISAF
Eurotrash – heavily armed tourists and that we should be developing a new generation of combat leaders in the early years of the 21st century. But, and of this I am
absolutely certain, there is
no way that a CDS – no matter how charismatic – won
any argument when the PM and the Clerk of the Privy Council (Alex Himmelfarb, then) were in the room. If Paul Martin was persuaded it was because he heard what he wanted to hear. Paul Martin was doing his own foreign policy review and he had his own ideas about a new, much more
robust role for Canada.
The drive-by smear of “Canada’s
new government” is,
in my view spot on. I have said before and I repeat: I do not believe Prime Minister Harper had any rationale at all for extending the Afghan mission except to embarrass the Liberals in parliament. I think, he (Harper) does have a
vision of Canada as a ‘leading middle power’ – à la Louis St Laurent but I doubt that he has or will give much serious attention to what kind of military we ought to have.
I think he, quite properly, sees our foreign and defence policies as
enablers, not ends in themselves; that being the case he probably sees military organizations and operations as very subordinate issues, indeed – best left to bureaucrats and military men. In short he knows little and cares less about the military; it is a tool which he will use when the problem requires it.
I think Travers is also correct to note that
new peacekeeping is still an option for Canada. When we are out of Afghanistan – and we will be out, someday, maybe in 2009, more likely somewhere around 2019 – there will still be plenty of demands for our military forces. We are, as Ruxted has pointed out and as Travers repeats, one of the world’s few
militarily capable nations. Above that we are one of the few militarily capable nations which is not viewed around the world as a George Bush lapdog. There will be situations where we will be the right choice to lead peacekeeping missions, Travers is right about that. He is also right about the fact that they will not be Cyprus/UNEF II missions where commanders worry more about the new swimming pool than about patrol reports – these new missions will be “gritty” and “risky” and everything else. It is possible,
I hope, that Canada will not tolerate too much UN management – we must have learned something in a half-century of dealing with those clowns. We will, as we should, demand a UN mandate but, hopefully, we will have enough smart people in the Privy Council Office and in our foreign affairs and defence bureaucracies to organize UN approved and sponsored
coalitions in which we can play a leading role – if we cannot lead we should not volunteer. We do this stuff in pursuit of our national interests – helping black folks, etc is a secondary aim. If the mission does not promote our vital interests then we should
let George do it, as an old saying goes.
I think this, his concluding paragraph, is 100% accurate:
”If the military has its way, Afghanistan will finally shoot dead Canada's peacekeeping image. But killing it will distance a lot of Canadians from how they see themselves and how they want to be seen by the world.”
