They really didn't mean it

Peter MacKay presents his latest bit of bungling.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay's recent written response to questions tabled in Parliament reveal that 2006 federal Conservative promises for 5 Wing Goose Bay are no longer part of the military’s plans.

Prior to the election that brought the Tories to power, Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised to station a new, 650-member rapid reaction army battalion at CFB Goose Bay, plus a new long-range unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) squadron at the base.

Oh yes, the territorial battalion group promised for St. John's? Just kidding. They will be located, according to MacKay, from Vancouver to Halifax, although I wouldn't be setting up bleachers anytime soon for that one either.

Curiously though, MacKay, in attempting to offer yet another excuse for not doing what the Harperites promised to do, (all previous excuses involved Afghanistan and that was the standard excuse for everything that didn't happen CF-wide), shone the light on another program which he has typically covered in mud. JUSTAS.

“As part of the [defence strategy], there will be a surveillance ‘system of systems’ that will be comprised of sensors, unmanned vehicles and satellites that will keep Canada’s maritime approaches safe and secure, including in the Arctic,” MacKay’s response notes.

JUSTAS stands for Joint Unmanned Surveillance Target Acquisition System and just so we're clear here, DND has messed that up nicely. Like every other project the Harper government has gotten their fingers into, it has slid well past the delivery date, has been started and restarted several times and has caused potential suppliers to throw their hands in the air, turning away from the project in frustration.

Another military procurement screw-up

Most Canadians can be excused for not having a clue about the Close Combat Vehicle (CCV) Project. It is, after all, only worth $2 billion.

This particular project, which is intended to provide the army with either a tracked or wheeled (who knows?) infantry fighting vehicle capable of accompanying the Leopard 2 main battle tank into combat, has been a cock-up from the word go.

DND requires that the CCV be a military-off-the-shelf equipment (MOTS). In other words, something that already exists and is in use by other armies.

So, when the various international companies who make such a vehicle submitted their bids, all of them were disqualified.

Why, you ask? Insufficient mine/IED armour protection. Except that everything that was MOTS qualified did not meet the armour requirement. Why? Nobody makes it.

So, drop that proposed procurement and issue a new Notice of Proposed Procurement (NPP). The original number of 138 vehicles was reduced to 108 plus options on 30 more. The underside armour requirement is suddenly removed from the revised NPP but the overall armour, speed and turret requirement remains.

DND insists that the vehicles and the turrets be MOTS. (From the 2010 revised NPP)

The CCV must be an integrated, supportable, existing or upgraded version of a Military Off-the-Shelf (MOTS) BASE VEHICLE and MOTS TURRET, each of which is in production for and/or in service with another military recognized by DND as of the closing date of this Solicitation of Interest and Qualification (SOIQ).

And ... we'd really like the armour we want, y'know.

So, the most qualified candidates with the system closest to what DND/PWGSC wanted ... stayed home. Others competitors submitted MOTS vehicles for evaluation, as is. In short, not quite what DND wanted.

Here's the problem in a nutshell: DND is insisting on a MOTS vehicle and gun turret, but DND would like it modified to create some kind of super-duper armoured delight and they want whoever is delivering such a thing to take all the risk and mix-and-match bits and pieces to create a wonderful Canadian creation which was originally something else so they can say they purchased off-the-shelf.

And, in terms of military hardware like Infantry Fighting Vehicles, its a very small order and not worth the trouble or financial difficulties for most companies.

So, for the second time under the Harper government, this project is getting another restart.

You can count on fewer vehicles in the order, (the price goes up as the years go by), and more finger painting exercises by DND/PWGSC boffins and, if these vehicles are so desperately needed, a continuing deficiency in the Canadian Army's order of battle.

The Harperistas are doing a heckuva job!

The rumbling and shaking at 101 Colonel By Drive

I was all prepared to post exactly what I thought about the Auditor General's report with respect to the the procurement of ... any number ... of F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters. And I was going to conclude that all the fault with the total cluster-fuck that this procurement has become lies in the lap of one person: Peter MacKay.

Then the editorial board of the Ottawa Citizen released a salvo fit for a major newspaper. All except for one little problem, but we'll get to that shortly.

It is the Department of National Defence that failed, in the auditor general’s estimation, to exercise due diligence and properly inform Parliament. But it is the minister’s duty to make sure that department does its job, especially when billions are on the line. It’s the minister’s job to ask questions, to be sure of his ground before he stands up and invokes the protection of Canadian troops in the service of his opinion.

