Remember the past, look to the future, but keep your powder dry.

Today, May 8^th 2015 marks the 70^th anniversary of the end of WWII in Europe.  The Americans and to a lesser extent the Brits and Australians had a hard slog in the Pacific for a couple more months, but Europe was the main event.  The Canadian news has been full of the commemorations in Holland, our main theatre of operations at war’s end, and arguably our most enduring achievement, clearing first the Scheldt estuary (essential to bring Antwerp on-line as a port) and later The Netherlands of Nazi troops.

The Dutch to this day remember that we did this for them, but this is the last time there will be any significant number of veterans at one of these events.  The youngest of them are in their late 80s, so we’ll see how this is marked in the future. 

I don’t know about “doomed to repeat it”, but a self-willed ignorance of where you come from is in no way useful to ones’ understanding of the world.  There’s a line between chauvinism and identity and it’s a tricky one to walk, but as anyone who reads this knows, I refuse to hate myself for my ancestors or ethnicity.  There are plenty of others who will do that for me, so no need to borrow trouble.

Nevertheless, the past is the past and not to be lived in.  I have seen the definition of a Dark Age given as ‘when we no longer realize that certain things done in the past are possible’.  We often forget that our predecessors were in no way stupider than us; inconformity to current politically correct ethics does not make one unintelligent, regardless of modern cult-Marx university instruction. Could Canada put 1,000,000 people in uniform again (3,500,000 would be the figure proportionate to our current population)?  I know that we did, but I’m sure that would be a shock to most of our Millennials since they aren’t taught anything anymore.   

Canadian society has changed almost beyond recognition to our Great Depression/WWII generation, for good and ill.  People were tribal and racist back then, and we’d like to think that’s changed, but the changes are superficial since this is the natural state of most people.  Race relations in the USA have actually deteriorated in Obama’s Presidency, unavoidable when people take their cues from a race-baiting Administration and media.  This isn’t the way it was “supposed to be” but things are polarizing and stratifying. 

This is a matter of “us” and “them”, the default state of humanity.  Whether or not stripped of automatic racism, i.e. writing someone off due to their skin colour, affinity seems to operate in concentric circles.  The two biggest circles are religion and civilization.  Co-religionists have an automatic affinity, just as infidels, heretics, etc. are natural antagonists.  In the modern world, this isn’t a big deal for most groups, but it is lethally important to the Salafist interpretations of Islam.  Do I care if someone is a Sunni/Shia/Sufi/Ismaili/Alawi/Druze? No, with the exception that the latter four sects don’t cause me/us trouble; I consider Assad and the Baath to be secular, in case you care to quibble about the Alawi. 

I know enough about the differences in these sects to be able to spot civilizational affinities across broader religious enmities, but many Westerners don’t.  This takes some work, mostly reading, which most people can’t be assed to do.  It also takes a willingness to learn and admit you were wrong about things you didn’t understand, something even more people are bad at/incapable of.

This brings me by my typically torturous path to my second point.  As of today, Omar Khadr has been released on bail from an Alberta prison, despite the best efforts of the Canadian Government (ah, rule of law) and at least one of the American veterans he injured when he threw that grenade in Afghanistan.  I will not recant my opinion that a fourth bullet (Khadr survived being shot three times) would have saved a lot of trouble, but that was then and this is now.  Omar says that he is “a good person” and wants people to get to know him for that.  It may come as a surprise to some, but I’m willing to give him a chance to do just that.   He was brainwashed into jihad by his family (why the hell are they still allowed to live here?) and I am sceptical that he has left that all behind, but he’s been in prison (including Guantanamo) since he was 15 so it’s possible that he would like to do his time and fade into a quiet life. 

Only time will tell, but unless we were going to lock him up forever (which was not the case) he was getting out eventually, and now is as good a time as any.  I offer no predictions of his future behaviour; if I had that sort of prescience I’d use it on the lottery or the horses and not waste it on this sort of thing.  All I will say is that it’s possible (depending entirely on Khadr’s character) that cutting him a bit of slack is a good thing and will put him on the right track.  If so, great and I hope he makes something positive of his life.  If he regresses to his family’s mean, well, there’s still that fourth bullet.

Who defends everything, defends nothing

The big international news of the day is the investigation into the crash of Germanwings flight 4U 9525 into the French Alps this Tuesday past. Current evidence from the voice recorder and the profile of the flight supports the idea that the co-pilot locked the pilot out and then deliberately plowed the plane into the mountainside.  It is a reflection of our times that there is a fair bit said about the co-pilot’s religion or lack of it, and we all know what religion it is they’re tiptoeing around.

We may never know why this guy murdered everyone on board, but that’s life sometimes.  We have a whole bunch of murderous buggers whose intent is clearly announced to us, and there should not be a lot of debate about what we need to do about that.  Certainly debate about “how”, but nobody who can be bothered to know what is going on can honestly suggest that there is any other (useful) solution to these Da’esh etc. Salafists than a bullet in the head apiece.

And yet what have we in Canada’s House of Commons? (Legislative branch of Canada’s govt’t in case you didn’t know) There we see members of the opposition parties splitting hairs about whether Canada has “UN authorization” to bomb Da’esh targets over the now-notional Iraq/Syria border.

The Prime Minister has mocked them pretty effectively (says I; and they say Harper doesn’t have a sense of humour) but the mendacious and clueless tripe being spewed by Mulcair (who’s smart enough to know better) and Trudeau (who, well, doesn’t appear to be) won’t cut much ice with the general public.  Most people see enough of what’s happening over there to know that something has to be done about it.

The idea that this seems to be moving toward is a (cursory) examination of why we would intervene here as opposed to any number of other places.  One comment I saw was about how it must be oil since people are constantly being slaughtered in Africa and we don’t get involved there.  Yes, we get some oil from the general region, but we will not roll in there and pump the place dry due to our military action.  If everything was “about oil” we wouldn’t have an embargo against Iran, and in any event we could get by without ME oil.  If we did, however, the same people bleating here would be braying that we’re extracting our “dirty” oil sands (and building pipelines for it) to replace the light, cleaner stuff our east coast refineries get from Saudi and Algeria. 

