The Manley Report

jdobbin · January 24, 2008

It would be laughable because there are no second qworld war documents relating to the JTF.

The origins of the JTF2 go back to the First Special Service Force known as the Devil's Brigade. Gordon O'Connor tried to get a name change to honour the old unit.

The Globe and Mail requested information on the Devil's Brigade from DND and got blacked out documents because the military did not want the link made to JTF2.

jdobbin · January 24, 2008

Don't go all Dion on me.
This is what you said. You can nuance it if you want but you didn't say stories are hard to file because they can't get confirmation...you said canadians reporters are often forbidden from reporting. Either stand by or repudiate it.

I also said that reporters can't get anyone authorized to speak on things which you didn't highlight. No source means no story. They are forbidden from reporting what might be a good news story since no one goes on the record.

jdobbin · January 24, 2008

You really think he gives a crap about a blog? He's the Globe's Man in Khandahar for christ sake...he's been there for a few years....he worries more about being decapitated for allah than what some conservative nerd in his mother's basement says about him....

I'm just telling you what is out in the Tory blogosphere on him being a negative reporter on the war. You're saying he doesn't have a problem in any of his reporting. So what is it? Is he a negative reporter? Is Manley wrong that the media avoids stories that tell what is happening? Manley also said the Harper government was not very open on the subject of Afghanistan. Could that be a problem as well?

Smith used to be based in Winnipeg and I found him to fair in his reporting and when he was interviewed by Brian Stewart for the special called The Maverick, he said one of his major problems was getting people to speak on the record. He found it easier at times to get information from Afghans and this is when he was able to confirm good news stories of Canadian operations.

Edited January 24, 2008 by jdobbin

M.Dancer · January 24, 2008

I also said that reporters can't get anyone authorized to speak on things which you didn't highlight. No source means no story. They are forbidden from reporting what might be a good news story since no one goes on the record.

So which ridiculous statement do you wish stand beside...that they are censored or that they need gov't flacks to do thier job?

M.Dancer · January 24, 2008

I'm just telling you what is out in the Tory blogosphere on him being a negative reporter on the war. You're saying he doesn't have a problem in any of his reporting. So what is it? Is he a negative reporter? Is Manley wrong that the media avoids stories that tell what is happening? Manley also said the Harper government was not very open on the subject of Afghanistan. Could that be a problem as well?
Smith used to be based in Winnipeg and I found him to fair in his reporting and when he was interviewed by Brian Stewart for the special called The Maverick, he said one of his major problems was getting people to speak on the record. He found it easier at times to get information from Afghans and this is when he was able to confirm good news stories of Canadian operations.

None of this is germane to your silly position that CDN journalists are censored.

jdobbin · January 24, 2008

So which ridiculous statement do you wish stand beside...that they are censored or that they need gov't flacks to do thier job?

The ridiculous statement is that I said censored at any time. Without sources to confirm a story, a journalist like Smith doesn't report a story. The military penchant for security at all times keeps them from taking credit for good news stories.

Edited January 24, 2008 by jdobbin

jdobbin · January 24, 2008

None of this is germane to your silly position that CDN journalists are censored.

Never said that once.

M.Dancer · January 24, 2008

The ridiculous statement is that I said censored at any time. Without sources to confirm a story, a journalist like Smith doesn't report a story.

What do they call statements like this? Wish fantasy? Dionic delusion?

CDN journalists are not censored. Anyone who says so is not telling the truth. Journalists like Smith do not rely on being spoon fed by gov't flacks...if one person cannot be on record they find another off record. And they dig. And Dig

Do you seriously think he broke the prisoner story by accepting that there were people who who not comment? You get a can't comment from one source and then you go elsewhere for more confirmation and then you go back to the first no comment with the additional info and then they are either forced to clarify or let you run with astory that they have no control what so ever over.

You know that's a fact

jdobbin · January 24, 2008

What do they call statements like this? Wish fantasy? Dionic delusion?
CDN journalists are not censored. Anyone who says so is not telling the truth. Journalists like Smith do not rely on being spoon fed by gov't flacks...if one person cannot be on record they find another off record. And they dig. And Dig

Do you seriously think he broke the prisoner story by accepting that there were people who who not comment? You get a can't comment from one source and then you go elsewhere for more confirmation and then you go back to the first no comment with the additional info and then they are either forced to clarify or let you run with astory that they have no control what so ever over.

