The politics of procurement
During the famous Watergate investigations by young reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Berstein in the early 1970s, the term “follow the money” was used by the mole, codenamed “Deep Throat”, whom we later found out to be the F.B.I’s number two man Mark Felt.
“Follow the money” meant, at that time, that the Committee to Re-elect the President (Nixon) had sent cash to a group known as “the plumbers” (who fix leaks) for break-ins. The money trail was eventually traced back to Nixon himself. Facing impeachment, Nixon resigned.
Today, “follow the money” can also be applied to Afghanistan.
Billions are being spent. Whole bureaucracies are being engaged. Helicopters are being ordered, aerial drones bought, roadside bomb counter-technology scheduled and shipped, manpower adjusted, people trained, back-room promises given, political and otherwise.
The millions Canadians have spent, and will spend, on U.S. (surprise) equipment all goes to U.S. arms manufacturers in un-tendered contracts.
To put the politics of procurement into perspective, British Historian Max Hastings was talking to me a few months ago about the air war over Germany in WW2. The bulk of the destruction at the end of the war, both in Germany and Japan, was gratuitous; nonetheless, rubble was bounced and cities that were desperately trying to treat the wounded and escaping civilians, jammed with women and children and old people, were fire bombed. The kids and old people had no where to go.
I asked him why? Hastings explained that war has logic of its own when the factory for war gets geared up and rolling. Late in WW2 the bombers were still being produced, the bombs made and shipped, the crews scheduled, the radar technology improved, the fighter protection technology improved (the fighters, early in the war had limited range) with more and more fighters shipped to Europe.
Hastings said to me that, whether the bombing campaign was militarily successful or not, you simply wage war the way that you can, and with what you have and that you wage war according to production lines and the huge infrastructure that you set up, regardless of changing circumstances. Until the war was over the bombs would still find targets — even if there weren’t any.
Once the orders have been placed, and the factories readied, the war will go ahead, like it did in
Vietnam and like it does now in Iraq. It is hard to cancel contracts. In the case of Iraq, too much has been spent. But Canada’s spending for Afghanistan has only just begun
I will conclude the WW2 procurement analogy by saying, in the end, that most historians agree that the diversion of half a million men to defend German cities itself helped the allies win despite the fact German war production actually went up during some of the highest saturation bombing periods mainly as a result of underground factories, etc.
In other words, all the resources allocated, all of the factories engaged, and all of the bombs dropped, had only an indirect decisive account on Germany – that was not the goal of the air war at all. But, because of production assembly lines, money allocation, huge ego careers, and internal bureaucratic politics, no one could stop it.
So, here we are in Afghanistan and what do we see? We see the Tories opening Canada’s wallet to spend billions waging war in Afghanistan.
How much of this money will actually go to help the people of Afghanistan?
Everyone even now admits the money earmarked for hospitals is not getting through due to Western incompetence and systemic corruption (we need the warlords so they do whatever they want).
The Pashtun tribes people, referred to as “the Taliban”, somewhat erroneously, as even some undeclared Taliban are fighting the infidel occupiers and Afghan drug lords whom the Western powers are propping up (why do think poppy production is at record levels?), have an unlimited supply of men and are highly motivated on religious grounds and the fact that outsiders have invaded.
I will say it again that the Afghan war is not winnable without 100,000 troops positioned there for 25 years. Even then it will only be drug lords that we are propping up in the end.
Somalia and the Sudan (Osama’s home away from home before the West chased him into
Afghanistan), are warlord-rife, militant Islam-ridden countries, yet, we are not invading them. They, too, are terrors’ incubators.
It is unbelievably naïve of people to say that Canada should stay and fight because they won’t tell you the truth — so they tell you it in pieces.
No one in Ottawa really has any idea how long it will take to win, or what “winning” really constitutes. So, they bullshit us in increments talking about “extensions”, each time about two years in length. No one is going to come out and tell you that to “win” will cost “x” number of Canadian lives and so many more wounded, 40 billion dollars and 25 years. — and that is only providing that the U.S. commits Iraq-like troop levels which it currently doesn’t have, not to mention does not have in terms of stomach and political will.
People can argue with me about this all day long. But history and common sense itself seems to be on my side (and a number of international relations experts who know a hell of a lot more than anyone in Ottawa does). Right now, in Ottawa, all they have is wishful thinking and military contracts to support.
Stephen Harper is a bright man. But bright men must stick to their disciplines. Do not ask a trained economist to be either an historian, and international relations expert, or a pro hockey coach.
Canada’s military role in Afghanistan reminds me of Martin Sheen’s Viet Nam maddened character in “Apocalypse Now”.
“We were going to the worst place in the world and we didn’t even know it yet.”
February 11th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
The great imbalance of war is that its own existence starts to justify itself after the real world goals have either been accomplished, or been broken up so badly as to be insoluble.
When the ancient Romans fought wars, they always feared the inevitable release of thousands of armed and dispossessed from military service. In addition to fueling political needs back home, they extended countless campaigns in Africa, Gaul and ancient England with that goal in mind.
Now, political leaders fear the loss of the relatively easy purse strings that democratic nations usually offer up during wartime. The current government of Canada has bought into the fiction that this war can only be won by increasing the Canadian footprint, and so a plan of action has been dogmatically embraced regardless of what the actual consequences might be.
We are pursuing a goal that is so remote and requires so many attached commitments that the relatively laudable goal of the war against the Taliban has actually become secondary. No one can now point to a concrete goal, yet we still debate extending the mission instead of rediscovering it
Good post, good show, keep it up.
