Everyone's favorite retired member of the military, Lewis MacKenzie, has posted in column in this morning's Globe and Mail on how to deal with the Afghan prisoner scandal that is starting to stick despite the Harper government's seeming Teflon sheen:
In the wake of the Somalia inquiry and resulting reviews of Canadian Forces policy, the Military Police Complaints Commission, an independent, quasi-judicial agency, was established in 1998... A public inquiry would be a colossal waste of taxpayers' money. The government should put the file back into the MPCC's lap and direct all players to co-operate. The commission has the highly qualified staff necessary to get to the truth of the matter in the most cost-effective manner.
I suppose that all makes sense and who am I to pretend that I am better suited that Gen. Lew to judge process. But as far as I can tell this is not a military scandal. It is a scandal relating to the line of communications between a top diplomat and the Federal cabinet. It is bizarre to find out that reports from a high level diplomat in a war zone could somehow not get to the desk of the Minister responsible. It is also bizarre to learn that the appropriate response by our national government to the allegations when they first arose are not "we will take these matters most seriously and make all necessary inquiries."
Comments
Daniel J. Christie - November 25, 2009 10:15 AM
Gen. Lewis Mackenzie is the beneficiary of depleted resources in the newsrooms of the nation. His is the only name that shows up on tattered old Rolodexes whenever a quote is needed from someone military-ish. Same thing with railroads -everything defaults to a bunch of wacky train buffs called Transport 2000 -as if they were The Noted Authorities. Communications goes to Ian Angus -whoever he is.
The thing is we accept these "experts" without question, in part because we hear their names over and over again and seldom, if ever, does anyone question their opinions.
Ben (The Tiger) - November 25, 2009 10:31 AM
I bet the reports did make it.
I also bet they weren't taken seriously -- I mean, every time we go anywhere, we or our allies are accused of torture.
Yet, eventually they were taken seriously, b/c we switched up our policies in mid-'07.
So the only real issue here is that the government is taking a hard line on impossible grounds, and smearing a diplomat, rather than admit that it took a few months longer to change a policy than it should have... Not nice.
P of K - November 25, 2009 10:46 AM
McKenzie ran in '97 as federal PC candidate - impartial expert opinion - give me a freakin' break!
Matthew Fletcher - November 25, 2009 8:58 PM
P of K:
How or where exactly is it stated or implied that Mackenzie' column is an "impartial expert opinion."? The column appeared in the section of the paper specifically reserved for people to advance their own beliefs and arguments - it is generally assumed that the pieces in the *opinion* section are the very expression of personal opinion and bias. Certainly Mackenzie has a degree of authority and legitimacy as a retired general. But it amazes me that people make the assumption that everything in the paper is being presented as impartial - or even that it should be.
P of K - November 25, 2009 11:22 PM
Quite right - impartiality - or even truthfulness should not be assumed. But doesn't it bother you that the general is choosing which credential to promote in his effort to solicit belief of his opinion? Do you think that the omission of a declaration of political association is okay?