Ivison: Super Hornet Interim Buy a Political Decision

By: John Ivison, The National Post

In choosing to buy 18 Boeing Super Hornet fighters, the federal government has brought forward a political solution to solve a political problem of its own making, John Ivison writes.

The Liberals had campaigned on a promise that they would not purchase Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jet to replace its aging and dwindling fleet of CF18s, which now numbers 77.

It would instead launch an open and transparent competition for a new fighter.

A former Defence official said a competition could produce an answer within a year. But that would carry the risk that the F-35 could win before the next election.

The commander of the air force has previously said he needs just 65 fighters to fulfil Canada’s NATO and Norad requirements.

But the government says it needs 18 new fighters and that any future competition would exclude “firststrike stealth capabilities.”

The solution: sole-source the interim Super Hornets purchase and delay the competition to replace the CF18 fleet for five years. The uncomfortable attempting to justify the indefensible. That was how it looked as government ministers Harjit Sajjan, Judy Foote and Navdeep Bains delivered the news that Ottawa will sole source the interim purchase of 18 Boeing Super Hornet fighter jets. They appeared to be secretly ashamed at the trumpery of it all, as well they should have been.

The Liberal government had a political problem: it campaigned on the promise that it would not purchase Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter jet, and that it would “immediately” launch an open and transparent competition to replace the aging CF18 fighter fleet.

But it could not risk being too open, transparent or immediate, lest the F-35 win before the next election.

So political operatives in the Prime Minister’s Office came up with a plan so cunning, you could put a tail on it and call it a fox: buy a small number of the F-35’s competitor and push off the competition to replace the fleet for five years.

Sajjan, the defence minister, decried the mismanagement of the previous Conservative government — “a highly politicized process” — that has left just 77 CF-18s in the fleet and no replacement jets on order. In this, he’s right but it hardly excuses instigating a repeat of history as farce.

By sole sourcing the interim purchase, the Liberals will be doing exactly what the Conservatives did when they chose the F-35 in the first place.

Sajjan waved away such suggestions. Canada has a “capability gap,” he argued, and is unable to meet its Norad and NATO commitments.

He presented the new plan as a political solution to a national security problem.

The reality, of course, is that the Liberals have brought forward a political solution to solve a political problem of their own making.

The commander of the air force, Lt.-Gen Mike Hood, who was noticeable by his absence, previously told Parliament he needs just 65 aircraft to fulfil Canada’s commitments, so the capability gap argument is unconvincing.

Chief of the Defence Staff, Jonathan Vance, was present at Tuesday’s press conference and said the Air Force cannot meet its current missions and have the ability to respond to unforeseen circumstances. But really, what else was he going to say? This is a political decision and Vance is obliged to suck it up or resign.)

Hood told a parliamentary committee last spring that he was confident the Air Force could cope, if a decision on a replacement fleet was taken “in the next five years.”

That was why Foote, the procurement minister, said the government will undertake a lengthy competition “to avoid the mistakes of the past; we will not cut corners.”

Does that mean her department is cutting corners with the new warships that just went out to tender? A winner for the Canadian Surface Combatant program will be chosen by 2017.

Ottawa has already held two rounds of consultations with industry on the fighters. How much more is there to learn? Alan Williams, former assistant deputy minister of matériel at the Department of National Defence, has said a competition could produce results within a year.

But that would mean a winner could be chosen before the next election — an unacceptable political outcome for the Liberals.

Hence the curious solution of Canada now “exploring” the acquisition of 18 new Super Hornets with Boeing.

“Before proceeding, the government reserves the right to decide if they can provide the interim fleet at a cost, time, level of capability and economic value that is acceptable to Canada,” said the official news release.

But surely that decision has already been taken. If there were any doubts about Boeing’s ability to deliver or about the price, why make the announcement?

Foote said the Super Hornet was chosen because it is “not in development,” a veiled reference to the F-35, even though the U.S. air force declared its first squadron of F-35A fighters combat ready in August.

What is clear is that the interim purchase will reduce the amount available to buy a replacement fleet. The government had previously earmarked $9 billion for 65 new jets. Foote could not say what the interim purchase would cost and Sajjan would not say how many jets the Air Force might still need, after the interim purchase of 18 new planes.

But we do know Kuwait bought 40 full-loaded Super Hornets, with support, equipment and training, for US$10.1 billion this week.

We also know that the 18 jets will be more expensive than they might have been, had the downward pressure on costs of a competition not been removed.

By sole sourcing from Boeing, the government may well have skewed the outcome of any future competition. The purchase of new Super Hornets will mean the RCAF will be operating a mixed fleet. The two jets share common weapons systems but have different engines, radar and electronics. Is the government willing to complicate things further, with the attendant cost implications, of adding a third jet to the mix?

Foote said, “Anyone who meets the criteria and wants to compete will be able to compete.” Yet the Liberal platform was clear that the CF-18 replacement competition “will exclude requirements that do not reflect Canada’s interests such as first strike stealth capabilities” — for which read the F-35.

Yet what is apparent to anyone with eyes is that Canada’s interests have been supplanted by the Liberal Party of Canada’s interests.