You know that's a fact

I've never said that the reporters are censored. Smith does dig for a story like he did with the detainee story (although he missed this latest detainee story because the government is getting better at keeping those stories under wraps). I just said that it has been a common complaint that even one is trying to do a positive story on something the Canadian military has done, it takes great effort to confirm it and often no one in the military will speak in regards to it.

It is fact that is hard to break a story on any event when everyone is anonymous.

M.Dancer · January 24, 2008

The origins of the JTF2 go back to the First Special Service Force known as the Devil's Brigade. Gordon O'Connor tried to get a name change to honour the old unit.
The Globe and Mail requested information on the Devil's Brigade from DND and got blacked out documents because the military did not want the link made to JTF2.

That's a complete mythstake. Never mind the 40 year gap....

M.Dancer · January 24, 2008

Never said that once.

You said it once and you have been trying to Dion your way out of it.

That may be true but Canadian reporters are often forbidden from reporting good news because of the Defence polices where no one is authorized to speak.

Just tell me that english isn't your first language.....

jdobbin · January 24, 2008

That's a complete mythstake. Never mind the 40 year gap....

I have no idea if it is a myth or not. I just know that it has been talked about a lot in the last two years.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...2a2&k=98001

As part of its latest secrecy push, the Defence Department declared Tuesday that releasing information showing that Canadians fought valiantly with the famed Devil's Brigade during the Second World War could harm national security.
The name of the First Special Service Force, better known as the Devil's Brigade, has been censored from all the records that outline which unit has the closest historical military links to Canada's existing commando unit, Joint Task Force 2.

Also censored from the records, released to the Ottawa Citizen under the federal Access to Information law, are the locations where the Devil's Brigade fought in Europe in the 1940s.

Men of the Devil's Brigade apply their camouflage paint before a patrol in Italy. The unit fought with great distinction during the Second World War, but now the Defence Department has decided that alluding to its illustrious history, even mentioning its official name - First Special Service Force - would damage national security.

Men of the Devil's Brigade apply their camouflage paint before a patrol in Italy. The unit fought with great distinction during the Second World War, but now the Defence Department has decided that alluding to its illustrious history, even mentioning its official name - First Special Service Force - would damage national security.

The May 2002 records detail that the joint U.S.-Canadian Second World War unit ''never met defeat in battle'' and ''accomplished the most difficult missions with an elan and proficiency that astonished all outside observers, including the Germans.'' It concludes that JTF2 should try to emulate the high standards of the unit, whose name is censored.

But, information referring to the link between the Devil's Brigade and JTF2 is on the Defence Department website and was previously released through other access to information requests.

In 2003 media interviews, a JTF2 spokesman also acknowledged the unit wanted to build strong historical links to the Devil's Brigade and at one point was considering establishing formal ties to the unit.

According to this story, it was JTF2 that wanted to make the link.

O'Connor was even thinking of changing the name of the unit to reflect that.

M.Dancer · January 24, 2008

It is fact that is hard to break a story on any event when everyone is anonymous.

Yes I hear woodward and Bernstein had that problem.....

jdobbin · January 24, 2008

You said it once and you have been trying to Dion your way out of it.
Just tell me that english isn't your first language.....

If you are just going to insult then perhaps it is better to just ignore you. I certainly have not insulted you in any way.

M.Dancer · January 24, 2008

If you are just going to insult then perhaps it is better to just ignore you. I certainly have not insulted you in any way.

I would just prefer you be honest, stand by what you say, or take it back and not insult people's intelligence with your slurs regarding the freedom of the press and the government.

Instead we get the Jr Dion sinmaster two imitation .."when I said forbiddon, I meant it in the fashion....."

Saying the Conservatives are forbidding reporters is a serious charge. Luckily it is groundless and without merit.

Edited January 24, 2008 by M.Dancer

jdobbin · January 24, 2008

I would just prefer you be honest, stand by what you say, or take it back and not insult people's intelligence with your slurs regarding the freedom of the press and the government.
Instead we get the Jr Dion sinmaster two imitation .."when I said forbiddon, I meant it in the fashion....."

