Canada's Rocket Man

I am currently reading (actually listening to - thank you Audible) "An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth: What Going to Space Taught Me about Ingenuity, Determination, and Being Prepared for Anything" by Chris Hadfield. 

It's a really good read listen - generally, I'm not much of a fan of non-fiction but this is one of the few exceptions. I was first taken with Chris (Yes, that's right, we are on a first-name basis. Thanks for asking.) when I saw him briefly on a television news show with Stephen Harper, answering questions from school children. Yeah, Harper, let's just say Chris didn't have that much competition. But still, there was something intriguing about him.

Then I saw this video ** and the rest, as they say, was history.  I was hooked.

 


Now, I must admit that I have never had any particular interest in space travel. Flying fighters, sure, but space travel, not so much.

But I have been wanting to read An Astronaut's Guide to Life for some time now and I am very happy that I have finally gotten around to it. It's an autobiography of sorts but more than just listening to Chris tell his life story (one of the many advantages to audio books - very rarely, the narrator is the actual author and, even more rarely, they make a good narrator), it really does impart a lot of life lessons.

In fact, a little over halfway through the book, I realized that Chris reminded me of someone else I deeply admire. Those who know, know that is high praise indeed. Different countries, for sure, but they had a fair bit in common, even if Lex never made it to space.

And because I aspire to be a giver, here is a nice in-depth (or as in-depth as you can get in 15 minutes) look at Chris and what he does.



Canada's Rocket Man, indeed.

And last, but certainly not least, there is an interesting story here about the Space Oddity video.

"Rules of Combat"

Making my way through my news feed on FaceBook (trying to put off at least half of what I should be doing), I came across a blog post by xbradtc concerning the second fatal accident at ATAC in the past few months (the first, of course, being Lex).

It was an interesting overview of just what that company does and why it's work is so  important. And a reminder that bad things sometimes do happen to good people. And good companies. Just because.

Having read that, I hopped around the blog a bit and landed on "Rules of Combat". Too numerous to count (okay, there's actually 126 - with many more in the Comments), they're also too good and too funny not to share.

Here are a few of my personal favourites:

1. Friendly fire – isn’t.

2. Recoilless rifles – aren’t.

3. Suppressive fires – won’t.

21. The important things are always simple.

22. The simple are always hard.

23. The easy way is always mined.

24. Teamwork is essential; it gives the enemy other people to shoot at.

25. Never draw fire; it irritates everyone around you.

26. If you are short of everything but the enemy, you are in the combat zone.

27. When you have secured the area, make sure the enemy knows it too.

28. Incoming fire has the right of way.

31. If the enemy is within range, so are you.

32. The only thing more accurate than incoming enemy fire is incoming friendly fire.

41. When both sides are convinced they’re about to lose, they’re both right.

44. Fortify your front; you’ll get your rear shot up.

52. Sniper’s motto: reach out and touch someone.

53. Killing for peace is like screwing for virginity.

56. It’s not the one with your name on it; it’s the one addressed “to whom it may concern”     you’ve got to think about.

67. One enemy soldier is never enough, but two is entirely too many.

71. The more a weapon costs, the farther you will have to send it away to be repaired.

72. The complexity of a weapon is inversely proportional to the IQ of the weapon’s operator.

76. For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.

89. The bursting radius of a hand grenade is always one foot greater than your jumping range.

96. If your flank march is going well, the enemy expects you to outflank him.

97. Density of fire increases proportionally to the curiousness of the target.

98. Odd objects attract fire – never lurk behind one.

99. Odd objects attract fire. You are odd.

105. Whenever you drop your equipment in a fire-fight, your ammo and grenades always fall the farthest away, and your canteen always lands at your feet.

112. What gets you promoted from one rank gets you killed in the next rank.

116. If you need an officer in a hurry take a nap.

119. If at first you don’t succeed, then bomb disposal probably isn’t for you.

120. Any ship can be a minesweeper . . . once.

121. Whenever you lose contact with the enemy, look behind you.

122. If you find yourself in front of your platoon they know something you don’t.

125. When accused, admit nothing, deny everything, and file counter-accusations

Now go read the rest.

The Watch

For many years,
This sailor stood the watch
While some of us were in our bunks at night, ...
This sailor stood the watch

While some of us were in school learning our trade,
This shipmate stood the watch
Before some of us were born into this world,
This shipmate stood the watch

In those years when the storm clouds of war were seen
Brewing on the horizon of history,
This shipmate stood the watch

Many times he would cast an eye ashore and see his family standing there,
Needing his guidance and help,
Needing that hand to hold during those hard times,
But he still stood the watch

He stood the watch for many years,
He stood the watch so that we, our families,
And our fellow countrymen could sleep soundly in safety,
Each and every night,
Knowing that a sailor stood the watch

Today we are here to say: "Shipmate . . . the watch stands relieved.
Relieved by those YOU have trained, guided, and lead
Shipmate you stand relieved . . . we have the watch!"

"Bo’sun . . . Standby to pipe the side . . . Neptunus Lex is going ashore!"

--H/T to Andy Niemyer - adopted from a traditional poem read at retirement ceremonies

Canada Day "In Action"

We all know that Canada is in Afghanistan as part of an UN-mandated, NATO-led mission with more than 60 other countries and international organizations, supposedly at the request of the Afghan government. That's old news.

But this year, July 1st marked the official pull-out of our combat troops, the day marking the end of combat operations for the Canadian military.

So I got to thinking - what was Canada Day like for those members of the Canadian military in theatre in Afghanistan this year?

Was July 1st a time of celebration? Reflection? Fond wishes? A passive goodbye party? Or was it just cause to celebrate as one of the few occasions they are allowed two beers and barbecued hamburgers?  Maybe all of the above?

For what it's worth, here's the view from Canada’s top commander on July 2nd as he bid farewell to combat troops in Kandahar.

Gen. Walt Natynczyk, in his final address before the formal end of operations, urged returning soldiers to watch their "battle buddies" and take care of each other as they begin the long journey back to regular life at home.

His remarks had a poignant ring for the soldiers of the 1st Battalion Royal 22e Regiment, as two of the four deaths in the last combat tour were suspected suicides.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Natynczyk, the chief of defence staff, also spoke to the uncertainty most soldiers feel about the end of the Kandahar mission and what will become of an army that has evolved and takes enormous pride in being a fighting force.

The world is an unpredictable place and the general noted how no one would have expected at this time last year that CF-18s would be involved in a NATO-led bombing campaign over Libya.

"Who knows what the future will bring," he said.

And, of course, Peter MacKay had to chime in too.