As for Africa, there is plenty of stuff we’d like from Africa, far rarer than oil.  Economic motivations are insufficient for Canada to commit armed force; that much we just won’t do.  Millions of people are slaughtered in Africa (by other Africans), but they aren’t proclaiming a world-wide empire and declaring war on us (Boko Haram’s declaration for IS aside) so no, we don’t have pressing interest in their insoluble problems.

One reason, sufficient in itself I’d say, is that we simply can’t help out everywhere, but that doesn’t mean we should sit idly by and do nothing.  Rwanda should be enough evidence to the chattering classes that having the UN’s approval for being somewhere is not equivalent with doing what needs to be done; the opposite is more likely as far as I’m concerned.

We could do much more for the Kurds et al than we are, and our troops would think it worth doing.  This won’t happen, but a Battlegroup such as we had in Kandahar would make a massive difference in stabilizing that area.  We’d lose some people, but soldiers are paid for those sorts of risks, and in this case it’s not a lost cause (as opposed to Afghanistan), at least as long as you circumscribe the mission appropriately.  More of our boots (and tracks) on the ground would make short work of any IS forces who tried to come at us (or got in our way) while the nastiest city fighting could be left to the indigenous troops; it’s their fight at the end of the day.  This provides worthwhile and much appreciated support while not putting our troops and equipment through a meat grinder like Mosul or Tikrit.

We could probably do other things too.  We could help the French (more than we already have) in the Sahel, we could sort out South Sudan (maybe) or, my own pet project; a change of regime in Zimbabwe.  Bad things are happening to one degree or another in all of these places and many more, but intervention in any of them is neither easily practical nor sufficiently critical to our National Interest (remember that, anyone?) to justify us being there. 

So, where’s the line for intervention?  What are the criteria?  This is an art, not a science, so it’s not easy to quantify these things; what’s worth fighting for, more importantly what worth dying for, is extremely subjective.  In the case of Kurdistan, there are people there who a) want our help, b) need our help, and even more importantly c) will appreciate it.  I’ve said all of this before, but it’s worth saying again.  It occurs to me to put it into a rough equation for determining where we should help out (where L=locals):

 
[(LWant + LNeed + LAttitude + Probabillity of Mission Success) x National Interest] > [Risk + Expense] = Intervention  

 An algorithm/flow chart would do this better, but you get the idea.  Weighting of factors is fraught, but if I were to apply this to our post-2002 involvement in Afghanistan, it would not have passed, mainly due to the PoMS and NI factors being essentially nil.  If anyone with more math than me wants to refine this, go for it.  It won't change anything, but I think it visualizes the thought/risk analysis process pretty well.  I'd be interested to see a representation of the thought process of people who know what I know yet still think we shouldn't be helping in Iraq/Syria, especially in light of the assembled coalition.  Doubt I could make sense of it though. 

A lot of drops will fill a bucket

At time of writing the Canadian government has voted to undertake the combat missions against Da'esh which we were at least partially doing already. Where this goes I don't know, but past practice from Afghanistan coupled with our current fiscal restraint suggests that this will remain at the level of low-rate airstrikes against painfully "safe" targets and some undisclosed Special Ops activity. Better than nothing, but unlikely to make a difference in the grand scheme.

Still, it's important to do something and we are at least doing that. What I draw more encouragement from is stories like this:

Dillon Hillier was working construction in Alberta when ISIS gunmen began their brutal push into Kurdish territory. A veteran of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, he decided he couldn’t just watch it happen.

Last weekend, the 26-year-old infantryman left Calgary and flew to northeastern Iraq to help Kurdish fighters fend off the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham. “I just felt it was the right thing to do since they’re facing some pretty tough times,” he said in an interview.

Unlike the radicalized youths who have flocked to Syria and Iraq, Mr. Hillier is a military veteran and he is siding with ISIS’s most formidable enemy, the Peshmerga. Mr. Hillier said he expected to be joined over the coming weeks by volunteers from Canada, the United States and Sweden.

To help Canadians eager to fight ISIS, an Ottawa military veteran recently formed the 1st North American Expeditionary Force. Ian Bradbury said former Canadian Forces members had launched the non-profit group to provide financial and logistical support to friends who felt compelled to volunteer.

The Kurds are the only group over there who both have ability to resist Da'esh (and equivalents) and a tolerant and reasonably progressive mindset as a culture. In short, they are worth supporting against the alternatives, and not merely as the lesser of available evils. They also appreciate the help, a rare trait in that part of the world.

Experience has shown that supporting most Arab groups is a waste of time as they're never happy whatever you do or don't do. Largely anecdotal, but we don't need peer-reviewed studies to tell us that if Iraq was a tar baby Syria would be the same.

It's not just the Arabs of course, there are a lot of other groups just as opportunistic (Afghans leap to mind) but we have proven Nation-Building to be a failed model, expensive in blood and treasure. The Kurds have built their own; it's still under construction but they'll do it themselves with some support from us, as it should be. They have a chance to be the beacon of "democracy" tolerance and freedom in the Middle East that Bush II and the NeoCons thought they could fashion post-Saddam Iraq into.

Young men have been trickling in from Western countries to bolster the Kurds, and by extension the displaced Christians, Yazidis and civilized Sunni Muslims of northern (nominal) Iraq. I wonder if anyone has thought of approaching the Saudis to grubstake these guys.  Infidels of course, but along with that they are a pretty safe bet to not boomerang on the House of Saud like the Sunni proxies they usually use. The cost effectiveness of supporting Western volunteers in Kurdistan could be very high. Here's the pitch:

End State: Kurdish autonomous area secured and displaced persons returned to their homes in contiguous areas.

How: Support to Kurdish forces and creation of a support system for volunteer replacements from other countries.

Salient features:

• Hub created in theatre with money from Gulf and Western governments
• Ground organization consisting of recruitment, supply and medical facilities
• Employs mostly locals
• Tickets home are part of the supply arrangements

I envision a small staff to liaise with applicants, pick them up from the airport, issue them with weapons, body armour, ammo, first aid kit and a local cell phone. From there link them up with the Peshmerga for employment and hope that the field hospital you've set up doesn't see them for anything worse than top-up inoculations.

