Tweet
http://www.nationalpost.com/national...8-18F9223E3E18
PM accused of duplicity on Iraq war
Military made private offer to help U.S. while Chrétien opposed mission publicly: Misled U.S., experts say
Chris Wattie
National Post
Friday, November 28, 2003
Soldiers from B Company of the 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia's Light Infantry unload from a U.S. Airborne Black Hawk helicopter at the airbase in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in February. Documents show the Canadian military had misgivings about a sizeable contribution to the Afghan force.
CREDIT: Kevin Frayer, The Canadian Press
ADVERTISEMENT
The Liberal government has been duplicitous in its response to the war on Iraq, publicly opposing military action against Saddam Hussein while privately allowing the Canadian Forces to make a tentative offer of ground troops to the U.S.-led coalition, opposition critics and defence experts charged yesterday.
Documents obtained by the National Post show Canadian diplomats and military officers were forced to tell the United States their "BG [battle group] offer [was] now off the table," after the government surprised its own defence planners by announcing Canada would instead send soldiers to a "peace support" mission in Afghanistan.
Spokesmen for John McCallum, the Minister of National Defence, said yesterday he was not available to comment on the documents.
But Stockwell Day, the foreign affairs critic for the Canadian Alliance, said the decision to pull the plug on the offer was made at a time when Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister, was publicly saying Canada would stay out of the conflict.
"Clearly he knew that these plans were moving ahead.... It was duplicitous," Mr. Day said. "He kept the military planning below the radar while above the radar, he made it look like nothing was going on."
Elsie Wayne, the Conservative defence critic, said the government's handling of the Feb. 12 decision has seriously damaged Canada-U.S. relations.
"The Minister of Defence was down in the United States telling them we'd send troops and the Prime Minister turns around and says no, we won't," Ms. Wayne said. "Our credibility down there has deteriorated significantly under this government and this sort of thing is the reason why."
Mr. Day said the about-face on Canadian participation in Iraq shows the Prime Minister was being capricious when making important decisions.
"All the planning was moving ahead with the Prime Minister's full knowledge and then apparently on a capricious whim, on Groundhog Day, he checks the latest poll and brings everything to a shuddering stop," he said. "It was irresponsible."
Ms. Wayne said Mr. Chrétien overruled his own Cabinet in deciding against joining the United States in Iraq and ignored the advice of his own military in deciding to send troops to the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul.
"Our men and women in uniform are on the ground, they know what's going on and they know what's needed ... and they should be listened to ... but they weren't," she said.
The documents obtained by the National Post show the military had misgivings about a sizeable contribution to the Afghan force from the start.
A memo dated Feb. 3, 2003, by Vice-Admiral Greg Maddison, the deputy chief of defence staff, notes the "role of ISAF is uncertain as security/political issues remain uncertain throughout the country."
The document concludes Canada should not take over as the leading nation in the security force, but could act as "co-lead nation" -- sharing command of the UN-mandated force with another country.
However the memo also notes "many key questions regarding [the] future of ISAF mandate and geographic scope remain unanswered," and says there are "no clear indicators that ISAF, under current mandate, is contributing to the security of Kabul."
And a Jan. 18, 2002, e-mail from Gavin Buchan, the Foreign Affairs political advisor to the Canadian military officers posted to the U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla., questions the usefulness of sending troops to Afghanistan.
"ISAF leadership represents a major resource commitment but ISAF, operating only in Kabul and surrounds, is not the key to the future security of Afghanistan."
Colonel Alain Pellerin, the retired army officer who is now director of the Conference of Defence Associations, said the Chrétien government led the United States into believing Canada would join its "coalition of the willing."
Col. Pellerin said Canada gave every sign of joining the United States in the months leading to the March 20 invasion of Iraq, including issuing a Cabinet order in November, 2002, giving permission for 31 Canadian exchange officers serving with U.S. and British units to participate in the war.
"At almost the same time, a Canadian was offered command of the coalition task force in the Arabian Sea," he said. "That would not have happened unless they thought we were coming on board with Iraq."
Commodore Roger Girouard, a Canadian, took command early in 2002 of a multinational task force in the Persian Gulf region, which was under command of the U.S. Navy's 5th fleet based in Qatar, coalition headquarters for the war in Iraq.