His comments were echoed by Defence Minister Peter MacKay, who told troops during a town hall outside of the new Canada House at Kandahar Airfield that the mission in Afghanistan is not done, but simply evolving.

"We don’t leave tasks undone in Canada. We finish what we start," he said, referring to the training mission in the country’s north where up to 950 soldiers and support staff have started to deploy.

Says he.

Well, it may supposedly* be the end of "combat" for Canada but it's far from the end of Afghanistan.

From now until March 2014, our military is to be deployed in a non-combat role to train the Afghan National Army. And we are to be centred in Kabul instead of the "always volatitile Kandahar province" (which seemed to be its official media name). Up to 950 military personnel will be provided to train the Afghan National Army and up to 45 civilian police officers will be deployed to train the Afghan National Police.

That's nice. But Afghanistan remains a volatile and challenging environment - have we made any real progress over the past ten years?

Our key achievements so far are said to include building and repairing 50 schools in Kandahar province, rehabilitating the Dahla Dam and its irrigation system, and contributing to the eradication of polio across Afghanistan. 

And along with international partners we have helped train and mentor about 50,000 Afghan troops. The Afghan National Police now numbers almost 116,000, more than the 2010 goal of 109,000 set by the Afghan government and by the International Security Assistance Force. And, last but not least, our civilian and military police mentors have helped train and guide over 2,800 police officers since 2008.

We're told that through this work, we have provided necessary funding to build police stations, pay police salaries and equip officers. And as a result, a growing number of Afghans in Kandahar province say they feel safer in their communities. God, I hope so after all this.

But hey, as good as that sounds, we best not forget to add to our list of "accomplishments", finding and detonating (intentionally or not) a hell of a lot of IEDs. And routing out a lot of Taliban, some of whom later returned to the roost. After all, we paid dearly for that particular chunk of work.

But now we're told that our "new" role in that war-torn country will build on the accomplishments of our mission over the past 10 years. Our objective, we are told, remains the same: to help build a more secure, stable and self-sufficient Afghanistan that is no longer a safe haven for terrorists.

To do that we will focus on four key areas:

•investing in the future of Afghan children and youth through development programming in education and health;

•advancing security, the rule of law and human rights, including through the provision of up to 950 trainers for Afghan security forces;
•promoting regional diplomacy; and

•helping deliver humanitarian assistance.

Funny, they say that hindsight is always 20/20.  And yet I'm not so sure about that at the moment.  Or perhaps we're just not far enough removed yet to develop that focus. Not I, anwyay.

Oh well, I'm glad it seems to be working out well for Prime Minitster Harper, anyway. /sarcasm off/

Forgive me I seem to be rambling. It's just that I probably am.

But I started this post wanting to wish a belated Happy Canada Day to our troops in Afghanistan, those soon on their way home, those just arriving to help pack things up and those who will remain behind to continue training the Afghan army, engage in development programming in education and health, promote regional diplomacy and help deliver humanitarian assistance. You know, what they said.

So, anyway, like Happy Canada Day, guys (and gals), eh.**

* I say "supposedly" because, call me crazy, but I just can't see how we can focus on the training or development work without engaging in security, aka combat.  I mean, isn't that how we got here in the first place?

** If I sound a bit ambivalent there at the last, it's probably because I am.  Not about wishing our troops a Happy Canada Day but about ... well, maybe it's kind of like how we speculate it might be for the troops, not sure if I'm feeling celebratory, reflective, or something else after writing this post. Perhaps a couple of beers coolers and a barbecued hamburger would help?

Blows My Mind

This video is freaking amazing. *



Lex posted it for the very low altitude barrel roll at 24 minutes that resulted in a knock it off and the team cancelling the rest of their schedule to return to Pensacola for further training. (See I almost sound like I know what I'm talking about!)

But to a ground hugger like me, the whole video was amazing, albeit a little too long.

* I would highly recommend you watch it full screen with a cup/mug/glass/bottle of your favourite beverage in front of you. And get comfy.

It's Baaack...

It seems almost anti-climatic to even comment on Bin Laden's capture (everybody who's anybody having already done so and a good many jokes having crossed the airways at his expense).  But, besides the almost guttural feeling of satisfaction that filled me when I realized the words I was reading were not a hoax, two things struck me about the event.

The first was that the Global War on Terror appears to have made a reappearance (for how long, who knows?) with Bin Landen's death.  I mean wasn't it known as the Overseas Contingency Operation for quite a while now?  And yet, right there, on the American TV news, just last night, they stood at 'Ground Zero' and talked about the GWOT. Who'd have thunk it?

The second thing that struck me (again watching American news on TV) was that after Bin Laden's body was taken to the USS Carl Vinson, it was washed and wrapped in a white sheet (as is the Muslin custom) before being thrown overboard. After all, Muslim tradition requires the dead to be buried within 24 hours.

The burial at sea largely followed widely accepted interpretations of Islamic law taking care not to anger the mainstream Muslim community, said Ebrahim Moosa, a professor of Islamic studies at Duke University in North Carolina.

Defense officials said the administration reached out to one other country to take the body for burial, but the country refused. Brennan said appealing to other countries would have exceeded the time frame Islamic custom requires, of burial within 24 hours of death.

And yet apparently some still weren't satisfied.

But some Islamic scholars and clerics were divided Monday over whether the sea burial was appropriate or an insult to Muslims. Several said bin Laden should have been buried on land in a simple grave. The body was washed in accordance with Islamic custom, placed in a white sheet, then put inside a weighted bag.

With only a small group of witnesses, a military officer read prepared religious remarks, which were translated into Arabic by a "native speaker," the official said. The body was placed on a board, tipped up and then "eased into the sea" from the carrier's lowest deck, the official said.

So here's what I don't get - if you've invested as much blood and treasure as the US has to track this guy down and then double tap him in the head, why on earth would you bother to cater to Muslim sensibilities? 

I don't  know, for me it's kind of a WTF moment ... at best, Bin Laden was a criminal the leader of a terrorist group bent on destroying "the West", at worst, he was ... words I choose not to use on my blog but you get the point, I'm sure.  You've just "invaded" his "home" and shot him in the face ... and now, you're concerned that his customs and traditions be followed?  Lest someome be offended?

Nope, no disconnect there.  None at all. 

I mean, if you capture and kill a nefarious criminal, a serial killer, who happens to be white, who shares my culture and (in name at least) my religious beliefs, I really can't see myself getting all that worked up about how his body is disposed of.  In fact, I might just have a few suggestions of my own ...

Does anyone still think this dude is actually going to anyone's version of heaven?  And, if they still do, given everything he's known to have done, why should we care what they think?  Wouldn't they have to be just as crazy evil as he was?