We may never know which aircraft best suits Canada’s needs. But we can be in no doubt about which best favours Liberal fortunes.

The politically-charged issue of Peacekeeping

BY HUDSON ON THE HILL
© 2016 FrontLine Defence (Vol 13, No 5)

During the campaign for last October’s ­general election – which gave the Liberals a majority in the House of Commons after a decade in the political wilderness – they promised to renew Canada’s commitment to international peacekeeping operations.

Decrying the Conservatives’ scaling back of participation in UN-centric observer and peacekeeping missions, the Liberals said the demand had never been greater. Moreover, they added, “a more peaceful world is a safer and more prosperous world for Canada.”

Prosperity, a.k.a. economic gain, is simply a fact of life for countries that engage in peacekeeping. So, too, is the political desire to score points in global standings and possibly gain a UN Security Councilseat for 2021-2022 (we held one every decade since the UN’s inception, but were rebuffed in the last round of votes). “We will recommit to supporting international peace operations with the United Nations, and will make our specialized capabilities […] available on a case-by-case basis,” the Liberal platform continued.

There’s a cliché about “punching above our weight”, which the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) have clearly accomplished on dozens of deployments over the decades. Now, the Liberals were promising rapidly-deployable personnel to “lead an international effort to improve and expand the training of military and civilian personnel deployed on peace operations” while contributing more to UN conflict-prevention, mediation, and reconstruction efforts.

After winning the election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is evidently determined to play with stronger cards at the UN table, and has doubled down on the campaign rhetoric, promising to revitalize Canada’s peacekeeping machinery while supporting civil institutions. “This is how we will build the world of tomorrow,” he told Canadian staff at UN headquarters in New York in March.

In discussions with the UN and allies Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion ­pursued “the optimal way for Canada to re-engage itself,” suggesting that Canada’s military contribution would focus at the training end of the spectrum.

Whether packaged as revitalization or reengagement, or both, it is evolving into the first major test for the reborn Liberals in the global arena – and at home too. This became increasingly apparent during Parliament’s summer hiatus, which included a Liberal caucus retreat in Quebec’s Saguenay region in late August. Trudeau rolled out Dion, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau, and Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale to announce a plan to spend $450 million over three years on a Peace and Stabilization Fund. Not all new money, it would build on a resource already managed by Dion’s department, and include a renewed $47-million fund for RCMP involvement.

The PM later added “it is important that when we go into engagements internationally that we be clear-eyed around what we hope to deliver, about what kind of support and outcomes we can offer, at how we are going to achieve those and about how we will continually evaluate whether we’re making the best contributions.”

Left unanswered were such questions as where the up to 600 military personnel and up to 150 police officers might be tasked, and what operational constraints might apply.

Top contenders for such a mission are the Central African Republic, Congo, Mali, Rwanda and South Sudan. In August, Minister Sajjan and a team of advisors visited Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Tanzania in the company of retired General Roméo Dallaire and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour – to prepare for a “whole of government effort.”
Not the cultural monolith many still see it as, Africa is a continental mixed bag of regional, religious and tribal challenges with long-standing simmering animosities that routinely boil over.

Canada’s last involvement was a UN-led mission in Rwanda in 1993-1994, but peacekeepers’ hands were effectively tied by UN rules of engagement as the tribal conflict deteriorate into genocide. Dallaire’s 2003 book, Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda, should be read by anyone hoping to discuss peacekeeping intelligently, particularly MPs.

In early September, after a two-day peacekeeping summit in London, and antici­pating heated debate when the House would resume sitting a week later, Sajjan understandably declined to discuss specifics about the next CAF commitment (despite many signs pointing to Mali, where Canada recently completed a “reconnaissance mission” that included talks with Malian officials and members of the UN peacekeeping mission already on the ground. Mali is generally considered the most dangerous current UN peacekeeping mission, with 105 peacekeepers killed and hundreds wounded since UN troops took over the mission from their African Union counterparts in 2013.

“We are looking at peace support operations,” Sajjan confirmed, adding that he and other ministers with skin in the game would eventually pitch a mission to cabinet. But it was too early to discuss “further steps” or how to ensure that CAF personnel would have everything they need to make “a meaningful impact.”

When Frontline Defence asked Sajjan whether there had been any “broad brush consensus” on what summit participants might contribute to the next mission, he replied without elaborating that there were “significant gaps” to fill.

“We’ve been in conversation with the United Nations leadership and especially the various missions themselves,” he continued. “We know what we are good at and […] we will look at those gaps and [determine] how we can best contribute.”

He seemed particularly keen on capacity-building, pointing out that Canada has “significant experience” in that field, including the prospect of bringing other countries’ peacekeeping leaders to Canada for particular training.

When FrontLine asked if he would be averse to putting CAF personnel in roles for which they are trained (notably combat) during a peacekeeping mission, Sajjan demurred, saying he did not want to get into that debate. However, there was no gainsaying the fact that Canadian troops are put in situations which might require the use of deadly force. “We need to make sure that we have a robust enough mandate so that we can create the right rules of engagement that the military will sign off on,” Minister Sajjan explained. “But protection of civilians is a top priority. The potential use of deadly force would be addressed through what he said should be an appropriate mandate, rules of engagement, and training.