Saying the Conservatives are forbidding reporters is a serious charge. Luckily it is groundless and without merit.

I think what I wrote is clear. I said forbidden from writing stories when no one is authorized to speak on the part of the military. With no sources willing to speak, the story remains unverified and often never gets reported.

And once again, you resort to insults with your slurs remark. While it may be acceptable under board rules, I certainly don't have to view it. Ignoring is my only option.

M.Dancer · January 24, 2008

I think what I wrote is clear. I said forbidden from writing stories when no one is authorized to speak on the part of the military. With no sources willing to speak, the story remains unverified and often never gets reported.
And once again, you resort to insults with your slurs remark. While it may be acceptable under board rules, I certainly don't have to view it. Ignoring is my only option.

forbidden(fər-bĭd'n, fôr-)
v.

A past participle of forbid.

I don't think anyone is going to ignore that you have implied that the gov't FORBIDS reporters.....

Dionesque, simply dionesque

jdobbin · January 24, 2008

Harper to give speech on Friday on Manley Report.

http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/sto...95e&k=20102

The prime minister is not expected to spend much time talking about Afghanistan at a speech scheduled for Friday in Ottawa.
"It's really going to set the direction and tone for the government for the second session," the source said of the speech, stressing that the prime minister is "not looking to drag out a response."

With the House of Commons due to reconvene Monday, Harper's speech on Friday had been planned before Manley bumped up the release of his report on Tuesday.

Harper's speech, in addition to laying out priorities for the next parliamentary session, was also intended to mark Wednesday's second anniversary of the Conservatives' federal election win.

The Manley report criticized the Harper government for not adequately explaining the importance of the military mission in Afghanistan directly to Canadians.

Manley urged Harper to "step up" and personally take the lead in a new diplomatic offensive to push NATO allies to provide at least 1,000 additional troops for southern Afghanistan so that Canadian troops there could focus more on training the Afghan army.

Some analysts say that Canada's request could cause irreparable damage to NATO.

Stanley Kober, a foreign policy scholar with Washington' Cato Institute, said NATO's divisions now run so deep that the fractures may be irreparable.
As a Cold War creation, the organization showed great solidarity in the face of threat posed by the Soviet Union, he said. But it has floundered badly in the post-Cold War era, especially in Afghanistan.

"The glue that holds it together - you don't have the same sort of feeling that you had back in the Cold War days," Kober said Wednesday.

Manley's proposal for the alliance to come up with 1,000 additional troops may prove too challenging for NATO planners, he said.

"I just don't see where they're going to come from, I don't see the support. As a consequence, I think we are really in difficulty."

Leafless · January 24, 2008

Do you think the opinion of some Canadians would be different than what the government feels it should do?

I think most Canadians know very little about our defense agreements with the U.S. (between Canada and the US there are currently over 80 treaty-level defence agreements, more than 250 memoranda of understanding between the two defence departments, and approximately 145 bilateral forums in which defence matters are discussed) and this is an area that requires strong government leadership and not the uninformed opinions of unfortunately, uninformed Canadians.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=836

Do you really think most Canadians think we have a DIRECT obligation the the US, especially since Bush became Prez?

We do have a direct obligation, period, despite who is president.

Canada is deeply committed to defending the North American continent. This commitment and the important role the Canada-US defence relationship plays in defending North America is demonstrated by:
The substantial increase to the Defence budget of $5.3 billion over the next five years included in Budget 2006. With this increase, the total Defence budget will reach nearly $20 billion by 2010. These funds will help transform the Canadian Forces, making them more effective, more relevant, and more responsive.

Canada’s steadfast commitment to the campaign against terrorism, deploying 16,000 personnel and 20 Warships to Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf since 2001. Canadian ship-borne helicopters, patrol and transport aircraft have flown more than 5,000 sorties and at least 22,500 hours of mission flights. Canada has 2,300 troops in Afghanistan and Command of the Multi National Brigade in Kandahar. Our mutual commitment to the international campaign against terrorism is a reflection of the fact that both countries recognize the value and importance of international operations in securing our nations against terrorism.

