Dear General Natynczyk,

The individual in the foreground of the photo above is not what he would appear to be. With no other information, that would appear to be a leading seaman in the Canadian Navy. Except that it is actually the member of parliament for Edmonton - St. Albert, one Brent Rathgeber, Conservative Party of Canada, wearing the uniform of a Canadian naval sailor... complete with rank badges.

The photograph comes from his website.

This is becoming an all too common event among Harper MPs. Rathgeber is a lawyer. His accumulated military service appears to total - ZERO. And, though I hardly need to point it out, Mr. Rathgeber, in that photo is breaking the law. It is illegal to impersonate a member of the Canadian Forces and Rathgeber is clearly doing that. Not to mention that it is an insult to serving members of the Canadian Forces to have a non-combatant civilian, not subject to the Code of Service Discipline mock an official uniform: A uniform which others wear proudly and stripes which they have earned through adversity.

Given that Rathgeber sees fit to level accusations of wrongdoing against Canadian citizens who have neither broken any law or displayed any intent to break a law, yet were arrested in a vile spectacle of unrestrained abuse of police power, one might expect Rathgeber to pursue a pristine law-abiding life. Not one which, as is obvious from his own website, includes posing for the camera while illegally wearing an official CF uniform.

It is totally unacceptable that the members of Harper's caucus seem to feel they have the run of the Canadian Forces; that they can play with the troops, dress up like the troops and generally declare that they are the troops when the huge majority of them have never so much as considered crossing the threshold of a recruiting office - ever.

In short, General, kindly inform the members of the Harper government, by whatever means expedient, that the various uniforms of the Canadian Forces are not costumes to use and abuse at their pleasure.

And in this case, I speak for myself and every other former and serving leading hand who produced the sweat, worked endless hours and suffered to earn those rank badges.

Enough is enough.

Oh yes. Just in case Rathgeber suddenly disappears that page from his website, I have a nice shiny screen shot.

Hat Tip Alison.

How dare you, you mealy mouthed pencil neck

Stephen Harper has spoken. And not a soul has the guts to take him to task. Read this:

"The Canadian Forces are the victim here, [pause] as are the direct victims of these terrible events."

So says Stephen Harper. I didn't insert that "pause" for no reason. On the tape it exists and it suggests, to Harper, that the direct victims of Williams' crimes were secondary to the effect on the Canadian Forces as a whole.

Which shows what Harper knows about the Canadian Forces. And could care less for the actual victims.

Nothing.

Betrayal? Hardly. To most of the Canadian Forces this guy was a freak well outside the realm of the day to day of being in the service. And that's the issue: most everyone else considers him a freak. That hardly makes the Canadian Forces a "victim". Particularly enunciated by the acting prime minister as though the CF as a whole is a victim deserving acknowledgment to a degree greater than, you know, those who were murdered.

How dare a person like Harper set foot into the social structure of the CF. How dare he comment on it. He's never been in it and, as unpopular a statement as this may seem, he has no right nor the authority to state what Williams' despicable crimes do to affect the morale of the Canadian Forces as a whole. The ethos of the Canadian Forces is well beyond the comprehension of a pure political troll like Harper.

Most treat it as what it is: a serial killer who happened to be wearing an air force uniform. We're not him and never were. Harper, one of the worst examples of organizational leadership, has no right to suggest that the Canadian Forces are suffering under some sort of fug created by Williams. But most of all he has no right to create another victim when the women murdered and assaulted by Williams, and the loved ones of those women, are the only ones upon whom we should be pouring our sympathy.

So, to refute a political pig like Stephen Harper, weep not for the Canadian Forces. We already know what we are. We don't need the prime minister to make us a victim. We aren't one. The real victims of a serial killer deserve to be recognized for having their lives and love of life cut short by a monster and their families to understand that all of us share in their sorrow. We mourn with you but would never presume to be victims of something so personally devastating. 

Pearson and the air force officer

You meet the most interesting people in airports. London MP Glen Pearson found that out and relates a conversation he had with an air force officer.

“Look, of course we want what’s supposedly the best out there; we wouldn’t be a good military if we didn’t.  But I’m not convinced that with the high price, the problems with maintenance, and the cost overruns in production qualifies it as the best for the Canadian forces.”

That is an absolutely true statement by any gauge. No military goes asking for second rate gear.

“For our purposes, I at least wish we had put out some bids for the F-18F Super Hornet,” he observed.  “That’s a pretty good piece of equipment.”  For the next 20 minutes a dedicated career military officer gave this MP a comprehensive education on aircraft and Canada’s future in military operations.

But what Pearson might have found surprising is something which has been swirling through the bazaars for some considerable time now. It just hasn't broken surface in the media.

Barring some cataclysmic event, he reasons that the Canadian forces will be looking for more “soft” missions, the kind that provide protection for peacekeeping operations or more limited forms of combat engagement than Afghanistan.  According to him, the Super Hornet is a better fit for the new role the Canadian forces are about to embrace.

Looking? Probably not too hard. Prepared to accept is more the emphasis. The problem, however goes to another issue: The Harper government has nothing close to a coherent defence policy.
Read more here. 

H/T Dale

Airshow Mackay pulls out his "morale" card

As predicted by Pogge the Harper conservatives have trotted out their propaganda by turning the F-35 purchase into a "Support The Troops" mantra. If you question the awarding of the largest Canadian military purchase ever in a no-bid arrangement, you don't support the troops.

"It has an impact on morale," MacKay asserted, saying such uncertainty affects the career planning of Armed Forces members and their families.

What an utter crock of horseshit. Career planning?! What is this moron trying to feed us.

But since he's at it, let's look at the Harper government record. As dumb an idea as it was, under the Harper plan there were supposed to be rapid deployment battalions stationed in Comox, Trenton and Greenwood. That would affect at least 3000 soldiers and their support elements. With that announced plan, a lot of serving personnel would have been marking a lot of "new" possible posting preferences on their annual Personnel Evaluation Reports. Effect on "career planning"? Big. Those are now wasted choices and prospective postings that vanished.

Equipment purchases have an effect on "career planning"? How about the cancellation of the Joint Support Ship? No big deal? Wrong!!!

If you are a marine engineer of any form you are faced with being one of the dwindling cadre of steam propulsion types trying to keep archaic high and low pressure boiler-fired engineering alive. While all the other "stokers" in the fleet move on to more advanced systems, the navy is still required to maintain training for engineering personnel on steam propulsion systems. Career planning, Mackay? Who cancelled the JSS, and why didn't we hear from you about the impact on career planning for those engineers who have to maintain 2A and 3A engineering certificates?

