Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

The minister who cried 'Russian!'

by Aaron Wherry on Saturday, July 31, 2010 9:23am - 0 Comments

Peter MacKay, yesterday. Defence Minister Peter MacKay was outraged at the allegation that his government is using a crisis to further its political interests. “I find it astounding there could be any suggestion that we would manufacture Russians approaching our airspace. That’s bordering on ludicrous,” he said.

David Pugliese, 18 months ago. The military officers I was talking to yesterday were full of kudos for Defence Minister Peter MacKay for a move that one described as “playing the media like a finely-tuned fiddle.” The officer was referring to the breathless Canadian news media coverage of the flight of two Russian bombers that were “intercepted” by Canadian CF-18s … Yesterday’s incident prompted some amusement at NDHQ about how gullible some in the news media can be and how easily some journalists swallowed the government’s bait hook, line and sinker.

Tags: Canada, CF-18, Peter MacKay, Russia

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

@Gaunilon and Raging Ranter:

I did not see any of this before making my comments. But I do feel a bit vindicated that I'm not the only one who came to this conclusion.

Gaunilon

Which conclusion is that, that MacKay quite possibly played up an incident that's actually not uncommon? I think we agreed on that.

Wherry here seems to be vaguely insinuating that MacKay made the whole thing up….which is kind of a weird insinuation and highly unlikely to be accurate. He seems to be letting his partisanship get the better of him. I know you're a partisan Liberal as well, but you aren't agreeing with that kind of nonsense, I hope.

It is, as I said before, a very foolish thing for the Russians to be doing. It is an international incident waiting to happen; all it will take is one of their planes to veer into Canadian airspace instead of staying at the perimeter.

Emily

Happens between 12-18 times a year. Pilots are often so close they wave at each other.

Mackay only mentions it when he wants new toys.

Andrew (not P or C)

Not to mention toys that would be terrible for intercepting Russian bombers in the high Arctic.
Dave

If it happens between 12 and 18 times a year… why is the public only notified, selectively, once or twice?

Emily

What, that Russians are doing training flights on old aircraft? Whatever for?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

Its value as a stage prop is not universally applicable to every issue the government faces.

Jenn_

Yes, you did, but Raging Ranter didn't. And I was having the discussion with you both so I didn't want to leave you out. Sorry, maybe I should have (or worded it better).

Wherry is no more insinuating that MacKay made it up than I did (and I didn't). But I got slapped for that, as well. (by someone named "historyrepeats" not you). Similar to the way MacKay said, "suggestion that we would manufacture Russians" Hey, you don't suppose MacKay IS historyrepeats, do you?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"Wherry is no more insinuating that MacKay made it up…"

Well, in my experience when someone suggests "crying wolf" they're saying that someone made something up to garner attention. At this point this kind of nuttiness doesn't surprise me, after all the conspiracy theories about Harper deliberately destroying the Canadian Ship of State by eliminating the long form.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

he is crying wolf as to the seriousness of the situation/actual danger as it relates to the purchase of the jets. that is what he is making up.
bonneau

I perceived Wherry's allusion to 'crying wolf' as metaphorical, in the sense that MacKay will jump on any trivial issue and give it a spin in an attempt to justify his fighter jet boondoggle.
bonneau

Regarding 'destroying the ship of state', at the end of the day, when you add it all up, that is each incremental reform Harper has made since in power, you have a federal government that is on the road to being vasectomized*. An impotent central government is as good as dead. All that's left is its symbolic value, like the maple leaf or the beaver. The role Harper would like Ottawa to adopt is essentially one of security and protection of the state, hence a very strong military, police force and prison system. A secondary role is to build and maintain critical infrastructure. I am simplifying, but that is the gist of his goal, one that fits in very well with a libertarian view of the world.
bonneau

* I am using the term 'vasectomized' in lieu of 'castrated' or 'emasculated', as I wanted to convey the notion that a vasectomy is reversible, not 100% but still…, whereas once you're officially a eunuch, it's over.

And there again, Wherry's use of another metaphor as in 'scuttling the Canadian Ship of State'. I do not believe the census reform is benign. It is a substantial handicap and does in a sense cripple the State, preventing it from making informed decisions based on evidence and fact.

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

He made the "urgency" of the situation up.

What's next – a candidate for the Cons named McCarthy?

Emily

50 year old Russian planes being used for training, way outside our airspace and our Defence minister panics and acts like it's WWIII….and then wonders why he gets laughed at?

We all know why he's doing it….he's more transparent than a toddler.

http://intensedebate.com/people/janicemaerose Janice Rose

"He's more transparent than a toddler"

Not intentionally, of course. Harper's gang and transparency are like oil and water; them being the crude black oil.

Anon 001

Given that Rob Anders was sent out yesterday with his "Chinese are bribing MPs" rubbish, I wouldn't put it past Team Soudas to try anything to change the channel.

Emily

Yes, we're 'under attack'….from census clerks, the Chinese and now the Russians fergawdsake!

Somebody needs the tell the boys in the bunker the Cold War is over, and it's safe to come out now and rinse their undies.
http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

They've sent out Duffy and Anders the last few days. Giorno must be on vacation.

knick

The Harper party is masterful at the art of the big lie. It's too bad that so many Canadians are so blissfully unaware of the impact of their own indifference.

http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

And it's looking more and more like Sun Media is going to be a mouthpiece for the Conservative party, in the model of Fox News as a mouthpiece for the Republican party. They'll breathlessly promote every trumped-up news release. If the spin collapses, they'll move on without looking back.