February 11th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
So sad but yet so true. you nailed this one Andrew. I just wish the folks that support this mission could stop using ww1 or ww2 as if those wars are comparable to the crap of afghanistan, there really is no comparison and besides each war must stand on its own merits and be measured against itself and the interests of our country, not against battles of the past.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Our military is playing catch up regarding procurement after decades of neglect. Afghanistan or no Afghanistan, we still have a long way to go to equip our forces properly.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Not related to this post but just wanted to commend Andrew on his great Daily News send off. Reading the Herald today, not even a full day with no competition and the paper has already gone to pooey. Look to continue the Martin story on A2 and it’s nowhere to be found. The budget story on the front page continues on A2 and it starts with the exact same five paragraphs that ended the front page portion. How quickly the heralders have become complacent!!!! Of course, I’m being a bit cynical, I like both papers and favoured the sports section in the Daily News. DeAdder and David Rodenhiser will find new gigs pretty quickly and hopefully so will the rest. How about the delivery drivers?????? I hear some restaurants would like to have a few brave ones.
Keep up the good work AK.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:12 am
I don’t if I’ve mentioned this before on your website or in response to your radio show, but any country whose national sport is fighting over a headless goat carcass on horseback cannot be led down a path to democracy. Its called bushkazi, Google it. Is there a more succinct definition for the word “uncivilized’? We need to get real.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:50 am
A comment on yesterday’s show about sports and physical activity…
I just caught the end of your show today, where you were claiming that golf is not a sport and that it does not produce enough “Huff and Puff” to keep kids active. First off, I would ask you to define a sport. I looked it up. Here is what Oxford says “* noun 1) - an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others. 2) - informal a person who behaves in a good or specified way in response to teasing, defeat, etc. 3) - success or pleasure derived from an activity such as hunting. 4) - dated entertainment; fun. 5) - chiefly Austral./NZ a friendly form of address, especially between unacquainted men. 6) - Biology an animal or plant showing abnormal or striking variation from the parent type as a result of spontaneous mutation”. (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/sport?view=uk)
Now, According to the first definition, no one can argue that golf requires a certain amount of skill, and that those involved compete against others. You however seem to be questioning the amount of physical exertion involved. I think you should check some stats on that. To walk an average round of golf (18 holes) takes about 4.5 hours According to a calories burned calculator, available online, (http://www.healthstatus.com/cgi-bin/calc/calculator.cgi) a person of my weight (200-210lbs) would burn 2,608 calories. Lets make some comparisons….Ice Hockey, average ice time 1.5 hours, calories burned 1,153….Basketball, 1 Hour, calories burned 1,046. No would argue that hockey and basketball are sports but they burn much fewer calories than a round of golf. Lower impact activities preformed for an extended period of time can burn just as many calories as shorter periods of higher impact sports (your “Huff and Puff”).
You commented on taking a cart and drinking on course. Well the kids playing golf can not drink. Sure adults drink and take carts, but these people are playing the game socially, not necessarily for physically activity. I ask you how many pick-up hockey teams have beer in the dressing room after the game or stop by a bar for a few after. What’s the difference? When it comes down to it, any physical activity is better than sitting in front of a TV or computer.
February 13th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I read recently and I am sorry that I can’t quote the author but it went something like: “there is no winner in war, it’s just a matter of who loses more”.
Actually there is a winner(s) and they are the share holders of companies that manufacture arms. There is not a better place in the world to test new weapons than on the battle field. The longer the war plays out the more the weapons can be tweaked and improved to produce a deadlier effect. The longer the war the higher the sales figures. Lobbyist can pad their pockets, politicians can receive campaign funds and the circle continues (in theory anyway)
I have the deepest respect for our men and women of the forces and I care deeply about their families, Moms and Dad’s, Grandparents, children and all other people who are related to them. They are the heroes for stepping up. Now it is time for our government to step up and care as deeply for our troops. Pull out of a war that is not ours, bring them home and reunite them with their loved ones. Put an end to all of the worry, sleepless nights, panic attacks, mental health problems, and other issues that plague people who are connected to this war in anyway.
If the war machine needs another idea then lets insist that hundred’s of thousands of more troops are sent in to Afghanistan. A proper tactic (in my non-military mind) would be to seal off all of the borders while still being stationed inside the Afghanistan border. Once that is done bring in a couple hundred thousand more troops and have them seek out the true enemy. This may sound childish and foolish (maybe not?) but it is the only way that war will be won, if it can be.
Oh yes, then we will have to import millions of military families (similar to what we did in Germany after WW11 - sorry that I made the comparison) and have them spend the rest of their natural lives as an occupying force that will never move back to Canada!
February 19th, 2008 at 7:07 am
Why doesn’t anyone see the big picture. There is a global war on radical Islam going on. Conversly, there is a Jihah going on against the Zionist - West. The killing will go on for hundreds of years att the rate we’re fighting. I agree with the ones who believe we should have a D-Day style invasion with 10-thousand or more boots on the ground in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and anywhere we have to go. The thing is WE HAVE TO GO. Pay now in lives or pay later.
We are saying pay now.
March 1st, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Jack…
The pen is really mightier than the sword, as you have proven here….
March 21st, 2008 at 5:27 pm
The only war worth waging is the one which you believe that maximum harm must be reduced to your own troops, and harm maximized on your enemy, clearly this is not a war, just one part massive wealth re-distribution boondoggle from us to them, and one part social engineering project (we can convince them to like women) in other words the perfect political project. If this was really a war worth fighting, Western Allies would endorse the nuclear option, I don’t support the nuclear option in this case because Afghanistan poses no more risk to North Americans then the ants in the backyard during the summer months.