An actual International Brigade is a bad idea, but a dedicated support organization for the individuals, especially the supply and medical resources, will encourage more guys to go. As mentioned in the linked National Post article, ad hoc support groups have been forming in home countries, but things remain sketchy on the receiving end.  With "allies" like this, the Kurds and the people they're sheltering need all the help we can give them.

Draw the correct lessons from Ottawa

Last week in Canada generated world-wide headlines for the dramatic attack on an honour guard soldier at our national war memorial and subsequent armed attack on our House of Parliament (seat of the Federal government in Canada).  Twenty-four-year-old Corporal Nathan Cirillo of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Hamilton ON) was shot from behind and killed as he stood with an unloaded rifle at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and a security guard (again unarmed) at the doors of the Centre Block was wounded trying to deflect the gunman as he charged into the building.

This was pretty crazy for Ottawa, but it was in fact the second attack on a member of Canada’s Armed Forces by a Canadian Muslim convert in that one week; see my previous post. This was another act of terrorism, and we have Sgt-at-Arms Kevin Vickers (head of Parliamentary security) to thank for putting the Ottawa shooter out of our misery.  We also still have PM Stephen Harper to thank for calling it the Islamist terrorism that it is.  There seems to be some opportunistic bill jamming-through, but I’ll leave that out of this.

Can we expect more of this sort of thing?  I would say “yes”, and it’s good that a lone-wolf (who could easily have done much more damage) was the first attack, to shake up security arrangements.  The vehicular attack on Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent earlier that week is the sort of thing you can’t really prepare for, except by paying more attention to your surroundings. I stayed away from this until the dust settled a bit, and now I have some observations.

Firstly, more preventative detention of people who express an interest in “jihad” is in order.  It’s all very nice to make lists of potential bad apples, but when they start killing people that practice is obviously deficient.  You “like” Islamic State on Facebook?  Go to jail for 10+ years for terrorism/sedition.  Yes, sure it might “drive them underground” (too many quotes in this paragraph already) but if you’re not going to stop them when they are operating out in the open that hardly makes a difference. 

Secondly, our security needs some tweaking but mostly on the enforcement side.  Canada is not completely clueless (at the pointy end at least) about the threats we face, but there must be political will to do something about it, and I must say from a domestic political standpoint, the current party/leader combination is the only one which looks like it might have the stones for that.   The Guards at Buckingham Palace carry loaded weapons and there has been talk of arming our sentries, but that won’t happen here due to jurisdictional issues. I have thought about this a bit over that last several days, and on balance it’s better it stays that way provided that the local police will guard them, as is happening now. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Now we know.  If I were running things I would give the sentries a loaded mag so that they are not helpless, but still leave the cops as the first line of response.

Thirdly, media and public reactions.  This implies no conspiracy, but I am going to very cynically say that these attacks are timed very well for the Canadian Armed Forces.  The years in Afghanistan are behind us and the military was largely losing relevance to the public, dissipating the high regard in which they were held.  Defence funding was slashed back to levels not seen since the “peace dividend” Decade of Darkness of the 1990s and it was obvious that even the supposedly CAF-friendly Conservative government had lost sight of the necessity to maintain what you have.  The Canadian public has rallied around Cpl Cirillo in particular, (WO Vincents’s murder was far less telegenic) and two attacks in short order have brought the home-grown jihadi problem into focus a bit more.  I have no illusions that forceful direct action will result from this, but it’s better than nothing.

Media response was well handled overall, but I feel that the hand-wringing about 22 October being “the day that changed everything in Ottawa” was overdone.  That day was in fact September 11^th 2001, and it changed everywhere else in the Western world that day too; a sense of perspective is in order here.  It’s now the week after and things are going back to modified normal just as they should be.  It’s time to stop reacting and start acting against the threats within our borders.  If these fucks want to go to Syria to get killed, let them go and cancel their passports as soon as they clear a European airport.  Pressure on them will push some in that direction, and if they don’t leave they go to jail.  I don’t give a shit if you were born here or not; if Canada isn’t good enough for you get out and don’t come back.

Greater Eurasian Co-Prosperity Sphere

The trigger for me to reactivate this blog was the Crimea crisis, and that is not yet over at time of writing.  A number of people have been impressed by how PM Harper is sticking it to the Russians over this, but I don't see the value of it.  I'm pretty sure Putin realises that this posturing (authentic as the feelings may be) is political in nature, but it doesn't look to have made any difference on the ground whatsoever.

Putin continues to play his cards close to his vest and my appreciation of the Donetsk basin as the next potential flashpoint is still in play.  As the US tries to figure out what Putin plans, I will put out there what I suspect is happening in his head on this.

As stated previously, Russia needs Russians, and there are a lot of them in the eastern Ukraine.  That is the grand plan, recreation of as much of the Russian Empire as they can without getting in a (big) shooting war to do so.  Second factor, Putin has proven himself a highly adept geopolitical opportunist, which plays into the empire building as well as general manoeuvring.  When faced with such inept (America) and beholden (Europe) opposition as Russia is right now, Putin is king of the hill.

Canada is making a principled stand against the annexation of Crimea, but principles are cheap when you have no skin in the game.  Crimea is not going back to Ukraine barring force majure and that's not happening.  It didn't work so well last time either.

My question is whether the Kremlin's threat assessment of international action in case of "assistance" to Russian-speaking eastern Ukrainians comes up plus or minus.  If Putin gains more than he loses, he'll probably go for it.  The sanctions we can/will bring to bear are limited in effect on a country as large and endowed with resources as Russia.  Equally important, the Chinese and the Indians, as well as most of Central Asia will continue to trade and otherwise work with Russia, China more so if it discomfits the US.

It has also been said that Ukraine had better show some willingness to fight for its' territory, and I think this an excellent point.  Russia would beat them handily, but just because you will probably lose isn't sufficient reason to not fight in this case.  What does get drowned out in all of this is the political/social mess that Ukraine is, so I have no real faith in their ability to put an effective military force in the field even if they are inclined to do so.

