DND spins war U.S.–style

by Travis Lupick on October 10th, 2007 at 1:39 PM

1 of 1 2 of 1

Stephen Staples knows a thing or two about just how far the Conservative government will go to control its message on Afghanistan. In July 2007, the prominent critic of Canada's role in Afghanistan learned that the Department of National Defence was keeping a file on him.

"They took surveillance, generated a report, and assessed it on how the military would need to respond to my comments in the media," Staples told the Georgia Straight from his office in Ottawa. Through an access-to-information request, Staples learned that the DND's report, which it originally denied existed, was distributed to 50 senior military officials, including two brigadier-generals.

Staples is not an Islamist. He's the founder of the Rideau Institute on International Affairs, a research and advocacy group on public-policy issues. "I'd love all these guys to attend my presentations," he said. "That's fine in an open democracy. But when they deny it, there is something more nefarious about it."

It was no surprise to Staples that the DND was watching him. Nor was he shocked to learn on September 25 of this year that the DND may have had a hand in writing a speech that Afghan president Hamid Karzai gave to Canada's Parliament a year earlier. "The military has been caught at the level of influence they have been wielding," he argued. "Manipulating the message, right down to putting words in the Afghan president's mouth".

Staples characterized Karzai's visit to Canada as nothing more than "a scripted PR exercise", performed in order to achieve certain policy goals of the Conservative government. He argued it was likely such a stunt was "just the tip of the iceberg" and part of a larger effort to shape and manipulate public opinion and, by extension, government policy.

NDP defence critic Dawn Black (New Westminster–Coquitlam) also knows what it's like to get a taste of Harper's dealings with critics. Black is the MP who accused the DND of writing Karzai's speech. Her office filed an access-to-information request and attached to a news release one of the documents obtained.

The document, a situation report from the Canadian Military's Task Force Afghanistan, read: "Team prepared initial draft of president's address to parliament Sept 22. It was noted that key statistics, messages and themes, as well as overall structure, were adopted by the president in his remarks to joint session."

Black argued that the document was a clear indicator of just how far the Conservative government will go "in order to try to pull the wool over Canadians' eyes".

Speaking to the Straight from a NATO meeting in Iceland, Black said it was "just so inappropriate" that the DND would draft a speech for a foreign leader, particularly in the context of the audience for which it was written. Black alleged that it all amounted to the Canadian military speaking to the Canadian people under the guise of a foreign head of state, in order to manipulate the public's perception of the war. "It is appalling," she added.

Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada, Omar Samad, responded to Black's claims in an interview with the Associated Press. He called the allegations "laughable" and said "it verges on being insulting".

Dan Dugas, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Defence, earlier told AP it was "not precedent-setting nor a surprise" that information would be provided to someone asked to speak to Parliament. He labelled Black's news release "NDP spin".

Black said she has taken a fair amount of criticism since the document's release but noted that no evidence has come forward to contradict her allegations. "There's been a lot of huffing and puffing and name-calling," she told the Straight. "But the fact of the matter is that no one has released any further documentation that puts my document into question at all."

Not everyone is convinced that the NDP's document is the smoking gun some have made it out to be. Ira Basen, a producer for CBC Radio One's Spin Cycles, told the Straight that he would not be surprised if the Conservative government did write Karzai's speech, but he doubted that was the case.

Basen said it was critical to the Conservatives that the Canadian people hear the same message from the government and from Karzai. "If he's coming here, they would want to make sure the message was consistent," Basen said. "But I have no idea to what extent that was done."

The Rideau Institute's Staples argued that the DND's alleged writing of Karzai's speech was just one piece of a much larger strategy. He argued that what is going on in Canada is an Americanization of the government's handling of the media, and at the centre of it all is Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier.

"It keeps me up at night, thinking about the impact that this war has had on the country," Staples said. He argued that Hillier was using the war in Afghanistan to help bring about a change in Canadian society, working toward a military-oriented culture.

"It's quite clear the Canadian military now sees public opinion and the use of the media as a way of conducting the war," he said. "And the fact that you've got Hillier acting like a politician out there is part of that."

Staples noted that some of Hillier's military background came from the U.S., where he spent time embedded in the U.S. military as part of an exchange program. "He's imported that into Canada," Staples said.

However, it was the Liberal party that helped Hillier rise to the top of the Canadian military, Staples noted. He claimed that senior Liberals who were around at that time now "cringe" at what they got the country into. "It is pretty clear that they created a monster," Staples said. "Hillier was running through the village, doing whatever he wanted, and nobody could stop him."

Black called Hillier "the primary spokesperson and cheerleader for the counterinsurgency in Afghanistan". She claimed that many politicians in Canada believe Hillier would not have been promoted without his skills in public relations.