And if we're that concerned about offending people of that ilk, then why even bother to hunt Bin Laden down and kill him in the first place?  Don't you think those kind of people might just find those acts alone rather offensive?

* As an aside, I note there are a fair bit of conspiracy theories floating around out there about Bin Laden's death (or lack thereof).  That kind of surprised me until I stopped to think about it - which is when I realized it shouldn't surprise me at all.

I really tend not to a conspiracy theory sort of person in any way, shape or form but I must say some of their arguments do make a certain amount of sense.  I'm not suggesting for one monent that I'm on side with them, just that they're interesting.  Worthy of their own blog post, perhaps.  Not that I'm suggesting for one moment that they will actually get one, just that they might be worthy of one.  And such is life. Or death. Some days, we're not quite sure which.

An Oldie But A Goodie ...

What can I say? I always have enjoyed that one...

Yet Another 'Pittance of Time' ...

Yes, I realize you've seen it before.



As you no doubt will again.

... If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep though Poppies grow
In Flanders Fields.
- John McCrae

How Do You Define Disability?

For some reason I simply CANNOT embed the video but you really need to watch this CBS story about Capt. Scott Smiley. 

Not just another inspirational story of a wounded American soldier, it might just make you question your whole perception of what exactly disability is.  And isn't.

So go.  Promise me you will watch the whole thing. Please.

H/T to Lex

Guantanamo Confussion

Can you really blame me for being just a mite bit confussed here?

I mean, everybody knows Guantanamo Bay is a bad place, right?

A very bad place where very bad things happen to (almost) innocent people, right?

Which is why one of the things President Obama promised was to immediately close the place within 100 days his first year of taking office, giving those prisoners back their basic human rights that had so long been denied, right?

Wait, you mean it's still open?

Okay, but still, they must have did something about the situation between now and then, right?

Oh wait, now I remember. They declared that those poor innocent souls detained at Guantanamo Bay would no longer be called "enemy combatants". Because that would be just wrong. I mean, that is what they were called under the Bush administration. Enough said there.

The really strange part, though, was when the Obama administration argued that the President had the legal power to detain enemy combatants terror suspects at Gitmo. Without filing criminal charges. Sound familiar?

But in a much anticipated court filing, the Justice Department argued that the president has the authority to detain terrorism suspects there without criminal charges, much as the Bush administration had asserted. It provided a broad definition of those who can be held, which was not significantly different from the one used by the Bush administration.

The filing signaled that, as long as Guantánamo remains open, the new administration will aggressively defend its ability to hold some detainees there.

But don't worry. It won't be how Bush et al did it.

The Obama administration said it was relying on existing principles of the international law of war. A public statement indicated that the government was moving away from claims of expansive executive power often used by the Bush administration to justify Guantánamo.

The new administration took pains to try to point out that it was taking a different approach. It said the new definition “does not rely on the president’s authority as commander in chief” beyond the powers authorized by Congress. The filing, in Federal District Court in Washington, was meant to provide a definition of those detainees who can be held and bitterly disappointed critics of Guantánamo, who said it seemed to continue the policies they have criticized for more than seven years.

It was the latest example of the Obama administration’s taking ownership of Guantánamo, even after having announced it would close the prison, where 241 men remain.

And, besides, they must have their reasons, right?

Like, I don't know, maybe the place wasn't really that bad after all?

Some critics of Guantánamo said that Friday’s filing fitted a pattern of recent moves by the administration that seemed intended to undercut continued criticism of Guantánamo but did not make significant changes in detention policy.

They noted that after Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr visited the detention camp last month, he proclaimed it “well run.” They said they had been stung as well by a Pentagon report commissioned by the new administration that said last month that the detention camp on the naval base at Guantánamo Bay meets the humane-treatment requirements of the Geneva conventions.

Well, okay. Like whatever.

But they are most definitely still going to close the place and send everybody home. Or something like that, right?

Sure, but just one little itsy bitsy problem. Too bad about the 50 to 100 detainees who cannot be safely released, sent to other countries or tried in American courts. Which means they're going to go where exactly?

But don't fret, they will work it out. Somehow.

And at least in the meantime at least there won't be any more of those nasty "military commissions" Bush was so fond of using to try these ... what do we call them again ... detainees, right?

Okay then, so much for that.

The ultimate cliche might just be to note that life is often much, much harder than it looks. As is governing. So, let's cut the man (and his administration) a little slack.

After all, these are to be new and improved "military commissions" which will "begin to restore the Commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law". Hard to argue with that now, isn't it?

And as wrong as Gitmo may well have been in the first place, no one is saying there are any easy answers as to what to do with the detainees now.

So, yeah, I'm okay with all that.

Kind of. Sort of. For the most part. In a wait and see kind of way.

But here's what I really don't get:

The Obama administration would quickly send home six Algerians held at the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but for one problem: The men don't want to go. Given the choice between repatriation and incarceration, the men choose Gitmo, according to their lawyers.

Say what?! They actually want to stay? In Gitmo? For real?!

Yeah. Apparently they're not too anxious to return home to Algeria because they're afraid of either government torture or becoming the target of terrorist groups.

Which, okay, fair enough. After all, we civilized countries don't deport people to countries where they have a legitimate fear of torture or death.

And although I tend to think of these protections as applying more to innocent and legitimate refugees ... as opposed to, you know, terrorists ... it would be true that you and I can't easily judge exactly who is what at the moment so .... yeah, it probably makes sense that they shouldn't be returned home unless the US can ensure that there is "real substance" behind the diplomatic assurances that detainees repatriated to Algeria will be treated humanely.

Which is all fine and good.

But still. It makes me wonder ... if they're that willing to fight to stay right where they are because they fear torture or some other risk to their lives if they return home, I can only presume that means that, relatively speaking at least, Gitmo isn't really that bad of a place.

I mean, compared to Algeria. At least not anymore.

Right?

'In a Company of Heroes'

As I mentioned, my brother was down this past week for a visit.

He's always putting me on to movies I've missed, usually bringing 2 or 3 from his massive collection down with him for us to watch. Often buying me one he thinks I particularly would like or need to have.

This time, he didn't bring any movies with him. Unless you count the entire six seasons of Get Smart on DVD which he bought down here and now brings back on every visit. He only watches it down here. It's kind of cool, reliving a piece of your childhood that way.

But the first night he was here, he asked if I had ever watched "Band of Brothers" on HBO. No, I hadn't but I had often seen it in the Guide. I really should watch it, he said, it was excellent. The following morning what was on TV but the entire Band of Brothers series, starting with the very first episode.