Meanwhile, ideological battle lines have hardened as the Conservatives suggest that the UN is incapable of managing peacekeeping missions. “In the last 15 years, our success … has been in peacemaking, not in peacekeeping,” said Manitoba MP James Bezan, the Conservative defence critic and former chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence.

Then there were the Liberals’ motives for pushing ahead with the peacekeeping concept. “The ultimate goal here is to achieve a seat at the UN Security Council when it becomes available,” Bezan told reporters. “That, to me, is politics, and we shouldn’t be using our troops as pawns.”

Bezan seems to have lost sight of the fact, like it or not, that the CAF are an arm of the government and, hence, subject to its policies and directives. To have it otherwise would be problematic, to put it mildly.

As expected, when the Commons did resume, the opposition parties continued to press the government to clearly set out the details before any deployment. But the government would not commit to a vote – even though, with their parliamentary majority, the outcome would be predictable.

“Canadians must be able to trust that these decisions are made in our national interest, not the political interest of the ­Liberal Party,” Opposition Leader Rona Ambrose led off with. Sajjan’s response going forward was that the electorate in 2015 had “voted for a party that promised to re-engage Canada in the world and […] would be commited to actively contributing to greater security and peace.” He later added that the government welcomed “healthy debate” in the House and elsewhere, not only on peacekeeping but defence policy overall.

In London, Sajjan acknowledged that “this is not the peacekeeping of the past.” Truer words were never spoken; conflicts today are not conducive to the requirement of consent from the main parties, nor to political process. It clearly remains to be seen what the future holds for the Liberals, the CAF, and this country. That’s about the only thing that’s clear so far.

===
Hudson on the Hill
The role of Hudson is being filled by contributing editor Ken Pole.

Sajjan discusses fight against ISIL with counterparts in Baghdad; Possible Additional Canadian Trainers

By: The Canadian Press 

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan met with his Iraqi and Kurdistan counterparts in Baghdad on Monday to discuss Canada's ongoing contribution to the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Jordan Owens, a spokeswoman for the minister, said Sajjan arrived in Iraq after attending the recent NATO summit in Warsaw, Poland.

She said U.S. Defence Secretary Ashton Carter was also in Iraq, but that he and Sajjan were not together.

Owens said she could not provide details of Sajjan's discussions, adding the minister will discuss his visit later in a telephone conference call with the media.

The Liberal government announced in May that it was expanding its contribution to the fight against ISIL to include three CH-146 Griffon helicopters, an intelligence centre and additional trainers to what is called Operation IMPACT.

It said that would triple the size of Canada's mission to train, advise and help Iraqi security forces plan and conduct military operations against ISIL.

Sajjan will return to Canada on Thursday.

Additional Content by: David Pugliese,

Sajjan’s visit also coincided with a trip to Baghdad by U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter.

At the end of the recent NATO summit, Canada announced it would contribute to an alliance program to train Iraqi troops in disposing of improvised explosive devices.

But at the time Prime Minister Justin Trudeau did not offer any details about the mission, such as numbers of personnel, duration of their mission, and where they would be operating in Iraq. “The fact is from the beginning we have always talked about the broad range of activities we can do in support of the local troops,” Trudeau told reporters.

The Kuwait News Agency, citing Iraqi officials, reported that Canada will be providing military engineers as part of the training package.

NATO has been training Iraqi personnel in counter-IED operations at the King Abdullah II Special Operations Training Centre in Amman, Jordan. NATO is also providing “train the trainer” instruction, enabling the officers to build the professionalism of the Iraqi forces by sharing their new skills with colleagues with the support of the NATO Counter Improvised Explosive Devices Centre of Excellence, the alliance added in an earlier news release.

At the request of the Iraqi government, NATO is now assessing the possibility of conducting training inside Iraq as well, NATO pointed out.

Liberals Have Not 100% Ruled out F-35 as Replacement for RCAF CF-18s

By: Bruce Campion-Smith Ottawa Bureau, The Toronto Star, 

OTTAWA—It’s controversial, costly and apparently back on Ottawa’s radar as a possible pick for Canada’s air force.

After ruling out the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jet last fall as a possible replacement for the aging CF-18s, the Liberals now appear to be leaving the door open after all.

Speaking at a defence conference in Ottawa Thursday, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan was asked pointblank whether the F-35 would be considered in the competition to replace the current fleet of fighters.

Sajjan pointedly did not rule out the possibility, saying the selection process will be “open.”

“The real issue here is we want to make sure that we replace the F-18 and have a suitable aircraft that meets the needs of Canada. That’s what we’re committed to do,” Sajjan said.

He said the Liberals are committed to a “thorough process” to make sure that Canada gets the “right” jet to replace the CF-18s, which were purchased starting in 1982.

“We’ll build the right requirements for Canada and then we’ll see how that plays out in terms of which companies want to come forward,” he said.

The previous Conservative government had originally announced its intention to buy F-35s in 2010 but then put that decision on hold in late 2012 after the auditor general flagged concerns about the potential price tag.