Basen also characterized Hillier as the "face" of the government's Afghanistan campaign. "For better or worse," he said, "there has never been a chief of defence staff that has been as public and has assumed such an important PR role."

Hillier was promoted to his present rank in February 2005. According to a DND departmental-performance report for 2005-06, the DND led the Canadian government's "communication strategy response to operations in Afghanistan". Its activities were "designed to ensure that Canadians received comprehensive, timely information about [Canadian Forces] operations at home and abroad." According to Sarah Kavanagh, a spokesperson for the DND, public affairs is accountable to the deputy minister of defence and the chief of the defence staff, Hillier.

According to a CBC report on The National, the DND operates with a public-affairs staff of 500 and an annual budget of $23 million.

"They are spending millions and millions of dollars on a massive public-relations effort," Staples said. "And I'm sure they see it as an equally important part of the war as they do fielding Leopard tanks in Afghanistan."

Comments

8 Comments

kabulikhan

Oct 12, 2007 at 12:56pm

How pathetic to see the left resort to such cheap tactics. DId you read the Macleans's article that said that Karzai's cheif of staff strongly refuted the allegation that canadians wrote the speech. Why would they need to do so when the president has speech writers and he speaks across the world. Did you see that in parliament he did not use his speech on many occasions and he talked without notes??? how about that? did someone make him memorize it? how pathetic and sad for canadian politicians to steep so low. The ndp has lost my vote.

John Burns

Oct 12, 2007 at 3:57pm

From Travis Lupick:Hi kabulikhan, thanks for your interest. I did read the McClean's article and actually included a quote from its introduction, where Afghan president Karzai is quoted as stating the NDP's accusation "verges on being insulting". As to why the Canadian Department of National Defense would need to write Karzai's speech, I actually asked them that very question. They failed to respond by press time, however did return my call this morning. The DND seldom agrees to answer any sort of question they are not given time to prepare for, and so I submitted via email:<blockquote>My question relates to an AP report published on Sept 25, 2007”¦.The report states, "When a visiting dignitary is asked to speak to Parliament, it's not precedent-setting nor a surprise would be provided to him or her," said Dan Dugas, the spokesperson for the Ministry of Defense." What sort of information was Mr. Dugas referring to? Since the DND document released by the NDP state that "key statistics, messages, and themes, as well as overall structure, were adopted by the president," I would like to know if that is the information Mr. Dugas was speaking of.</blockquote>Jay Paxton, speaking for Ministry of Defense spokesperson Dan Dugas, responded via telephone:<blockquote>"You asked about my quote carried by AP as communications director to the Minister. Information is regularly provided to people who address Parliament, and so the practice is neither new, nor surprising. As you know, the Afghan ambassador to Canada has addressed the question of who wrote the final speech given by the president. Hope this answers your question."</blockquote>In my opinion, Mr. Dugas’s response in no way addressed my question. But I was denied the opportunity to ask a follow-up. The DND could very easily clear up the entire matter. It could publish the "initial draft" of Karzai’s speech they have said they wrote. That draft could be compared to what Karzai actually said, and the whole matter could be put to bed. They have not done so. Travis PS. It's nice to hear that the NDP's support base has widened to include people that characterize the left as "pathetic". Even if they have now lost your vote.

Nemo

Oct 13, 2007 at 11:56pm

Oh my God. I am shocked and chagrined. Did our Army actually dare to put the war in a positive light? No one has ever stooped so low as to use propaganda during a war. I heard they even have a spooky covert section whose whole job is to spin the news called Public Affairs.

Kidding aside. As a serving member propaganda is to be expected from our side isn't it? The real story is mainstream journalists are doing a piss poor job at covering the war. The war I know from my friends’ accounts and the media one do not match at all. The sad lefty armchair quarterbacking from people who clearly couldn't find the shooty end of a rifle is trite and saccharine. The righty war on terror, kill the huns barely reworded Public Affairs press releases are equally as crappy. Having friends who have died truly wanting to give the Afghanis a chance to rebuild and live a normal life deserve better.

Just do your job, Lupick.

Mike Cantelon

Oct 15, 2007 at 9:26am

Unless we want to see our future tax dollars funneled towards military contractors, concern about the use of US-style propaganda is legitimate.

Propaganda appeals to emotion rather than reason - it weakens a society. Given that the stated reasons for the US invasion of Iraq turned out to be baseless, it's understandable that the US needs to resort to propaganda to continue transferring money from taxpayers to contractors. If you truly believe the war in Afghanistan is reasonable, however, why do you feel our government needs to resort to cheap theatrics? Are you oblivious to the problems that military propaganda has caused south of the border?

arctic_front

Oct 16, 2007 at 12:40pm

What the hell does U.S.-style mean exactly?...What a load of utter crap. I suppose the famed war correspondent Mr. Halton during WWII was guilty of U.S.-style propaganda too?