 At this point I think military force is the only credible deterrent to Putin, and even then only when it will actually be used.  An armed, contested invasion of Ukraine is an undeniable act of war and contravention of international law, and that was enough to get people to defend Kuwait 24 years ago.  Ukraine doesn't have the oil of Kuwait, but it does occupy a strategic buffer position in Eurasia, so you'd think the Europeans might take some issue with carving it up.

I suspect that most Europeans consider Ukraine not worth the bones of a single Swabian Panzer Grenadier, so it's up to the Poles and other border countries to stand up and conduct some "exercises" of their own in Ukraine.  An attack on the troops of a NATO member would force NATO to act, and forcing NATO to act is in the "minus" column for Putin.  As a side note, if NATO isn't prepared to act to counter Russian territorial aggrandizement, it might as well pack it in, as that's what it was set up to do!

Putin could over-reach himself, but under current conditions taking the Russian-majority areas of east Ukraine wouldn't be stretching too far, so consider that.   I think the decision on what to do will come in the next few days, and will depend heavily on what the US does.  On past performance, I'll bet on Putin having effectively a free hand, whatever that portends. 

Exit, Stage Right

As I write this, the last of Canada's mission to Afghanistan are back home.  At 12+ years it is our longest war, even though the intense period (2006-2011) puts us in the same ballpark as WW2. 

Is Afghanistan better off than in 2001? Without question. The questions come in when you look at the prognosis for stability, and that isn't great. We did what we could, more than Afghanistan has ever done for us, and anyone who expects more than that can do it themselves. Hopefully enough Afghans have something to lose now and will fight to keep their gains, but time will tell.

What separates Afghanistan from our previous expeditionary wars is the casualty rate.  We lost 158 dead and several hundred (unpublished) seriously wounded: that's one bad Battalion attack in either World War and a large fraction of our losses in Korea over a much shorter period.

Each of those losses is a tragedy for individuals, but the scale makes a negligible impact on the fabric of Canadian society; the Army was at war, the Country wasn't.  The frequent question is "Was it worth it?".  I don't know the calculus of nation-building, so I can just hope that more people were helped than were hurt.  Some will regret going due to injuries or loss of friends, but the CA is a professional volunteer force, and nobody was forced to go.  It was, for lack of a more sensitive word, an adventure for many of us, and indeed what we signed up to do.

Afghanistan has profoundly changed both the Canadian Army and the public's relationship with us, and I hope that goodwill remains.  The public is fickle however, and there is nothing new about it:

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

RIP to my comrades fallen in Afghanistan, and the best possible recovery to those who came home wounded in body and/or mind. Lest we forget.

A stick in the spokes of the "Axis of Evil"

A couple of days ago, the Government of Canada cut diplomatic relations with the Islamic republic of Iran, closing our embassy and booting out theirs. I say: about bloody time.

There are the usual (Prime Minister of Canada) Harper-haters who seem to love every repressive Islamic regime the world over and have been chiming in on this, but the truth is that Iran's current government is NOT a friend we want. Working off the "company you keep" model of character, let's see who Iran's friends are; this should convince most people that we are right to keep our distance.

1. Syria, specifically the Assad regime. Do I really need to go into detail here?
2. Hezbollah. Regardless of the general anti-Israel bent of much of the media and the Left, Hezbollah is not the sort of neighbour anyone wants, at least not if they want to do things their own way. Of course the usual suspects don't care as long as it's just "Zionists" who are being killed...
3. China. China is all about business and expanding their influence, and as close to amoral about who they deal with as you care to get. China is also blocking the UN Security Council on votes to do something about the mess in Syria.
4. Venezuela: Chavez and his cronies are big fans and have gotten a lot of arms and training from the Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah affiliates.

This gives you the idea. I was going to include Russia on that list, but they have been distancing themselves from Iran for a while now. I have said it before and I say it again now: the Iranian PEOPLE are not our enemy, just the current regime (which many Iranians have been tortured, raped and killed for opposing). If anything this move by my government is long overdue. When they get a decent government back in we'll reestablish regular relations; until then there is no point in even talking to them.

And if Israel/whoever else attacks Iran? I don't think going after their nuke program is worthwhile, but bombing the #%&k out of the IRGC would be a step to the good for everyone. Well, everyone we might want to help, anyway.

Mamelukes out, stupid politics in (as always)

I saw this coming but I hoped to be wrong, and "here we go" as said previously. The Army could still stand up and run a counter-coup against Mursi, but the moral is to the material as three is to one. All of the moral (morale) is on the side of the Brotherhood, the Army seems to have lost its' mojo.


Ok, what else is happening right now? The Olympics (London 2012) wrapped up yesterday without anything blowing up, so I'll count that as a win for our side. Syria is dragging out longer than Libya did earlier this year/last year which shows you what a difference it makes not having a major power (Ok, the USA) throwing in on one side. It's turning into a three or four-sided proxy war with the CIA arming some of the rebels, the Saudis et al arming the Islamist ones, Iran backing the Assad regime and the Turks worrying about the increasingly autonomous-looking Kurdish area along their border.

Closer to home, the low and high points of Canadian politics there will soon be a Provincial election in Quebec, and the Parti Quebecois (PQ) is promising to crack down on the use of English in Quebec. There are regressive forces everywhere so we can only hope that the PQ don't get back in, but we've heard this tune before and survived.

Also with Canadian news, this time with an international bent, the Europeans are trying to get us to pony up cash to bail out their poor relations. PM Harper is so far holding firm on the "no" to that and I hope that line is maintained. I see no reason whatsoever that anyone, let alone countries with no direct connection to the "Eurozone" should spend their taxpayers' money bailing out people who couldn't be bothered to balance a budget.

I thought I had more on all of this, and certainly if I was discussing all of this with people I'd have more to say, but I'm not so I don't. So There.

