Trudeau Rules out Canadian Participation in Military strikes against Syria

By BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH, The Toronto Star 

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says that Canada's military will not participate in expected strikes against the Syrian regime that are meant as retaliation for a suspected chemical attack against civilians.

Canadian CF-18 Hornets depart after refueling over Iraq on Oct. 30, 2014. The fighters jets were in the region flying bombing mission against Daesh extremists in Iraq but that mission was ended by Trudeau’s government after it took office in 2015.  (STAFF SGT. PERRY ASTON / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Speaking to Radio-Canada, the prime minister said Canadian military personnel are already involved in missions in northern Iraq and Latvia and will be deploying to Mali. “We are not looking to be present in Syria,” Trudeau said in an interview.

But he said Canada has been involved in delivering humanitarian assistance and working through diplomatic and political channels to resolve the conflict in Syria that has laid waste to cities, left thousands dead and forced citizens to flee to safety in neighbouring countries.

U.S. President Donald Trump warned Wednesday of an imminent strike on Syria, declaring on social media that missiles “will be coming” and taunted Russia for its pledge to shoot them down.

“Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” Trump said on Twitter.

The threatened action comes after an attack last weekend in the Syrian town of Douma that possibly involved chemical weapons, which is believed to have killed 40 people. The attack is blamed on the government of President Bashar al-Assad though it has denied responsibility.

Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland condemned the attack at the time, saying the “repeated and morally reprehensible use of chemical weapons” by the Assad regime has been confirmed by independent observers.

“Canada condemns the Assad regime — and its backers, Russia and Iran — for its repeated, gross violations of human rights and continued, deliberate targeting of civilians,” Freeland said in a statement.

Trump has spoken to world leaders and U.S. officials said the U.S., France and Britain discussed the possibility of a military strike, according to a report by The Associated Press.

Canada did have CF-18 fighters jets in the region flying bombing mission against Daesh extremists in Iraq. That mission — launched by the previous Conservative government — was halted by Trudeau’s Liberal government after it took office in 2015.

Currently, Canada has a small number of special operations forces troops still deployed in northern Iraq to assist local forces in their fight against Daesh, along with Griffon helicopters. A CC-150 Polaris air-to-air refueller is also still flying missions, refuelling other fighters in their patrol missions.

Black: Sell the Arms to the Saudi's

By: Conrad Black

National Post, May 14, 2016

The controversy over the sale of light armoured vehicles (LAVs) to Saudi Arabia illustrates the fact that Canada can now decide whether it wants to be one of the world’s important powers or not. This does not mean a super power, which is not and will not be on offer for a country of 35 million people. It means a G7 country with the ability to extend its status to be one of world’s influential countries beyond economics and including the full range of factors that create a country’s stature in the world. This is not the last chance for Canada to make that choice, but is one of the first of such opportunities.

Those who most strenuously oppose the sale to Saudi Arabia include practically all audible elements of the NDP. They rightly see Saudi Arabia as a primitive absolute monarchy that has no respect for human liberty, especially women’s rights, is religiously intolerant, and foments militant Wahhabi Islam throughout the Muslim world. This past week, opponents of the sale to Saudi Arabia have been jubilantly circulating news film footage of the Saudis deploying similar equipment, though not supplied by Canada, to break up Shiite demonstrations in Saudi Arabia, and claiming that it could be reasonably inferred that Canadian-supplied LAVs would be similarly deployed.

The opponents of the deal focus especially on the fish-tailing of the federal government as it cites Saudi Arabia as an ally in the fight against Iranian expansion and anti-Western terrorism. The government has assured that this equipment would not be used on Saudi civilians. Tepid supporters of the deal make the point that thousands of Canadian jobs are at stake, and that Canada must not gain a reputation as a fickle and unreliable trading partner.

Of course, the Saudi regime is a nauseating affront to Western values. It has been for decades a joint venture between the House of Saud and the Wahhabi hierarchy, which has long been the principal propagator of militant Islam among Sunni Muslims. Financed by the Saudi royal family, the Wahhabis leave the Saudi regime untroubled, even as they try to destabilize many other governments. Of course, Saudi hypocrisy is distasteful, although it has moderated its support for extremism, under pressure from the United States, and as it has been pushed into the Islamic centre by al-Qaida and ISIL.

Bill Graveland / Canadian PressA Canadian LAV (light armoured vehicle) in Afghanistan on Nov.26, 2006.

Now is the time for Canada to end the role of foreign affairs as a substitute for theology and psychiatry, and to see it as it should be: the means of projecting this country’s interests and influence as a benign policy force in the world. Those who strongly favour the LAV contract, including me, emphasize that the manufacturer is a branch-plant of an American company which would decamp elsewhere if this deal is revoked, creating thousands of skilled, durably unemployed Canadians. The Saudis would buy similar vehicles from other suppliers. Canada would then be mocked in the world as a flaky, inconstant, self-righteous, and light-weight country with no vocation to measure the balance between its interests and moral influence in the world. Further, we would be seen, correctly, as subordinating our economic and strategic interest to a moralistic encouragement of a more liberal Saudi state, something we cannot achieve. This view exaggerates and misjudges our moral interest at the expense of the practical interests of Canada and the West.

