The Cycle of Spin to Finance and Sell War

In her book Holding the Bully's Coat, Linda McQuaig discusses the cycle of military contracts, lobby groups, think tanks, etc; that go into selling war.

And let's have no delusions here. War is a business and a big business indeed, and like any business depends on good PR and marketing.

Increasingly, a Canadian defence lobby began to emerge as a potent force in Canadian politics. ... The most important of these is the Conference on Defence Associations (CDA), an umbrella group representing military and retired military personnel as well as business, academic and professional types with military interests. The CDA enjoys access at the highest levels, including direct access to the prime minister. While ostensibly an outside, non-governmental group, the CDA receives funding and organizational support from the Department of National Defence. In effect, then, the Defence Department is subsidizing a group to lobby the government to maintain the Defence Department's budget." (McQuaig, Doubleday, 2007)

So not only does the taxpayer foot the bill for defense spending, but we also pay for the lobbying. Quite a gig.

John Geddes at Macleans.ca; reveals that CDA gets $100,000 a year from the Department of Defence, November 15, 2007:

A newspaper reader turns to the op-ed page and finds a commentary supporting the mission in Afghanistan written by a retired general or colonel writing for the Conference of Defence Associations. Or the reader scans a story on the purchase of military hardware in which Paul Manson, the former chief of defence staff, or another distinguished retired officer affiliated with the CDA, is quoted supporting the move. The comments dovetail with Conservative policy, but are presented as the views of an expert, independent group.

Just how independent, though, is open to debate. The CDA gets $100,000 a year from the Department of National Defence expressly for advocating on military matters. The department refused to release its funding agreement with the CDA to Maclean’s, saying it went to cabinet and is therefore secret. But Alain Pellerin, retired colonel and CDA executive director, outlined some details. The CDA must produce a quarterly magazine, for instance, and conduct symposiums for students. “We also have to write,” Pellerin said, “a number of op-eds to the press.”

Requiring a taxpayer-subsidized advocacy group to make its case through the media to qualify for annual renewal of its funding is not standard policy. In fact, the Conservatives often frown upon paying for advocacy work at all. To cite a contentious area, the 2007-08 federal guidelines for women’s groups make domestic advocacy and lobbying ineligible for any funding support.

Pellerin said the CDA remains independent, but he conceded, “It’s walking a fine line at times.” Asked if there is any aspect of Tory defence policy the CDA opposes, he couldn’t think of one. Back when the Liberals were in power, things were different. Pellerin said the CDA briefly lost its federal support, which goes back to 1932, because then-defence minister John McCallum was “annoyed” over its persistent calls for more defence spending.

Ironically this group also receives additional benefits as a charitable organization, meaning they can fund raise tax-free; though their charitable status is being challenged. As Dr. Joan Russow explains:

On May 14, 2008 a complaint to Revenue Canada was made to challenge the Canadian Defence Association Institute's (CDAI) charitable status. (Russow) On May 16, 2008, it was revealed that the Conference of Defence Assocation (CDA) and its charitable front group the Conference of Defence Association Institute had received 500,000 from the “new” Conservative government to legitimize the Federal Governments annual Defence spending, and the government’s recently announced Canada First 30 billion anticipated future budget along with the 45 billion retrofit budget.

For years the "charitable" Conference of Defence Association has been granted Charitable Status, and has lobbied continuously for an increase in the military budget.

Belly up to the Bar Boys. We're Gonna' Have us a War!

The dramatic increases in U.S. military budgets in the [Ronald] Reagan years fuelled aspirations north of the border in both the military and the defence industries. The title of a 1983 cover story in Canadian Business reflected that excitement: "Hail to the Hawks: Ronald Reagan's $200 billion-plus defence budget is good news for Canadian business."

Increasingly, a Canadian defence lobby began to emerge as a potent force in Canadian politics.

Veterans groups and military institutes had long exerted pressure on behalf of the military, but these organizations became more active and effective in the 1980s. The most important of these is the Conference on Defence Associations (CDA), an umbrella group representing military and retired military personnel as well as business, academic and professional types with military interests. The CDA enjoys access at the highest levels, including direct access to the prime minister.