But during last October’s election campaign, the Liberals declared the F-35 would not be a contender for the Canadian air force. “We will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber,” stated the party’s platform.

Justin Trudeau said during the campaign that scrapping any purchase of the F-35 would free up “tens of billions of dollars” in savings that could instead be spent on revitalizing the Royal Canadian Navy.

Sajjan also spoke about the promised defence review, which will examine the required capabilities and potential roles for the Canadian military.

Sajjan said some priorities will remain unchanged — the defence of Canada and North America and contributions to international peace operations.

“We have to focus on capabilities, that perfect mix of personnel, training and equipment,” Sajjan said. “We want the Canadian Armed Forces to be flexible, appropriately resourced and able to respond quickly.”

The minister said the Liberals will continue with the increased funding for the defence department acfirst pledged by the Conservatives “but we may want to allocate that money differently.”

He also ruled out any reductions in the number of personnel in uniform.

“In fact, the conversations I’m having right now (are) about where do we need to increase some of the personnel,” Sajjan said.

Sajjan said the review would be done by the end of the year.

Sajjan Hints at Possible CAF Mission in Libya

Written by CBC News
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says Canada could soon join a military coalition to take on ISIS in Libya, a country beset by a civil war and mounting Islamic terrorism.
"I had a good meeting with my counterpart, the minister of defence from Italy, [on military intervention in Libya]," Sajjan said following a NATO defence ministers' meeting in Brussels..

"Italy is willing to take the lead on this; once we have a good understanding of the political situation, that will allow us to figure out what we need to do," said in an interview with Chris Hall on CBC Radio's The House.

More than four years after Moammar Gadhafi was deposed — in large part due to Western military intervention — Islamic State militants have taken advantage of the resulting political vacuum to establish themselves in Libya's coastal cities.

An estimated 3,000 ISIS fighters are in the country, which has been attracting more foreign recruits in recent months as the journey to Iraq and Syria has become more difficult with Turkey tightening its border with Syria.

Italy has said it wants a leadership role in stabilizing Libya — one of its former colonial possessions — because it is located less than 300 km from the Italian island of Lampedusa.

ISIS-backed elements have carried out several attacks on oil installations, and at least 60 were killed by an suicide bombing against a Libyan police training center earlier this month.

"Before we can actually say 'Yes we're interested,' 'Yes we can do this,' we're doing what all responsible coalition partners should do [asses the political and security situation] and then decide if we have the right capabilities to assist in this mission.

"We will be part of that conversation," Sajjan said.

The defence minister said that any military action in Libya would be based on lessons learned from Canada's experience in Afghanistan.

"It's all about fighting smarter ... there needs to be a political structure in place that you can reinforce so that when you have the military gains you then have a political structure," to safeguard peace and quell ethnic tensions, he said.
'State of emergency' in Libya

At the recent anti-ISIS meeting in Paris — Canada was not invited — Roberta Pinotti, Italy's defence minister, said action must be taken to beat back advances made by the Islamic State.

"We cannot imagine waiting until spring while the situation in Libya is still frozen," she said. "Efforts to resolve the Libyan crisis must be coordinated internationally," Pinotti added, warning that "it is impossible for the international intervention to wait until the upcoming spring."

Pinotti said that there was "total agreement" among the coalition partners at the Paris meeting that Libya's government should ask the West for help to fight ISIS, to avoid fuelling "jihadist propaganda" of yet another "Western invasion."

She went on to say that the so-called Islamic State was strengthening in the current political vacuum, prompting Italy and its allies to prepare for an "emergency," adding that the United States recently has expressed "a greater concern" over ISIS militants in Libya.



With files from Reuters

Canada in Iraq: Canada's Kurdish Conundrum

This past weekend, the Ottawa Citizen ran the following report about Canada's current mission in the Middle East, and the possible ripple effects it may have on the region, whether we indented it too or not.

Canada’s military support for the Kurds brings unintended consequences in northern Iraq, writes David Pugliese. Every single course in the Canadian Armed Forces, regardless what rank level you go up to, always starts with ethics and values and that is the same level and standard we apply when we do our training.

A Canadian Special Forces Member supervises a training exercise with the Kurdish Pesherga (DND Photo) 

Harjit Sajjan, whenever he is asked what direction Canada will take in fighting Islamic extremists in Iraq, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan points to what he calls the “ripple effect.”

The Liberal government, he says, wants to ensure that its actions don’t make matters worse. In Afghanistan, for instance, the West’s support for corrupt individuals helped drive some of the population into the arms of the Taliban.

In Iraq, Islamic extremists took advantage of grievances felt by some groups and recruited those individuals into their ranks, explains Sajjan, a former Canadian Forces officer and Afghan war veteran. This time will be different, he says. “When we look at the decisions we make, the policies we create, we have to figure out what ripple we’re creating,” Sajjan said recently at a foreign policy conference in Ottawa. “We may not be able to control all the ripples that are out there, but we can control the ripples that we create.”

Can we? The ripples Canada is making in Iraq now, even before it announces its next steps, may already be flowing in directions we did not intend.