Related
Tasha Kheiriddin: Stop supporting Saudi apartheid
Conrad Black: What Canada can do to help stabilize the Middle East and resurrect a strong Western alliance
Stephane Dion releases ‘secret’ Saudi Arabia documents, approving $11 billion in armoured vehicle exports

Saudi Arabia is a powerful regional and sectarian ally against Hezbollah (Lebanon), Hamas (Palestinian territories and Israel), and the Houthi (Yemen), and formidable associate in the struggle against ISIL, which dismisses the Iranian theocrats (and their above-mentioned proxies), and Saudi royals together as pallid infidels. What we have now in the Middle East is a stranger association of powers than was the West with Stalin’s Soviet Union during the Second World War (which Stalin helped start with his Nazi-Soviet Pact with Hitler). But that alliance worked very well, and the West gained or retrieved Germany, France, Italy, and Japan, four of the world’s greatest nations, back into the West as prosperous and democratic allies, while Stalin gained only expensive and temporary and brutal occupation of Eastern Europe, having taken over 90 per cent of the casualties in subduing Nazi Germany. This parallel can be overworked, but as I have written here and elsewhere before, Saudi Arabia, in trying to put a rod on the back of Iran by tanking the world oil price, was also so instrumental in afflicting the Russian national treasury that Russian leader Putin almost certainly moderated the pressure he had planned to assert on Ukraine and the Baltic states. Whatever their shortcomings, the Saudis have been the greatest pillar the crumbling Western alliance has had in the last two years.

Photo: Caporal-chef Dan Pop, AffaireThe Department of National Defence receives the first modernized LAV III from General Dynamics Land Systems Canada in London, Ontario on January 24, 2013.

In applying standards of acceptable moral conduct on other countries, all mature Western nations are compelled to be governed by two factors: whether the co-contracting regime is morally abhorrent and inferior to its local, or sectarian or ideological rivals; and if refusing to treat with such an odious regime would actually lead to its downfall, and would a replacement regime be preferable. Of course, the answer in this case, of Saudi Arabia, is no on both counts. The Saudis are less dangerous and hostile to the West than their Iranian rivals, and the Saudis are effectively combatting Iranian surrogates mentioned above (even allowing for President Obama’s spongiform-brained appeasement of Tehran). Any replacement of the Saudi government, mired in infelicities as it is, would be a hideous cocktail of al-Qaida and ISIL. These would make the relatively house-trained Wahhabi grandees seem like the pious elders of the United Church of Canada (who can be very tiresome and self-serving, but persist in the murky cause of Protestant rights in the People’s Republic and aren’t trying to kill anyone).

Capt Dave MuraltA LAV-III light armoured vehicle of Company Headquarters, C Company, 1st Battalion the Royal 22nd Regiment, the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team's Force Protection Company, secures the village of Zangabad during the ceremonies marking the return of the residents to their homes.

Two examples in living memory of those who have imposed trade embargoes on strategic exports are Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ending the shipments of oil and iron exports to Japan in 1941, and prime minister Lester Pearson’s refusal to sell uranium to France in 1965. Regarding Japan, Roosevelt was correct, morally and practically, and Japan had to attack the United States treacherously, as it did in 1941, or retreat with its tail between its legs from China and Indochina, which it had brutally invaded. Pearson’s moral sanctimony opposite France caused General de Gaulle to seek uranium from France’s former African colonies, and he responded to Pearson’s shabby breach of trust with a call to French Canadians to secede from the Canadian state, wherever they might be. This contributed to decades of turmoil in Quebec-federal relations.

We must start by outgrowing the national mythos expressed by Michael Byers in the Globe and Mail on May 12, and accept that most members of the United Nations pay no attention to the UN Charter or the Universal Declaration on Human Rights; that nobody applies the Geneva Conventions or UN Convention Against Torture to terrorism or counter-terrorism, and that Lester Pearson “won the Nobel prize for peace because he devised a new mechanism — UN peacekeeping — for preventing death and suffering.” the U.S. ambassador to the UN, Henry Cabot Lodge, and the State Department, devised it as a face-saving measure for the British and French after the dreadful fiasco at Suez in 1956 and asked Pearson to move it because if the U.S. did, the Soviet Union, which was then busily engaged in suppressing the Hungarian revolution, would veto it. It is time we had a real foreign policy tailored to our potential capabilities, and emerged from our long-spun cocoon as the pure Snow Maiden of the north raising a light to the nations. Our duty and interest in this case is to pursue our economic interest while assisting the least bad of the Middle East blocs against the worse Iranian bloc and the unspeakable theo-terrorists.

Sajjan: The Warrior Minister - Legion Magazine Interview

Interview published in the Legion Magazine, by Adam Day 


Harjit Sajjan on the difference between the Taliban and Islamic State, why Russia is not behaving like a democratic nation, what we may have done wrong in Afghanistan, and a candid answer concerning hisleast-favourite thing about being a politician

Canada’s war against the Islamic State has switched into a higher gear. Hundreds of our special operations forces are flooding into Iraq, backed by helicopters, deepened intelligence capabilities and deployments of more than 100 soldiers to neighbouring Lebanon and Jordan. And in Iraq, at least, the likelihood is that the troops will be in combat, since they are going in on the same advise-and-assist mission that saw Canada’s troops placed in harm’s way last year.

But Harjit Sajjan, Canada’s minister of national defence, doesn’t want to call it a war. Not yet, anyway. And don’t call it a combat mission either, even though there will be combat.

Despite the semantic evasions, Sajjan takes up his new post with a reputation for solving tough problems. He is not just a former lieutenant-colonel, an Afghanistan combat veteran and a former gang-unit detective. He is also reportedly an all-star thinker whose analysis of enemy networks in Kandahar Province earned him repeated tours and accolades. And it brought him to his current position.