While ostensibly an outside, non-governmental group, the CDA receives funding and organizational support from the Department of National Defence. In effect, then, the Defence Department is subsidizing a group to lobby the government to maintain the Defence Department's budget." (HOLDING THE BULLY'S COAT, Canada and the U.S. Empire, Linda McQuaig, Doubleday Canada, ISBN 978-0-385-66012-9, pg. 168)

But how could they justify continued increases in their budget to build up our military, without a chance to show off their prowess and toys? They just had to find themselves a good war.

In an attempt to clean up and organize my blog, I'm using this as a starting point for all postings on military contracts, and those 'lucky' enough to get them. Clearly they are the only ones winning in this so-called "War on Terror".

***********************************************

The Cycle of Spin to Finance and Sell War

Will Billions of Dollars to Afghanistan's Provincial Reconstruction Work?

Why Did Harper Hire Company Guilty of Corruption and War Crimes?

Did Canada's Ambassador to Afghanistan Know About the Widespread Corruption?

Afghanistan and the Drug Trade. Who Are we Protecting?

We Must Challenge a Government That no Longer Serves the Interest of the People

Family Squabbles With a Twist: Arthur and Peter Kent

The Manley Report Was a Sham and We're Paying For It

Senator Pamela Wallin Says It's All About the Military Contracts

***********************************************

Military Spending and Other Costs Associated With the Invasion

In Michael Moore's documentary Sicko, about America's lack of public health care, he interviewed politicians from countries that had good health care programs in place, and I remember a comment that we should pay heed to.

It was in Britain, and I don't recall the gentleman's name, but when Moore asked him about the costs associated with the program, the man stated that a country can always find money to go to war, so they should be able to find the money to keep their own citizens healthy.

We don't talk about health care much in Canada now, though anyone who's followed Stephen Harper's career for more than a week and a half, know that his ultimate goal is to scrap our public system. In fact his National Citizens Coalition was established to fight against what they called 'socialized medicine'.

But we also rarely talk about the cost of this 'mission'. The last time the Parliamentary budget officer gave us a figure it was about 20 billion dollars, but apparently things like maintenance of equipment, death benefits, disability pensions, etc. were not factored in. I read an account the other day that suggested it could be as high as 100 billion dollars. A staggering sum.

In the final short video series of Linda McQuaig's Exposing Canada's Role in Afghanistan, based in part on her book Holding the Bully's Coat, she discusses the misconception Canadians have that we are not spending enough on our military.

Early in his tenure, Stephen Harper had a private meeting with George Bush, where he committed our soldiers and resources to the U.S. cause. Paul Martin had already changed the direction of the mission under the leadership of Rick Hillier, but we would now be playing a much more intense role in the fighting. Any notion of peacekeeping was thrown away, while our prime minister asked his idol if he could hold his coat.

But then it would be the Canadian taxpayers and the Canadian soldiers who would be doing the heavy lifting, not our little Steve.

Of course, the Canadian military would be getting a lot of new money, but it would be spent on things that please, rather than irritate, the Bush administration: aircraft and helicopters that would allow Canada to contribute more effectively to the U.S. "war on terror." Particularly pleasing to the Bush administration was a $3.4-billion contract for heavy-lift cargo planes, awarded—without competition—to U.S. aerospace giant (and major Republican contributor) Boeing. It's all part of Harper's plan to massively increase Canada's military spending, well beyond the substantial increases made by Paul Martin's government. By 2010, Harper's plan will raise our military spending to $21.5 billion a year from $13 billion in 2005.

This means significant additional taxpayer dollars will go to the military rather than to other Canadian priorities. Perhaps this sounds like a good idea. After all, we've heard a relentless chorus from commentators, academics and retired generals about our woefully underfunded military. But is this really the case?

Before the dramatic increases announced by Harper, Canada was already the seventh biggest military spender among the twenty-six nations of NATO, putting us clearly in the top one third of the organization, which is the world's strongest military alliance. NATO secretary-general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer noted on a visit to Ottawa in June 2006 that Canada was increasing its military spending even as most other NATO members were actually decreasing theirs.

The notion of Canada as a significant military spender may sound bizarre; it certainly doesn't fit with the popular perception. That's because the Harper government and a host of pro-military commentators have dominated the public debate with their portrayal of Canada as a laggard whose military spending ranks only above little Luxembourg among NATO nations.