He convinced me that I could run my few errands the following day, that today this is what we would do. Unfortunately, the phone kept ringing. Then a friend came to the door. I kept returning to the show but after a few hours, I commented that although I was still following the story I had missed enough to still not really know who all the characters were.

Shortly thereafter, I apparently having missed something my brother considered significant, something that I had to see so I could understand and appreciate something that would come later, he proclaimed that he was hungry. We should turn off the TV and go out for lunch. No, really. That's what we should do.

I was a little perturbed. After all, he was the one who had wanted me to watch this, convinced me to give up the day for it and then here I was being essentially told that I couldn't watch the rest of it.

But we went out for lunch. And later, while I ran some errands he stopped in at the Future Shop. Nothing new there, it's one of his favourite places to browse, so I didn't think much of it. When we returned home, he handed me the DVD set of Band of Brothers. "Gee, thanks, but you didn't have to do that." "I know but now you will be able to watch the whole thing."

We started with where we had left off and made it through Part VI before he left, leaving me with four parts left to watch. But as I listened to talk about D-Day, Normandy and the assault on the beaches that would be going on at the same time as Easy Company went about their mission, I turned to my brother and commented on the Canadians at Juno Beach.

And I must admit that it was nice to finally (for once) have knowledge of something that he was a little more fuzzy on - he wasn't entirely sure of the Canadian soldiers involvement in D-Day.

I was.

It was about 2:30 p.m. when Westhaver, Westie to his buddies, landed on Juno Beach for an allied invasion that was the beginning of the end for the German forces pummelling Europe.

He’d joined the army in May 1942, flew to England in August of that year and trained for six or seven months to become a wireless operator with the Army Signal Corps. He and his fellow servicemen spent months more practising for battle on the beaches of Wales, "almost like a rehearsal for a show."

But no amount of training prepared the young men, many just 21 or 22, for what they encountered on that strip of Normandy sand.

WADING THROUGH BODIES

Sailing over the English Channel to get there, Westhaver huddled with British commandoes, who sharpened their knives for battle.

"But there wasn’t much talk," he says. "I think they were all like me because we had never been in action before so we didn’t really know what to expect."

The then-21-year-old spent his first few moments of action wading through bodies.

"The water was up around my shoulders . . . and here the water was full of dead Canadians floating by with their heads down and you could see Canada on their shoulder. . . . So I had to push these guys out of the way to get into the beach," he recalls.

"There were dead bodies everywhere, laying on the beach and everything. So I’m running up the beach — and I’ve thought about this many times — all of a sudden I see an airplane coming.

"Now I used to build airplanes when I was a kid, I was always interested in airplanes. This airplane had two engines, two motors and all of a sudden sparks started coming out of the wings and I’m looking at it . . . coming at me. And all of a sudden it dawned on me, ‘He’s firing at us.’

"This was a German, this was a German airplane so . . . there was a hole there and I ran and jumped in the hole. I landed on top of a dead Canadian."

He shakes his head, but like he did that day, he keeps going.

"As soon as the aircraft went over you could hear the guns going . . . but it was a very confusing day because there were bullets flying everywhere. . . . You’d hear them over your head and the Canadian Navy, they were firing over our heads into the German lines . . . and you could hear these great big shells going over your head — whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa — and I used to think, ‘Oh my God, let’s hope that they keep going.’ "

This dangerous chaos is what D-Day veterans of many stripes have described over the years.

But fewer of them are around these days to talk about the horror and heroism.

Nova Scotia vets Earl Gouchie and Irving Cromwell, now gone, lived the horror then and — off and on — for the remainder of their days.

On the eve of the 60th anniversary of D-Day six years ago, Gouchie, a former sniper, could still smell the blood of his fallen comrades, hear the rat-a-tat-tat of machine-gun fire and feel the artillery shells groan.

Cromwell, his hand still trembling from the "shell shock" of a long gone war, recalled a fear frozen in time — as if he still stood on that beach, on that day, as the bombs and soldiers fell.

It's hard to comprehend, to get your head around, what it must have been like for those young men, for those boys. In fact, I think it's a lot easier not to even try.

And yet, be that as it may, we owe them at least that much, don't you think?

I'm going back to watch some more of Band of Brothers. It's the least I could do.

A 'Long Telegram' From a Little to the Left

Hey, how cool is this ... I have my very first guest post?!

A real world friend of mine (yeah, I know, how astonishing is that?) ... actually, a close friend who is one of my few regular blog readers, sent me a private email with his thoughts on the "Passing Me By" post, below. I suggested that he place them in the comments section, but, alas, they were a little too long - much more deserving of their own post.

Now Jimmy James and I have been good friends for many a year and I suspect he fears that I have slipped somewhat to the right in some of my thinking over the past few years. Perhaps he is right. Or not. At any rate, his comments post speaks for itself.

With no further ado, I give you ...

With all due respect to those brave men and women of the Canadian Forces who are still in-theatre and to those unfortunate souls soon to join the dead, it might be a good idea to ask why the Canadian Forces are in Afghanistan in the first place ?? How did we get sucked into an American war ?? What specific Canadian national security interest is at stake in Afghanistan ?? What was the original mission we were tasked by the Americans to undertake ?? Has the nature of the Canadian Forces mission changed since their arrival, and if so, why ?? If the mission has changed, why did the mission change ?? Are the Canadian Forces well equipped to perform their "new" mission ?? When we pull-out at the end of 2011, what will they have died for ??

Here are a few of my own answers to those most fundamental questions:

First of all, I want to go on record as saying that I totally support the brave young men and women in the Canadian Forces 110 percent!! They answer the call to duty without hesitation and (aside from the Somalia Affair), they do an outstanding world-class job wherever they go. But I do not support the specific mission Canadian troops were asked to undertake in Afghanistan beginning in February 2006, nor do I support the decision of the politicians who sent them there.

There is a very real difference between supporting, in the broadest sense, Canadian troops serving at home or abroad, and supporting this specific mission they have been called upon to undertake in Afghanistan. Wars can sometimes achieve important national objectives but, sadly, this is not the case as it relates to Canada's current role in Afghanistan. Those who may argue that if you don't support the mission, you don't really support the troops. I would respond by saying that argument is based on a false choice, most likely designed to coerce the Canadian people into supporting this specific mission.

In my opinion, the only reason Canadian troops were sent to Afghanistan by Paul Martin in February 2006 was to appease the Americans, who were very angry when PM Chrétien politely declined the American request to send Canadian Forces to Iraq in 2003. I strongly believe that Chrétien's decision was the correct decision -- why should Canadian soldiers be sent to Afghanistan to fight (and to die) in an "American" war which has little to do with Canada's national security interests ??