Now, Sajjan’s training as an intelligence officer is being tested on a bigger stage. The world is complex, he says, and we can’t hope to stop threats unless we understand where they come from. Sajjan is always thinking about the big picture. As such, he sometimes sounds like he may suffer from the paralysis of a man who understands too much—aware of the situation’s complexity, of underlying causes and third-order consequences and the relentless nature of a negative feedback loop. The question then becomes one of where to act, when, and why.

To get a better sense of the new minister and his objectives, Legion Magazine conducted a brief, lighting-round-style phone interview with him as he sped toward the airport in Ottawa, slightly behind schedule. While he is certainly more forthcoming than many recent ministers, Sajjan has already picked up the politician’s game of dodging a question as if it’s a sport.

The Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan, Minister of National Defence, presents medals to the members of CANSOF Task Force during a visit to Iraq on December 21, 2015.
PHOTO: SGT YANNICK BÉDARD, CANADIAN FORCES COMBAT CAMERA. IS01-2015-0007-040

Legion Magazine: Please give your opinion, and remember you have one minute to answer this question: did we win the war in Afghanistan?

Sajjan: It was not about winning or losing. It was about making sure we brought the Afghan National Security Forces and the government structure to a point where they were taking greater responsibility. You have to leave at some point; otherwise there is no long-term solution for it. And I think that was accomplished.

LM: Can you compare the Taliban to the Islamic State? Which one was or is the greater threat to Canadian national security?

Sajjan: ISIL is definitely a greater threat to Canadian security. The Taliban stayed within the borders. You didn’t have a lot of conversation regarding what they wanted to do outside their borders. The brutality is literally the same, but one thing is that ISIL uses social media to get brutality out. The Taliban were just as brutal, although only some of us who were in certain areas knew and witnessed some of that.

LM: Here’s something harder to understand: we responded to the Taliban with military force, and indeed, occupation of their country. But we respond to ISIL with more of a hands-off approach, with less combat. So can you describe why we respond to the greater threat with less force?

Sajjan: Well, it’s not about us bringing capabilities and force, it’s about the totality of what you’re trying to do. If you look at how long the United States was at war in Iraq fighting the insurgency, and in the end, some Sunni tribes came onto their side and things were okay and they left. And what happened all of a sudden was that ISIL, a small radical organization that came out of Syria, became so big. This fight has to be done by the local regime. Yes, we can go in and fight and potentially get to a stalemate and even win. But it’s not about just defeating ISIL, it’s about allowing the Iraqi forces to defeat ISIL so we can have more of a long-term solution. And that’s far more important, because at the end of the day, we only have so much force, even with the U.S. and the European Union working together.

“As you fight, if you do not deal with the
recruitment, you will just keep fighting.”

LM: It seems that Sunni extremism—an ideology that gave rise to both al-Qaida and ISIL—is the real problem here. How do we deal with Sunni extremism?

Sajjan: I think any extremism needs to be dealt with. And in this particular region, ISIL—a small but very radical group—is at the forefront. Any group gets its recruitment based on its population. Even though we’re fighting, what we’re really doing is buying time to separate the population from the radical group and once you do that you end up fighting a smaller organization. And that’s the critical piece that has to be done in Iraq.

LM: So your proposal to defeat Sunni extremism is to separate the extremists from the population?

Sajjan: Well, in any counter-insurgency strategy, you have to do that. As you fight, if you do not deal with the recruitment, you will just keep fighting. So the base that they have to recruit from is absolutely critical to getting the long-term success that we’re looking to achieve.
“Dialogue is the absolute key to
understanding Russia’s intentions.”

LM: What do you believe is the greater threat: ISIL or Russia?

Sajjan: You can’t separate them. You have to look at the threats in a different manner. With Russia, you have far greater regional and strategic issues. And with all the aggression they are showing around the world, the hope is that they’ll get back to a place of dialogue and be partners in the dialogue, which is better for their county. However, in ISIL you have a group you can’t negotiate with and so you have to deal with them in this [forceful] manner. So we need to be able to isolate that group and ensure they don’t take advantage of the political issues that have been created to push or pull the greater population. Once we isolate this radical organization in order to be able to destroy it, that’s going to be critical. But you can’t really look at which one is the greater threat. It’s like looking at apples and oranges, really.

LM: In your read, what is animating Vladimir Putin’s aggression? What is animating Russian aggression?

Sajjan: That’s pretty difficult to say for me, looking at it from the outside, like any other Canadian, having only recently gotten into this. It’s important to know what the person’s mindset is and what experience they have. When you’re leading a country like Russia, it cannot be done in an irresponsible manner, where you just invade other countries, regardless of what issues you have. Democratic nations deal with difficult issues. You come to the table and discuss them.

Defence Minister, Harjit S. Sajjan speaks with Antoni Macierewicz, his counterpart from Poland during the annual Defence Ministerial Meeting at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium on February 10, 2016.
PHOTO: SGT YANNICK BÉDARD, CANADIAN FORCES COMBAT CAMERA. IS01-2016-0001-010

LM: We are living in a unique historical period. We’ve seen international borders being rewritten, which doesn’t happen all that often. Crimea and Iraq. So, related to Russia’s aggression, NATO expansion into Eastern Europe does seem to be a bit of a trigger. Now we want to get Ukraine into NATO. How does this expansion serve our interests?

Sajjan: I’ll be going to my first NATO meeting in a week and half or so, and these are a lot of the important discussions that we will have. It’s important to have the right balance, but I think dialogue is the absolute key to understanding Russia’s intentions. But NATO has a really important role and has had for a really long time. We have to stay unified. We’re going to stay steadfast with our partners, with Ukraine and some of the other Eastern European countries, but the opportunity for dialogue will always be there.