And here's where we juxtapose. The single biggest morale crusher ever experienced by the peacetime Canadian armed services was Paul Hellyer's Canadian Forces Reorganization Act, otherwise known as "unification".

Mackay's position?

So much for Elmer's little boy caring about the morale of the troops. It is, and always was, propaganda and abusive.

A gross misuse of the uniform

Click through to the DND website today and the first visual you get is the Minister of National Defence, Peter MacKay, smiling back at you - wearing a Canadian Forces CADPAT TW uniform. It's been that way all weekend after MacKay participated with a Canadian military team in the Nijmegen Four Days Marches. Except that he didn't participate in the entire march; he only showed up for the last day. How that fits with the regulations established by Stichting DE 4DAAGSE is beyond me.

Last week Boris pointed out, not only the danger involved in this visual, but the shameless, self-serving political theatre that it actually represents. What I pointed out, in comments to that post, is that MacKay's adoption of a Canadian Forces uniform for wear in public may well be illegal.

The Minister of National Defence is a civilian appointed to cabinet by the Crown on the recommendation of the prime minister. Reporting to that civilian are two different heads of two complimentary but different organizations: The Deputy Minister, a senior civil servant who heads the Department, and the Chief of Defence Staff, a uniformed flag/general officer who leads the Canadian Armed Forces. Both those senior people are responsible to the Minister of National Defence.

The National Defence Act makes it clear that, by statute, the Canadian Armed Forces are separate and distinct from the Department of National Defence. The minister's responsibilities are clear and the distinction is very clear. The Minister of National Defence is a political appointment of the government and, while responsible for the direction of defence policy, is not a member of the Canadian Armed Forces and cannot issue orders to the Regular, Reserve, Special force or other constituted elements of the CAF without doing so through the uniformed CDS.

The Minister of National Defence has no status-of-rank inside the Canadian Armed Forces. Period. Neither does the Prime Minister.

Most ministers of national defence would not dream of donning a CF uniform for any reason. One of the overarching foundations of a confederated and democratic Canada is that the Canadian military is a civilian controlled operation. When General Andrew McNaughton was appointed Minister of National Defence in 1944, during the 2nd World War, he assumed his duties as a civilian and appeared in civilian clothing.


MacKay appears to place little value in the conventions and statutes which separate him and his office from the uniformed armed forces.

There are statutes restricting the wear of Canadian Forces uniforms to those who are entitled to do so.

Now, I will presume that MacKay either insisted or was somehow given official leave to wear a CADPAT TW uniform and that somehow, somewhere, someone decided it was either too trivial a matter over which to engage in a regulatory career-damaging fight or, someone didn't bother looking at the regulations.

CF Dress Regulations Ch 2, Section 1 paras 43, 50 detail when a civilian may wear a CF uniform. It also states that in such instances the the wearer must display a brassard on the left arm indicating the wearer's affiliation accompanied by the block letters CIVILIAN NON-COMBATANT. MacKay is a civilian yet did not do that.

Queen's Regulations and Orders article 17.06 also applies. From that and the following regulation you might notice that even a member of the CF has restrictions in the wear of the uniform.

The Canadian Protocol site offers no occasion when the Minister of National Defence is authorized to wear a Canadian Forces uniform.

So, what is MacKay's purpose?

There are some who suggest (and within limits I would agree), that having senior people join the ratings and ranks in challenges such as the International Four Days Marches is a good thing. That, however, has to be tempered with appropriate levels of decorum. And MacKay is not one of the "senior people" of the Canadian Armed Forces. He isn't a member.

The obvious is right there in the picture. This was a PMO approved photo op for MacKay. This was another display of the martial fetish in which members of Harper's government will find every opportunity to use the troops as a backdrop to demonstrate their personal machismo.

"Look at me! I am the warrior minister and I lead all Canadian troops."

Except that it is all theatre. "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV."

MacKay is not a soldier, but he'll play at it by dressing up.

In the end a dangerous association starts to bubble up. MacKay, by misusing the uniform of the Canadian Armed Forces for his own political gain, has once again attempted to portray the Canadian Forces as an arm of his political party.

As one commenter here said:

It is at times like this that an elderly person with a funny green suit in the closet might well reflect that he is not an employee of the federal government, but a personal servant of Her Majesty. And is only doing what Mackay and Harper say because Ma'am would like him to.

Exactly.

MacKay has grossly misused the uniform of the Canadian Armed Forces. That's illegal.

Movement on the tree line

When a politician, especially one like Harper, tries to inculcate himself/herself into the culture of the military the inevitable response is... We do your bidding, but you are not and never have been one of us. We're better than you.

And it doesn't take much to prove that truth.

A huge majority of serving members of the military despise politicians - of all stripes. And they hate groupies.

Harper is a groupy. And a groupy only wants in on the party. No groupy is willing to do the grunt work it takes get there. The frat boys in the PMO have stepped in a minefield and they can figure out why the pros won't show them how to get out.

That's why this comment by our own Boris, a former member of the CF, deserves to be out front.

You may be placing too much mistrust in the military brass. They have several interests which separate them from the Harpercrats. Their war is being directed by a government that finds itself in significant hot water over it's handling of the conflict, and is actively attempting to hide from teh public and parliament over it. If that government is willing to throw Parliament under the bus to protect itself, no institution is safe from big black Con Firestones, including the military.

Also, the CF and its uniformed leadership have a long term interest in institutional coherence and stability that goes beyond Afghanistan and Stephen Harper. Under Hillier the frame alignment between the CF and the Cons got pretty incestuous. Now that scandal and coverup is the order of the day from Ottawa, it's in the CF's (under new leadership) interest to get as far from the Harperites as it can.

Never run into the forest. Watch the tree line.

Oh right. We're not a milblog.

Want your combat team to have an edge? Add women.

When Michael Coren unloaded the contents of his mesozoic mind regarding the death of armoured corps trooper Karine Blais he unleashed a flood of criticism aimed at his sexist take on Blais' combat death. Worse though, Coren dismissed Blais' service in a frontline combat arms unit as "dressed up as a soldier" and then went on to insult every serving female by stating, "... there are few if any women who have the skills required to serve as a front-line combat trooper."

Coming from someone who possesses no combat training at all, it was viewed by any informed person as an incredibly stupid statement. It also isn't true, and the US Army and US Marine Corps are finding that women serving in combat positions are not only just as capable as men, but have frontline skills unique to their gender.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. Army and Marines found it useful to send a female soldier along on raids, as it was less disruptive to have a woman search the female civilians. There was no shortage of volunteers for this duty. The marines, as is their custom, saw more opportunities in this. Thus the marines began sending a team of women on such missions.