When Paul Martin agreed to send Canadian troops to Afghanistan in February 2006, the mission was very clearly defined as "humanitarian assistance & reconstruction," with only a minor combat role for operational security on the ground. Within weeks of their arrival, however, Canadian troops were savagely attacked by the Taliban and their supporters. As a result, the Canadian mission as it was originally conceived, was thrown into a cocked hat. Canadian troops were compelled by circumstance to shift their entire strategy to offensive military operations against the Taliban. By the Summer of 2006, the Canadian death-toll very gradually started to rise. Also, the original mission-statement called for a Canadian presence lasting two-years at the most. But once Stephen Harper was elected in January 2007, the Conservative government has decided to extend the mission beyond it's original two-year mandate.

From my perspective, there is one inescapable analogy between this war and the US war in Vietnam: brave young Canadian men and women in uniform are being sent to the other side of the world by our political leaders to serve, to fight (and to die) in the wrong war, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. I think it is a tragedy of epic proportions that our Canadian Armed Forces are fighting a war in Afghanistan which they can never win -- no one can "win" this kind of war. Afghanistan has a very long history of fighting and eventually defeating every foreign power that ever set foot in their country (the Mongols, the Brits, the Russians, the Americans, and now the Canadians). Not even Alexander The Great could defeat the warrior-tribes of Afghanistan -- sure, the Afghani's take a royal ass-kicking but they keep on ticking, and they never give up. NEVER...

I hope my words don't upset you -- I can assure you that is not my intent. I am simply sharing my point of view on this very important subject. Call me whatever pejorative epithet you wish to use, but I strongly feel that it's criminal for our political leaders to send our young men and women into harm's way unless they have a clearly-defined mission which is achievable, and Canada's national security interests are directly threatened. This is clearly not the case in Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan is actually the American's fight, not ours, and the only reason Canadian troops were sent to Afghanistan in the first place was to "make-nice" with George W. Bush after we angered him by not sending our troops to Iraq in 2003. Plus, it was never supposed to be a combat mission; it was designed to be a mission of "humanitarian assistance and reconstruction."

It is a "false choice" and intellectually dishonest for others to say, "if you don't support the mission, you don't support the troops." Pshaw!! The opposite is true -- it is precisely because I DO support the Canadian Armed Forces one-hundred percent that I oppose sending them on a combat mission which has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, and which does not directly affect Canada's national security interests. Coalition casualties have increased dramatically over the past several years, and the Taliban are once again massing on the outskirts of the Capital of Kabul. Sounds kinda like the North Vietnamese Army as they gradually advanced toward Saigon in 1973-74. The US could not possibly win the war in Vietnam, no matter how many American soldiers they sent or how many tons of bombs they dropped. Over 58,000 US Service Personnel died in that war, and for what? Because Lyndon Johnson and the Joint Chiefs of Staff mistakenly believed that a Communist takeover in South Vietnam would threaten US national security interests all over the world. Well, in the Spring of 1975 the Communist North Vietnamese Army did take over South Vietnam, and drove the Americans out. And less that 25-years later, the US and Vietnam re-established diplomatic relations, and Vietnam is a great tourist destination for American travellers.

It is painful in the extreme for the families of those brave Canadian men and women who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in Afghanistan to even consider the possibility that their loved ones may have died in vein. But that is the case, and I hold our political leaders responsible for the four-plus years of needless Canadian deaths in Afghanistan we have born witness to. Ask yourself the fundamental questions outlined above, and then read just a few paragraphs about the history, the people, and the political culture of Afghanistan on Wikipedia. When we look back twenty years from now on Canada's mission in Afghanistan, will the Canadian people regard it as a "Just War" that was worth fighting, or as a colossal strategic blunder ?? It may change your thinking on whether this mission has been worth the sacrifice in blood and treasure or not...

Peace & Love,

Jimmy James

Passing Me By ...

I haven't been blogging anywhere near as much as usual for quite a while now. And that's a problem for me on various levels.

Not the least of which is the fact that I still find stuff I want to blog about. And that stuff tends to pile up on my computer desk. Until, current events no longer being current, it gets dumped (with no small amount of guilt) into the recycle bin.

For example, the 100th anniversary of Canada's Navy. Halifax, being more or less a Navy town, it has special significance here.



But before I got my sorry butt around to commenting on that, the Canadian Navy experienced another significant first, this one much less happy.

Petty Officer 2nd Class Craig Blake was the 143rd member of the Canadian military to be killed in Afghanistan, but the first sailor. The navy clearance diver, who was based in Halifax, was sent to Afghanistan as an explosive ordnance disposal operator. And it was after disarming an improvised explosive device that he was, ironically enough, killed by an IED while walking back to camp.

Being based in Halifax, Petty Officer Blake returned here yesterday to have his ashes scattered in the Atlantic. The husband and father of two boys was only one week away from his 38th birthday.

But wait, before I could even get to that, yet another Canadian soldier was killed in Afghanistan. 24-year-old Pte. Kevin McKay. # 144.

Which makes me wonder ... is it better if I write about it? Or if I don't?

STOKED!

Thank goodness for my handy dandy site meter!

Mulling through it this evening I noticed that someone had spent a fair bit of time and quite a few page views on Free Falling for just coming off a Google image search.

Curious, I clicked on their entry page. And reminisced through this post.

Reminisced to the point that I clicked back over to Kaboom.

Not sure exactly why I went there, perhaps just to hear the Killers once again. But, boy, was I glad I did!

Did you know that Lt G Capt G Matt is blogging again?!

Better even than that (hard to imagine, I know) .... drum roll please ... KABOOM (the book) is out.

Finished. Published. Ready to rock and roll. And, of course, read.

So yeah, if case you couldn't tell, I'm stoked!

Because even though I just ordered (and am awaiting the arrival of) six books from Amazon, now I have another one I need.


As in. I. Need. It. Now. Can't. Wait.

Must. Find/ Money. Tout suite.

Update: If you're not familiar with Kaboom and are wondering what all the fuss is about, this is your required reading. Because it starts at the beginning of his deployment. No, you can't start with what he's written today (he's no longer in the military) and work backwards. That simply will never do. And don't think you can simply sneak off and do that and I'll never know the difference. I got my eyes on you.

On 'Why We Fight'

At the continued urging of a close friend, I watched the documentary film "Why We Fight" on DVD last night.

The film over, I wondered idly why my friend was so anxious to have me view it. After all, it hadn't really told me much of anything I didn't already (think I) know.