It is the minister who is, oh, what’s that old-fashioned word … responsible.

Peter MacKay either didn’t know what his department was up to, or he was complicit in keeping the whole truth from his fellow parliamentarians and from Canadians.

To be fair to MacKay, there are others who ought to be ashamed of themselves. The auditor general’s latest report says the year 2006 “represented the most critical period concerning Canada’s participation in the (Joint Strike Fighter) Program and future acquisition of the F-35.” Gordon O’Connor was the defence minister at that time. That’s when Canada accepted the procurement regime and signed memorandums of understanding with manufacturers Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney and GE Rolls-Royce.

The next year, MacKay took over the portfolio, and he has been a staunch defender of the F-35 process since. In 2010, the government announced it was buying the F-35. It was after this announcement that the defence department went through the required process to justify its decision to buy the planes without holding a competition.

And it goes on. This part is particularly delightful. (Empasis mine)

Both MacKay and Prime Minister Stephen Harper were stubbornly insisting, in 2010 and 2011, that this was a done deal and that there was no other good way to replace the CF-18s. They insisted that the costs of the F-35s were known and transparent, and they repeatedly used phrases such as “rip up the contract” or “cancel the contract” to characterize the opposition position.

There was no contract, as Harper and his cabinet — especially beleaguered junior defence minister Julian Fantino, who is taking all the heat off MacKay on this issue — are now eager to emphasize.

The big lie. And, the big tell.

Both MacKay and Harper knew, when they were attempting to smear the opposition as attempting to "deny the troops" necessary equipment, that there was something wrong with their numbers. They had long been alerted to it by both the parliamentary budget officer and by their own technical advisers. Their refusal to provide a comprehensive cost estimate to parliament was unprecedented and telling. The Harper government was held in contempt of parliament because of Harper's propensity to childish temper tantrums whenever the high court of the people held him to account.
 
And the whole time they knew that there was something wrong with their numbers. Had they been in any way confident in the numbers they were spouting publicly, they would have tossed the details on the bar and gloated while the opposition choked on them.

But they didn't do that. They kept hiding behind "contracts" which did not exist, peppered with "we are the only ones who support the troops".

Anybody who has been anywhere near the military procurement game saw this whole process as a little odd. For one thing, this was an unknown platform. Most of us thought this whole thing required a closer look and a huge amount of "requirements" work, and we said so.

That got some hackles up.

The Harper spin machine was hard at work, (because we had questioned His decision), and before we knew it, self-styled "military analysts", (most of whom don't know whether they are punched, bored or blown out with a twin 3 inch 70 naval gun mount), were telling us that this air weapons platform was the neatest thing since the invention of sex.

And, it's what the air force wanted.

Bully for them. Even the adults in the RCAF know that they have to fly and fight what the government provides, whether they want it or not.

Most Canadians can be excused for their erroneous belief that the uniformed Canadian Armed Forces and the civilian Department of National Defence are the same thing. Despite the obvious close relationship, they are separate, as required by law. So take this breakout of responsibilities seriously:

[T]he Department is headed by a Deputy Minister of National Defence, the Department’s senior civil servant, while the Canadian Forces are headed by the Chief of the Defence Staff, Canada’s senior serving officer.  Both are responsible to the Minister.

• The Deputy Minister has responsibility for policy, resources, interdepartmental coordination and international defence relations; and
• The Chief of the Defence Staff has responsibility for command, control and administration of the Canadian Forces and military strategy, plans and requirements.

Once, a long time ago, a Chief of the Defence Staff went to the Minister of National Defence and told him that the armed services were in desperate need of more people to meet the requirements of the government's stated defence policy. The MND went to the DM who told him that the budget would not allow any increase in pay, training and support of anything higher than the cabinet approved established strength. The CDS then told the minister that he could no longer generate the forces needed to meet a contingency operation, but thanks for hearing me. The CDS, one of the most highly decorated Canadian combat veterans to have held the position, responded to media, (hoping to be able to report on a pig-fight), "I am a soldier. I salute, turn about and do my best."

I, personally, was young, pissed-off and demoralized by that statement. But I also learned something that day. We in uniform do not decide such things. We use what we are provided. We don't make the final decisions on ships, tanks, aircraft, rifles, ammunition, uniforms, underwear or the quality of issue nylon stockings. All of that is decided by The Department. And The Department is subject to the will of those higher in the food chain.