LM: Your career as a soldier is over. What was its defining moment?

Sajjan: In Afghanistan in 2006, when an infantry section allowed me to do the work I did, it really opened my eyes. Just because you have rank doesn’t mean you have all the answers. Some of the best answers and solutions come from unlikely sources. And I don’t know how many times that golden nugget of a clue we were looking for came from troops on the ground. I can look back and say, wow, our troops really are second to none. The thought processes they can bring to the table, the heart that they have, and the fight that they bring. They can easily turn around from doing humanitarian work in a village to fighting within the hour. Being able to switch on a dime like that is pretty hard to achieve. Just being able to work with people like that was the highlight.

LM: What is something you don’t like about being a politician?

Sajjan: I would say that the discussions that sometimes happen in the House take away from the real work that’s being done for Canadians. In Ottawa now it’s like being in a bubble and fighting to stay out of that bubble so you keep connected with Canadians and the real issues and what’s going on. In the Canadian Armed Forces, we do have a perspective on politicians, but at the same time we know that a lot of people who’ve gotten into politics, especially the colleagues I know, really do want to make a difference. When we serve, we all know that if you think you can make a difference and you have the capability and the experience that you should seek and accept responsibility. I felt that my experience was needed and I didn’t like how certain things were being done, so I stopped complaining about it because I felt I had the capability to do something and so I did.

LAV Export Deal Challenged in Court

Published by Defense News, David Pugliese 

VICTORIA, British Columbia — A lawsuit that could potentially derail the largest weapons export deal in Canadian history will be heard in court as early as next month.

Daniel Turp, a law professor and former member of parliament, has filed the legal challenge in the Federal Court of Canada to prevent the export of CAN $14.8 billion (US $11 billion) of light armored vehicles by Canada to Saudi Arabia.

A Canadian LAV-III (Photo: Canadian Army)

Turp argues that the sale of the vehicles, to be built by General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada of London, Ontario, violates Canadian law which prevents the export of military goods to a nation that abuses human rights or is engaged in an active conflict.

Related:
After Saudi Executions, New Canadian Leaders Still Back $15B Vehicle Deal

Canadian PM: Human Rights Issues Won't Derail LAV Sale to Saudis

In his submission to the Federal Court, Turp noted that light armored vehicles previously built by General Dynamics Canada are being used by Saudi forces in fighting in Yemen. He has also wrote that Saudi Arabia “consistently, severely and systematically violates its citizens’ human rights.”

He has asked the Federal Court to cancel the export permits issued for the vehicles.

Doug Wilson-Hodge

, manager of corporate affairs for 
General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada, declined to comment on Turp’s legal action. Production of the vehicles has not yet begun.

Canada’s Liberal Party Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has refused to cancel the contract, which is financially guaranteed by the government. “Fundamentally, this issue is a matter of principle,” Trudeau told journalists. “The principle at play here is that Canada’s word needs to mean something in the international community. It is important that people know when they sign a deal with Canada, when they sign a commercial agreement, a change in government isn’t going to lead to that contract being ripped up.”

The Saudi deal was announced in February 2015 by Canada’s previous Conservative Party government.

The Canadian government has filed its rebuttal with the Federal Court; it acknowledged Saudi Arabia’s poor human rights record but pointed out that the country is supportive of international efforts to counter the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria as well as “countering instability in Yemen.”

"The acquisition of state-of-the-art armoured vehicles will assist Saudi Arabia in these goals, which are consistent with Canada's defence interests in the Middle East," the Canadian government argued in its response.

The case will be heard by the court in Montreal in late May or early June.

The contract has largely been shrouded in secrecy with the Saudis not even acknowledging they are purchasing the Canadian-built light armoured vehicles. Numbers of vehicles to be purchased has not been released. But analysts say Turp’s legal action may force Canada to reveal some of those details in court.

Conservative Party Prime Minister Stephen Harper also acknowledged human rights violations in Saudi Arabia but said that any of Canada’s allies would have signed a similar defense export deal with that country.

General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada has sold more than 1,400 LAVs to the Saudis over the last 20 years. The vehicles have been equipped with a variety of weapon systems, ranging from 25mm cannons to 90mm guns.

Human rights observers point out that some of those vehicles were sent in 2011 to help Bahrain’s rulers suppress a pro-democracy uprising.

Email: dpugliese@defensenews.com

Manley: We can’t always sell weapons to people we like

By: John Manley, originally published on iPolitics 

It saddens me to watch my successor as minister of Foreign Affairs, Stéphane Dion, attacked and criticized over the sale to Saudi Arabia of light armoured vehicles manufactured in London, Ontario.

A Canadian LAV-III on patrol in Kabul, Afghanistan. 

The minister and his colleagues are, of course, right to say that the sale was negotiated and approved before they assumed office. The fact that the minister’s signature was required on the final export permits in no way contradicts the reality that to have refused to sign those permits would have breached a contract previously entered into by the Government of Canada.

If I sign an agreement to sell my house, the transaction is not completed until the day I sign the papers transferring ownership of the property to the buyer. But if I refuse to do the latter, I am clearly in breach of my prior agreement.

Beyond the contractual obligation, there are plenty of reasons to support the sale of these light armoured vehicles.

First, the defence industry is a key driver of economic activity and an important source of high-value employment. The sector encompasses more than 650 firms, supports more than 65,000 full-time jobs across the country and contributes an estimated $6 billion a year to our country’s GDP. Exports account for half of Canada’s total defence industry revenues.