There was that whole "military industrial complex" thing (which, from what I can tell, the mere mention of which can cause many on both sides of the political spectrum to see red and rant and rave on either how evil it is or what a pile a crap the whole concept is, take your pick). Although apparently more correctly-titled, from the man who first coined the phrase, the military-industrial-congressional complex.

Warnings about letting "the tail wag the dog", how the system takes on a life on its own; not so much that it goes "looking for a war" but how quick can it can be to respond and push policy in that direction if the chance presents itself.

Warnings about a congressional system in which the members have to bring home the pork the bacon, making what should be a decision about military spending essentially one about jobs for constituents. How it is often (always?) just about the big money involved. And warnings about behind-the-scenes think tanks pushing policy ... in the direction that they think it should go, I suppose.

I must say that I did find the story of Eisenhower's life quite interesting. Confessing that knowing that there was both a General Eisenhower and a President Eisenhower at some time in the United States' history being roughly the extent of my knowledge on that subject. He sounds life a very interesting man, the kind I would love to sit down and chat with over a cup of tea.

The US invasion of Iraq was pretty much pillaged in the film. But since I never was in favour of that move, never felt that the intelligence on whether or not there were actually weapons of mass destruction present was strong enough to justify that action, there wasn't much of anything new for me there either.

Although I must admit that good points were made as to how the public (and the politicians, too, to an extent, I imagine) have been duped into thinking that so-called smart weapons are so much smarter, so much more accurate than they actually are.

Making the idea of waging a particular war perhaps a little more palatable, a little more acceptable with the thinking that we can strike with supposed precision and leave the innocent civilians unscathed. On which point, one might want to check with the citizens of both Iraq and Afghanistan.

But what I found most interesting about the film was buried in the "Special Features" section. Two interviews given by the film's producer, Eugene Jarkecki; one with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show and one on Charlie Rose.

I appreciated Jarecki's even-handedness, how he gently corrected the erroneous thinking of both interviewers, explicitly stating he was not about conspiracy theories and explaining that the point of the film was not about any particular party or any particular President. In fact, it wasn't even about the neo-cons (gasp). [My apologies - but it has now become my signature to add the appropriate gasp following every use of the dreaded word ... neo-cons.]

That the "enemy within the gates", so to speak (my terminology, not his) is a necessary system that has taken on a life of it's own. And how each and every one of us (he was, of course, speaking of and to the United States but it is unarguable that the point applies to every industrialized, developed country in today's world) has the responsibility and the duty to be aware and on guard.

To be on guard to ensure that the tail is not wagging the dog. To ensure that we hold our politicians accountable and that policy decisions are made by those that are accountable (as is so often, unfortunately, not the case in the world today). And to ensure that America, a country built on the principles of a republic, does not become an empire. Which is what President Eisenhower was warning against.

Good stuff. Valid points. So true.

As, unlike the Olympics are for the vast majority of us and contrary to what often appears to be public opinion, democracy?

Most definitely. Not. A. Spectator. Sport.

On another note, I found it interesting that an interview with Senator John McCain featured prominently in the film. Interesting because 90% of what Senator McCain had to say sounded to be in basic agreement with the words of President Eisenhower.

He spoke of the military/industrialist complex taking on a life of its own, of (if not actual corruption) a congressional system which allowed decisions to be made in very questionable ways and for very questionable reasons. How insidious it is. How we had to be aware of and on guard against it.

Which I thought was interesting considering that he was the Republican candidate in the recent 2008 election; the one whom (if you believed some a lot of the hype) candidate Obama had to save the country from. Well, from him and Sarah Palin, of course. But that's a story best for another day.

All in all, I'm glad I watched the film. Both for the (Eisenhower) history I learned and for the musings of Jarecki. Two interesting men with very valid points to make.

And in exchange for my watching "Why We Fight", my friend has agreed to read Palin's book, "Going Rogue".

Who knows, perhaps, he too will write a review for us?

Proud

I can honestly say that I am proud of the Canadian military (I can just hear the gasp from some of my faithful readers). Whether it is in their UN peacekeeping work (note the rumblings of discontent from other faithful readers), in Afghanistan or now, in Haiti.

I am proud of the crew of the HMCS Athabaskan, who after a six-day journey dug in on Tuesday in Laogane, a small city just west of the capital, Port-au-Prince, to help by setting up medical tents and providing badly-needed medical supplies and medical care with insufficient equipment.

Sailors from the Athabaskan worked like dogs in the hot sun around the clinic all day, pitching in to set up shelters for patients to escape the heat, providing security, carrying patients and helping translate for the unilingual medical volunteers. They even built a shower so the medical staff could bathe in privacy. And, in typical Canadian style, promised to bring them a cooler of beer from the ship. Then, too cap it off they delivered a baby Tuesday night.

I am equally proud of the crew from HMCS Halifax, who cleared a road and an airstrip and started to deliver supplies in Jecmal, on the south coast of Haiti.

CANADIAN volunteers who opened a medical clinic in a field next to a ruined school on Wednesday and treated several hundred desperate patients in the blazing heat, cleaning infected wounds and mending fractures that have gone eight days without care.

Unlike several other emergency medical clinics in Leogane, where doctors are forced to do amputations without anesthetic, the Canadians have personnel capable of doing nerve block anesthesia so terribly wounded Haitians were treated with far less pain.

But they haven't stopped there.

CANADIAN SAILORS and soldiers have established a beachhead of hope in the port city of Jacmel, cleaning up, delivering aid, medical care and even toys, and laying the groundwork for a more ambitious effort in the weeks ahead.

Sailors from HMCS Halifax and members of DART, the military’s Disaster Assistance Response Team, have taken over the concrete pier and waterfront lot in the shadow of the ruined town, where lovely French colonial buildings have fallen to rubble.

They have cleared streets of debris, dug latrines for Haitians living in a new shantytown, delivered medical care in unbelievably chaotic conditions and extended a runway and are working to establish a proper medical clinic.

On the first day ashore, three sailors worked so hard clearing concrete rubble with their hands that they collapsed from heatstroke.

I am proud of the 200-plus Canada’s Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) which received the call 12 hours after the quake and immediately deployed to Port-au-Prince with a reconnaissance crew . And precious little idea what they would be in for when they landed.

I am proud of Quebec's Vandoos, which complemented the 500 soldiers aboard the Halifax and the Athabascan. The Vandoos are scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan next December, and many of the troops preparing to leave for Haiti are volunteers who've just returned from the war. This new contingent, tired but happy to be helping, brings along engineering units, and almost enough medical staff and supplies to man a field hospital. In the blistering heat Thursday afternoon, they were sweeping the grounds to get ready for the medical clinic that DART will set up.