There has been a generally loud response to the Auditor General's report, much of which aims at unnamed people in the RCAF and the uniformed Canadian Forces. It is suggested that they lied, covered up, fudged numbers and misled an otherwise hapless, albeit incompetent minister.

That would be a great story. Except that they couldn't do it. The lines, as described above, are very clear. The air force can get on their knees and beg for F-35s until the cows come home. They can tell The Department, right up to the minister, that no other airplane will meet their needs. It is not, as I have pointed out, their decision. That rests with the civilian policy and resources shop of The Department.

I was present, way back in time, when the lords of the navy were briefing the Minister of National Defence on the requirement to replace the Oberon-class submarines. The admirals had several options, all of which involved conventionally-powered boats: two off-the-shelf types and one cooperative build-in-Canada model. The minister asked why there was not a nuclear-propelled option. The admirals were shocked but answered that current defence policy did not include the demand for that type of boat, and the uniformed navy felt that nuclear-powered submarines would be politically unacceptable.

The minister answered with, "The politics are not your problem. Come back with a nuclear option."

The admirals were uncomfortable since nuclear propulsion involved a massive shift in focus and, as they pointed out, was outside the limits of the stated defence policy.

I'll let you look up the history but it was a Conservative minister and it sheds a light on the F-35 issue.

The type of equipment the armed services employ is decided by the politicians. The Canadian taxpayer is buying it all. The armed services makes the best use of it, preserves it, become experts with it and hopes for a new model - soon. They don't pick it. They only get to say what they would really, really like.

Remember the Harper line after he formed his first minority government? He was going to streamline military procurement. After his 2nd minority he decided to make it a part of his agenda. The 2008 Speech from the Throne contained this:

Fixing procurement will be a top priority. Simpler and streamlined processes will make it easier for businesses to provide products and services to the government and will deliver better results for Canadians. Military procurement in particular is critical: Canada cannot afford to have cumbersome processes delay the purchase and delivery of equipment needed by our men and women in uniform.

That seems to be a Conservative goddamned mantra.

What Harper pumped out of the mouth of the Governor General can easily be summarized as this: We don't need to put every purchase under a microscope when the answer is obvious. We spend too much time analysing expensive capital military equipment. We already know what we want. We're just going to go out and buy the stuff we want. A competition is a waste of time.

And that is exactly what they did. Harper and MacKay. Who needs a cumbersome competition and assessment process when we have THEM. They are all wise.

The Auditor General did point a finger. He pointed it at the civilian-led policy shop. The policy shop led by Harper and MacKay.

Both should depart without their heads. That, however, is unlikely to happen.

I reckon some poor unsuspecting corporal will have her or his life ruined to preserve the image of Harper infallibility.

The big push. From the advertising department of DND

The Jurist has just the right amount of sarcasm spread evenly on the subject. If the Department of National Defence has to go on an advertising blitz to try and convince people that buying a super-cool, enemy air-space penetrating high-tech bomb truck is such a splendid idea ... well it's looking like it might be a less than splendid idea.

The cross-country tour will cover seven cities in all. It started last Friday in Ottawa, skipping Parliamentary Press Gallery journalists who cover defence and focusing on academics and business contacts in the nation’s capital. It continued Monday with a roundtable for media in Vancouver and a separate session for academics and companies – a format that continued in Calgary and Winnipeg.

This is unprecedented. Never has DND gone out to gather a sales force to peddle a military acquisition project. It borders on the obscene.
To add fuel to the argument that the sales pitch is wrong-headed, a real military analyst takes a bite. 

Retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie said the PR blitz is an indication of how much grief Ottawa is getting over the F-35 deal, adding he can’t recall Defence previously launching such a campaign in support of a military purchase.

And then he leaves a welt on those who play the argument that we have to buy the "best" even if it's the most expensive.

The former senior military officer said the argument that the military needs cutting-edge technology is not always an easy sell, even for veterans of past wars.

“Talk to some of our tankers who went into World War II. They did a pretty damn good job, but they didn’t have the fifth best tank, let alone the best tank.”

The truth be known, Canada has rarely had the "best" equipment. More often than not, the equipment is suitable and we have lived with the knowledge that there was better, and more expensive, available.

Ships! We will have ships! Many ships...

Maybe.