Some people would prefer that we not be in the arms business at all. But not only does this industry supply some of our own defence and security requirements, it supplies our allies as well.

Should we adopt a policy of refusing to trade with people whose values are out of line with our own? Regrettably, that might leave us with a rather limited number of potential customers.

Whether one believes that Canada should offer its forces only in support of peacekeeping (a view I don’t happen to share), or should play a more robust role in global affairs, our armed forces plainly need vehicles, uniforms and ordinance to carry out their duties.

Given that requirement, it stands to reason that Canadians should want to design and manufacture this equipment — and if we’re doing so, the economics of scale dictate exporting those same products.

Second, Canada has long had interests in the region. Our armed forces have served there. Some 23 fallen Canadian soldiers and peacekeepers are buried in the Commonwealth Gaza War Cemetery near Gaza City.

It’s often said that countries don’t have friends — they have interests. Canada has an obvious interest in stability in a region in which regime change has, to say the least, not gone well in recent years. A strong Saudi Arabia, balancing Iran and its regional allies, is not a bad thing. Conversely, if you dislike the current government of Saudi Arabia (and there are good reasons to do so), you had better ask yourself who and what might replace it.

Third, as a mature country, we have to be able to deal with governments and regimes with which we do not always agree. The world is full of countries that do not share our values and beliefs. Should we adopt a policy of refusing to trade with people whose values are out of line with our own? Regrettably, that might leave us with a rather limited number of potential customers.

Canada, it should be pointed out, is not supplying the Saudis with equipment that can be used in torture or persecution of women. We are selling military vehicles — basically fancy trucks — of the sort that are required by any country’s armed forces, and which we happen to be good at making.

Finally, I find myself wondering whether the people who are now loudly proclaiming that we should block the sale of military vehicles to the Saudis are being equally vigorous in their support of a pipeline from Alberta to the East Coast — a pipeline that would reduce and perhaps end our dependence on oil imports from that same country. Somehow, I doubt it.

In my judgement, selling light armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia is good for Canada and Canadian workers, and fully justifiable on moral grounds.

----

John Manley is president and CEO of the Business Council of Canada. He served as Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2000 to 2002.

Vance: No end in sight in struggle to defeat ISIS

By Peter Zimonjic, Christina Lopes, CBC News Posted: Apr 04, 2016

Review on future of Canadian Forces is now in the hands of Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan

Canada's top general says there's no end in sight in the battle against ISIS, and Canadians should prepare for news of casualties now that Canada has stepped up its mission on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

Gen. Jonathan Vance made the comments in a wide-ranging interview with Rosemary Barton, host of CBC News Network's Power & Politics,when asked if victory against ISIS should be expected soon.

"I don't think it's in sight, I think we are thinking through the problem, we understand more and more and when you say ISIS, or ISIL or Daesh, it comes in many forms," Vance said.

Related:
Richard Fadden says Canada not at war with ISIS, but special powers needed

While the general said he was confident all the right steps were being taken to eventually defeat ISIS in Iraq, action also had to be taken socially and politically to oppose the organization.

"There is a wider effort in the counterterror world that needs to work at defeating this across the board, including countering the messaging seeking those root causes and trying to incentivize people to either leave the fight or not go in the first place," Vance said.

The general noted that all of the intelligence gathering needed prior to deploying new trainers on the ground had been done and he expected the rest of the Canadian trainers to be in theatre by the middle of summer.

Fighting vs. combat

The general said that even though Canada is in a train, advise and assist role, there is a risk of casualties during the mission.

"Canadians need to be prepared for the fact that there will be confrontation, there will be fighting, I am certain of it, there has been already," Vance said. "This represents an expansion of our mission on the ground, so it stands to reason that there will be fighting, and potential casualties as we face this mission."

Vance also had criticism for the way the mission has been debated, saying that it was not useful to argue over whether Operation Impact is a combat or a training mission when the risk to human life was so high.

"If you want to take the word fighting and make that synonymous with combat, fine by me," he said. "The intent of the mission, at the mission level, what's this mission for — it's to train, advise and assist a force."

"When you are using the rules of engagement that allow you to defend yourself and you are fighting, it's combat. But it's not a combat mission. If it was a combat mission we would be doing things very differently," Vance added.
Defence review is in minister's hands

Addressing the government's coming defence review, a sort of white paper on the future of the Canadian military, Vance said the review was done and in the hands of Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.

The general said he is expecting "a good solid look at the future security environment, what are we facing in the world, and what does Canada want to be able to do in that very same world."

That road map would mean considering what kinds of equipment the Canadian Forces need in the future, what can be refurbished and what equipment was ready for the junkyard.

"There are decisions that we make to extend the life of equipment and that's entirely acceptable. Where I am able to offer advice in confidence to government about where there are limitations, in terms of what we can achieve, and that's also part of the process," he said.

Watch the full interview at CBC-News

Soloman: CAF Risks Returning to a Decade of Darkness

Evan Solomon, Macleans Magazine on National Defence’s looming funding crisis

February 3, 2016 

Who would have guessed that, at the time of his most critical decision, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan would be doing a military sample of the 1976 Genesis prog-rock song, Ripples?

“If we want to understand the ripples we are creating, we have to understand the environment we are creating them in,” Sajjan said last week. He was being asked—as he is on an almost daily basis—when he will reveal details about the long promised Liberal plan to pull out CF-18 jets from the mission in Iraq and Syria. Apparently this “ripple effect” theory is the “genesis” of the long delay. “We may not be able to control all the ripples that are out there, but we can control the ripples that we create,” Sajjan said, adding something or other about “negative ripples.”