Since the fall of 2014, Canada has been providing equipment and military training to Kurdish troops in northern Iraq. Canadian special forces have been working closely with the Kurds, providing them with skills needed to field a modern army.

And while the Kurds have used that training to fight Islamic extremists, such skills will also be useful in the future for another goal that Canada does not endorse: their plan to separate from Iraq. “The problem with training foreign forces is that you never know what they will put those skills to use for in the future,” said Walter Dorn, a professor with the Royal Military College. “With the Kurds there is the danger we are supporting a secessionist movement.”

The Liberals still have to decide how they want to proceed with the Iraq mission, an announcement that is imminent. Military sources say the government is leaning towards keeping the Canadian military’s aerial refuelling aircraft within the U.S.­led coalition, as well as providing more surveillance planes. Canadian troops could also provide training to Iraq’s army.

But also high on the list of options is providing the Kurds even more training. A new Kurdish special forces unit could be developed with Canadian expertise. Canadian training could also be expanded to include Kurdish police, Foreign Minister Stéphane Dion has said.

When the Conservative government first committed Canada’s military to fighting the Islamic State (ISIL) in the fall of 2014, it said its goal was the protect the security of a unified Iraqi state. CF18 fighter jets have been providing support to Iraqi security forces as they try to take back land seized by ISIL.

But Canada’s military efforts in northern Iraq are another matter. There, the Kurdish people have their own semi­autonomous region, and the Kurdistan Regional Government, as it is known, is technically still aligned with the federal government in Baghdad.

The Liberals, like the Conservatives, maintain that Canada remains committed to a unified Iraqi state. But Canadian military officers privately acknowledge that, although it’s not their goal, they are indeed training an independent Kurdish army.

 “We are providing training to essentially an independent military force that may or may not be used in other ways down the road besides fighting ISIL,” said retired Lt.­Col. Chris Kilford, who until 2014 was Canada’s military attaché in Turkey.

Canada’s policymakers are aware of the problem of supporting the Kurds too much. But their alternatives are limited. The U.S. has spent billions of dollars and years training the Iraqi military yet it seems incapable of making many inroads against ISIL.

The Liberal government has suggested that one of its options could be providing aid to Lebanon and Jordan, to shore up those countries in a troubled region. That might be a safer bet – if one is trying to minimize ripples. The Kurds have never hidden their plans to eventually form an independent country.

In December, Sajjan meet with Kurdish President Massoud Barzani and his son Masrour, who heads the intelligence services of the Kurdistan Regional Government. Both are strong advocates for an independent Kurdistan. Massoud Barzani has suggested that Iraq is finished as a nation. It has already been broken up into various regions controlled by different forces or ethnic groups, such as the Kurds. Full independence is next on the agenda. “We are not pushing for forced separation,” Masrour Barzani said in July 2015 during an interview with Al­Monitor, a news site that covers developments in the Middle East.“We are talking about an amicable divorce.”

Indeed, the Kurds have emerged as the real winners from the chaos that has engulfed Iraq and Syria with the arrival of ISIL.

Western nations have seen them as reliable allies in the war and have provided them with air support, training, equipment and cash. As a result, the YPG, the Kurdish force that is battling ISIL, has been able to carve out its own mini­state in northeastern Syria.

 In July 2014, as the Iraqi army was in retreat from ISIL forces, the Kurds from northern Iraq moved to seize the Kirkuk oil fields. That gave them control of 40 per cent of Iraq’s oil and a steady flow of cash from oil sales to bolster their quest for independence. By seizing additional territory from ISIL, the Kurds have been able to consolidate the borders of what they see as their homeland.

Since then, Kurdistan has been exporting between 400,000 and 600,000 barrels of oil a day through a new pipeline it has built.

In November 2015, Falah Mustafa Bakir, the Kurdish region’s foreign minister, visited Calgary in search of Canadian support and investment, not only in its oil business but other areas such as agriculture. Iraq’s government is understandably not happy with the situation. Last June, Iraq’s government excluded the Kurds from a high­level meeting in Paris that was planning strategy for dealing with ISIL.

In October, Iraqi officials seized a military aircraft carrying weapons for Canadian special forces in Kurdistan. They claimed the Canadians were carrying supplies and weapons into the region without authorization from Iraq. The Canadian transport plane sat on the ground for four days and was eventually allowed to return to Kuwait with its cargo.

The Iraqis were clearly trying to send a signal that they still had some form of control over what was happening in the Kurdish autonomous region. The Kurds push for new territory has also increased tensions with Turkey. Turkey enjoys good relations with the Kurdistan Regional Government but other Kurdish factions are another matter. It has launched some attacks on YPG units in Syria near its border. Turkey considers YPG a terrorist group because of its affiliation to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party.

The party’s armed wing, the PKK, has been waging a war against Turkey since 1984 as it fights for greater rights for Kurds in Turkey. In December, Turkish fighter jets attacked PKK supply camps in northern Iraq. Over the last several weeks, new fighting has erupted between Turkish troops and the PKK in the Turkish city of Diyarbakir. Human rights observers also point to a darker side to the Kurds’ consolidation of power in the region.