Petey "Life Is Like A Box Of Chocolates" MacKay was making bold with his announcement of 50, that's right count 'em, fifty ships to be built in Canada by the Canadian shipbuilding industry.

Canada's shipbuilders have agreed to a radical change in the way contracts will be doled out by the federal government.

Good. Because the current system, the one streamlined by the Harper government, quite frankly, sucks. The Harper government has cancelled or shelved every single ship procurement contract on the books and have seriously jeopardized the frigate mid-life modernization.

The government plans to spend $40 billion over the next 30 years to build as many as 50 large ships, in addition to 70 ships under 1,000 tonnes that have been earmarked for revamps.

Let's start with the "50 large" number. On the shelf are naval requirements for three Joint Support Ships and six to eight Arctic Offshore Patrol Vessels. That's it. The former project was cancelled and the latter is on hold after being seriously watered down. (Let's not play the eight number. If these things ever materialize, six will be the maximum number.)

There are no other actual new construction projects in play - not even on hold.

The Coast Guard Mid-Shore Patrol Vessel project and Off-Shore Fisheries Research Vessel project were both dropped at the same time as the Navy's JSS project. You might not have heard it because it was mumbled out of the side of some boffin's mouth. Whether these are included in the "50" raises a question. The proposed size of the MSPV (37 - 42) meters sounds very much like an under-1000 tonner to me. It doesn't qualify under MacKay's announcement. And nobody really knows if the OFRV was larger or just another version of the MSPV. Let's pretend that it was intended to be over 1000 tonnes.

That makes 11 total possible ships with project status, even though the Harper government dropped all of them. (After big, loud promises to build them and, yes, even more!)

Now let's look at another number. The "30" years.

That presumes that the same government will be in power for the next 30 years because, as anyone in the ship procurement business can tell you, when governments change, so do plans.

The Harper Conservatives have a best-before-date that won't give them 30 more weeks without having to go to the voters and the shipbuilders know that.

"There is going to be enough work with 50 ships on order for every shipyard in the country to be going full steam, and that's good news in terms of the economy," said Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

I'm calling bullshit on MacKay. There will never be 50 ships on order. MacKay is playing with words and numbers that would make a dishonest accountant blush. Notice, the absence of "over 30 years" in his pronouncement.

... a new process that theoretically will allow the government to pick and choose in a more direct way which Canadian shipyards will build which ships. The agreement is meant to end the often intense bickering that has killed some government contracts.

Which is hardly the "conservative" way. What happened to the good old conservative maxim of "let the market reign"? This sounds like government controlled, government subsidized shipyards.

The agreement itself still requires scores of questions to be answered and many details to be ironed out.

Bingo! And one of the details is, what happens Peter, old boy, when you get turfed out of office and the "50" number changes? What happens if over 30 years requirements change?

Enact legislation making it mandatory? Give it a try.

Alan Williams, former head of procurement for the Defence Department, called the deal historic.

"I think the notion for revisiting the government's shipbuilding policy makes good sense," he said.

However, he added that if the program is not managed properly it could become a disaster. He said the government needs to make the process transparent to ensure that tax dollars are spent wisely.

That seals the fate of any deal with Harper's hillbilly government. I shouldn't have to say this, but if I were a shipbuilding company or a head of procurement basing a decision on the need for good management, one look at the Harper government track record would send shivers down the spine of any rational individual.

It would be too limiting to call this announcement nothing but smoke and mirrors. It is, in actual fact, complete bullshit and MacKay is an empty shirt.

Harper government defence procurement planning...

Spin the wheel! Where it stops, nobody knows!

The latest example of that was provided yesterday during an "industry day" for potential bidders on replacement search and rescue fixed-wing aircraft, a day described by many in the aerospace industry as a disaster. (Emphasis mine)

A $3-billion project to buy new search-and-rescue aircraft opened Tuesday in Ottawa amid complaints from aerospace-industry officials that government representatives can't even say how many planes will be purchased or when.

The industry day, signifying the start of the much-delayed program, left aerospace representatives puzzled and at times frustrated.

Government representatives who called the meeting couldn't answer questions on how many planes would be bought, when they would be purchased, whether they would be equipped with sensors or how they would be maintained.

Several participants described the event, put on by the Defence Department, Public Works and Industry Canada, as a disaster.

Even the presentation, which was limited to 90 minutes, failed.

The audio-visual presentation that was to outline details of the program did not work and the microphones for the main speakers and audience members failed.