As there is no formal military theory about “ripple effects,” it’s hard to tell exactly what the minister is talking about. But we get the gist: The decisions he makes now will have an impact on the future. The problem is, the future is already here. The Conservative mandate for the mission is up by the end of March. If the Liberals were not ready with an alternative plan—and clearly they weren’t—why didn’t they just say they would complete the original mandate and then end it? Pulling out now, after more than 100 days of post-election bombing, looks disorganized at best—at worst, it smacks of cheap politics.

Related: Why Trudeau’s crass stance on Syria is lose-lose

But as politically charged as the bombing mission is, it is really nothing compared to the deeper funding crisis facing the military. “There is simply not enough money to buy the military hardware that we need,” says Dave Perry, senior analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. Perry is to military procurement what Nate Silver is to polling, so when he crunches the numbers on the military budget you tend to listen. “There’s three times more demand for procurement dollars than there is budgeted fiscally, which means the Canada First Defence Strategy—the plan to maintain Canada’s military capabilities to protect our interests—is now, essentially dead.”

That’s a big problem. It would cost the government another $2 billion a year for 20 years, on top of what we’re already spending, just to maintain the Air Force, the Army, the Navy—and upgrade our technology for the North American Aerospace Defense Command (the NORAD commander comes to Canada later in February to demand those upgrades). Meanwhile, NATO is asking Canada to fulfill its commitment to contribute two per cent of our GDP to military spending. That would mean another $20 billion this year alone. Not happening, NATO. Because it’s 2016. And we’re still broke.

Fulfilling the military promises Trudeau made in the campaign looks equally unlikely. “The biggest one from the campaign in terms of the budget is the idea of savings tens of billions on the acquisition of new aircraft to devote to ships,” Perry says. “The $9-billion fighter budget was set when the Canadian dollar was worth 100 cents American—and now it’s 70 cents.” We’ve lost close to 30 per cent of our purchasing power. There’s no way to save on planes and still have a viable air force.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan speaks during a conference on foreign affairs in Ottawa on Friday, Jan. 29, 2016. (Sean Kilpatrick/CP)

The Navy’s needs are even greater. The government has budgeted $26.2 billion over the next 12 years or so to build 15 surface combat ships, destroyers and frigates. Any savings on jets—at best a few billion—won’t make a dent in this.

Related: The sinking of the Canadian Navy

The status quo alone is fatal. “We’re spending an inadequate share of the defence budget on capital equipment—between 10 to 12 per cent over the last three years,” Perry says. The bare minimum is supposed to be 20 per cent. “That’s the lowest share of the budget devoted to procuring new kit since 1977.”

That leaves Sajjan with three choices, Perry argues. “Invest the $2 billion a year, cut our military capabilities, or cut the size of the military.” That could mean giving up on a blue-water Navy or an expeditionary air force. And the chances of new money coming? “No government of any stripe has ever invested more in the military in a time of fiscal restraint,” Perry says. Given the other Santa Claus-like promises Trudeau has made on infrastructure and health care, more money to defence is about as likely as Stephen Harper asking women to wear a niqab. Cuts, cancellations or constriction.

This is not all the Liberals’ fault. Since 2007, the Conservatives lapsed over $10 billion in military spending. They turned military procurement into a game of freeze tag: whatever they touched stopped moving altogether—from military jets to joint support ships, maritime helicopters to the tactical armoured patrol vehicles. But if the Conservatives—and the Martin Liberals—didn’t spend, at least they did what NATO insiders call “swimming.” They took on tough missions in Afghanistan and Libya. That got Canada to the table, even with a light wallet. Trudeau says he’s out of that game, which is why Perry is not surprised Canada was not invited by our allies to the recent meeting on Syria and Iraq. If we don’t spend and we don’t swim, we get shut out.

Trudeau likes to say Canada is back, but unless he has a big budget surprise for the military, we may be back to the decade of darkness that once defined the military under Jean Chrétien. These aren’t ripples. These are full-size waves.

Walkom: Canada wise to be cautious about ever-widening ISIS War

Thomas Walkom published a very interesting article in today's Toronto Star, explaining why the Liberal government has been smart about taking its time outlining Canada`s future contribution to the ISIS campaign. He clearly explains how after 10+ years of war against terrorism, things have only gotten worse. 

Here is his article, 

By: Thomas Walkom, Toronto Star, National Affairs, Published on Thursday, February 04 2016

Slowly, inexorably, the war against the Islamic State is widening.

It has moved into Afghanistan, where both the U.S. and the Taliban are taking on ISIS militants.

It is moving into Libya. There, the U.S. is reportedly contemplating airstrikes. Italy is said to be looking at the eventual dispatch of ground troops.

In Iraq, the U.S. has already found itself enmeshed in ground combat — in spite of President Barack Obama’s stated aversion to the notion.

American special forces have also been sent into Syria.

In both countries, U.S. ground troops are there technically only to “advise and assist.” But the phrase is being interpreted broadly.

As U.S. Defence Secretary Ash Carter noted last month in a speech to troops, the U.S. plans to go after ISIS commanders and militants “killing or capturing them wherever we find them.”

Politically, Washington is putting pressure on its friends to up their commitments.

That was the message that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry delivered to his allied counterparts, including Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion, in Rome Tuesday.

In spite of American pressure, Canada’s new Liberal government is moving slowly. Conservative critics slam Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for failing to say what, if anything, he will do militarily in Iraq and Syria once he fulfils his promise to bring Canada’s six fighter jets home.