The US Marine Lioness teams were established to facilitate searches of women and children during security operations in Iraq, but it turns out the teams of 3 to 5 female marines have other significant results.

Iraqi women were surprised, and often awed, when they encountered these female soldiers and marines. The awe often turned into cooperation.

That, however, isn't as significant as this.

The marines also noticed that the female troops were better at picking up useful information in general.

[...]

Iraqi men were also intimidated by female soldiers and marines. In the macho Arab world, an assertive female with an assault rifle is sort of a man's worst nightmare. So many otherwise reticent Iraqi men, opened up to the female troops, and provided information. Women also had an easier time detecting a lie.

So, the question from across the room is, "That's a no-brainer. What took them so long?"

Indeed. What is taking them so long? U.S. law still prohibits women from serving in the true combat arms occupations. Infantry, artillery and armour remain male-only military trades.

In Canada, as in many countries, however, no such restriction exists. Women can and do serve in any occupation offered by the Canadian Forces. Further, they do it well and with as much skill and dedication as any man. And there are times when women simply do the job better.

In the aftermath of the brutal Liberian civil war, India sent an all-female peacekeeping contingent. The success of their mission has brought a request from the UN to member states to increase their contingents of female soldiers in both peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions. Currently, of 90,000 personnel on UN police and military missions only 8 percent of police and 2 percent of the military are female.

The Corens of this world, having never served period, much less with women in a combat unit, don't get it. In Afghanistan, Iraq and the multitude of conflict areas of the world the combat involves insurgency and guerilla warfare. There is no head to head fight between massive organized forces. In such asymetrical warfare you take every advantage you can get. Intelligence has to be gathered, filtered and analyzed rapidly and effectively. Putting women into combat teams gives those teams an edge they would otherwise not have.

And my own experience serving with women in a combat unit is that they can handle themselves and the job extremely well. The only difficulty they endured was within the unit from males unable to accept the presence of women and who were willing to expend energy attempting to sabotage what they (those few men) viewed as some sort of social experiment. Some of them shrunk into their shells when, after an opposed boarding of a suspicious Honduran merchant ship, the boarding party returned cheering on a female leading seaman who had taken down two opposing sailors, with her feet, before the rest of the team could get to her.

The honest truth is, the gender of a soldier, sailor, marine or aircrew is meaningless as long as the task is being accomplished and the mission is going forward. Whether its putting ordnance on target, pacifying a village or gathering intelligence, the requirement is dedicated, focussed and properly trained people.

The US Army and Marine Corps are figuring that out, finally. The Corens of this world never will.


Hat tip deBeauxOs

Canada's "Hollow Army"

"It's tough right now because we don't have enough soldiers on the ground to do the job," he said, adding that some in the military are tired. "The senior NCOs [non-commissioned officers] and officers especially ..."

General Walt Natynczyk,
chief of the defence staff

You need to read Brian Stewart's entire report.

What are you running there MacKay?

Fort Fumble on the Rideau has done it again. The initial decision to withhold the projected future costs of the Afghanistan military expedition on an information request using a "national security" blanket has simply served to further erode public confidence.

The Defence Department admitted Wednesday that it was wrong to withhold the future cost of the war in Afghanistan on the basis that releasing it would violate national security.

Of course it was wrong. And whoever made the decision in the first place knew it was wrong. And knowing it was wrong suggests that the final decision came from a creature well up on the totem pole.

Yet the defence minister claims it wasn't his decision. How odd.

The response to requests for information from the Canadian Forces is governed by policy. There are, or were, explicit instructions as to what type of information could or could not be released in the response to an information request. I've handled more than a few of them in the past and, as much of a pain in the ass as they were, determining the contents of a response was reasonably straight forward. The easiest ones to get off the desk were the ones asking about "the cost of ...". Not my bailiwick, send this to a higher authority toute de suite.

The infuriating part was the fact that such requests normally came forwarded from the Puzzle Palace in Ottawa in the first place. Sending them back meant explaining to the idiot well up the chain of command that operational commanders do not respond to requests for budgetary information which already exists as knowledge at a higher level.

Defence policy information requests were always answered by the boffins (Often referred to as "reeky, pencil-necked, civvy, pukes". Hey! It was a part of the lexicon.) At best, we could only contribute to a response by detailing unit preparedness or the like but for the most part we never saw such requests.

Further, there was and still is, a restriction on what one could say publicly for any record. Defence policy, and in particular operations beyond the current year, were absolutely verbotten. Those always went to the minister's cadre and with good reason: The uniformed members of the Canadian Armed Forces do not formulate defence policy.

That makes this part of the Mike Blanchfield's article particularly rankling. (Emphasis mine)

For the first time Wednesday, the military also offered up costs for "future years" — a column also censored in this most recent NDP request — pegging those at $540 million.

Asked about those numbers, given that the mission is to formally have ended by 2011, the defence official explained that was because of costs associated with closing out the mission, such as bringing equipment back to Canada and restoring it to its pre-war state.

But Harris rejected that explanation, saying the military "obviously has significant plans for the military in Afghanistan beyond the mission end date of July 2011" because the post-2011 costs are $1.2 billion.

"That's not keeping the engines turning while you're bringing the equipment back home," Harris said.

"They obviously have some plans, so lay it on the table and let the Canadian people decide whether we want to be involved in this or not."

There is some unfortunate conflation occuring here. Harris and those repeating his comments in the media have consistently referred to "the military" as having undisclosed plans for Afghanistan beyond 2011.

They have the order of battle wrong.

The "military" doesn't decide what form the mission in Afghanistan will take; that is a political decision made at the ministerial and cabinet level. In this particular government, that means the over-dressed kids in the prime minister's office.

I agree with Harris that the figures for 2011-2012 suggest a rather significant level of military activity on the ground in Afghanistan, but the Canadian Forces did not make that projection based on its own ideas for what it's expeditionary role should be. The government has told the CF what form the Afghanistan mission will take after 2011 and to provide estimates for the mission the government wants.

The initial decision to withhold the information requested has the PMO's fingerprints all over it. Since defence policy seems to come from the war-gamers in the Langevin Block, the disclosure of projected costs would shine a nasty bright light on something they really don't want you to know - same mission; different description. (All the signposts are there to suggest little is going to change after 2011. Future post.)