I am proud that Hercules cargo aircraft that are flying in supplies and personnel, even though the airstrip isn't really big enough for the aircraft. When chainsaws used to cut back trees got fouled by palm wood, the sailors ended up cutting them with bowsaws. Perhaps that is why they're now known to the locals as the Canadian lumberjacks.

And apparently I'm not the only one proud of the quick response of the Canadian Forces.

IN THE IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH of the disastrous earthquake in Haiti, the Canadian Forces have deservedly earned themselves glowing praise and helped to inspire a sense of nationwide pride.

When they’ve been in need of it in the past, I’ve been the first one over the boards, dropping the gloves and pounding on their helmets, but in this instance I’m prepared to give credit where credit’s due, to both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defence Minister Peter MacKay. They were uncharacteristically quick off the draw in pledging large-scale aid and mobilizing a military response effort.

What was even more impressive was the fact that our heavily engaged armed forces, which are supporting both the expeditionary force in Kandahar and the Olympic security operations in Vancouver, were able to mount such a major effort so quickly. Within just hours of the tragedy, the reconnaissance party from the Disaster Assistance Relief Team was airborne and en route to Port-au-Prince.

The highlight of the rapid response, however, was the deployment of Canada’s new C-17 heavy-lift aircraft. Their tremendous cargo capacity enabled the air force to transport two helicopters, complete with ground crew and equipment, to Haiti and begin ferrying out hundreds of Canadian nationals seeking evacuation home.

Which leads to me admitting that this one of those rare occasions when I am even almost proud(sorry, that one is a bit hard to swallow) of our current Conservative government. Both for its quick reaction (or at least getting out of the way of the Armed Forces) and increase in desperately needed aid to Haiti.

And, of course, I am proud of my fellow Canadians for doing what they can.

And yet, through all that pride I can't hlep but wonder ...

(to be cont'd)

Sleight of Hand

Over at Lex's yesterday, Quartermaster opined that there was no valid reason for President Obama not to give McChrystal the 40K troops he asked for.

I mused that maybe he had a reason. Perhaps he was just trying to show the Democrats and the American people that he would not be bullied pushed around by the military.

And then today, it all came into sharper focus when I read this comment in a discussion about what role Canada might play in Afghanistan post-2011.

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon met in Brussels this past week with Canada’s NATO allies as the alliance cobbled together 7,000 additional troops from 20 countries, but not Canada. The number was short of the 10,000 the Obama administration wanted after committing an additional 30,000 U.S. personnel to the mission earlier in the week.

Cute.

Let's recap then. General McChrystal asked for 40,000 more troops for Afghanistan. Obama offered 30,000. And then looked to NATO make up the remaining 10,000.

I wonder how well that's going to work for him.

The British government is facing opinion polls showing that around 70 percent of the public favors an early withdrawal. That figure has nearly doubled in the past six months, as the country has sustained its worst casualties — 97 killed so far this year — since it first deployed troops to Afghanistan after the Taliban were toppled in 2001.

Germany and France have balked at committing any more forces to a war that has so little public support that they can barely maintain current troop levels.

The Netherlands and Canada have begun discussing plans to pull out. Canadian defense officials told reporters traveling with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in Halifax last week that they had no intention of sending troops in the future, and that they remained committed to withdrawing by the end of 2011.

Even if the allies make commitments for 5,000 or more new troops after the president’s address on Tuesday at West Point, NATO officials say, those commitments will include troops already in Afghanistan to provide security for recent elections and trainers for the Afghan Army and the police.

And it remains unclear whether several thousand NATO and other foreign troops are really the equal of a similarly sized American force in terms of military capacity. Some countries may continue to restrict how their forces may be employed. In addition, a force that is cobbled together from too many nations — a few hundred here and a thousand there — might not have the unit cohesion of an American force, military analysts said.

But don't you worry your pretty little head about it. I'm sure the President had a real good reason for waiting over 2 months to announce a decision to send 10,000 less troops that McChrystal asked for. And then asking his allies to make up the slack.

Which I suppose might just make it *our* fault when if the non-surge surge isn't successful. Seeing as how the United States is giving it all in the "good war". Alas, if only the those allies could be counted on to do their part.

The End of the Waiting Game?

This past Sunday, I expressed my feelings on the waiting game so many of us seem to be stuck in thanks to President Obama's decision not to decide on General McChyristal's request for more troops in Afghanistan.

Apparently I'm not the only one who feels stuck.

WAITING for Obama. Waiting for leadership. Waiting for effective aid. Waiting for a sign NATO is in for the long haul. Waiting for a reason not to bet the Taliban will outlast the Westerners and take over when they’ve had enough and leave.

Afghanistan is one big waiting game now and there isn’t much time for game-changing action.

. . .

The favourite candidate was U.S. President Barack Obama. U.S. Senator John McCain and Pakistani journalist Najam Sethi, editor-in-chief of Lahore’s Daily Times, were among those rightly calling upon President Obama to end the uncertainty about sending a "surge" of 40,000 troops to Afghanistan. Rick Hillier, Canada’s former chief of defence staff, went even further in saying Mr. Obama possesses the position and the ability to articulate a broader vision for rescuing Afghanistan, to touch people beyond the U.S. and to rally Western nations, including Canada, to renew their commitments rather than focus on exit strategies.

The president clearly is the crucial waiting-game changer. But there are others. Canada, the U.K. and the Netherlands have all been bulwarks against Taliban violence, but their long-term commitments, like those of other Western allies, have gone cloudy. A policy brief circulated at the conference makes a devastating case that development aid has been ineffective because donors didn’t build up managerial competence within the Afghan government and failed to co-ordinate aid efforts themselves. The country is still waiting for a "pilot" to steer aid where it’s most needed and most effective.

And yet, thankfully, according to Lex, there might just be signs of hope.

Then again, despite the use of the term "delusional" "decisional" to describe this latest meeting, for me, at least, it still retains the some of the same feel as before ... deciding not to decide.

The administration's plan contains "off-ramps," points starting next June at which Obama could decide to continue the flow of troops, halt the deployments and adopt a more limited strategy or "begin looking very quickly at exiting" the country, depending on political and military progress, one defense official said.

. . .

The plan adopted by Obama would fall well short of the 80,000 troops McChrystal suggested in August as a "low-risk option" that would offer the best chance to contain the Taliban-led insurgency and stabilize Afghanistan.

It splits the difference between two other McChrystal options: a "high-risk" approach that called for 20,000 additional troops and a "medium-risk" option that would add 40,000 to 45,000 troops.