But perhaps the government is wise to take its time. War is serious business.

As Canadians found in Afghanistan, it’s easy to get enmeshed in war. It’s harder to get out.

To his credit, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan seems to recognize this. A veteran of the Afghan War, he knows what can happen when politicians send troops into conflict before sorting out the ramifications.

“I want to make sure we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past,” Sajjan told the Commons Monday.

“Because every single time we make these mistakes as political leaders, we send our men and women into harm’s way for no reason.”

For that frank assessment, the minister was pilloried. Conservative critic James Bezan suggested he was belittling Canada’s soldiers. Jason Kenney, another Conservative MP, mocked his syntax.

In fact, Sajjan was right. Mistakes were made in Afghanistan. As a soldier serving in that war, he was on the receiving end of them.

On Friday, he outlined some of these mistakes in a speech to a foreign policy conference.

The Canadian Press reports that Sajjan singled out the West’s failure to grasp the complex situation on the ground.

He also noted that much of the money earmarked for Afghan aid only fuelled corruption.

And he issued a general caution about the war against terror.

“Over the last 10 years, we need to do a really hard assessment,” he said. “Should we be patting ourselves on the back? And I’m talking from a security perspective around the world.

“I think we can say things have not gotten much better. Things have gotten worse.”

It’s hard to disagree with that conclusion. Things have gotten worse.

Afghanistan is still mired in war. In spite of Western training, Afghan troops have not taken up the slack in the fight against the Taliban. The Americans have delayed the withdrawal of their forces once. They may do so again.

What’s more, the Islamic State is now active in Afghanistan, fighting both the U.S. and the Taliban. According to the New York Times, U.S. forces have carried out a dozen operations against ISIS in Afghanistan during the last three weeks.

Libya is a mess. Western intervention to remove Moammar Gadhafi has left it fractured and without a coherent government. The U.S. and its allies are now belatedly trying to cobble together a Libyan government of national unity to prevent the country from becoming yet another ISIS stronghold.

Iraq is in crisis thanks in large part to the U.S. invasion of 2003. Syria is in crisis even though the U.S. didn’t invade. There are no easy answers.

Given all of this, it makes sense for Canada’s government to move carefully. It may bother the armchair warriors that Canada is not rushing into battle in Iraq and Syria. I doubt that it bothers the soldiers who might be sent there.

Thomas Walkom’s column appears Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday.

Ottawa Pushes Military Deal with Kuwait despite UN

STEVEN CHASE
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, Jan. 31, 2016 9:42PM EST
Last updated Sunday, Jan. 31, 2016 9:48PM EST

The Canadian government is busy promoting Canada’s defence industry in Kuwait even as a United Nations report accuses a Saudi-led coalition, which includes Kuwait, of “widespread and systematic” bombing of civilians in Yemen.

Ottawa’s efforts to secure military contracts for Canada’s defence industry are coming under increasing scrutiny as controversy grows over the federal government’s commanding role in a $15-billion sale of weaponized armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia, a country notorious for human-rights abuses.

Kuwait is among a group of Arab states conducting air strikes in Yemen and has supported this effort with its air force, which includes fighter jets and KC-130J tanker aircraft that can supply warplanes with fuel while in the air.

Montreal-based CAE recently built a flight simulator for the Kuwait Air Force that trains military pilots on the KC-130J tanker aircraft. It was contracted to supply the simulator to the air force’s Al Mubarak air base near Kuwait International Airport.

Canadian officials paid a visit to the simulator last week, talking up the Canada-Kuwait business deal on the same day the UN report on Yemen air strikes made international headlines.

The delegation included a top executive from the Canadian Commercial Corp., Ottawa’s defence and security export sales outfit, as well as Martine Moreau, Canada’s ambassador to Kuwait.

“Great visit to @CAE_Defence’s impressive new KC-130J flight sim[ulator] & facility with @CanadaKuwait CDN Ambassador Moreau,” Cameron Mackenzie, vice-president of business development and sales at Canadian Commercial Corp., wrote on Twitter this past Wednesday.

A leaked UN panel report last week attributed 60 per cent, or 2,682, civilian deaths and injuries in the Yemen conflict to air-launched explosive weapons and said the Saudi-led coalition’s actions are a “grave violation of the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution” and violate international law.

Saudis and their Arab allies launched a military intervention in Yemen last year in support of President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi who was under threat from Houthi forces aligned with Iran.

Kuwait, a Persian Gulf state of 3.4 million, is heavily dependent on oil exports. According to Amnesty International, even peaceful criticism of Islam and the emir, the ruling head of state, remains criminalized. The rights watchdog says human-rights activists and political reformers are among those targeted for arrest, detention and prosecution. Authorities have prosecuted and imprisoned critics who express dissent through social media and they have curtailed the right to public assembly, Amnesty says.

Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion’s department did not immediately respond when asked Friday to explain why the government is promoting military sales in Kuwait while the Mideast country is part of a Saudi-led coalition that is carrying out air attacks in Yemen.

Targets in Yemen, the UN report found, have included refugee camps; weddings; civilian vehicles, such as buses; homes; medical facilities; schools; mosques; factories and civilian infrastructure.

Canadian military sales to regions such as the Mideast have risen significantly in the past decade as the former Harper government worked to build up this country’s role as an international arms dealer. Pentagon budget cuts drove the Canadian Commercial Corp. to look further abroad for arms buyers. In 2009 it created a new line of business, Global Defence and Security Sales, to seek new customers. This move into “non-traditional defence and security markets will require an increased vigilance for responsible and ethical business conduct,” the agency says in its latest published corporate plan.