That, however embarrassing it might have been, isn't that uncommon. However, given that this is Harper's world-stage® government at play, you'd think they could have sorted out a power-point presentation and audio systems before they actually got started.

The real kicker, however, is this one.

At the last minute, the Harper government shut down an invitation for the media to listen to the presentations, leading to a bizarre situation where government employees refused to even confirm they were government employees.

And just in case you think someone in a uniform made that decision without authority, let's look a little closer.

The Defence Department had approved the Citizen's request to be allowed to listen to the search-and-rescue presentation by Brig.-Gen. Greg Matte, but at the last minute that invitation was cancelled on orders from "higher up" in the Harper government, according to various officials.

A supervisor at the Government Teleconferencing Service, which was involved in broadcasting the meeting, said the order to ban the media "just came down" Tuesday morning. "We're doing what we're told," said the supervisor who declined to provide his name. "They've said to disclose nothing further."

He also declined to provide his name, confirm whether he was a public servant or discuss who "they" were.

Ah, more jiggery-pokery from the upper suite. Mackay and the spin merchants in the Langevin Block.

Secrecy around equipment programs and how the Defence Department spends tax dollars has grown significantly under the Conservatives.

In May, Defence Minister Peter MacKay pleaded with industry representatives to get the word out that military purchases were good for the Canadian economy. But industry officials note that it is often MacKay's office and other government representatives, such as the Privy Council Office, preventing firms from discussing projects.

In this case however, the Harper crowd may really be trying to hide more than their own gross incompetence. Defence and aerospace industry insiders are suspicious that the SAR aircraft "competition" simply isn't and that the process has been rigged. That makes even more sense when you consider the ass-backwards methodology that has been used to proceed with this equipment purchase.

MacKay announced in December 2008 that he would be going to cabinet asking for up to $3 billion for SAR aircraft replacement and that he had the proposal in front of him. Given that this procurement is now five years behind schedule (all deliverables were to have been in the hands of the Canadian Forces by 2009) this has become a pure off-the-shelf purchase. No new airplane will emerge from this. That would suggest that whatever specifications were issued to and approved by MacKay (and cabinet), they already exist in at least one specific aircraft at an estimated cost of which the Harper government is fully aware.

In short, yesterday's half-assed dog and pony show was a smoke screen for one of two things:

Either the Harper government has no actual idea of what they want from industry in terms of a fixed-wing SAR aircraft, or;

The Harper government has already made their choice and this Request For Proposals or "competition" is simply a theatrical performance to mollify the well-founded suspicions of the Canadian aerospace industry.

On thing is clear however: The Harper Conservatives, usually dancing around the podium whenever they announce a big-buck purchase, are trying to hide something, as evidenced when they shut the media out of yesterday's "briefing".

Incompetence or duplicity. Spin the wheel. Those are the choices.

More at Accidental Deliberations.

The CF-18 replacement

AVIATION WEEK has a report from Graham Warwick, "Canada Looks to Accelerate F-35 Decision; Lockheed Eyes Consortium Buy".

So, it appears that Stevie and the Gang are getting to the short strokes of the decision-making process:

"Canada is working to bring forward a decision on its new fighter to later this year, with the Lockheed Martin-led F-35 Joint Strike Fighter facing ostensible competition from the Boeing F/A-18E/F, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen NG (Next Generation).

Canada was the first country to join the United States and the United Kingdom as a partner in development of the JSF, and its industry has significant participation on the program. The original plan was to replace all 80 CF-18s, but "65 is sufficient to do the job," says the official."

I know it's wildly impractical politically, but I'd love to see us acquire the latest Sukhoi 35, with Canuck avionics and engines. Might be cheaper and more reliable.

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.

Pipeline bombing, the media, and biblical solutions to WMDs

Experts at a national conference for emergency officials in Calgary yesterday were mightily exercized about last week's EnCana gas pipeline bomb attacks in BC. Well, not so much the actual bombings themselves, but how they would play in the U.S.

The Canadian media played along :
Alberta ripe for attacks: experts - Economic terrorism would rattle U.S

Terrorists target U.S.A. via Alberta - Hitting energy supply seen as strike on U.S

Gas pipelines vulnerable to terrorism: expert

Yikes! Who are these experts and what are they saying?