In January 2015, Human Rights Watch complained to the Kurdish Regional Government that its forces had barred Arabs displaced by fighting from returning to their homes. In addition, some of those Arab homes were turned over to Kurdish families. In July, the U.S.­based Foreign Policy magazine interviewed diplomats who warned that the Kurds were conducting ethnic cleansing of some of the areas they captured.

In October, Kurdish forces in Syria were accused of forcing out thousands of civilians, mainly Arabs, from their villages and demolishing their homes. A Kurdish official acknowledged at the time that some of its forces might have targeted civilians suspected of supporting the Islamic State but most of the expulsions were done for “security reasons.”

Then, in January 2016, Amnesty International reported that the same actions were underway in northern Iraq – where the Canadian ­trained Kurdish troops operated. Thousands of homes owned by Arab civilians had been blown up or burned down and tens of thousands of people forced out of their villages, Amnesty International’s report concluded.

The attacks against the civilians were in revenge for their perceived support of the Islamic State as well as a settling of scores from abuses that took place more than a decade ago under Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, according to the study.

The report, Banished and dispossessed: Forced Displacement and Deliberate Destruction in Northern Iraq, was based on investigations in 13 villages and towns as well as testimony from more than 100 eyewitnesses and victims of such forced displacement, Amnesty noted. Hilary Homes, a spokesperson for Amnesty International in Ottawa on security issues, said the report is corroborated by satellite imagery that revealed evidence of widespread destruction of the villages. “It would be very hard to see how this was militarily justified,” she said. “When you are doing this kind of deliberate destruction, punishing an entire community, that can very easily escalate to being considered war crimes.”

That destruction was carried out by Kurdish Peshmerga forces, or in some cases Yezidi militias and Kurdish armed groups from Syria and Turkey, operating in co­ordination with the Peshmerga. Tens of thousands of Arab civilians were forced to flee their homes, according to the report. They have been barred by Kurdish Regional Government forces from returning to the recaptured areas.

Donatella Rovera, a senior adviser with Amnesty International, who carried out the field research in northern Iraq, pointed out in a statement that the Kurds are also consolidating territorial gains in so­called “disputed areas” which the Kurdistan Regional Government has long claimed as rightfully its land. Homes said the Canadian government, as well as soldiers on the ground, must use the influence they have with the Kurds to force them to stop the mistreatment of the civilians. “If you’re interacting with those forces, I think you’re obliged to know what they’re doing,” she said. “You have an obligation to ensure that violations of human rights and humanitarian law aren’t occurring.”

 Defence Minister Sajjan, however, has remained vague. “Every single course in the Canadian Armed Forces, regardless what rank level you go up to, always starts with ethics and values and that is the same level and standard we apply when we do our training,” he said in response to the Amnesty report.

It’s unclear at this point what effect the ripples from Canada’s involvement in Kurdistan will ultimately have. In November, Kurdish forces, with support from coalition fighter jets including Canadian CF­18s, helped push ISIL out of the city of Sinjar.

The Kurdish flag – not Iraq’s – was erected over the city. “Long live Kurdistan,” Kurdish gunmen shouted as they fired their weapons into the air. Kurdish President Barzani has said the Kurds will never surrender any of the territory they now hold in Iraq.

 Just a few days ago – Feb. 2 – he announced his government would hold a referendum on independence, although he indicated at this point it is only to be used to gauge the will of the people. Barzani wants the referendum to be held by the fall and he cited Quebec’s quest for independence as one reasons why he and his fellow Kurds are entitled to their own country.

“If the people of Kurdistan are waiting for someone else to present the right of self­determination as a gift, independence will never be obtained,” Barzani explained to Kurdish journalists. “That right exists and the people of Kurdistan must demand it and put it into motion. “The same way that Scotland, Catalonia, and Quebec and other places have the right to express their opinions about their destiny, Kurdistan, too, has the right, and it’s non­negotiable,” he added.

 Kilford, the retired Canadian Forces officer, said Barzani’s call for a referendum will only further antagonize Iraq’s government. “There’s already a lot of tension there with the situation in Kirkuk,” said Kilford, who now teaches at the Canadian Forces College in Toronto.

“It’s a delicate situation.” Some Iraqis, have already, indicated they won’t be standing on the sidelines if the Kurds try to separate. Iraqi Shia militia groups, who have been battling ISIL, say they will not rest until the Kurds are pushed out of Kirkuk. In November, there was a series of firefights between the Kurds and the Shia militias near the city of Tuz Kharmatu, south of Kirkuk.

In December, the Shia militias increased the number of troops near Kirkuk to around 400. Once ISIL is dealt with, a new round of fighting could take place, this time between various Iraqi factions and the Kurds. The training Canada is providing Kurdish forces could ripple into a tsunami of trouble.

Bourdeau Industries Insists Resurrected CF-105 Avro Arrow Will be Part of Defence Review

The Ottawa based firm, Bourdeau Industries insisted today on its "Official" facebook page, that it will put forward a proposal to Minister of Defence Harjit Sajjan for the resurrection of the CF-105 Avro Arrow; an updated 5th &6th  Generation model for consideration to replace the RCAF's CF-18s.