The Canada-US Joint Statement on Common Security, Common Prosperity: A New Partnership in North America, which outlines bilateral efforts to ensure the coherence and effectiveness of our North American security arrangements; expand economic opportunities and prosperity for all our peoples and the competitiveness of North American business; improve the quality of life of our citizens; and work together to advance democratic values and fundamental human freedoms around the world.

Canada’s National Security Policy, which focuses on addressing three core national security interests: (1) protecting Canada and Canadians at home and abroad; (2) ensuring Canada is not a base for threats to our allies; and (3) contributing to international security.

The Smart Border Declaration, an agreement outlining a 30-point Action Plan for Canadian and US government departments and agencies to work in partnership to improve security and services on the shared border, while facilitating the legitimate flow of people and goods. The Smart Border Declaration is a critical step in sustaining the world's largest trading relationship and securing a common border that stretches across 8,893 kilometres (5,526 miles) of land and three oceans.

Mechanisms for Cooperation

Canada-US defence cooperation is the foundation of continental defence against 21st century threats. Investing in a durable framework for cooperation with the US is central to advancing the nation’s regional and global interests. Between Canada and the US there are currently over 80 treaty-level defence agreements, more than 250 memoranda of understanding between the two defence departments, and approximately 145 bilateral forums in which defence matters are discussed.

Some of the principal Canada-US defence arrangements are:

North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD). NORAD, a binational military command established in 1958 with a mandate to monitor and defend North American airspace, remains a key element of our defence relationship with the US. Canada and the US have enhanced our defence cooperation and ability to respond to changing security threats to North America with the recent renewal of the NORAD Agreement and the addition of a maritime warning function to its aerospace warning and aerospace control mandate. NORAD's relevance to continental security was reaffirmed on September 11, 2001, when NORAD scrambled fighters to assume additional air defence roles in the US and Canada and helped coordinate civilian air traffic control responses to the threat of civilian airliners being used by terrorists.

Canada-United States Permanent Joint Board on Defence (PJBD). Established in 1940, the PJBD is our highest-level bilateral defence forum and provides for critical senior military and diplomatic contact. The Canadian and US Co-chairs act in an advisory capacity, reporting directly to the Prime Minister and President, respectively, on matters affecting "the defence of the northern half of the Western Hemisphere." The Board meets semi-annually, with hosting duties rotated between the two countries.

Canada-United States Military Cooperation Committee (MCC). The Military Cooperation Committee was formed in 1946 and manages military cooperation at the strategic level.

Defence Development and Defence Production Sharing Arrangements manage defence industrial, trade, and research and development aspects of Canada-US defence cooperation, fostering approximately $2 billion in trade flow annually.

The Canada-US Testing and Evaluation Program (CANUSTEP) was established in 1983 as an umbrella agreement that allows Canada and the US to use each other's defence facilities for testing and evaluation of military technologies. The agreement provides Canada access to otherwise unavailable facilities. Testing under the program has included sonobuoys, anti-armour munitions, and F/A-18 aircraft. This arrangement has significantly reduced both countries' costs for tests, evaluations and certifications previously conducted under other arrangements because only incremental costs are charged for specific tests.

The North American Technology Industrial Base Organization (NATIBO). Formed in 1987, NATIBO strives to promote a cost effective, healthy technology industrial base that is responsive to the national and economic security needs of the US and Canada.

Mutual Support and Integrated Lines of Communication Memoranda of Understanding (ILOC MOU). Mutual Support Memoranda are designed to facilitate cooperation in training and operations. They provide reciprocal logistical support, supplies and/or services in non-routine situations.

Combined Operations

Canadian and American forces have successfully operated together on numerous occasions over the past decade, including combat operations. Canadian Forces’ ships, battle groups, fighter aircraft, patrol aircraft, and helicopters have operated as integral units of US-led operations in the Persian Gulf, in Afghanistan, and closer to home. Our commitment to Afghanistan and the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom continues to this day. Canadians and Americans under NORAD command were the first military responders to the September 11th attacks. US and Canadian military personnel also work together in varying levels of formal and informal cooperation in a wide range of smaller international operations.