Battle of the Bulge

Today I'm aiming in the general direction of the future of Western countries, staying close to home (Canada, specifically Quebec) to look at the demographic imbalance and expectations for the future.  In other words, wherever this takes me.  According to Statistics Canada, deaths will start to outnumber births in Canada c. 2030, i.e. the near future.  A quarter-century after that the population is projected to be about 42 million.  Here looks like a good spot to wander into the minefield of immigration policy so I shall start there.

It is obvious to sensible people (a rare breed, alas) that we need immigrants, but not just anyone.  Criminals, the mentally or seriously ill, the just plain stupid, we can grow our own, we don't need to import them.  We are looking for people with some kind of skill and/or a good general education including a functional knowledge of English or French (but really English for anywhere outside of Quebec, let's face it) and a desire and ability to go where the work is.

I remember a university class over 20 years ago where this subject came up, and I said something to the effect of the above.  I was promptly branded a "racist" for wanting people with education and skills, the accuser's (stated) assumption that these people could only come from Europe.  As I said not word one about source country, who exactly is the racist here?  I dismembered her quite handily in the brief debate which followed but I'm sure she's running some government department or molding young minds somewhere these days.

The young (and not-so-young) minds marching around Montreal right now are looking into the yawning chasm of the Boomer- Gen X - Gen Y crossover and those working on useless Humanities degrees (the bulk of the ones on the streets) are wondering what's in it (the system) for them.  Good question, but I don't think rampaging through the streets and getting yourself a criminal record is going to improve your prospects.

They are bafflingly getting more support these days, and I suppose we can lay this at the Premier's feet.  The "emergency law" they passed was redundant and just gave the protesters something to rally against.  These things need to be dealt with firmly from the get-go and the vacillation of the government in the early days allowed things to get out of hand.

That however is tactical, and it's the strategic situation which needs looking at.  There is currently a bulge in the population creating an oversupply of labour.  However, just like the bulge which a snake's meal creates, this will eventually pass.  The question is "when" and the answer is not encouraging for these "students".  The tail end of the Baby Boom hit 15 years old (entry to the workforce) in 1981, which means they won't hit the new retirement age of 67 until 2033.

Ouch.  This is not to say that there will be no labour mobility in the next 20 years, but with the general shift in the economy to less labour-intensive modes of production will mean that expanding economy or no, the job opportunities will not be there for many for quite a while.  What do I know, things could change, right?

If I could make accurate economic forecasts I wouldn't be writing my anonymous blog for almost no audience so we can assume there are things I don't know.  Regardless of the accuracy of my model, I would like to see what exactly these protesters intend to happen.  Don't like Bill 78? I've scant sympathy as there is nothing in that "excessive" and "abuse of power" law which will inconvenience anyone who's not invading classrooms and blocking traffic.  The government is corrupt?  No shocker that, but we have a mechanism for throwing the bums out every 4-5 years, so build up a party and get your platform of free education and unicorns for all elected in Charest's place.

All of these movements are problems without viable solutions.  If any of these people can look around at Europe (Greece et al) and remain under the illusion that there is an inexhaustible supply of other peoples' money to pay for their free tuition it's just as well they're not in school right now since education is wasted on them.  Education to me of course means information containing facts, not the hippie/radical feminist/Marxist bullshit the Gender Studies etc. faculty teaches so no wonder expectations are so divorced from reality.

One can rail against the preceding generations for stacking things in their actuarial favour but I fail to see what good that will do the following generations.  Mine (X) is the generation which will bear the brunt of this as we expected to retire at 65 or earlier and now won't be able to.  Life's hard, and we will reap the whirlwind.  It will be a LOT worse for those following us if things aren't reined under control now, and running huge deficits will not accomplish that.  As sad as it is to say, we all have to accept that the skies are not as blue for us as they were for our Boomer parents and grandparents.

Solutions?  Not exactly, but a repeal of the rampant credentialism and grade inflation which has entrenched since the 1960s would be a start.  If it is made attractive once again for companies to hire apprentices or "mail room" level people straight from Secondary school a great deal of money and student debt could be saved.  The days of a "Company" job for life are gone, but something like that could come back with advantages (stability for those who want it) for Labour and Capital.  If it worked before, a version of it could work again.  Banging pots in the streets is not going to help anything unless it by itself can smarten up people and therefore the government that supports it.  I'm not betting on that.

Working for the Clampdown

Being of a generally libertarian bent, I'm never keen on anything that gets in the way of people minding their own business. The corollary to that is of course that I am VERY much in favour of things which put a stick in the spokes of people who make life harder (or shorter) for people like me. This can mean anything from sclerotic bureaucracies and over-reaching police to professional victims who will grind things to a halt because they're not happy.

Enter the Great Mask Debate of 2012. Montreal, indeed much of Quebec, has been regularly disrupted by mobs of "students" bitching about their entitlements. There has also (finally!) been a lot of talk and maybe even some action about the masked idiots participating in these marches. There is still a lot of hand-wringing about what if anything to do about this, but as usual I have some ideas.

Concern #1: Civil liberties. No ban on hiding your face is an imposition on your right to free assembly for peaceable purposes. Things vary country to country, but in Canada we have rules for things that happen in public and there never was carte blanche to disturb the peace. There are laws (finally being enforced) that prevent you from camping in city parks etc. A whole lot of people have been breaking these laws, all of which are there to ensure that business and public life can carry on without undue imposition from mobs.

Concern #2: Enforcement. "You can't arrest everyone if they're all wearing a mask!" No, and it was impractical for a Roman Centurion to slaughter his entire command for cowardice, etc. too. The solution then, as now is Decimation. Taken literally it means "to take one in ten", e.g. kill every tenth man. There is no reason a less-lethal application couldn't set the example. I would apply this with a bit of "profiling" i.e. take preferentially the people who most looked like they were up to no good, but a smattering of "harmless" looking types should be collared as well so that people don't figure that bright colours or hippy, etc. clothes will give them a free pass.

Concern # 3: Violent reactions to #2 above. If you are concerned about the reactions of criminals to the enforcement of the law, you might as well disband the police and give the country over to violent anarchy. "Criminals?" you say? "Isn't that presumptive? These start as peaceful protests!" Well,  ignorance of the law is no excuse as they say, so here is some education for all those participating in a public assembly. This is from the Criminal Code of Canada, but wherever you live I pretty much guarantee you have something similar.