Critics say Ottawa’s policing of arms exports is in dire need of an overhaul.

“The credibility of Canadian export controls is severely strained. It is high time the government address persistent, legitimate questions about the process by which military export authorizations are granted,” said Cesar Jaramillo, executive director of Project Ploughshares, based in Waterloo, Ont.

He said the UN report “left little doubt about the systematic targeting of civilians and the violation of international humanitarian law by the Saudi-led coalition that Kuwait is a part of. Canada should proceed with utmost care when pursuing or entering into military exports deals” with these countries.

Mr. Jaramillo said the Canadian government is in a conflict of interest when it comes to military exports. “There is a clear tension in Ottawa between the sometimes conflicting objectives of facilitating trade deals for private Canadian companies and ensuring that Canadian-made goods do not contribute to the violation of human rights or serve to exacerbate conflict situations.”

Asked whether CAE would cease doing business with Kuwait in light of the UN panel report, a CAE spokesman said the company is complying with all Canadian government rules on exports.

Pascale Alpha, director of global communications at CAE, said the simulator deal with Kuwait was arranged through the U.S. military.

“We follow Canada’s export regulations as well as NATO regulations, and the export regulations of the countries we operate in. In this case, our contract was to supply a simulator to the U.S. Navy. Through Foreign Military Sales, the U.S. Navy supplies the aircraft and training equipment to foreign nations, including the Kuwaiti air force,” Mr. Alpha said.

Follow Steven Chase on Twitter: @stevenchase

Canada & the Middle East: Jordan and Lebanon will be Part of ISIS Focus

This news is a few days old, but I had not gotten around to sharing it yet. Enjoy. 

Written by the Canadian Press: 

QUEBEC -- Canada's new role in the fight against the Islamic State will involve ensuring Jordan and Lebanon remain stable, Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion said Friday after a meeting with his U.S. and Mexican counterparts.

Dion promised that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will soon announce details of Canada's new deployment within the American-led coalition. The Liberals promised during the election campaign to end Canada's role in the bombing mission over Iraq and Syria.

Canada's role won't focus solely on Iraq, said Dion, adding "we will see what to do about Syria."

Dion added that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry offered suggestions about how Canada "can be more effective" in the coalition, whose members also include Britain, France and Australia."The two other countries we need to help to make sure they are stable, because they are so key for the region and are affected by the civil war in Syria and the situation in Iraq, and I am speaking of Jordan and Lebanon. These considerations will be in our plan."

"The goal of Canada is to redeploy our efforts in a way that is optimal," Dion said.

Trudeau has been panned at home by the Conservatives and other critics for his plan to end Canada's bombing mission, particularly after six Canadians were killed mid-January by a terror group linked to al-Qaida.

Kerry said he is "absolutely confident" Trudeau will ensure Canada continues to make a "significant contribution that will make a difference."

"While they (Canada) have made a choice with respect to one particular component of that effort (the fight against ISIS), that does not reflect on the overall commitment or capacity to contribute significantly to the road ahead," he said.

Kerry, Dion and Mexico's Claudia Ruiz Massieu also discussed other topics, including the economy, human-trafficking and climate change.

Friday's meeting in Quebec City sets the stage for a summit later this year featuring Trudeau, U.S. President Barack Obama and Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto.

The so-called Three Amigos were supposed to meet in Canada last year, but former prime minister Stephen Harper cancelled the summit.

Speaking in Spanish, Dion confirmed to reporters that Canada will eliminate the visa requirement for Mexican citizens imposed by the Conservative government, but gave no timetable.

Kerry noted that every day more than $3.5 billion worth of goods cross between the United States, Canada and Mexico.

"We have to continue to do more," he said, "to increase investment, reduce costs for trade, business, travel and make tourism easier without jeopardizing safety."

Dion: Canada Cannot Say 'Yes' to All Coalition Requests visa-vi ISIS

Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press
Published Thursday, January 28, 2016 10:19AM EST
Last Updated Thursday, January 28, 2016 12:18PM EST

OTTAWA -- Canada will have to say no to some of the requests that its allies are making in the fight against Islamic extremists, Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion said Thursday.

But the minister wouldn't say if some coalition members have asked Canada to keep its fighter jets in Iraq and Syria.

"We cannot say yes to everything," Dion said.

Dion was discussing Canada's future contribution to the mission against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant at a major gathering of foreign affairs experts in Ottawa. He insisted the new Liberal contribution will be meaningful."When our plan will be out, it will not be all what our allies are asking us to do, but it will be pretty close of what they hope from us."

The Liberals plan to withdraw Canada's six CF-18 fighter jets from the US-led bombing coalition, which has sparked criticism from the Opposition Conservatives.

Dion will not say when the government will announce its new plan, but he says there would be no gap in Canada's contribution to the air war in the meantime.

"The plan is not out because the current plan is still there. There is no gap. We are still involved."

He also said he will travel to Rome next week for another major meeting of coalition partners.

Dion played down the fact that Canada was not invited to a recent coalition meeting led by the Americans. He such "ad hoc" meetings occur, but Canada is always fully briefed by the United States.

He said Canada is conducting two to three per cent of the coalition airstrikes and he said it is "doable" for the coalition to replace that contribution.

David Perry, a senior analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said Canadian warplanes may have been flying a relatively low percentage of bombing missions, but the contribution has been more meaningful than statistics would indicate.

"Canada's been flying a lot of the more difficult missions for quite some time and that will end."