Today, I got stretched pretty good, as I was asked to testify before the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence. The focus was supposed to be the Baltics/Ukraine security situation, but I ended up helping to, um, expand the conversation. I was on with two sharp people who are far more knowledgeable about Ukraine and Baltic security stuff, so I made that clear at the top of my initial statement.
Because dropbox no longer lets one share files easily, I will just summarize my opening statement: lots of uncertainty, much hinging on the US election (which had the effect of derailing the conversation a bit, I think), that Canada is contributing to NATO via the mission in Latvia, that it is no longer doing the air patrolling stuff, that my civ-mil hat is causing me to ponder how is Zelensky managing his military and how likely is it for the Russian military to mutiny.
The committee was smart to keep the regional questions aimed at my colleagues. Marta Kepe of RAND spoke about hybrid warfare and other unconventional threats facing the Baltics. Arel was quite critical of the lack of political will on the part of the west in general in not supporting Ukraine earlier and letting its fear of escalation inhibit support now. I found myself agreeing with them on pretty much everything they said except for that political will stuff. The Q&A ran for nearly 2 hours with each MP getting somewhere between 1 and 5 minutes to ask questions (the MPs from the NPQ and Block got 1 minute each--smaller parties get less time).
The first question to me was by Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant asked about very specific drone capabilities and why don't we have more systems to combat higher level air threats. My response focused on the fact that our allies have anti-aircraft capabilities to help us, and that the drone procurement thing is happening. I forget when I mentioned that there had been opposition to weaponized drones a while back because of concerns about their being used to assassinate individuals, but that the Ukraine war has shown us of the importance on a conventional battlefield.
The second question to be was by Christine Normandin of the Bloc, who is one of the Vice Chairs of the committee--wouldn't Poland paying more than 2% of its GDP on defense insure that Trump would still respond to an attack on Poland? Nope, that Trump couldn't be counted on for anything like that given his hostility to NATO and his positive attitude towards Russia/Putin.
The next question to me was from the NDP's Lindsay Mathyssen about the links between the far right and Russia, and I, well, really went to town on that one--mentioning their joint interest in eroding trust in democratic institutions, their weaponization of all kinds of hate (transphobia, misogyny, racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism, Islamophobia) to divide democracies, and their joint fondness for autocracy. I didn't mention DeSantis by name, but I did link Orban to all of this. This got picked up by some far right media folks so here's the video of that sequence.
Conservative Don Stewart pushed again on drones--whether it would be right to train our troops on them before shipping them out to our troops in Latvia and why we don't have so many. I mentioned the procurement challenges, here or later, including the fact that with everybody wanting to buy drones, there is a supply problem.
Liberal Emmanuella Lambropoulous asked a question of Arel that she then directed to me--why support Ukraine? In addition to the stuff Arel mentioned, I pointed out that our inflation was partly caused by the commodity shock of Russia invading Ukraine's grain growing area. I also mentioned our commitment to NATO, and this is a war that directly implicates NATO.
Normandin asked again about Trump, and I forgot if I said much different from the first time.
Liberal Marcus Powlowski asked about a reference I mad to Russian soldiers mutinying. I said that what we know from civ-mil is not that we can pinpoint when one might happen, but the reckless disregard for the welfare of Russian troops might lead to units munitying. He asked for evidence, and I had none except stories of individual soldiers attacking superior officers. That time was not necessarily on Russia's side.
Conservative Vice Chair James Bezan asked about whether we should have sent some of the LAVs to Ukraine earlier, and I basically said yes.
Liberal Chad Collins asked a long question about disinformation, which followed up from my previous answer about democratic institutions and the far right. Either here or before, I pointed out that across the democracies, a key for preventing the rise of the far right is for right-wing parties to oppose them.
My notes deteriorate from there. We were asked about Ukraine and membership in NATO--I pointed out that won't happen until the war is over, as admitting a member mid-war is essentially NATO declaring war. I was then asked if Ukraine could become a member if Trump was President, and I reminded folks that NATO operates by consensus, and Trump, having been impeached the first time for trying to extort Ukraine, would probably not support membership for Ukraine.
One can find the video online to get the whole hearing--the other two folks were super sharp and I learned much for them.
Did I tell the parliamentarians that my next book, with Phil and Dave, compares defence committees around world and found that the Canadian version was deliberately irrelevant? No. I will save that for the book launch. I was very conscious that all parties were trying to play me and the others into giving them the soundbites that they wanted. Perhaps I am biased, but the Conservatives seemed the most consistent, focusing on a particular message--that the Liberals are responsible for the CAF being under-equipped--which is not wrong, but I didn't want to get pinned down to say this was a uniquely Liberal problem--the Conservatives helped to get us here as well. I probably gave the Liberals and the NDP the soundbites they wanted, but I did sense that there was a bit more genuine interest in the stuff and a bit less ruthless focus on point scoring. As I said, I might be more aware of the stuff on the right than on the left.
I was asked by someone later whether this was stressful or whether I was frustrated. Nope, this was fun--talking about this stuff is what I like to do, and talking to a committee that is, um, sort of responsible for this stuff is still cool even if I am a critic of how it does its business.
No comments:
Post a Comment