This characterization is extremely misleading. As Steven Staples, a defence analyst with the Ottawa-based Polaris Institute has noted, the pro-military set has managed to make Canada's military spending look shrivelled by using an inappropriate method of measurement—measuring military spending as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), rather than measuring it in actual dollars. That may sound reasonable, but here's the first clue that it isn't. As we all know, the biggest military spender in the world is the United States, which currently spends some $450 billion a year on its military—more than almost all the other nations in the world combined. But, using the measuring stick favoured by Canada's pro-military commentators (percentage of GDP), the biggest military spender in NATO isn't the United States. It's Turkey! And next biggest is another military powerhouse—Greece! (HOLDING THE BULLY'S COAT, Canada and the U.S. Empire , Linda McQuaig, Doubleday Canada, ISBN 978-0-385-66012-9, Pg. 27-28)

So as our government tries to find ways to reduce spending , which will no doubt include major cuts to social spending, we have to tell them that they need to reduce the funding of this damn war. They made one announcement that they would be chopping the budget of the military, but only at home. That is not good enough.

We should not look at reducing necessary military spending, but significantly reduce the money we are pouring down the drain in Afghanistan, simply to impress the United States. We never hear the words 'victory' or 'peace', because they are unattainable. So we now need to demand the word 'ENOUGH!' We made a mess over there, so clean it up. It's the least we can do.

Then get out.

Why Did Harper Hire Company Guilty of Corruption and War Crimes?

Peter MacKay has recently suggested that Canada could still be involved in Afghanistan for some time, as the Provincial Reconstruction Teams attempt to create a new infrastructure for the country we blew to bits.

Most are good initiatives, though the way they are being handled sounds more like a money pit.

But since Canadian civilians in Afghanistan will have to rely on private security to carry out those projects, who will be getting the contracts?

Uncertainty over the Canadian PRT's future does not mean that elaborate, tax-funded "signature" projects such as the reconstruction of 50 Kandahar schools, the vaccination of all children in the province for polio, and the $50-million Arghandab Irrigation Rehabilitation Project will wither and die, Hoffmann said.

He said the projects should move forward to completion, regardless of how far behind they might be in terms of scheduling and progress. A lot of work remains to be done, he said. "We have to accelerate (the pace on) some of them."

Officials from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) have told Canwest News Service that work on the Arghandab irrigation project — Canada's biggest foreign aid project in a generation — is only just getting started and will continue well into 2012, long after Canadian troops have left the province.

Canadian civilian workers from Montreal-based engineering firm SNC-Lavalin and irrigation consultant Hydrosult Inc. will soon start arriving to begin their work on the project, Canwest was told.

They will be housed inside private compounds in Kandahar city while the work proceeds. They will not be protected by Canadian soldiers. Private firms will be contracted to provide them security instead.

Security contracts will go to private companies "that are legally registered in this country, that have the right to provide the services they are providing," said the ambassador, who spoke to reporters from the Canadian embassy in Kabul.

Hoffmann emphasized that regardless of the pullout in 2011, Canada will continue to play a role in Afghanistan. He made specific mention of its strong diplomatic presence.

Security contracts will go to private companies "that are legally registered in this country ... What does that mean? It doesn't guarantee they will go to Canadian companies, only those legally registered to operate here.

I have always supported our soldiers, but not the war. It would appear however, that just like the Bush Administration, the Conservative government is poised to make some of their cronies very rich.

Which brings me to the largest recipient of the contract to build the dam and irrigation system known as the Arghandab Irrigation Rehabilitation Project: SNC-Lavelin. This company was involved in one of the largest corruption trials in India, and has been complicit in war crimes in Iraq. Harper sure can pick 'em.

SNC Lavalin scandal

The CBI stated that Vijayan along with other accused had 'fraudulently with dishonest intention' of showing undue favour to SNC Lavalin entered into only a 'non binding' memorandum of understanding on April 25, 1998 for MCC instead of a legally valid MOA which facilitated Lavlin to back out from the commitment later, thereby 'cheating the government. ....

The investigations revealed that supply contract for renovation and modernisation of the Panniyar, Shengulam and Pallivasal hydel projects was given to SNC Lavalin at an exorbitant rate and the per MW cost for the same was the highest. This caused a loss to the Kerala government with corresponding wrongful gain to Lavalin.