In any case, now that the costs are out there, the embarrassment should be dumped on the appropriate doorstep. Harper and MacKay should be wearing this - not the Canadian Forces. The fact that those costs have risen so significantly and given that Harper instructed the CF to run this contingency operation from within the defence budget explains why other components of the CF are suffering.

I expect we'll never know which individual, very close to the ground on the totem pole, gets gutted for this little fiasco.

The Conservative sea of confusion

Further to Dana's post there is a whole lot more going on and the Harperites aren't just showing simple incompetence.

The word that General Dynamics was pulling out of the bidding for the Frigate Life Extension project actually hit the streets more than a week ago. David Puliese's article highlights something significant.

Numerous defence industry officials, who asked not to be named, say the problem with the military procurement system is that the Defence Department and Public Works expect top-of-the-line equipment for relatively modest budgets.

In some cases, the government expects custom changes to existing equipment that are unreasonable because Canada is buying such a small amount of gear, according to industry officials. In other cases, procurement budgets are unrealistic. For instance, in the case of the supply ships, industry officials say the military did not take into consideration that the price of steel has risen 40 per cent in the last several years.

"Industry officials" aren't telling the whole story. In fact they're nicely deflecting the truth.

The Harper promise to streamline and accelerate the procurement process for military and naval capital equipment under the "Canada First" vision has fallen flat on its ass before it even got stood up. The primary reason? Not enough money.

Industry officials can say all they like about the military not taking into consideration the price of ship-grade steel. The truth is, industry is consulted on such items and issues before the tendering process begins. The navy's project managers knew that the price tag on the projected Combat Support Ships had a "best before date". In fact, after the Harper-initiated review of defence projects delayed everything on the procurement list by a year the navy went back to the government and told the politicians they would probably need more money.

The answer from government? No.

The result is that most bidders view contracts like the Combat Support Ships as a financial risk. For the navy it means settling for less. That will translate into either two - not three - ships or ships which lack the capability the government promised. Expect that the Combat Support Ships will have an extensive list of items bearing the historically famous Canadian naval description of Fitted For But Not With.

Word around the naval bazaars is that the Conservatives talk a good story but beyond that they are clueless. To quote one individual, "They have no real plan beyond an artists conception..."

The Frigate Life Extension (FELEX) program is another problem. The delay in getting the project moving has seen costs go up and a scramble to get upgrades to combat systems which don't return an obsolete fighting ship to the fleet. With only one bidder on the project it means the entire thing can be held to ransom. If the Conservatives were actually serious they would have made sure there was enough money to attract bidders in the first place.

But if anything tells a story it is Harper strutting about telling everyone that he's going to build six "Slush-Breakers" and a northern naval base. That was the navy's least desirable option for Arctic patrol and sovereignty. In various corners most of the gold braid just chuckles at the idea and wish the Harperites would address the projects that are on the board right now instead of floating pipe-dreams to the media.

None of this even begins to address what will be a significantly reduced naval capability for several years. As the frigates go to their 18-month refits the navy will be hard-pressed to meet commitments. Mind you, had the Conservatives ever produced the promised comprehensive defence policy statement last year the navy might have known whether they were actually going to see a continuing ship replacement program. Right now, there isn't one and there is no policy guidance. Instead the Conservatives use the hillbilly method of giving a speech and calling that policy.

The navy's chronic personnel shortage has also not been addressed. If the FELEX program lays up a significant portion of the fleet it has the effect of giving those in the service a bit of a break from a crushing operating tempo. Large numbers of naval personnel have done multiple extended deployments and some have done them on back-to-back rotations as they end up posted from one ship to another.

Non-commissioned ranks continue to leave the service and there is a hemorrhage of junior officers resulting in an even worse situation for those who stay.

In short, the Harperites and their perpetual election campaign make a lot of noise and that's about the extent of it. Their macho military facade may make a good surface impression, but they've realized that they're not getting anywhere near the political bang their party needs from the defence-spending buck.

In fact, the Harperites aren't much different than the Mulroneyites were. And Mulroney was a disaster.

Oh, and while we're perusing the various promises of the Harper military camp, page 45 of the CPoC election campaign platform.

Restore the regular army presence to British Columbia.

How's that working out?

Soldier bitches. Media goes wild.

Due to the lack of a television I had completely missed the media burp caused by Corporal Daniel Beaulieu's complaints about personal equipment issued to Canadian troops in Afghanistan. Scott Taylor, however, caught it and is a little incredulous over the corporal's claims.

Then came the allegation from a serving soldier that Canadian troops in Afghanistan are poorly equipped. Anxious as always for any new angle on the Afghan debate, the media eagerly gave voice to the concerns expressed by Cpl. Daniel Beaulieu.

His resume seemed very impressive: An 11-year veteran with the Royal 22nd Regiment, Beaulieu served a tour in Bosnia and has just returned to Valcartier from his second tour in Afghanistan. This experienced rifleman’s memos of complaint had fallen on deaf ears within the chain of command, so he decided to take his message to the local TV station.

To a civilian, Beaulieu’s comments no doubt sounded pretty scandalous. According to this corporal, our contingent is equipped for "peacekeeping, not war-fighting" and to argue his case, he listed several shortcomings.

Alright so, if you missed this little fur-ball, that's the set up. Taylor, viewing Beaulieu's complaints from a more accurate angle, then begins to ask the questions that should have been asked by the daily news media types who purport to "know" the beat they're covering.

Beaulieu pointed out that the current protective vests issued to our soldiers only have pouches to hold four magazines of C-7 rifle ammunition. Add to this the 20 rounds of ammunition in the magazine already on the weapon, and our soldiers carry into combat 100 preloaded 5.56 calibre bullets. According to Beaulieu, this should be increased to 15 spare magazines or a total of 320 rounds of ammo.

Gasp!

Nobody thought to ask this combat veteran just how he planned to carry the extra 35 pounds of weight this would add to an average soldier’s current full kit load of nearly 80 pounds. Nor did anybody inquire if there has been a single instance in Canada’s six-year military experience in Afghanistan where our front-line troops have been forced to break contact with the enemy as a result of an ammunition shortage.

During Beaulieu’s seven-month tour in Kandahar, there were no prolonged firefights with insurgents. The only casualties suffered in the Van Doo battle group came as a result of roadside bombs. Given the nature of this threat, I can’t imagine anyone in their right mind wanting to travel around with 300 bullets strapped to their chest.

