The Trudeau Government vs National Defence and Veterans

Post Reply
Blast
Newbie
Posts: 92
Joined: May 23rd, 2009, 8:03 am

The Trudeau Government vs National Defence and Veterans

Post by Blast »

http://www.cgai.ca/gaming_the_cf_18_fig ... rocurement (End Notes at Link)

Gaming the CF-18 Fighter Replacement: The Politicizing of a Military Procurement - Canadian Global Affairs Institute ( CGAI)- Dec 2017

About the Author: Col Al Stephenson (Ret’d) is an aviation consultant and a 35-year veteran of the Canadian Forces. Stephenson’s knowledge of NORAD and NATO follows from his experience as a CF-18 pilot and staff officer at all levels of command. He has 3,600 fighter hours flying third generation CF-104 Starfighters and fourth generation CF-18 Hornets. He holds a PhD from Carleton University and is also a CGAI Fellow.

Canada’s elected officials are responsible and accountable for defence policy, thus making these issues political by nature. Informed political debate and civilian leadership are indeed essential in a well-functioning liberal democracy. However, politicians do a disservice to both the electorate and the nation’s military members when they allow ill-conceived political promises and socio-economic preferences to distort the procurement process of military equipment. Under Canada’s parliamentary system, the cycle of major Crown projects is progressively out of sync with the electoral cycle. This increasingly leads to short-term politicization (deliberately distorting analysis or judgments to favour a preferred line of thinking regardless of evidence)1 of large defence acquisitions in “a political game of brinksmanship between political parties”.2 None is more apparent than the saga of replacing the CF-18 fighter.

The CF-18 was designed to be a 25-year aircraft that was subsequently life-extended beyond 40 years and projected to be replaced around 2025. In 1997, the Chrétien government enrolled Canada as a level three participant nation in the F-35 program with no obligation to purchase. Following significant analysis on possible follow-on fighters by the Department of National Defence,3 the Harper government announced the sole-source selection of 65 F-35 aircraft in July 2010. This miscalculated decision to sidestep a formal competition initiated the politicization of the CF-18 replacement as the Conservatives made use of the proposed acquisition for partisan purposes. Without a sound communication strategy and evidence-based information, the ensuing debate became balkanized and the government’s centralized message control prevented the bureaucracy from providing explanatory details. With the government unable to control the building controversies, the opposition eagerly continued the politicization.4

In October 2014, the Harper government’s decision to deploy CF-18s to Iraq provided the Liberals with the opportunity to use the CF-18 as a political prop. Although dismissed by many as juvenile humour, Justin Trudeau cleverly delivered classic feminist rhetoric that portrayed the CF-18 deployment as Harper “whipping out” a male appendage “to show the world how big they are”. This was a legitimate assertion in the arena of political debate aimed at reshaping the issue and one that was no doubt well-polled prior to establishing the future prime minister’s feminist credentials. However, this articulation presaged a continuing failure to appreciate the importance of a fighter force and the need for a mature approach to its replacement, free from political interference. 5

The Trudeau government was elected in 2015 on a platform that promised transparency and evidence-based policy. Interestingly, the Liberals lifted a play from the Chrétien Red Book in politicizing a major military platform for cancellation.6 The Liberal manifesto, Real Change, delivered mixed messages in stating, “We will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber. We will immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft.”7 This parochial promise may have been good political strategy, but it severely undermined the reasonable pursuit of a follow-on fighter. In fact, within one year of being elected, the Trudeau government repeated their predecessor’s behaviour which they had roundly criticized, and unexpectedly announced the sole-source procurement of 18 Super Hornets with the promise of a competition by the end of their mandate.8