"Alberta has become a "prime location" for terrorists looking to capitalize on shaky economic times in Canada and the United States, terrorism experts said"

"I think that the alarm bells are going off and that is indicated by the fact that the RCMP are bringing in the people who deal with terrorism to look at this," Mercedes Stephenson, a military analyst, told CTV Newsnet Sunday.

"You don't blow up part of a pipeline and kill lots of people . . . you disrupt the economy," she said.
She said that Alberta supplies more than 90 per cent of California's natural gas supply. "You are not disrupting just Canada but you are disrupting Los Angeles, San
Francisco, San Diego."

Mercedes Stephenson : 27 year old media/think tank whiz kid, has worked for the Pentagon, the Cato Institute, US Army Headquarters, and the Fraser Institute. A Koch Fellow, a master's student at the University of Calgary's Centre for Military and Strategic Studies where she wrote a thesis published by the Department of National Defence on the importance of Canada embracing the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defence System, a frequent military analyst for CBC, CTV and Global News.

Note : According to Steve Staples of the Rideau Institute, U of C's Centre for Military and Strategic Studies is one of 12 university programs funded by the Department of National Defence to "churn out 6oo articles a year which have to toe “a particular view” that subscribes to larger spending on the military."
“It’s not about scholarly journals, peer reviewed articles that they have written—it’s really about appearing in the mainstream media. What you tend to get as a general trend, is a steady stream of hawkish opinion from academics that are all linked together through Department of National Defence funding,” says Mr. Staples.


Alrighty then. Next expert :

"Longtime international foes of the United States are closely watching that nation's sharp economic decline, said Igor Shafhid, a world expert in nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
Financial instability causes panic and fear, said Shafhid, founder of Global Strategic Resources, which develops and teaches emergency-preparedness courses in the U.S. and Russia.

"Those are things terrorist states or countries will take advantage of," he said. "If it goes towards recession or depression in the United States, I suspect some activities might start happening in the next few years in the form of biological, radiological or who-knows-what-else terrorism."

However, he said there's no need to fear the world will be destroyed."

Igor Shafhid : author of "Inside the Red Zone", "his personal journey within a godless Russia to the classified operations of the Soviet Strategic Rocket Force where he trained as a military doctor in WMD deployment. Using his own life experience Dr. Shafhid brings answers to Russia's fascination with WMDs, the need for a solid civil defense program, and the importance of maintaining the Biblical foundation America was founded on."

Featuring "Biblical solutions to remain a safe-guarded nation under God"


Dear CanWest, CTV, Calgary Herald :
It would have killed you to include a little bio info on these experts to go along with your fear-mongering Terror! Terror! Terror! headlines?
For shame.
Besides, where's your sense of fun?
Not one of you mentioned a single word about biblical solutions to WMDs .


OK, we'll provide our own expert then :

Here's Andrew Nikiforuk, author of "Saboteurs: Wiebo Ludwig's War Against Big Oil".
He dismissed the RCMP's description of the saboteur as an eco-terrorist and said he doesn't believe the saboteur meant to hurt anyone.

"This is not the work of eco-terrorists, for God's sakes. This is the work of a pissed-off landowner who's probably a property-rights advocate, who doesn't like the fact that either his health has been damaged, or his property has been devalued by sour-gas developments."

"Whoever did this wanted to make the headlines, they didn't want to kill people. If you want to kill people up there with sour gas, it would be very easy to do. There are thousands and thousands of pipelines, wells, and scores of sour-gas plants up there," he said

"Whoever did this planned it very well, picked the locations very carefully, and seems to have been either skilfully adept at not rupturing a pipeline, or skilfully inept at not rupturing a pipeline -- and I suspect there are signs here of skilful adeptness."

It's a long shot, I know, given that Nikiforuk fails to make any mention of San Diego or even biblical solutions to "who-knows-what-else terrorism", but so far I'm leaning towards his analysis here.

h/t Toe at Bread 'n Roses
Cross-posted at Creekside

Would you like a spare with that used Leopard?

Updated below.

The purchase of used Leopard 2 main battle tanks from the Netherlands and the 20 loaners from Germany just took on the look of the Upholder/Victoria class submarines. From the Vancouver Sun:

Just months after the Defence Department claimed it had enough spare parts for its Leopard tanks, military officials are buying surplus armored vehicles to strip down for components so Canadian tanks can keep operating in Afghanistan.