I suppose that fighting a war to end terrorism is a U.S. style thing to do as well? I guess the U.N, NATO and other non-aligned countries taking part in the U.N. sanctioned mission in Afghanistan have all been 'duped' by U.S. style propaganada?

In case you people have lost all common sense, TERRORISM is a world-wide issue. Almost no country has been spared the effects and death associated with extremism, radical Islam or other politically motivated terror acts. I suppose Canada should just sit on the sidelines and wait for the shooting to stop and then show up wearing blue helmets and no guns to maintain the peace? I suspect some of you thought the same thing about WWI, WWII, Korea, Balkans? I guess helping to stop genocide and suporting human rights for the poorest and most vulnerable people on earth is not a worthwhile endevor. Let everybody else do the hard work of making peace and Canada should only arrive after the fact to drive around in white trucks and stand on guard at a check-stop...presumably to hand out candy and soccer balls to little kids.

Where is the outrage from the 'usual suspects'? The women's rights groups? Afterall, the women in Afghanistan were more oppressed than almost anywhere. What about the Gay rights groups?...it is common for homosexuals to be executed for being gay over there. Same goes for the Homeless advocacy groups, the Teachers, the Law Society?

Why is there not strong support from any of those groups that tend to inhabit the 'Left' political sphere? Are you all so vehemently opposed to war that you can turn a blind eye to the endless suffering of those hapless people of Afghasnistan? Is the Taliban such a great group of people that they should be allowed to re-gain control over there?

Yup, I guess so....after all, It's all a U.S. style propaganda...those atrocities never really happened....because G.W. Bush said they did...and we all know he lied about WMD in Iraq, so nothing he says can be trusted.

The events of 9/11 never really happened either....because Michael Moore said so.

But Darfur DID happen....and you all are clamoring to get us involved in that mess.....WHY? Because Bush is not there?

World wide security is the aim of the war on terror. As the events last year in Toronto attest, Canada is not immune to radicals....Air India.... Sound familiar? We can either fight terrorists over there.....or wait until they come here. But they ARE coming. Pick your poison. Radicals of any description can't be negotiated with.. They don't respect weakness or appeasement. They all belong to a cult of death, ready and willing to kill not only themselves but innocent women and children as well. You want to sit down with those kinds of people and offer them what, exactly? I know. Lets give them a warm Canadian welcome and landed immigrant status. Invite them into our homes and our hearts......afterall, they are just really just mis-understood individuals from broken homes. Maybe build them a few basketball courts. I'm sure they will appreciate that.

Right?

Travis Lupick

Oct 17, 2007 at 1:53pm

Since the publication of the DND spins war story, a few comments have been posted, the Ruxted Group has written a <a href="http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/92-Big-Lies.html" target="_blank">flattering rebuttal</a>, and <a href="http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,67206.0.html" target="_blank">posts in an online forum</a> frequented by Canadian military personal has suggested the story’s participants “need to put the tin foil on a bit tighter”. Almost exclusively, these replies have been unfavorable. Many have interpreted the story as being critical of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. As a careful read will show, nowhere in the story is there any negative mention of Canada’s actual mission in Afghanistan. What the story deals with is the propaganda campaigns that the Canadian government and the DND are carrying out in conjunction with the mission. What I find most interesting, is the fact that while many replies justify the DND’s exchange of information with Karzai as routine, none acknowledge the significance of the language the DND used to characterize that information. For example, the Ruxted Group wrote: “Ms. Black is convinced that military members wrote President Karzai’s recent speech in Canada. DND acknowledged that it provided information, especially data about how much the Canadian PRT has accomplished in Afghanistan, to the Government of Afghanistan – just as every government department provides information and data to every foreign government when that foreign government’s leader is about to visit Canada. That isn’t merely PR; it’s competent diplomatic service.” In the DND’s own words, copied verbatim from a DND document obtained by the NDP through an Access to Information request, “Team prepared initial draft of presidents address to parliament Sept 22. It was noted that key statistics, messages and themes, as well as overall structure, were adopted by the president.” How and why does the Ruxted Group interpret “initial draft” and “key statistics, messages and themes”, simply as “information”, and then go on to characterize such an action as “competent diplomatic service”? If Prime Minister Harper gave a speech to the U.S. Senate for which the U.S. military had written his “key statistics, messages and themes”, would the Ruxted group call it “competent diplomatic service”?