63. (1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they

(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or
(b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.

Marginal note: Lawful assembly becoming unlawful
(2) Persons who are lawfully assembled may become an unlawful assembly if they conduct themselves with a common purpose in a manner that would have made the assembly unlawful if they had assembled in that manner for that purpose.

64. A riot is an unlawful assembly that has begun to disturb the peacetumultuously.

Pretty neat eh? Check this next bit, this is the part you really need
to know.

65. Every one who takes part in a riot is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 66.

Marginal note: Punishment for unlawful assembly 
66. Every one who is a member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.


Consequences, people, consequences; these students are supposedly bright types and may in fact know the above already. Likely they (or at least some of them) do, hence the desire to avoid said consequences by say, hiding their identity? Anyway in for a penny, in for a pound; I like these parts too so I'll keep rolling with the CCOC.

Reading proclamation
67. A person who is
(a) a justice, mayor or sheriff, or the lawful deputy of a mayor
or sheriff,
(b) a warden or deputy warden of a prison, or
(c) the institutional head of a penitentiary, as those
expressions are defined in subsection 2(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, or that person's deputy,who receives notice that, at any place within the jurisdiction of the person, twelve or more persons are unlawfully and riotously assembled together shall go to that place and, after approaching as near as is safe, if the person is satisfied that a riot is in progress, shall command silence and thereupon make or cause to be made in a loud voice a proclamation in the following words or to the like effect:
Her Majesty the Queen charges and commands all persons being assembled
immediately to disperse and peaceably to depart to their habitations or
to their lawful business on the pain of being guilty of an offence for
which, on conviction, they may be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.

[This would be lots of fun in this exact form in Quebec right now...]

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 67;
1994, c. 44, s. 5.
Marginal note: Offences related to proclamation
68. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for life who
(a) opposes, hinders or assaults, wilfully and with force, a person who begins to make or is about to begin to make or is making the proclamation referred to in section 67 so that it is not made;
(b) does not peaceably disperse and depart from a place where the proclamation referred to in section 67 is made within thirty minutes after it is made; or
(c) does not depart from a place within thirty minutes when he has reasonable grounds to believe that the proclamation referred to in section 67 would have been made in that place if some person had not
opposed, hindered or assaulted, wilfully and with force, a person who would have made it.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 69.

"...liable for imprisonment for life..."! I don't see that happening but if you want to go out and "smash the state", capitalism, globalization, what-have-you, be very aware of the ice you're walking on. One final bit of the section worth noting for the authorities:

Neglect by peace officer
69. A peace officer who receives notice that there is a riot within his jurisdiction and, without reasonable excuse, fails to take all reasonable steps to suppress the riot is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Peace, Order and Good Government. That's what Canada is all about. We make no pretense in our Constitution of any "pursuit of happiness"; keeping the wheels on is what this country is all about from its' founding to present. This means that our public officials have a DUTY to do their jobs and keep the yobs off the streets even if that means making them (the yobs) unhappy. I suspect that once you slap fines on your average protestor for wearing a mask, only the hard core (who were going to be a problem anyway) will keep at it. Then comes the richly deserved head-cracking and  tear-gassing.

Making this work is in two parts: enforcement and moderation. The students in Quebec are losing what public support they may have had, so the time is ripe for a crackdown. I've used the phrase "pour encourager les autres" before, and taking enough of these protesters into custody (to be punished as appropriate) will gut the movement and restore order sooner rather than later.

It's possible to go too far (the "kettling" etc. in Toronto two years ago ) but despite the propaganda, another Tiananmen Square is simply not going to happen if a few dozen idiots get picked up and fined for wearing a mask. Random civilians will not be swept up for minding their own business, and that's one of my tests for a tolerable restriction on our behaviour.

The Maple Leaf for Now

First off, all the best to you in the year that Mayans decided to stop making calendars; considering where that civilization is these days I'd say they built more than enough redundancy into them. I can never guarantee we won't have a cataclysm, but I'll put my money (and everything else!) on the fact that I'll still be around this time a year from now.
 

AotF starts the year starts with more local musings on civilization. Canada is 40+ years down the history-abnegating path of Multiculturalism and Political Correctness, and we finally have a government which is trying to reclaim the common past of this country.
 

Political observers of all stripes believe the revival of interest in Canada's colonial history is part of a broader Conservative effort to rekindle patriotism and reshape Canada's culture more in the government's own image.

Tom Flanagan, a former adviser to Prime Minister Stephen Harper who now teaches at the University of Calgary, said that vision took root many years ago -- and originated at the top.

"Stephen once said to me that a conservative party in any country ought to be party of patriotism," Flanagan said in an email. "He is now creating a conservative version of Canadian patriotism."

Harper's brand of national pride relies heavily on elements common to many right-wing political movements, including unwavering support for the military and a push to lay claim to the country's far-flung northern regions, Flanagan said.

 

The thing that gets the most press of course is the attention to the formalities of our association with the Crown. There seem to be a lot of people who can't tell the difference between a Republic (what the USA started off as) and a Constitutional Monarchy, our form of government. The Queen is our Head of State, not the Prime Minister, and as long as that relationship is maintained protocol must be observed.
 

Where I weigh in on this is the connection it provides Canadians with a common heritage. Quebec, although intimately wound up in Canada’s common colonial past will always be bent out of shape about that fact that a German king took over from their French one. La Belle Provence has never accepted that they were but a Great Power pawn, so getting them on board with the monarchy is not going to happen.
 

Canada was referred to as "two solitudes" but I'd like to think we can reduce that to one: Nationalist Quebecois  who are already a vanishing political force. The rest of us, whatever our extraction, can adopt Canada with an identifiable history. Even if it wasn't your ancestors directly, you should be able to adopt the broad sweep of Canada's history, for example:
 

At Queenston Heights and Lundy's Lane,

Our brave fathers, side by side,

For freedom, homes and loved ones dear,

Firmly stood and nobly died;

And those dear rights which they maintained,

We swear to yield them never!

