Much Ado About The Wrong Thing - Canadian Forces DisIntegration

As a political scientist and somewhat of a historian I prefer our system of government based on a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. I also appreciate the role that our historical links to the United Kingdom play in our multicultural society, including their role in our political and justice systems.

Therefore I am not particularly upset about including "Royal" in the names of the Canadian Air Force and Canadian Navy. But that is not the point, however much Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party would like to direct the debate to that minor issue, by using references to Canadian history.

The point is to start to undo the integration of the Canadian Forces. The forces were integrated for two reasons, one operational and one more symbolic, but of operational impact.

Operationally the goal was to obtain efficiencies by having one command structure and developing one set of priorities and to eliminate competition between the three services, Army, Navy and Air Force.

Symbolically the goal was to have our servicemen all identify with each other through the Canadian Forces, rather than simply with one service.

It's not about being Royal. It's about being separate services rather than one combined Canadian Forces all working together with one loyalty to Canada.

Legalizing Spousal Rape In Afghanistan – Not So Foreign to Canadian Law

As the CBC reports, Afghanistan's proposed law to legalize spousal rape, or to put it in other terms “make it illegal for women to refuse their husbands sex”, has rightly been widely condemned.

However, we would be wrong to characterize this as some sort of Islamic barbarism foreign to western civilizations.

Indeed, as the Globe and Mail reports, the same provision existed in Canadian law up until 1983.

Indeed, the concept has had a long history in the jurisprudence of the United Kingdom, Commonwealth countries, Canada and the United States, as the following articles record:

Historical Development of the Offence of_Rape (Bruce A. MacFarlane, Q.C. Deputy Minister of Justice Deputy Attorney General for the Province of Manitoba)

Making Marital Rape A Crime: A Long Road Traveled, A Long Way to Go (Lynn Hecht Schafran, Director, National Judicial Education Program; Stefanie Lopez-Boy, Program Associate, National Judicial Education Program; Mary Rothwell Davis)

It took a long time to banish from the law books of the west, It should not be allowed to be put on the law books of Afghanistan at a time when Canadian soldiers are dying there, supposedly in the name of women's rights and human rights.

Canadian Forces Rewards Disgraced Commander

The CBC and Ottawa Citizen report that:

Canada's military leadership has quietly promoted to general the soldier who led the ill-fated Somalia mission and who was subsequently found by a government inquiry to have failed in his duty as a commander.

The military has not publicized the July 2 promotion of Col. Serge Labbé to the rank of brigadier general.

The CBC reports:

A public inquiry into the affair cleared Labbe of any personal involvement in the killing, but concluded he failed to clearly enforce the rules of engagement. The inquiry, which ran from 1994 to 1997, called Labbe's failure both lamentable and inexcusable.

The Ottawa Citizen reports:

In 1997, the Somalia inquiry concluded Brig.-Gen. Labbé exercised poor and inappropriate leadership by failing to ensure Canadian troops were adequately trained and tested on the Geneva Conventions and that he failed in his duty as a commander.

In the real world a promotion means you take on new duties and responsibilities. The Somalia mission took place from 1992 to 1993. So perhaps the disgraced commander has redeemed himself and is ready to take on the new duties and responsibilities that the promotion entails. But that is not so.

As the Ottawa Citizen reports:

But sources contacted the Citizen about the promotion and the Defence Department yesterday confirmed that the new rank for the officer will be retroactive to 2000.

How exactly do you go back eight years and take on the new duties and responsibilities of a promotion.

But it gets worse, as the Ottawa Citizen reports:

A colleague of Brig.-Gen. Labbé said the officer is currently in Kabul as head of the Strategic Advisory Team, which provides support to Afghan government ministries. He is expected back in Canada in August and is expected to retire after that, according to the general's colleague.

and:

Dan Dugas, the communications director for Defence Minister Peter MacKay, said the minister signed off on the promotion based on the recommendation of Gen. Rick Hillier, who recently retired as chief of the defence staff. "Mr. MacKay takes the advice of the Chief of the Defence Staff on staffing issues," Mr. Dugas said.

So this is not a promotion, but a retirement gift to a disgraced commander. And one that the government takes no responsibility for, preferring to put the responsibility on retired Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier.

Hillier Sees Democracy as a Sign of Weakness

Debate is the basis of our Parliamentary democracy. Indeed, even the word “Parliament” is derived from the French “parler”.

parliament
c.1290, from O.Fr. parlement (11c.), originally "speaking, talk," from parler "to speak" (see parley); spelling altered c.1400 to conform with M.L. parliamentum. Anglo-L. parliamentum is attested from 1216. Parliamentarian originally (1644) was a designation of one of the sides in the Eng. Civil War; meaning "one versed in parliamentary procedure" dates from 1834.