This is worth a look back. In April 2007, when this was suddenly sprung on the Canadian public, the total cost of purchase and refurbishment, including 20 operational loaners from the German Bundeswehr was announced as $650 million.

The total project cost of the loaned tanks, the acquisition of 100 surplus tanks from the Netherlands, the requisite upgrades and enhancements to this new Leopard 2 fleet, and an initial acquisition of spare parts is $650 million, which will be funded from existing departmental allocations.

Then in May things took something of a leap.

Canada's purchase and long-term support of 100 slightly used Leopard 2A6 battle tanks will be $1.3 billion — roughly double the Conservative government's initial public estimate last month.

As he detailed a laundry list of military hardware the Conservative government plans to buy over the next few years, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor surprised the Commons by announcing there will be a 20-year, $650-million service contract attached to the tank deal.

“The capital acquisition is $650 million and the support for 20 years is about $650 million; about the same range,” he said in reply to an opposition question during debate over Defence Department estimates.

And now, we're buying 15 more surplus Leopard 2 MBTs to cannibalize for spare parts.

In regards to the new purchase of 15 surplus tanks for spare parts, MacKay's office issued an e-mail which reiterated that the Leopard 2s are an invaluable asset to Canadian commanders.

"The procurement of surplus German vehicles will provide the Canadian Forces with valuable platforms for training, testing and, where applicable, spare parts," the e-mail stated. "This acquisition fills the short-term needs of the military and demonstrates the judicious use of public resources by this government."

Privately, military officials said the 15 tanks won't be used for training or testing and that they are all destined to be stripped down for parts.

So, let's see now, former Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor started off by telling us the cost was $650 million, quietly tried to sneak the fact by everyone that the cost was actually double that amount and now, we have 15 more surplus tracks being delivered which were unannounced and nobody seems to be talking about cost. Current Defence Minister Peter MacKay hasn't been heard from on this.

Germany waived the lease fees on the 20 loaned tanks so the capital acquisition originally announced was worth about $6.5 million per tank for the Dutch tanks. The 15 surplus tanks appear to be coming from Germany. Even at 1/2 the price, that means an additional cost of $48 to $50 million has just been tacked on to the original purchase.

Then there is this promise which was intended to soften the blow:

This acquisition represents a significant opportunity for Canadian industry. Once negotiations are complete, the Dutch Leopard 2 tanks will be transported to Canada where they will receive the necessary upgrades to final Canadian Forces standards.

Apparently, that too has changed.

But some Canadian industry officials worry the project has now gone off the rails.

They say work to refurbish the used tanks, that was supposed to be awarded to Canadian firms, is now going to European companies and there are questions whether domestic industry will reap that many benefits from this major purchase.

That may be due to the logistics involved and the cost of moving them. To deliver the Dutch tanks to Canada for refurbish and upgrade and then transport some of them back to Afghanistan (if they are completed in time for use in that theatre) would be hugely expensive.

While we're on this subject, this statement needs a look.

The tanks being loaned from Germany are fully operational, and will be deployed to Afghanistan in conjunction with the next rotation of personnel this summer.

These tanks are able to operate in intense heat as their electric turret systems and more powerful engines generate significantly less heat when operating than the hydraulic systems of Canada’s 30-year-old Leopard 1 fleet. They will also be fitted with climate control systems once in theatre.

Anybody could be excused for believing that the loaned German tanks were going to be fitted with air-conditioning to make them more habitable for the crews in the intense heat of the summer. That, however, did not happen. Because the German tanks are on loan there were limits put on modifications. The fully electric turret is cooler than the older Leopards since it no longer needs a hot hydraulic pump to operate but "climate control" is not a good description of what is actually in place. Crews wear a cooling vest.

All in all, this has been a full court press of Conservative dishonesty and obfuscation.

Something has been bugging me about this: It strikes me that the "fee-free" German loan of 20 operational main battle tanks is more than a little generous. In fact it seems to be more than one could expect without some sort of deal having been stuck. What possible arrangement was made with the German government to get 20 combat-ready up-to-mod tanks?

1) We'll lend you 20 good tracks if you purchase 15 more of our surplus rigs;

2) We'll lend you what you need in theatre if we get the contract to refurbish the Dutch tanks you're buying;

3) Here's 20 tanks. We don't want to hear one word from you about moving German troops into southern Afghanistan;

4) Something else.

I know it's pure speculation so if anyone has anything which might make more sense or actually has anything concrete drop it into comments.