Our watchword evermore shall be

"The Maple Leaf forever!"
 

The whole of "The Maple Leaf Forever" is dated, sure, but there need to be things that a culture can identify as its' own or it doesn't exist. The latter works for "progressives" for whom everything that might set someone apart from anyone else is bad, but even a democracy requires an identity if people are going to be inspired to work for it.
 

Defending our territory is foremost in the duties of the Federal government, so solidifying our hold on the Arctic should not be at all controversial, merely overdue. Acknowledging the constitutional advantages of having a hereditary Head of State with (very) limited but absolute powers to dissolve government shows the robustness of our Democracy to withstand tyranny and demagoguery.
 

I am not a Monarchist for the sake of the Royal Family (Charles as King, really?) but the Canada that most people can agree that they want to live in would not be secure as a Republic. The separation of taxation power from the hereditary/appointed Crown which has the power to approve and dissolve government provides a simple "check and balance" on the prerogatives of both elements. Supporting that should not only be a "conservative" position.
 

Anyway, I pulled back in to start off the New Year, but I'm sure there will be wide-ranging wackiness for me to comment on before long. As I do occasionally, I'll appeal to any of you who read this to give me some sign with comments or even the quick "tick in the box" impressions I've provided for your convenience. No names, no pack drill, but I am curious to know a bit about who is looking at this.

Dead Celebrities and Sentiment

I have no unusual compunctions about speaking ill of the dead, but it is generally considered rude. At the very least, if you have unpleasant things to say they should at least be unimpeachably accurate, since the dead guy is in no position to defend himself.

I do however object to the mawkish outpouring of sentiment which is de rigeur for so many people today. Even more than that, I object to being told that I'm out of line by not caring too much about the death of people I don't know.

With that up front, I will come out and back up Christie Blatchford (link) for saying what a lot of us are thinking. Not all of us, maybe not even most of us any more, but still a lot. Jonathan Kay, one of her co-workers at the NPost says it as well as I could hope to:

Eleven years later [after Trudeau's death], it is Jack Layton who has died. And the same climate of enforced sentimentality is in effect: The entire Canadian media has given a free pass to Jack Layton’s widely published deathbed political manifesto, which promiscuously mingled laudable paeans to love and optimism with not so laudable snipes at the Harper government (such as Layton’s encouragement to NDP followers to “restore [Canada's] good name in the world,” as if Canada had somehow become a rogue state under the Conservatives).

There is more, but the freedom of speech here, imperfect as it is, does cover not being sucked in by posthumous propaganda, so those who dare to rail against it should do so and know that they are not alone. As for the late Jack Layton, I never agreed with much he had to say, and I shudder at the thought of his party running Canada, but I wished no ill on the man. The good side? The odds are that the socialist tide is going out with Jack, so I'll wait for the afterglow to fade and hope that we continue to have a solid economy and good governance.

Come see the stablity inherent to the system!

Yes, a Monty Python mis-quote, but this fool's deluded bit of political theatre will not accomplish her stated aim.

Though she was immediately fired from the sought-after position, Marcelle said she doesn't regret upstaging the government on its coming out day in Ottawa.

In fact, Marcelle, who is also a theatre performer, called on people across the country to stage Canada's own version of the "Arab Spring" and stand up to the recently-elected Conservative majority government.

"This is the only way we're going to see real change," Marcelle told CTV News Channel, as she conceded that Harper's majority government will hold parliamentary sway for the next four years.

I could in fact make a case for sedition and according criminal charges, but she got off lightly with being fired from her job. "Stand up" to the elected government? That was what the ELECTION was for you stupid bint. I am being particularly insulting to this person because of what she represents, which is the school of "the election gave the 'wrong' result, so it's invalid".

It's not quite anarchism or nihilism, but what it is is dangerous to civil society and the rule of law. There are plenty of people who don't like our "first past the post" election system, but there are two solutions for them:

1. go somewhere that has a system you like better, I won't get in your way, or;


2. elect a government that will do away with the system that got them elected (bon chance).

Promoting popular uprisings to bring down the government is the definition of sedition (OCD) and shilling these "Arab Spring" things to do so is both disloyal to the people who were paying her and shows a lack of any kind of sense. I have met these people in university and beyond, and it doesn't surprise me that they know nothing of the laws of the land and our principles of government. As a refresher, the Canadian government is founded on Peace, Order and Good Government.

Again that word "change". Beware idealists throwing that around. I want to know what exactly it is that you want to see, and if you won't tell me then you can't possibly be better than the status quo. Oh, here it is:

"I think that Harper's agenda is so damaging that it called for something that is different," she said. "I think we really need to take action."

A bit overblown at the very least. I don't see any internment camps, conscription, repealing of the Charter of Rights or anything that isn't merely reinforcing something we're already doing or removing something that the Liberals have decided we needed ((non-restricted gun registry, pour example). Keeping the economy at the top of the G8 is not "damaging" in my books, neither is paring back the bloated Public Service. Government must give good value for tax money, and live within those means. The more of that Stephen Harper's government accomplishes, the more it does what those of us (minority or not) who voted for them wanted them to do.

So have your protests within the law if you'd like to, but your chance to change the government was lost when everyone who wanted to "stop Harper" failed to unite on that principle. In standard bell curve fashion Left, Centre and Right each take up roughly 1/3 of the population; if 2/3 of the left-centre couldn't get together then, tough Twinkies until the next election. I only hope that this Marcelle is banned from Government employment for life; that would give her lots of time to plot the overthrow of the state, but at least I wouldn't be paying her for it.

Too smart for our own good

I have threatened to write about Energy Policy, but before I get into the nuts and bolts of that (superficially at least) I want to say something about ideas and ideology.

I regard myself as a conservative, but this does not mean that I am a slavish follower of Rush Limbaugh or Anne Coulter, or to be more local, believe that Stephen Harper can do no wrong. Conservative, to me, means someone who likes what is proven to work and adopts new things because they will work too. Not "should" work, WILL work; chances need to be taken from time-to-time, but not with everything, and not "just because" or for the sake of Change.