The CF-105 Avro Arrow was a cutting-edge military aircraft developed in the 1950s, but the project was cancelled in 1959 before production.

Artists rendition, from Bourdeau Industries of 5th Generation CF-105 Avro Arrow

In 2012, Bourdeau Industries were supposed to meet with the Official Oppiosition NDP and request a $50 Million federal Grant.

Bourdeau Industries was asking the federal government for a one-year, $50-million federal grant to help finalize the updated design and manufacturing plan. If the government accepted the proposal at that point, the company says it would haven been able to deliver jets for military use by 2020, when the government planed to retire the current fleet of CF-18s.

Now the RCAF is extending the life of the CF-18 fleet to an estimated 2025.

In 2012, General Mackenzie (Ret.) was interviewed on CTVNews and supported the idea of a resurrected Avro over the F-35. "The federal government was too fast to write off a proposal to build a made-in-Canada military aircraft that would be cheaper, faster and more efficient than the F-35." said retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie. While he initially thought the revival plan was "a joke," the more closely he examined it, the more he saw its potential merits for Canada's missions at home and abroad.

All the talk of a resurrected Avro Arrow led to the National Post publishing this comparison in 2012.

This comparison did not take into consideration the unknown capabilities of the Avro Arrow with the Iroquois Engine which never made it into the aircraft.

Bourdeau has the following promotional video for its aircraft proposal. 

According to Matt Gurney;

"If Canada went with Arrows, we’d be taking on all the costs — design, start-up, production, testing and, eventually, maintenance — and as important, all the risks. Given our need for only several dozen planes, it is difficult to see how sufficient economies of scale could ever be achieved to make this a good idea. As romantic as the notion of bringing back the Arrow may seem, it’s no surprise that the government said no a second time."

It is an interesting argument - who knows if it will get any serious consideration from the Liberal Government. The previous government did not even give it a minute of thought. 

Matt Gurney: Canada’s ISIS mission isn’t broken, so the Liberals can’t figure out how to fix it

Written by Matt Gurney, National Post 

Two full months after the Liberals were sworn into office, having promised during the campaign to withdraw our CF-18 jets from direct combat operations against the Islamic State (ISIL) in Iraq and Syria, Canadian pilots are still in the fight. On Thursday, two CF-18 jets attacked an ISIL fighting position — troops, in other words — with smart bombs. The Royal Canadian Air Force provided little information beyond noting on the Operation IMAPCT website that the attack was “successful.” We leave it to the readers to fill in the blanks about what success means when dropping fragment-spraying high explosives on enemy personnel.

There was nothing unusual about Thursday’s attack. Indeed, the mission was the 11th successful airstrike conducted by Canadian jets since the new year began. With each mission flown, each bomb dropped, each ISIL unit reduced and offensive blunted, the incongruity of Canada’s current position becomes harder to ignore.

Try as the government might, it cannot come up with a plausible justification for ending the bombing mission.

Canada still intends to pull the jets out, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan reiterated this week. Why? Neither he, the Prime Minister nor any other member of the Liberal government has quite been able to articulate why. In fact, the Liberals, while insisting the jets will come home, have actually done an excellent job demonstrating why they should stay. In television appearances this week, Minister Sajjan said Canada didn’t want to create a “gap” in the coalition for pulling the jets out, and it was investigating ways the country could contribute more to the fight.

ISIL Handout / AFP, Getty ImagesCanada's CF-18s are providing valuable support in beating back ISIL

Let us make sure we have this straight: the Liberals want to pull the jets out of the coalition, but not in a way that creates a gap, and is investigating how to do more while pledging to honour its commitment to do less. One would like to believe this was all some sort of clever disinformation campaign, intended to confuse ISIL, and leave them wondering as to our next move. But the reality is less interesting, and sadder — the government simply doesn’t know what it’s doing.

More to the point, it doesn’t know how to do what it promised to do. The bombing mission they have pledged to end is the right role for Canada. The Liberals may insist that our relatively small share of the overall sorties — around 2 per cent of missions are carried out by Canadian fighters — is not considerable enough to be missed, but then again, fret that pulling the jets out would leave the coalition with gaps. Proposals to bulk up our ground training mission, intelligence gathering capabilities and to assist in rapidly evacuating wounded allied troops to proper medical facilities behind the lines all have merit. Likewise proposals to provide more humanitarian aid.

But try as the government, and the very capable Minister Sajjan, might, they simply cannot come up with a plausible justification for ending the bombing mission. It is effective, appreciated by our allies and supported by the public at home. If this were not the case, the government would have ordered the jets to stand down as quickly as they reinstated the long-form census. Yes, the mission was approved by Parliament to last until April, but the military answers to the Defence Minister specifically rather than to Parliament as a whole. And the minister, of course, obeys the wishes of the Prime Minister. Clearly, the Liberals are at an impasse.