There are 68,000 U.S. troops and 42,000 from other countries in Afghanistan. The U.S. Army's recently revised counterinsurgency manual estimates that an all-out counterinsurgency campaign in a country with Afghanistan's population would require about 600,000 troops.

Let's just hope it's not too little. Too late.

"This war is going to be decided," he told the conference, "over the decisions of athers of Pashto young men who are being asked by Taliban commanders to give them their sons to go out and fight against the Afghan government." These fathers, he says, need reasons to resist the Taliban line that "we’re going to chase the Americans out" and they "need to feel good about being on the right side."

"Anything we can do to change the tenor of that discussion will help, so that fathers of those Pashto young men say, ‘That’s what you said last year when you took my other son and he’s dead and the Americans still haven’t run away.’"

We should not keep them waiting for reasons to say no.

Dis Connect

The International Security Forum is being held in Halifax this weekend.

Building on the model of GMF’s successful Brussels Forum, the Halifax International Security Forum will feature a mix of plenary sessions and smaller breakout sessions, with emphasis on intimate and interactive exchanges between panelists and participants. On-the-record panels will cover broad themes such as international law, nuclear proliferation, and global transatlanticism. Breakout sessions held under the Chatham House Rule will explore challenges associated with North Korea, development, climate change, and counter terrorism, among other topics. The agenda reflects the growing diversity of issues at the core of the transatlantic security relationship as well as the increasing geographic reach of transatlantic cooperation. Finally, the Saturday night dinners, also under the Chatham House Rule, give every participant a unique opportunity to further discuss key issues in a more intimate setting and at the same time sample local cuisine.

This puts Canada in a "very exclusive club of countries who are tasked with this important role of peace and security", donchya know.

Uh huh.

Canada is scheduled to pull its troops (or the majority of them anyway) out of Afghanistan in 2011. That date is supposedly set in stone. And yet at the International Security Forum, some are publicly saying that President Obama needs to "weigh in" on Afghanistan and use some of famous eloquence to rally western nations and provide a clear articulate vision to win the war.

My first response being, "Yeah, right"; I don't think anyone is going to change the mind of what appears to be the majority of Canadians on this issue. Then again, on second thought, perhaps he could. If he really wanted to. Given his cult of personality.

But forget about putting half as much effort into the oratory on the idea of hope and change and winning the war in Afghanistan as he has into the debate about healthcare. First he would actually have to step up and, you know, make a decision. Walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

Just how long will it take Obama to decide on how to respond to General McChrystal's request for increased troops? I mean, this has been going on for quite a while, hasn't it? Like at least two months?

And during that time I've been noting the obvious - it's not just American troops dying while Obama fiddles. So too are Canadians. And. Others.

Which begs the question - if one of the reasons America's allies are fighting in Afghanistan is to help the US finish what it started, doesn't the US have an obligation to those same allies?

Doesn't Obama realize his actions and inactions affect not just his country, but many others?

And might some consider it a mite disingenuous that he ran on a plank of America needing to get out of Iraq but increase resources in Afghanistan, what he referred to as "the good war" given what appears to be the White House's current attitude?

So, yeah. Maybe, just maybe, President Obama needs to stop fiddling and dithering and make a decision on where the US stands on the war in Afghanistan. Before anyone even considers the possibility that he could convince the ROW to stay the course.

Lost in the Twilight Zone

Forgive me, please, but I am feeling like I am just a little bit lost in the twilight zone at the moment.

You might recall I've already confessed my past (and yes, even current) leanings towards the NDP. That's 'past' federally but still very current provincially. Yes, it's true. Provincially I remain an NDipper.

Federally, however, I had enough long ago. Definitely since the installation of Taliban Jack Layton as King of their castle.

Now, I am most definitely not a fan of our Conservative government either. And I've certainly had my issues with them when it comes to their support, or lack thereof, of our military. But when it comes to NDP federally, particularly on the issue of support for the military and their work in Afghanistan .... yeah, right.

Thus, the little bit of cognitive dissonance when I read this piece written by Peter Stoffer, one of the NDP MPs from Nova Scotia, in today's Chronicle Herald.

Mr. Stoffer notes that although we have seen improvements to a number of veterans’ benefits in recent years, including operational stress injury social support centres, wellness and transition programs under the new Veterans Charter, and assistance for Allied veterans now living in Canada, there is much more we can do to improve the lives of veterans and their families. Which, as he states it, is why New Democrats continue to press the Conservative government to implement key reforms for programs and services.

Some of these reforms include unfulfilled promises. The Harper Conservatives ommitted to resolving the clawback of Service Income Security Insurance Plan(SISIP) pensions for disabled veterans, extending the home care (VIP) program for all widows and veterans, as well as fully compensating all victims of Agent Orange and holding a public inquiry into its use. Despite promising significant reform, the Conservatives have not stopped the practice of appointing their friends to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

Unfortunately, the government’s lack of action on SISIP and full compensation for Agent Orange victims from 1950 to 1984 has led veterans to launch class-action lawsuits in hopes of forcing a government response.

Beyond its broken commitments, the government needs to improve the New Veterans Charter for modern-day veterans to better support those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, bring an end to the unjust clawback of CF and RCMP service and CPP disability pensions at age 65, increase the survivors’ pensions from 50 per cent to 66 per cent, and eliminate the gold-digger clause (marriage after 60) that prevents widows and widowers from receiving pension and health benefits.

New Democrats have also advocated for equal access to veterans’ hospitals and pavilions throughout the country. Currently, as some families have recently discovered, veterans are not eligible for a bed at the local veterans’ hospital or pavilion if they did not actively serve in the Second World War or Korea. In one case, a veteran was not eligible for admission because he did not serve in a "theatre of war" in one of those wars, even though he had a long and distinguished military career. In a similar story, a veteran was turned away because he served in Cyprus.

We argue that the federal government should make these services available for all veterans, open up discussions about the future of the facilities, and develop Health Care Centres of Excellence for modern-day veterans, RCMP and their families. These specialized centres could provide a unique model of care to better assist veterans with specific physical and psychological injuries and needs.

Veterans and their families deserve our deepest gratitude for their contributions to our country and for protecting the freedoms we hold so dear. For these brave men and women, Remembrance Day is every day. The least we can do is make sure they receive the support they have earned. Lest we forget.

It's awful hard to argue with now, isn't it?

Here's hoping we will be hearing more of the same from the NDP in the future. And that some of that patriotism and respect and gratitude for our military actually rubs off on Mr. Layton.

That would be a very good thing.