We are supposedly fighting in Afghanistan for, amongst other things, democracy. Yet, as the CBC reports, the Chief of Defence Staff thinks that democracy in Canada is a sign of weakness in the “war for democracy” in Afghanistan.

Yet another reason why the Chief of Defence Staff should stick to his role in leading the military in implementing Canada’s defence policy rather than interfering in the political process and trying to influence policy. Unfortunately Stephen Harper and his Conservative government, as demonstrated on numerous occasions, have shown just as little regard for democracy as Hillier does.

This Just In - Hillier to Resign

After months of negotiations the government has reached an agreement in the dispute over the Chief of Defence Staff's refusal to take direction from his civilian masters. The agreement will see civilian control return to the military.

On Friday General Rick Hillier will resign as Chief of Defence Staff and leave the Canadian Forces. On Monday Hillier will be appointed as the new Minister of National Defence. General, oops I mean citizen, Hillier will seek election to the House of Commons in a by-election in the newly created constituency of Kandahar.

When asked to explain this unusual arrangement, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said "hey, it worked in Pakistan".

Should Canadian Forces Be In Afghanistan

This is not as simple a question as “Should Canadian Forces be in Iraq ?”. The Iraq war is a unilateral violation of international law based on a web of lies, including the claims that Iraq was involved with 911 and that Iraq had those evil “weapons of mass destruction” that only the “good guys” are allowed to have. Apparently the MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) theory is now passé.

On the other hand, Afghanistan was being used as a training ground for Al Qaida and was clearly linked to international terrorism. The Canadian Forces role in Afghanistan is also linked to reconstruction and development, even if there is some controversy surrounding that role. But the Afghanistan mission is also tainted by it’s connection the “United States War on Terror” that is inextricably linked to the Iraq War and the United States historical foreign and miliary policy of simply acting in their own interests without regard to human rights or international law.

Setting that aside, the question is answered much more easily by looking at what role for the Canadian Forces best serves Canadian values, and where the Canadian Forces can be most effective. The Afghanistan mission is a heavy burden that prevents the Canadian Forces from being deployed in missions that better serve traditional Canadian values and foreign policy.

Canada is the country that invented peacekeeping. Modern day peacekeeping is not a watered down version of military combat but a role that requires all the traditional skills and risks of the military with added diplomatic and development roles.

In the First and Second World Wars we fought countries - the country, military and civilian, was the enemy, and civilian casualties, whether intended or “collateral”, were not a significant factor. In today’s warfare we are often in the middle of conflicts between armed groups where we are trying to win the trust of the civilian population so that we can work with them in reconstruction and development projects. Often separating “friend” from “foe” is the biggest challenge. Canada has the opportunity to build a highly combat trained military that is also educated in these more subtle areas.

The Afghanistan conflict clearly requires many of these skills. However it is tainted by its link to the “United States War on Terror” and its burden prevents Canada from acting in other areas, and from acting where no one else is capable or prepared to act.

Recently we have seen the world paralysed by some of the worst acts of genocide and humanitarian crises in places like Rwanda and Darfur. The world stood by, unable or unwilling to act, as millions suffered unspeakable abuse and death.

This is where Canada should act. Wee need to develop the will and the capability to act when no one else will - to engage in “unilateral humanitarian military intervention”. To do this a number of things have to happen. First is the need to develop a nationwide public and political will to act.

It will mean accepting the need for Canada to act unilaterally which will require a major foreign policy shift. To act unilaterally and retain international credibility is the challenge. Fortunately we do not have the kind of foreign policy history that plagues the United States. For Canada to be able to undertake this role with credibility requires pursuing a foreign policy based on the interests of international peace and development, rather than purely self-interest, which is what drives American foreign policy, and it means distancing ourselves from American foreign policy and unilateralism, in particular the “United States War on Terror”.

It means removing the Canadian Forces from Afghanistan, because of its links to the “United States War on Terror” and because it drains our resources that are needed to respond to international humanitarian crises when no one else will.

Unilateral intervention requires unilateral capability. It means we need to have the independent military capability to perform all combat and other roles, capability in terms of equipment, troops and training, and the capability to get our forces to where they are needed quickly, particularly in situations when thousands of people are being abused and killed everyday that nobody acts. We need to build these capabilities if we e to fulfill this role.

The best way to achieve a peaceful and conflict free world is to reduce economic inequity and human rights violations that have become commonplace. Canada can do that at home by setting an example of how the world’s peoples can live together in harmony, and abroad by following policies designed to reduce international inequities.

However there are times when the world should not stand by, times when someone needs to act