Combined Training

Each year, Canada and the United States routinely participate in many cooperative land, air, and sea training exercises. These joint and combined training exercises play an important part of Canada-US defence cooperation by ensuring interoperability and operational effectiveness, helping our forces to function together seamlessly, building on each other's strengths to achieve objectives, while minimizing risks.

A Strong Relationship

The Canada-US defence relationship remains solid. There are currently approximately 600 Canadian Forces' personnel serving in the US, mostly in NORAD-related assignments. As well, Canadian government and industry representatives conduct over 20,000 visits annually to the US related to defence activities. Both countries can build on this legacy of successful cooperation and interoperability in order to continue to meet the needs of continental security and national sovereignty.

Army Guy · January 24, 2008

The origins of the JTF2 go back to the First Special Service Force known as the Devil's Brigade. Gordon O'Connor tried to get a name change to honour the old unit.

Thats what the media reported, but not true, The Canadian Airbourne regt was given that link between them and the SSF, and bore the SSF battle honors...

CAR history.

Connors SSF

SAS

The JTF have no linage in our past to link to, even Canada's SAS (special air service company) has had it's links to given to the CAR.

The new unit in Canada is call CSOR (Canadian special operations regt) it is comprised of troops given special training, ( more in line with the old Airbourne regt in it's hay day) thier mandate is wide but do have a standing task to assist JTF-2 in larger operations...

If Canada committed 1500 more troops I don't know that it would motivate NATO to act. I've seen no evidence to suggest that if Canada committed every unit it had whether it would make a difference to recalcitrant members.

No, it may not motivate anyone your right, but it would'nt weaken our postion either, plus it would mean we would have more boots on the ground...thats the key to safety, of our troops, and accomplishing more in our district.

Army Guy · January 24, 2008

Topaz

If the next election, if the government was a majority, either for the Alliance/Conservative for the Liberals, do you think they would force mandatory military service, since we are short on personnel??? I kinda think a good maybe but not till after the election was over. IF this did happen I could see alot of problems for the government that did it.

No, it's not even on the radar, mandatory service is a bad idea, it produces poor soldiers, of poor quality....and would undo everything that the volunteer army has worked so hard for....

While we are short of personal, that is what Canadians want and have voted for. The problem is being addressed slowly, but will take many years to repair that decision to reduce our numbers in the 80's and 90's...and i agree with you that it would be polictical sucide if the brought this measure in.

Army Guy · January 24, 2008

Some analysts say that Canada's request could cause irreparable damage to NATO.
QUOTE

Stanley Kober, a foreign policy scholar with Washington' Cato Institute, said NATO's divisions now run so deep that the fractures may be irreparable.

As a Cold War creation, the organization showed great solidarity in the face of threat posed by the Soviet Union, he said. But it has floundered badly in the post-Cold War era, especially in Afghanistan.

"The glue that holds it together - you don't have the same sort of feeling that you had back in the Cold War days," Kober said Wednesday.

Manley's proposal for the alliance to come up with 1,000 additional troops may prove too challenging for NATO planners, he said.

"I just don't see where they're going to come from, I don't see the support. As a consequence, I think we are really in difficulty."

I don't think it would be our request that would do the damage , as the damage is already been done with other nations not living up to thier end of the alliance...our request would certainly highlight that....

And perhaps it would be time to relook at the NATO alliance and how it does business....all the countries involved have been told countless times that this mission in Afgan would make or break NATO...And they have decided not to support it via by it's unpopularity at home , or Anti US feelings or what ever reason.

That and the fact that the European union is pushing thier own agenda, and pushing thier own alliance so yes maybe it is time to relook at our partners....

That being said do i think it would be in Canada's interest to support current defense arrangments with the US and NATO until it's collaspe or it's redesign.

Topaz · January 24, 2008

www.scottross.blogspot.com Scott comes up with some views about the Manley report and says he thinks this was already planned out before the panels was picked and the results. You judge.

capricorn · January 24, 2008

www.scottross.blogspot.com Scott comes up with some views about the Manley report and says he thinks this was already planned out before the panels was picked and the results. You judge.

In response to scottross, the following addresses the allegations made in that blog.

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=912

You judge.