PM accused of duplicity on Iraq war
Military made private offer to help U.S. while Chrétien opposed mission publicly: Misled U.S., experts say
Chris Wattie
National Post
Friday, November 28, 2003
Soldiers from B Company of the 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia's Light Infantry unload from a U.S. Airborne Black Hawk helicopter at the airbase in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in February. Documents show the Canadian military had misgivings about a sizeable contribution to the Afghan force.
CREDIT: Kevin Frayer, The Canadian Press
ADVERTISEMENT
The Liberal government has been duplicitous in its response to the war on Iraq, publicly opposing military action against Saddam Hussein while privately allowing the Canadian Forces to make a tentative offer of ground troops to the U.S.-led coalition, opposition critics and defence experts charged yesterday.
Documents obtained by the National Post show Canadian diplomats and military officers were forced to tell the United States their "BG [battle group] offer [was] now off the table," after the government surprised its own defence planners by announcing Canada would instead send soldiers to a "peace support" mission in Afghanistan.
Spokesmen for John McCallum, the Minister of National Defence, said yesterday he was not available to comment on the documents.
But Stockwell Day, the foreign affairs critic for the Canadian Alliance, said the decision to pull the plug on the offer was made at a time when Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister, was publicly saying Canada would stay out of the conflict.
"Clearly he knew that these plans were moving ahead.... It was duplicitous," Mr. Day said. "He kept the military planning below the radar while above the radar, he made it look like nothing was going on."
Elsie Wayne, the Conservative defence critic, said the government's handling of the Feb. 12 decision has seriously damaged Canada-U.S. relations.
"The Minister of Defence was down in the United States telling them we'd send troops and the Prime Minister turns around and says no, we won't," Ms. Wayne said. "Our credibility down there has deteriorated significantly under this government and this sort of thing is the reason why."
Mr. Day said the about-face on Canadian participation in Iraq shows the Prime Minister was being capricious when making important decisions.
"All the planning was moving ahead with the Prime Minister's full knowledge and then apparently on a capricious whim, on Groundhog Day, he checks the latest poll and brings everything to a shuddering stop," he said. "It was irresponsible."
Ms. Wayne said Mr. Chrétien overruled his own Cabinet in deciding against joining the United States in Iraq and ignored the advice of his own military in deciding to send troops to the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul.
"Our men and women in uniform are on the ground, they know what's going on and they know what's needed ... and they should be listened to ... but they weren't," she said.
The documents obtained by the National Post show the military had misgivings about a sizeable contribution to the Afghan force from the start.
A memo dated Feb. 3, 2003, by Vice-Admiral Greg Maddison, the deputy chief of defence staff, notes the "role of ISAF is uncertain as security/political issues remain uncertain throughout the country."
The document concludes Canada should not take over as the leading nation in the security force, but could act as "co-lead nation" -- sharing command of the UN-mandated force with another country.
However the memo also notes "many key questions regarding [the] future of ISAF mandate and geographic scope remain unanswered," and says there are "no clear indicators that ISAF, under current mandate, is contributing to the security of Kabul."
And a Jan. 18, 2002, e-mail from Gavin Buchan, the Foreign Affairs political advisor to the Canadian military officers posted to the U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla., questions the usefulness of sending troops to Afghanistan.
"ISAF leadership represents a major resource commitment but ISAF, operating only in Kabul and surrounds, is not the key to the future security of Afghanistan."
Colonel Alain Pellerin, the retired army officer who is now director of the Conference of Defence Associations, said the Chrétien government led the United States into believing Canada would join its "coalition of the willing."
Col. Pellerin said Canada gave every sign of joining the United States in the months leading to the March 20 invasion of Iraq, including issuing a Cabinet order in November, 2002, giving permission for 31 Canadian exchange officers serving with U.S. and British units to participate in the war.
"At almost the same time, a Canadian was offered command of the coalition task force in the Arabian Sea," he said. "That would not have happened unless they thought we were coming on board with Iraq."
Commodore Roger Girouard, a Canadian, took command early in 2002 of a multinational task force in the Persian Gulf region, which was under command of the U.S. Navy's 5th fleet based in Qatar, coalition headquarters for the war in Iraq.
Comment