This so-called interim buy immediately drew overwhelming criticism from all quarters due to its lack of both transparency and evidence. In an effort to support this decision, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan made use of alternative facts to create a capability gap that the government alleged demanded this drastic interim measure. Prior to that point, the Commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force was confident the CF-18s would meet operational needs until 2025, before the government “changed the policy with the number of aircraft I have to have”.9 At the same time, the government’s transparency promise took another significant hit when it required all personnel working on the project to sign an unprecedented non-disclosure agreement to prevent the military’s factual analysis from being disclosed. Despite open opposition from the Senate and overwhelming evidence led by 13 previous RCAF commanders in an open letter to the prime minister – as well as most academics and experts agreeing that such a purchase was unnecessary and would likely emasculate the fighter force due to personnel shortages10 – the government was determined to move ahead. That was until the Super Hornet’s manufacturer, Boeing, successfully petitioned the U.S. Commerce Department to impose a countervailing duty on Bombardier’s C-series aircraft for unfair trade practices. With mock indignation, once Boeing’s complaint was negated by a C-series production deal between Airbus and Bombardier, the government walked away from the U.S. government’s approved purchase of Super Hornets and is today considering the acquisition of used Australian F-18s.11

Where is the capability gap that was so imminent as to require the $7 billion sole-source purchase of Super Hornets? Why has the government not commenced the promised competition immediately if the need is so urgent? The answer is simple – political gamesmanship. The Liberal government never intended to provide the money for the full fighter replacement in the near term. It is clear from their stated timelines that a decision on the platform and allocated funding is two elections away.12 The evidence also points to the unsettling realization that the government was willing to use the fighter force as the sacrificial lamb in the Bombardier/Boeing dispute and intended to draw upon the fiscal framework of the permanent replacement for the CF-18s to support this veiled intercession.13 Despite all the evidence against the Super Hornet purchase, it was the pawn that the government offered as an incentive to Boeing to leave Bombardier alone. In effect, a federal subsidy in disguise.

It is curious that the electorate isn’t more concerned over the gamesmanship of political parties who are playing with the lives of Canadian military personnel and large sums of taxpayer funds. The Chrétien government’s politicization of the EH-101 helicopter14 cost taxpayers $500 million to cancel the contract and the Trudeau government was willing to spend $7 billion on a fighter no one wanted, for a capability gap that does not exist. Although the government’s defence policy statement, Strong, Secure, Engaged, was well-received, its credibility is suspect when its principal author resorts to the use of alternative facts to pursue a political agenda. The search for used F-18s indicates that the capability gap will be one of the Liberal government’s own making as it consciously delays the promised competition for partisan purposes.

The debate over the CF-18 replacement has never been about filling a military need. It has been all about fulfilling misguided political promises and solving the government’s parochial socio-economic issues over defence requirements. Whether one rationalizes it as terminological inexactitudes, or as my former elementary school teacher would say, “bold-faced lies”, the evidence leads to the conclusion that the government has been deliberately distorting analysis to favour the purchase of Super Hornets and further delay the promised competition. The Standing Committee on National Defence’s deliberate shaping of the narrative to promote the purchase of the Super Hornet in its report on Canada and the Defence of North America: NORAD and Aerial Readiness,15 Sajjan’s alternative facts that created the capability gap, and the immediate reversal of the Super Hornet purchase – once it became known that Boeing could not be bought16 – all provide evidence of the government’s intentional manipulation of the process.

The real question though is whether the political capital that the government has already expended, with the resulting loss of credibility and integrity, will have political consequences. Using funds allocated for the long-term viability of the fighter force for short-term support to Bombardier will not sit well with many constituents who continue to question the “[p]olitics, pandering, and pork for a Quebec conglomerate”.17 For most of the electorate, it will not be a question of regional subsidies, but one of feeling manipulated by government double-speak over a wide range of issues,18 including the CF-18 replacement. If the Liberals wish to prioritize funding for social programs, then they should be up front and honest. If the government wants to assist a Canadian company under duress, then it should find solutions that do not jeopardize national security. If the current government wants to regain the public’s trust, it is time to stop politicizing the CF-18 replacement and immediately run a balanced competition to which they signed up, free from political gamesmanship.
Blast
Newbie
Posts: 92
Joined: May 23rd, 2009, 8:03 am