The one common thing every infantryman tries to do is reduce the weight of the load. I'll admit that the one thing that I always wanted more of was ammunition. That had little to do with reality, however. I have come close to running out of ammunition, but never got to the point of having to throw rocks. The real reason for wanting as much ammunition as I could carry had a lot more to do with feeling good than real necessity. Besides the already very good points made by Taylor is another point: How much does Beaulieu think the 20 inch barrel of a C7 can take?

Beaulieu’s second gripe about bullets was that infantry soldiers are only issued with one spare clip of ammo for their side arms. He felt they should be issued with at least two spare magazines for their pistols.

As side arms are intended for use only as an emergency backup or in extremely close-quarters fighting, I cannot imagine a scenario to date in Afghanistan where any of our soldiers would have expended one clip, let alone three, of pistol ammo.

Perhaps it is the standard fear of all infantrymen that Beaulieu is expressing. While the ammunition supply might become a concern for some, for more it is the possibility that a stoppage will render one's rifle useless - right in the middle of a firefight. The existence of a 9mm pistol doesn't offer much except to act as a placebo. A reporter might have asked Beaulieu how often he actually drew his pistol and why.

Complaint No. 3 was that the service-issue holsters made the pistol too accessible. Sometimes the handguns would fall out unexpectedly, and Beaulieu stated the obvious by saying this might cause an injury. To date, we have had three Canadian soldiers killed and several wounded by accidental weapon discharges, but these all involved C-7 rifles, or in one case a shotgun — not handguns. As one military spokesman explained in the wake of Beaulieu’s public charges, the pistol has to be able to come out of the holster easily — that’s the way they’re designed.

Indeed, and Beaulieu's complaint flies right in the face of the statement made by Captain Dale MacPherson who, after returning from Afghanistan wrote that pistols needed to be mounted in quick-draw holsters.

The last big revelation from Beaulieu was that the desert boots were substandard. Sure they may be state-of-the-art footwear that retail at around $300 a pair, but after Beaulieu went on long patrols, his feet hurt. I will pause here for a moment to let everyone who once served in the infantry roll their eyes skyward in disbelief.

His feet hurt... Welcome to the infantry corporal. What Corporal Beaulieu hasn't figured out, and no reporter on the military beat nailed him on, is that using Beaulieu's suggested increase ammunition load and increasing his overall load into the 115 lb range, his feet are going to hurt even more.

Taylor ends his assessment with a stark comparison.

If anyone wants to see ill-equipped soldiers, perhaps the media should focus on the ragtag Afghan National Army, which we are supposedly committed to turn into a self-sustaining military force by 2011.

He generously avoided saying anything more about Beaulieu's complaints. Allow me.

The media outlets that thought Beaulieu's complaints were worth repeating outside the confines of the Canadian Forces chain of command have fallen into a trap. Soldiers bitch. It goes with the lifestyle. If anyone had taken the time to actually look into the facts, they might have found out that Beaulieu never once came to a point of exhausting the 100 rounds of ammunition he was carrying during any engagement.

I have no reason to suspect that Corporal Beaulieu is any kind of problem to his unit, but given the attrition rate in the infantry, promotion can be fairly steady for those who earn it. When I saw that he was still a corporal after 11 years service I wondered why.

Khalid blames Canadian troops.

There is an awful lot missing from this story. In fact, too much.

Concerns that the Taliban are changing tactics grew today after another brutal bombing in southern Afghanistan, and the local governor suggested the bloodbath could have been avoided had Canadian troops heeded Afghan government warnings.

A suicide bomber blew up his car next to a Canadian convoy patrolling near the Afghan-Pakistan border Monday afternoon, killing 38 Afghans, wounding dozens more and injuring four Canadian soldiers.

The blast in a busy market area in Spin Boldak came one day after the worst explosion in Afghan history – more than 100 people are believed killed in the suicide attack at a dog-fighting festival on the outskirts of Kandahar city.

Set aside any feelings you may have about the "mission" for a moment. This is about the rights and wrongs on the ground, after which you might find more reasons to question what is going on.

Kandahar Gov. Asadullah Khalid said he tried to warn the police commander away from Sunday's event, much like he warned Canadians away from Spin Boldak on Monday.

"We informed the Canadian Forces to avoid patrolling the border areas because our intelligence units had information that suicide attackers were in the areas and wanted to target Canadian or government forces," Khalid said.

"Despite informing the Canadians, they went to those areas anyway."

First, I wouldn't trust Asadullah Khalid as far as I could throw him. While he may be marginally better than his predecessor, Gul Agha Sherzai, he is far from a clean player.

Secondly, while I have no doubt Khalid has intelligence units, there is surely a reason Canadian field intelligence isn't using his information. Either they believe Khalid is providing inaccurate information or they don't trust him.

I'm going with the latter.

The fact that a Canadian patrol went to Spin Boldak shouldn't be interpreted as a surprize. The Canadian ISAF force mans a forward operating base there. And Spin Boldak is a critical tactical choke-point.

Located on the border with Pakistan (Durand Line) it is a major port of entry on the Afghanistan side of the Toba Kakar mountains. It is a crucial trade route between Afghanistan and Pakistan and a main supply route (MSR) through which ground transport resupplies NATO forces in southern Afghanistan.

It is also an infiltration point for Taliban and other similar groups harbouring in Pakistan's tribal areas to the north of Balochistan.

Since there is little to stop the movement of insurgent fighters into Chaman, Pakistan, just across the border from Spin Boldak, keeping Spin Boldak defended is essential if the vital supply route is to remain open.

The presence, therefore, of Canadian troops in Spin Boldak shouldn't be viewed as unusual.

Unless there has been a major change, the MSR runs right through the middle of the town of Spin Boldak. There is also a large UN world food operation which has attracted thousands of Afghani refugees who have set up camps on both sides of the road. The location of the "market area" which took the suicide attack is a question mark. There is more than one.

That Khalid is suggesting that Canadian troops should stay away when it is their job to patrol that area of the Afghan-Pak border is highly suspicious. Why would they do that? By staying away they would risk losing Spin Boldak to insurgents and then have to fight to regain it.

Khalid's statement suggests that the presence of Canadian troops caused the deaths of 38 Afghanis. That is a disaster but hardly one which can be laid at the feet of the Canadian Forces. That convoy was where it was supposed to be, doing the job it was supposed to do. From everything available in open-access reports Canadian troops didn't fire a shot.

If Asadullah Khalid feels that it is operationally sound to allow insurgents to gain a secure foothold in Spin Boldak then perhaps he has a point. Perhaps the answer is to withdraw NATO forces altogether and let Khalid handle the situation himself.