Bullets over bay Street

TORONTO, MARCH 21, 2005 -- All the 10 or so members of Homes not Bombs wanted to do today was have a dialogue on ending SNC-Lavalin's participation in the war crimes being committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. SNC-Lavalin profits handily from its Quebec-based SNC-TEC subsidiary, which is providing hundreds of millions of bullets to U.S. occupation forces across the globe.

But SNC-Lavalin management would have none of it, preferring to treat Homes not Bombs as a security threat. In their largest display of force yet, some three dozen Metro Police, eight wearing riot visors and riding horses -- backed up with two police wagons ready to cart folks away -- were on hand early today at the Etobicoke offices of the firm, which has been the site of two prior, peaceful protests.

All this for a group of ten people with placards and flyers calling for an end to the profits being made from war crimes. And just to make sure we got the point, police immediately accosted the small group as we walked towards the western driveway to the offices. The officer in charge told us that the company had pre-issued trespass notices against us "that would be enforced," and another officer took it upon himself to single out one demonstrator, grabbing him by the arm, without explanation, and proceeding to shove him around. The officer then threatened to attack another demonstrator for standing on the sidewalk.

"Move, how many times do I have to tell you, you're blocking the driveway!" he thundered at her. She reminded him that his police cars were in fact blocking the driveway and that she was simply standing on the sidewalk. Despite his repeated thundering at her, she stood her ground, staring him down until he backed off.

Indeed, police cars blocked both entrances, and a row of squad cars was lined up at the front entrance to the building, perhaps to prevent a repeat of the scene on Martin Luther King Day,when a group of about 50 people, including some recently returned from first-hand witnessing in Iraq,had paraded around the grounds and a smaller group of about 10 had tried to enter the building for a dialogue. That day, police had seemed unprepared, and made no arrests.

Why was there such a display of force today? Were the police simply embarrassed by their lack of preparation last time out (only to be made even more embarrassed with today's show of firepower for the small vigil)? Or has the campaign to get SNC-Lavalin to divest itself of its bulletmaker or, better yet, transform itself into something socially useful, begun to have an effect inside corporate boardrooms?

Bullet production certainly has been cause for a great deal of dialogue inside the building, according to employees who ventured out for lunch and discussed the issue with the demonstrators. And if SNC-Lavalin was trying to deflect attention away from itself because of its unsavoury practices, this was certainly not the way to do it. The huge police presence also meant many passersby slowed down to see what was going on and, having found out, honked enthusiastically their support for our vigil.

While some employees refused to look at us, others nodded in silent support, and a few were vocal in their words of encouragement. Some said they were unaware there was to be a protest, so there was concern when police on horseback started circling the building this morning. Once that occurred, the company did much of the work for us, by explaining once again in an internal email that SNC's profiting from bullets was the cause of our demo.

Some employees stood out on the front porch for a short time while we called out to them to have a dialogue on divestment, but apparently a senior manager ordered them back inside. It is that kind of treatment--not even allowing employees the right on their break to speak with us--that has contributed to a
certain amount of discomfort within the company.

Indeed, one employee told us of a personal decision to give notice in a few weeks time, declaring that the bullet contract was one more reason to leave the company, in addition to concerns about what the individual described as shoddy environmental practices by the firm in its engineering and mining projects and poor treatment of employees.

As we left the armed encampment that was SNC-Lavalin this afternoon, we vowed to return, to once again expose the lie that Canada is not involved in the crimes taking place in Iraq, and to challenge a complacent population which seems to have bought that lie in much the same way as many have swallowed the line that Paul Martin's announcement on star wars means Canada is not involved in space warfare (when in fact it is official Canadian government policy to view space as the fourth medium of warfare).

Note: SNC-Lavalin sold its previously held subsidiary SNC technologies to General Dynamics Corp, one of the largest munition manufacturers in the world. SNC Tech have a contract with the U.S. Military to manufacture 500,000,000 bullets per year, for 12 years.

General Dynamics wins military contract
Will supply a fully digital communications system to the Canadian Army
Montreal Gazette
March 9, 2009

The Canadian unit of General Dynamics Corp., the world's biggest defence contractor, said Monday it will supply a fully digital communications system to the Canadian Army, ensuring troops will continue to have access to critical communications services in combat zones. The contract, awarded by the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada, is worth $341 million over the five initial years and can be extended for up to five more years, bringing the total tab to $682 million.

It just keeps getting better.