The worst possible reason to do anything is for Good Intentions. This I see as the key dividing line between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives will do something to achieve a set goal, liberals are prone to big picture stuff that runs counter to typical human interests or responses. It's also a key reason that liberals commonly attack their opponents as not being very intelligent. Sarah Palin is an excellent current example of this. Sarah is no Rhodes Scholar (aside: I wonder how many of the lefty recipients of that even know who Cecil Rhodes was and what he stood for?) but neither is 99.99% of the rest of the population.

True disasters are the province of the 99th percentile of brainiacs, so a MENSA card is not in my books a prerequisite for political office. You do need to be clever enough to develop and defend your ideas, but an IQ of 125-140 will allow you to do that as long as you're willing to work a bit harder than the more "gifted".

Sarah looks great on TV, but does she really have the "optimal" brain power for the job she may or may not be seeking? I have no idea (I honestly suspect "no") but she DOES connect to a lot of regular people. The elites hate her of course, but she strikes me as a practical sort for the most part, and politics needs more people who want to make things work and less lawyers who want to change things. One thing I am certain of is that Sarah Palin could not be more of a disaster in the White House than the much "smarter" Barack Obama.

What the hell does this have to do with energy policy? Any planning will be done by the government of the day and ideology plays into it. Sarah Palin's "drill baby, drill" is about keeping the lights on, something that conservatives tend to be big on. Obama has hobbled domestic energy production and intends to do as much more of it as he can through cap and trade, etc. His positions are ideological (thank you, big brains), not practical

Sixty percent of Canadian voters are not happy about the Conservative majority government we currently have, but this government will ensure that nothing overly progressive happens to our economy, and that is both the basis and necessity for establishing a sustainable cheap energy future. Anyone who doesn't support that outcome is either too stupid to have a worthwhile opinion or too "clever" for our/their own good.

Conservatives know that there are no free lunches, and liberals/socialists expect someone else to pay for theirs. With the latter group neutralized for the time being, hopefully some productive work can get done. What I think that means is (probably, what do you want for free?) next.

Si vis pacem, para bellum, non quoqou

Although predicting the future is a fraught pastime, being generally prepared for probable eventualities is merely sensible. A lot of hedging in that sentence, but that's life when dealing with uncertainty. Hedging may be necessary when dealing with the nebulous future, but a hedge, unlike a fence, is not something to sit on, it is for slowing down or mitigating the bad things which may arrive. A common example of this word usage is buying gold as a hedge against inflation.

In the realm of Defence, buying gold will do you no good; you need to be able to anticipate technology, at least as far as what will be available to you and potential adversaries. Technology being what it is it doesn't stand still, and like your electronic devices pretty much anything you buy will be at least obsolescent by the time you take delivery. Not so much of a problem with fairly mature weapon systems like tanks and planes, so I'll talk a bit about the latter and what Canada should be doing to replace our 30-year-old CF-18s.

The front runner is of course the F-35 Lightning II. F-22s were never for sale and are now out of production anyway, and if the F-35 ever works as advertised only the F-22 (of what is available and reasonably projected to become available) would be a more capable fighter.

A lack of definites and certainties there however. The F-35 has been in development for over 15 years and still has a lot of bugs with attendant indefinite completion dates and cost overruns. Since someone (me as a taxpayer, in point of fact) has to pay for whatever we buy, the sort of numbers and per unit costs that are being bandied about are giving me the willies. I'm not into conniption range yet, but I'm still waiting to get some solid numbers so the possibility is there.

The most important question is of course "What do we need?". This question should be arrived at after "What is our mission?", the answer to which should be "To defend our continental airspace and support ground and naval operations." This means anything from waving at Russian bomber pilots over the North Pole to CAS missions in support of JTF2 and CSOR teams in whatever shitholes we get sent to in the near future.


Nothing I can imagine would have our Air Force in a Gotterdammerung against Chinese J-20s over Korea or anything. We'll be asserting our airspace or dropping JDAMs on people we've decided need bombing. The latter mission incidentally is receding in likelihood as the major instigator of us tagging along for some fighting (the USA) is realizing that it is broke and overstretched, not coincidentally because of doing too much of it. A change of government in Washington may produce more resolution than Obama's crew, but the fundamental conditions will persist.


So, what does Canada need? I say we need something good enough that people will be forced to take us seriously, preferably in numbers where we could afford to lose a few over the years (as we inevitably will). I will state categorically here that we do not NEED the F-35 to have a creditable Air Force. Generation 4.5 fighters with drones for the really dangerous missions will give us all the capability a minor power like us can expect to wield, and some attack helicopters would help too.


For my money, I'd get F/A-18F Super Hornets as our multi-role fighter. Stealthy, capable and easy to train our Hornet drivers on, it's also HALF the price of an F-35 ($55M vs. $110M). By my old-style math, that gets us twice as many, and quantity has a quality all it's own. Looking for known quality at a known price (c.$100M) we have the F-15 Silent Eagle. These options keep the Americans from having a hissy fit and we'd get good planes. Having said that, a bit of research suggests that if politics were not an issue (ha!) we could buy Russian planes and helicopters.

Apparently the Sukhoi Su-30/35 Flanker almost completely outclasses the Super Hornet and gives other Gen 4.5 fighters a run for their money, for about the same unit cost as the new F-18s. I present this mostly in the role of Devil's Advocate, as Russian planes don't have a great reputation for build quality. As for helicopters, we need some to fill holes in our tactical capability, the Russians know how to make them and you'd get good bang for your buck. The Ka-50 "Black Shark" even has an ejector seat! Lots of options in the attack helicopter world, but we have no plans to get any so it's moot.

I bring this all up just to underline that deciding on the F-35 "cost be damned" is far from the only option. There are a number of Western designs (Eurofighter, Gripen, Rafale) to provide competition to a plane experiencing what look to be out-of-control cost and time overruns. If we could lock in a deal for say $100M/copy it would be competitive with off-the-shelf packages, otherwise perhaps a less stealthy fighter with some stealthed attack drones for Wild Weasel missions would be a better option. If you're really hung up about creating jobs though, the Russians will do complete technology transfers as part of a deal...