And since Khalid seems to know where insurgents are going to show up, there may be more to Asadullah Khalid than that of a disgruntled provincial governor.

As I said, there is too much missing from this story and I don't trust Asadullah Khalid.

H/T liberal catnip and reader Cat.

Afghanistan until 2011? Fat chance.

The Harper Conservatives, having placed a motion before Parliament which would extend the Afghanistan mission in Kandahar, may well turn out to be a back-breaker for the Canadian Forces.

Keep in mind that the current mission is already an extension which was approved by Parliament on 17 May 2006. At that time, the mission in its current format was to end in February 2009. The crystal-ballers at NDHQ and the PMO had convinced themselves that three years would be sufficient time to stabilize the area.

Within weeks of that decision the landscape changed and, instead of being able to establish control, an insurgency in southern Afghanistan created a chaotic situation which required escalation and the inclusion of main battle tanks just to provide force protection for patrols. This winter, instead of the various elements of the insurgency withdrawing until the spring, they maintained enough pressure to suggest that things aren't improving in any significant way. In short, we're not winning in Afghanistan, partly because we have not been able to define what a "win" really is.

A great deal of the problem is Harper himself. This is not a man passionate about Afghanistan at all. The truth is, Harper's passion is himself and how he is portrayed and viewed by others. Afghanistan is merely a conduit for his pursuit of glory. Harper never speaks in real terms about what is being or should be accomplished in Afghanistan; he speaks in platitudes. If it wasn't Afghanistan it would be someplace else. His real interest is in having the Canadian Forces deployed on an expeditionary combat mission in an effort to portray Canada as something much tougher than the diplomatic honest broker which could bring factions together and not be accused of taking a side.

Harper wants to take a side and, despite his recent attempt to divorce himself from the Bill Kristol driven Bush administration, it is the romantic attraction he holds for his conservative American brethren which is motivating him. Harper is looking for personal validation from the conservative movement outside this country. If that movement was fighting armed penguins in Antarctica, Harper would have Canadian troops there claiming that they are attempting to improve life and spread Canadian values. His interest is in being seen as "tough" and being viewed by the US conservative movement as a full member of the "war club" expanding on what he views as a glorious history of Canadian warfare. From Hansard, January 29, 2003.

In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass. The government will join, notwithstanding its failure to prepare, its neglect in co-operating with its allies, or its inability to contribute. In the end it will join out of the necessity created by a pattern of uncertainty and indecision. It will not join as a leader but unnoticed at the back of the parade.

This is wrong. It is not fitting with the greatness of our history or with our standing as a nation. We need to be standing through tough times and taking tough decisions.

We in the Canadian Alliance will continue to take tough public positions and urge the necessary military preparations that make the avoidance of war possible. I can only urge and pray that our government will do the same.

Notwithstanding that not joining the Bush initiated war in Iraq was a tough decision in itself. But notice the language. To Harper the most important thing at stake was not the definition of the problem with Iraq, but our position in the parade.

When the Canadian government did not commit to Bush's coalition, particularly after Bush announced that the goal of any invasion was not compliance with UN weapons inspections but regime change, Harper went into full pout and vented in the Wall Street Journal. In that letter he engaged in blatant falsehoods to portray himself as tough, unwavering and willing to accept anything Bush fed him. Apart from opening his diatribe with the hyperbolic statement that Canada was skipping out on a world war, he once again made it clear what his real problem was.

Modern Canada was forged in large part by war -- not because it was easy but because it was right. In the great wars of the last century -- against authoritarianism, fascism, and communism -- Canada did not merely stand with the Americans, more often than not we led the way.

Again, it is the position in the parade which most concerns him. The location and raison d'etre were secondary. Harper was and still is interested in one thing: glory.

The motion to extend the Afghanistan mission to 2011 has the potential, if something doesn't change quickly, to turn into a disaster for the Canadian Forces.

Recently the Conservatives told NDHQ that the cost of the Afghanistan mission would have to come out of the existing defence budget. That has never been the way Canada dealt with combat missions in the past. Such operations have always been funded by cabinet as an exception to DND estimates. What that means is that whatever happens, and we have the past three years as an example, in order to adapt to any extraordinary requirements, normal operations and maintenance will suffer as funding is shifted to meet the requirements of the Afghanistan deployment.

Attrition in the combat arms occupations of the Canadian Forces, particularly the infantry, has always been high. Since Afghanistan however, the attrition rate to voluntary release has risen significantly. The stop-gap method employed by NDHQ has been to re-role recruits from the other services. When that was announced in October 2006, the immediate effect was to rob other elements of the Canadian Forces of vitally needed personnel. And that act too caused increased attrition.

Other units have gone through a roller coaster of personnel changes which affect their operational integrity. As an example, in 2006, the Health Services Support Unit, a detachment of medical personnel from 1 Field Ambulance returned from Afghanistan and the bulk of them proceeded straight to the release centre having opted for voluntary release. That kind of activity has an effect across the Canadian Forces which impacts the ability of other units to be able to perform. In recent months there has been a mad scramble to gather together medical personnel by robbing them from various commands which are already having difficulty finding enough people to keep ships at sea and clinics sufficiently manned.

The promise by former Minister of National Defence, Gordon O'Connor, that rotations for personnel to Afghanistan be limited to one deployment is now consigned to the trash heap. An extension of three more years will most certainly see infantry and armoured units making a second or third rotation. In fact, that is already happening as 2 PPCLI once again prepares for an upcoming deployment. Infantry companies, artillery detachments and field engineering sections are so badly understrength that over 550 of the 2500 troop task force will be made up of army reservists filling empty regular force positions.

Most people are probably unaware of the fact that a six-month rotation to Afghanistan involves a great deal more absence from family than the deployment itself. The training required to get troops ready for such a mission involves anywhere from a year to eighteen months of preparation, most of it in the field and away from garrison and home. As people move into 2nd and 3rd rotations, they can expect to find themselves in a constant train/roto/train pattern with little respite.

Something that seems to escape most people is 2010. The extension of the Afghanistan mission at it's current strength is going to further tax the Canadian Forces when the Vancouver Olympic commitment has to be executed. The Canadian Forces will have a huge security operation requiring large chunks of both regular combat arms personnel and special operations troops. That kind of contingency operation is difficult to mount and man at the best of times, but to do it with troops which have recently rotated out of Afghanistan will serve only to create greater levels of dissatisfaction as troops are pulled away from home and families.