Re: The Trudeau Government vs National Defence and Veterans

Post by Blast »

https://coloneltedcampbell.blog/2018/02 ... ce-policy/

What on earth is a feminist defence policy? - by Ted Campbell - 10 Feb 18

Harjit Sajjan is a gentleman for whom I have scant regard as a minister, in fact I think he is a weak link, a sacrificial lamb to cover up Team Trudeau's disdain for the military; but he didn't have to prove it, in public, did he? He has come out according to Global News with this nonsense: "speaking in Vancouver on Friday, Sajjan said the government is taking a “feminist approach” to the military ... [but] ... “Our defence policy itself didn’t have a gender-based analysis, it was done after the defense policy was written,” Sajjan said ... [and] ... “It was actually done as we were actually developing the policy." Does that make any sense to anyone? The policy didn't have a gender based analysis but it was actually done while we were writing the policy? Huh? "We are actually committed to increasing more the number of women in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF),” he said. Well, whoop-de-doo ... I'm glad you're actually committed to adding more women to the ranks; I wish you were committed to strengthening the military, not just fiddling around at the edges by replacing men with women.

I support using Gender Based Analysis in developing policies, including defence policy, to ensure that policies are not unfair to any group; but let's be clear: defence policy is about the country, writ large, not about the people in the military. The people in the Canadian Armed Forces are unique in that they, and only they amongst all of those who serve Canada in any way, from the Governor General on down, including Justin Trudeau and Harjit Sajjan, have an unlimited liability when it comes to effecting the policy ... they may be required to die to give effect to the government's political choices. Of course all of our policies should treat all peoples, men and women, aboriginal peoples and newcomers alike, regardless of race, creed or sex, but first, above all, we need to have a coherent defence policy.

Now, back in late 2015 I laid out what I thought we needed in a defence policy. First, I said, we needed AAA+ armed forces:
Appropriate for a G7 nation;
Adaptable to a constantly changing strategic environment;
Available whenever needed; and
Affordable.

That military force, I said, was needed to be part of our defence system which, in turn, needed 11 capabilities:

• A structure to collect and collate information, from all sources and from all over the world and provide useful strategic intelligence to the cabinet and operational intelligence to departments and agencies;
• A super-structure to make strategic plans and to control and manage our military forces;
• Surveillance and warning systems to cover our land mass and, especially, the maritime approaches to it and the airspace over both;
• Military forces to intercept, identify and, appropriately, deal with intruders;
• Military forces to contribute to the continental defence, especially to the protection of the US strategic deterrent;
• Military forces to patrol our territory, the maritime approaches to it and the airspace over both;
• Military forces to give “aid to civil power” when provincial attorneys general cannot manage with police resources;
• Military forces to provide “civil assistance” when disaster occur and the civil authorities in provinces and cities cannot cope;
• Military forces to conduct expeditionary, combat operations around the world ~
o Unilaterally for relatively small scale low and even mid-intensity operations,
o As part of “coalitions of the willing” for some low and mid intensity operations, and
o With our traditional allies for the full range of operations, including prolonged general war;
• Supporting operational and logistical services ~ telecommunications, engineering, intelligence, medical and dental, supply and transport, materiel maintenance, administration and policing ~ to support all other military forces; and
• An efficient and effective defence procurement system.

There is nothing "gender based" in any of that; both the eleven defence or national security capabilities and the AAA+ military are gender neutral. That should be obvious ~ a defence policy is, along with foreign policy, trade policy and fiscal and monetary policies, part of a nation's grand strategy which aims to achieve "success" (peace and prosperity) for all Canadians, equally.

But Team Trudeau is not interested in grand strategy nor, I suspect, does it give a damn about peace and prosperity. It is all consumed with virtue signalling as it tries to ready itself to win the next election. The Liberals just want power for its own sake ... and to line Liberals pockets.

We have a prime minister who appears to consider himself a figurehead, and now we have one of his token ministers spouting feminism as an attribute of strategic planning. It brings to mind an old army joke: "Q: What's the difference between the Government of Canada and the Boy Scouts? A: The Boy Scouts have adult leadership." Just as with our foreign policy, we need a national debate about a sensible, coherent defence policy that serves Canada's interests, not just the momentary, partisan election campaign interests of Team Trudeau. Such a debate will . not take place, I fear, until we replace Justin Trudeau and Harjit Sajjan with grownups.
Post Reply

Return to “Canada”