We would have hoped this would be an instructive moment for them. Perhaps finding a way to reshape the Canadian military mission in the Middle East is proving so difficult because the current mission is already the right one. We are providing aid, we are training local forces and assisting them in battle, we are resettling refugees in Canada and, yes, we are contributing directly to the containment and destruction of enemy forces. You can fiddle with any of these components, but they all work best when they work together. The Liberals have already shown an admirable willingness to admit they promised too much on the refugee file. The time has come to abandon the increasingly untenable position that the jets must be withdrawn, and instead acknowledge that the prior government got this call right.

National Post

Defence Review to be completed in 2016

Written by: Marie-Danielle Smith

Published: Wednesday, 01/13/2016 12:00 am EST

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says he plans to complete a thorough defence policy review by the end of 2016—and the public will be asked to participate.

In an interview with Embassy Jan. 12, Mr. Sajjan confirmed that Department of National Defence officials are already identifying how the review, or Defence White Paper, will be conducted.

Public consultation will be involved and foreign allies will be consulted, he said. The review is expected to set a road map for the next 10 to 20 years.

“I want to make sure that we get the 'How' part. It’s so important,” he said. “If we don’t get that right then the quality’s not going to be there at the end.”

Arctic sovereignty, NORAD prioritized

As the raison d’être for the Canadian Armed Forces is debated once again, Mr. Sajjan said there are elements of Canadian defence policy that he assumes will be prioritized. The safety of Canadians will always be the “number one priority,” he said, while continental defence, Arctic sovereignty and Canada’s responsibilities within the North American Aerospace Defense Command and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will stay constant.

Even so, he said defence policy needs to be placed “in a wider context that suits the needs of the vision that our government is setting." The Liberal government, in its early days, has talked up a return to multilateralism and a greater focus on diplomacy.

Working with foreign allies is “critical,” Mr. Sajjan said. The minister has connected with his counterparts from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and France, as well as other NATO allies.

British, Australian lessons

“The British just did a defence review," he said, referring to the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015 released by the Cameron government on Nov. 23. "Australia is about to release theirs, and especially it’s important for us to be able to learn from those lessons."

He said he recently spoke with UK Defence Secretary Michael Fallon in London. “It is helping me to shape how Canada can look at doing [the defence review],” he said, noting the UK had used an interactive website to get public input.

“I’ve got some really key ideas that Fallon provided, and I’m looking forward to reading the Australian review when it comes out as well,” Mr. Sajjan said.

The minister said the credibility and relevancy of the review was important. “We can do a white paper of everything on the wishlist, but if you don’t have the budget to support it it really doesn’t matter.”

Defence officials declared the previous Harper government's military wishlist, the Canada First Defence Strategy, unaffordable in 2011, but no updated document was ever released.

'Very focused' on procurement

Sitting in his office at National Defence headquarters—where staffers said reporters hadn't been seen in the past few years under the previous government—Mr. Sajjan told Embassy that procurement is being looked at in “extreme detail."

“Does it have the right number of people, the right type of expertise to be able to make it more efficient,” he posited.

A recent report from the Canadian Global Affairs Institute’s David Perry had warned that cutbacks to DND’s materiel department were causing major slowdowns to the process.

“To have an agile force we need to support it as well. Certain areas we do need to increase,” Mr. Sajjan said. Procurement is "definitely one of them."

Though hesitant to look back at the previous government’s record, he acknowledged a belaboured procurement process.

He is “dismayed” at the capability gap in the Canadian Navy, he said, “because we didn’t get the procurement process right.” So he is “very focused” on making sure that procurement becomes more efficient.

“We’re going through a process that’s going to be more transparent, so that it’s done in a manner that gives confidence to the Canadian public,” Mr. Sajjan said.

He would not confirm, however, whether the Statement of Requirements for new defence procurements would be released publicly. In 2013, DND quietly decided to no longer post these key technical documents on its website, which allowed the public to see the military’s requirements for crucial new planes, ships, and vehicles.

With the ubiquitous F-35 fighter jet program, shafted by the Liberals to replace the CF-18s in favour of an open competition, Mr. Sajjan said “the last thing I want to see with our fighters is what we have with our Navy right now: the gap in our capabilities.”

When it comes to figuring out how Canada's National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy should move forward—including narrowing down exactly which ships are needed and how many—the defence policy review will help to provide “a lot more clarity.”

'Consistent and predictable' funding

Asked about the transformation recommendations of fellow MP and retired general Andrew Leslie, whose controversial report recommended ways to improve the department’s efficiency, Mr. Sajjan noted there could be redundancies in some areas within the department. The defence review will identify these, he said.

Another thing the review will determine, he said, is the future for Canada’s reserve force. The previous government had committed to an accelerated expansion from 24,000 to 30,000 members.

“With the defence review it will allow us to look at what the capability and the role of the reserves will be for the future,” Mr. Sajjan said. “In some areas, as much as we want to grow, the population can’t support that growth.”

Ultimately, funding will play a big role in how the department will evolve. The Liberals committed to maintaining the current defence budget escalator—a three per cent increase to the budget annually, as of the 2015 federal budget.

The minister wouldn’t specify whether the government is thinking of increasing funding any more than that, but he said it’s his goal to make sure funding is “consistent and predictable” to better plan for the future.

“And as the economy improves, we can look at adjusting things as well,” he added.