There is a growing level of frustration among elements of the Canadian Forces which are not involved in the direct Afghanistan mission. Many complain that the entire focus of the Canadian Forces and the government is on that mission alone and comes at the expense of operations and training in other areas. The navy had to hold its ground against a defence headquarters which had shifted funds but expected the navy to continue with sovereignty patrols. When the navy pointed out that they had no money to support such normal operations the minister had to go to Treasury Board for additional emergency funding just to keep the navy running.

The Canadian Forces are under extreme pressure now. The continuation of the Afghanistan commitment into 2011 stands to cause a collapse of the CF and render them unable to respond to other unexpected contingencies. And the question still remains: What exactly are we out to accomplish? If the mission is simply Harper looking for a position in the parade, he may well find himself out there with a crippled armed forces of his own making.

Update: This article, surprisingly, from the National Post is worth reading.

Harper: The cheque is in the mail, (and other even less savory promises)

So Harper, gushing all over the Manley Report, ( Didn't we he do a lovely job on that!), tells us that he is pretty firm on the idea that Canadian expeditionary forces in Afghanistan need to have helicopters and surveillance drones as one of the conditions for keeping a Canadian combat force in Afghanistan.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper twice said yesterday that crucial new helicopters and drones for the troops in Afghanistan are "on order."

However, government officials later said the Prime Minister jumped the gun and that they are still trying to find the best way to obtain the equipment quickly.

Yes, Harper did say that. And he's a fucking liar.

One only has to go to this site to see what the state of materiel acquisition is in the Canadian Forces. ADM Mat is the "shopping authority" for the Canadian Forces. Everything "new" goes through them.

Let's take a look at the Medium-to-Heavy-Lift Helicopter Project. Do you see what I see?

At best there has been a no-bid contract offered to Boeing for 16 Chinook helicopters. They have not been ordered; no milestones have been established; and, no production schedule has been laid down.

Let's look at the surveillance drones.

Oh no.

There isn't even a project for the surveillance drones.

Harper is lying through is teeth and he's hoping you are too dumb to know it. The earliest a CH-47F Chinook heavy-lift helicopter could be delivered, if we placed a firm order tomorrow, would be in 2012.

Drones? Forget about them. The air force hasn't even decided who might be the best supplier.

Would you like a little juice with that toast?

The Netherlands has seven CH-47D Chinook heavy-lift helicopters. They had eight until one crashed. Where did they get them?

From us. Canada sold them to the Dutch.

Go back. Go back to the Mulroney Conservative government. They eliminated the Canadian Ch-47 Chinook heavy-lift helicopter fleet, for the money.

Now, if I may, allow me to show you how passionate Harper is about getting heavy-lift helicopters for the Canadian Forces. If the only barrier to saving the lives of our troops is the "worldwide demand" as Harper is stating, the problem is solved... in a heartbeat.

Boeing did an upgrade on the Chinook to make them last past 2030. In the process of upgrading, and building new ones, they ended up with a surfeit of the CH-47D (the same variant we used to own). Boeing has a program known as Cargo Helicopter Procurement and Support or CHAPS. Essentially it is a means of selling off used US Army CH-47D Chinooks and using the income to further upgrade other Chinooks. Upgrades to that model (the one we used to own) would come with it. Oh yeah, they're cheap to buy.

The CHAPS program provides for the sale of flight-ready CH-47D Chinooks under "Exchange and Sales" regulations. Under this program, select D-Model Chinooks from the U.S. Army fleet are available to military users and service organizations worldwide providing them affordable aircraft fully capable and easily up-gradable to include any future system provided in the CH-47D. CHAPS provides countries affordable alternatives to more advanced aircraft and enables users to support military operations, medical and disaster relief, search and rescue, fire fighting and civil support with reliable, cost-efficient helicopters.

You want heavy-lift helicopters? There they are. And what is Harper telling you? They're on order.

This is such a typical Conservative promise to upgrade the military. Smoke, mirrors and the man behind the curtain.

If Mulroney hadn't sold the Chinooks we had, this whole point would be moot. But we have to move past that and look at today.

Harper is not only lying, he is quite prepared to watch Canadian troops roll back and forth on roads over land-mines and IEDs rather than buy used helicopters to prevent them being killed - right now.

Can you feel the passion? Can you feel the fucking support?

And the plot thickens

Apparently the Conservatives are gathered in the bunker to work out their strategy. Well, not really. The best they can do now is run a quick tactic and hope no one really notices what a bunch of rank amateurs they really are.

Too late.

A Conservative MP said it's up to the prime minister to decide whether to fire his chief spokeswoman for making false statements about Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

The government sent out two designated speakers Saturday - one English, one French - who defended Prime Minister Stephen Harper's communications director Sandra Buckler.

Other Conservatives grumbled privately that her misleading remarks are the latest example of how a potential good-news story about the Afghan mission has been plunged into the bowels of public-relations hell.

Alberta MP Art Hanger was not one of the officially designated spokespeople Saturday.

He offered a curt and unenthusiastic reply when asked whether the prime minister should fire his communications director.

"You ask the prime minister that question," Hanger replied outside a Conservative caucus meeting.

"I'm not about to answer it."

This is in place of the official line provided by Peter Van Loan as he met reporters and suggested that everybody in the Conservative Party "misspeaks".

The truth is, the Conservatives are finding themselves in a bucket of shit of their own making. They work so hard at trying to present perfect optics that they can't see where they're going. If they had put as much effort into actually governing they might have turned into a fairly competent government. (That's not to suggest we would have liked much of it.)

In any case, there is a lot of pressure on Harper at the moment and the source of one demand for Buckler's head is not backing away.

But one telephone receiver was shaking with the sound of screaming as a livid Department of National Defence official vented his fury at the Prime Minister's Office.

The military official said his colleagues are incensed by the insinuation that they would be incompetent enough to withhold key details on a politically charged file from their civilian bosses.

He said the Canadian Forces should be receiving plaudits for having signed a detainee-transfer deal when Foreign Affairs failed to do so in 2005, and for having then immediately halted transfers when proof of torture was uncovered in November.

"Instead we've been wearing this," the military official said, shouting loudly enough to shake the phone receiver. He described the mood at DND as "outraged and frustrated."

And they're not going to let it drop. The word on the jetty is that unless Buckler receives the appropriate discipline (fired), there will be information made public which will show that the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan did not make the immediate decision to stop prisoner transfers in isolation. They will demonstrate that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the government department actually responsible for administering the prisoner transfer agreement with the government of Afghanistan, made the initial decision on November 5th, 2007 and advised the CF to stop handing over prisoners to the Afghan government.

Added thought: I don't believe for a minute Buckler will be fired, but if she is you can expect a soft-landing. If I were the ambassador to any developed country in the Canadian diplomatic chain, I'd be checking to see where I could get some packing boxes.

Fire in the hole!

Yes, there are details surrounding military operations which should not be released into the public domain. They are known as Essential Elements of Friendly Information (EEFI). The primary consideration, particularly in the Afghanistan situation, is the security of the troops operating in that country.

Prisoners and the treatment of prisoners does not fall under that category in any way, shape or form. In fact, there is a requirement to transmit information through a third party identifying exactly who has been captured.

But then, it is contingent upon the Canadian Forces and the Minister of National Defence to brief this country specifying exactly what type of information is now being withheld and under what authority. And, when information would become available.

Nothing more or less works.

Because if you refuse to tell us anything, we can make up anything we want to and you can't call us wrong.

I'm can see there is at least one brigadier-general who remembers that little lesson from Staff College. I certainly do. It was the double-edged sword that was mentioned when you put a clamp on information.

Example. This was in the Globe and Mail article:

In early June of last year, Ms. Jansen voiced her concerns to Brigadier-General A.J. Howard about fully severing two items that were the subject of an information request. “We can't just apply a blanket exemption based on speculations,” she wrote.

Brig.-Gen. Howard replied: “I will not address this any further by e-mail… If you would like to drop by my office so I can explain all of this to your satisfaction I would be happy for you to do so.

“My advice – tread carefully on both of these matters – there are very serious diplomatic and allied issues at stake here.”

It is unclear what the two items are – in the documents obtained by The Globe, they are fully severed.

You see? Now we are allowed to speculate and neither the CF nor DND can fight back. We won't know with absolute certainty that we're correct, but neither can the CF deny anything speculative because they sever too much.

So, what the G&M should be looking at is whether they asked anything about actions involving Canadian troops and Afghan National Army units which resulted in an exchange of fire with each other.

Has that happened? According to the rumour mill, it has.

The muzzle tightens

This should disturb a few people. In fact, it should disturb everyone.

Important information and interview requests directed to the Canadian military must now be cleared by senior bureaucrats who are under the direction of the prime minister's office, say defence sources.

The Privy Council Office directive applies to all matters of ``national importance," but is primarily focused on shaping information related to the war in Afghanistan.

The order was issued within the last two weeks and caps a determined effort by the Conservatives to assert more civilian control over the military, which has been seen in government circles to have too much influence in the conduct of the war.

There is lots of blame to go around for this but much of it must rest with General Rick Hillier for being too vocal and having been seen to be far too public a figure. No Chief of Defence Staff has ever been so much in the media as Hillier.

Notwithstanding that, however, there is something terribly wrong with information being crimped directly from the PMO.

"They want to turn the noise down," said one defence source.

A second official added that the military side was in the ``information business" while the political side was "in the marketing business."

Requests for comment from the Prime Minister's Office and Defence Minister Peter MacKay's office were not answered Monday.

A call to interview senior public affairs officers at the Defence Department was denied, but officials did release a two-line email suggesting the military has long "co-ordinated (communications) with both the minister's office and the Privy Council Office."

That's all true but only in degrees. The Canadian Forces public information system is intended to provide continuous updates on activities of the Canadian Forces on a day to day basis. Generally there is no discussion of policy. That is the purview of the government. While there has always been coordination between the minister's office and the PCO, it has always been on an information basis. Censorship has only been imposed when a matter of national security was involved and it was normally the CF telling the PCO what constituted national security.

Regulations governing members of the Canadian Forces when they speak with the media were enacted in 1998.

"There has been no change in policy," said the note.

But clamping down on information and interview requests wouldn't require a formal change in policy, only a political order.

Actually regulations have always existed. They have been and are vague enough to allow the politicians to establish any level of information filtering they wish. In this case, the filter is actually starting to look like a dam.

A retired colonel and expert in access-to-information said the military, the group that has been most effective in rallying support for Afghanistan and explaining the mission to Canadians, has been gagged.

"People should absolutely be concerned because these are our sons and daughters serving in Afghanistan," said Michel Drapeau, a lawyer and defence commentator.

"It leaves one with the impression of some sort of political manipulation or lack of transparency, where transparency should be absolutely necessary."

To expect an explanation of the mission from the Harperites would be a stretch of enormous proportions. In fact, because the politicians are in the "marketing" game, actual information will be left behind.

It is unclear how far along the chain of command the order extends and how much freedom the country's outspoken chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, has been given. He has raised the ire of Conservatives for his blunt public statements, which have sometimes contradicted his political masters.

No, no, no. That's not the actual truth. As long as Hillier was saying things which made the Conservatives look like tough-talking macho-men in business suits, Harper was quite happy to let Hillier run-off at the mouth. It wasn't until Hillier gave an honest assessment of how long it would actually take to have the Afghan National Army prepared to take over operations that the Conservatives went all wobbly.

Last summer, the military stopped releasing documents under access to information regarding Taliban prisoners. At the same, it has subjected almost all requests to an extra review process – over and above existing checks – in the name of national security, even if they don't relate to Afghanistan.

Over the last few months, routine information and interview requests by various media have either been answered by short, often non-sequitor e-mail responses or by silence.

All of which coincides with the arrival of Peter MacKay as Minister of National Defence. And weepy Peter watched what happened to his predecessor when the better informed of two principles - the minister and the CDS - was the CDS.

There is more to this than just Afghanistan. Given the Conservative moping over the fact that despite the tons of money they've poured into the Canadian Forces for equipment, some of which was not and is not wanted, the politicians have not reaped the reward of political "sizzle", there is an expectation that the taps are about to be turned off.

There have already been reports that the Harperites have told the Canadian Forces that the mission to Afghanistan will have to be covered from the fixed DND budget. There will be no further funding made available despite the fact that Afghanistan is not the kind of operation that would typically be funded out of annual estimates.

What will happen is that normal operations such as sovereignty patrols and training will take a hit. All three services will suffer at the expense of an Afghanistan mission that grows in cost.

There will be dissension and the Conservatives will need to work hard to quell it or keep a lid on the information. What the Conservatives have not managed to get their political heads around however, is that the Canadian Forces is a fairly close-knit organization. Despite minor internal rivalries, the culture is unique and insular. The impression of being "hosed" by politicians spreads quickly.

While the prime minister's office may be able to clamp down on official information and the senior officer corps of the CF, they can't stop the internal rumour-mill from operating. And if the official information dries up you can expect to hear information coming from the corporals and leading seamen... via a very reliable grapevine.