Sickening.

jarrid

Journolist.

Since we're apparently on the topic of sickening.

Steve

Journolist is a forum board where journalists and opinionists of political persuasion rant about people of other political persuasion… the fact that this was blown up by BigGovernment.com the mother of substance-free 'gotcha' journalism is a wonderful case of the pot calling the kettle black.

But thats the new market, right, the new market of 'gotcha' political journalism is the new politics itself. And thats 'what the people want' after all – a good scandal. And you must be out to pasture if you don't think the folks at SunTV won't be reciting that mantra every day, as it is good for business regardless of what party is in power.

jarrid

I was heartened to see the Sun newspapaer chain finally put Eric Margolis out to pasture the other day.

Apparently he now has a new gig with the uber-liberal Huffington Post.

I always wondered why leftists seem to hold all the soapboxes in this country.

Nice to see a little bit of diversity of views. Better get used to it TJ.

Ideological diversity – only a leftist could disagree with such a concept.

Emily

Margolis has written for them for some time, as well as for American Conservative….seeing as he is a Republican
TJCook

“Nice to see a little bit of diversity of views. Better get used to it TJ.”

I’m happy to see an increase in the diversity of viewpoints. My issue with Fox News (and my worry with Sun Media) is that they report facts selectively, and report right-wing spin uncritically. The result is that Fox’s devotees believe in a substantially different set of *facts*. Witness the wisespread belief among Fox News viewers that Iraq was involved in 9/11, or had WMD’s.

Like Pat Moynihan said, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, not their own set of facts.

Ideological diversity – only a leftist could disagree with such a concept.”

I fail to see how any rational person could draw that conclusion from what I wrote.

bonneau

I know, it doesn't look good, especially given the fact that Canadians can be so gullible and blind. Canadians are not brechtian by nature, they are not the most objective thinking lot out there. Give them a good soundbite, and they will bite.

Kelvin

It'd be nice if you quoted a few paragraphs down:

"The Russians have been doing such sorties for the last year and a half. In August 2007 Russian President Putin announced to the world that such sorties would begin again. "Starting in 1992, the Russian Federation unilaterally suspended strategic aviation flights to remote areas," Putin said at the time. "Regrettably, other nations haven't followed our example. That has created certain problems for Russia's security.”"

The Russians didn't exactly morph into the teddy bears we thought they would after the USSR dissolved.

AND:

"However, that laughter was somewhat tempered by mid-afternoon when TV newscasts started linking the Arctic sovereignty issue and the Russian sortie. NDHQ types started getting worried that journalists would later start asking about what was happening with the Arctic training base, the Arctic patrol ships and the new icebreaker that were promised by the Harper government. The answer to what’s happening with those projects is “very little,” said one DND insider."

Your tone suggests that too much talk is the problem. I'd say the problem is not enough action. Big announcements, then we move our attention-deficit brains elsewhere.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

Now that we have super-advanced communications for Ministers of the Crown such as Twitter, it isn't really so important they be based in Ottawa.

I would personally feel much safer if Peter MacKay was permanently posted somewhere north of our northern most base. He could spend his days scanning the skies with his eagle eyes protecting Canadians everywhere from the imminent threats that are threatening us.

Emily

He could stay with Sarah Palin….she can see Putin from her house.
http://intensedebate.com/people/amherstvw amherstvw

… though I don't know if he could dig potatoes up at Alert.

Did you see how Jim Prentice just found the HMS Investigator?

Next assignment: Find "my Canada" … missing for several years now … maybe longer.

http://intensedebate.com/people/amherstvw amherstvw

I'm really not satisfied with the justification given for the selection of the single-engined F-35s … "the LIberals donated to development of this US project already". Not a valid reason.

Second rate stealth technology (the big powers will always keep the most advanced technology for themselves) is not needed to defend our northern borders. Adequate search and rescue equipment would be *much more useful* for a "northern presence" … and to preserve human life (e.g. thousands of overflying civilian airliners).

Shooting stuff down? : use SAMs or drones if the Defence Minister is "serious". NORAD is already on that, anyway.
http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.com The Jurist

To truly flesh out the Pugliese quote, one also needs to add this:

@KoryTeneycke: Fun to watch the lame-streamers ignore another Sun scoop.

Next week: "SUN SCOOP!!! Government sources say it's Friday. Which is embarrassing for Michael Ignatieff who hates the weekend."

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Hah! Good one!

I can see the motto now. Sun News: Scooping up the Government's . . . uh, cream?
John D

I'll be sending you the bill for cleaning coffee off my monitor

http://intensedebate.com/people/BGLong BGLong

Ah, Petey fended them off with his ion laser blaster. Keeps it hidden in his rugby boots.
Wascally Wabbit

Hey – careful what you say about rugby players sonny!
All rugby players are NOT Peter MacKay but ALL rugby players like to ruck, pack and and hook – anything that looks like a ball (or a MacKay)

http://intensedebate.com/people/BGLong BGLong

Used to play on the same pitches that he still pretends to play on in Pictou Co. Well before his
time. Given my current age and condition, I still wouldn't mind getting a boot in … I suspect he
feels the same way.

hell

russia doesnt care about our f-18,s if they wanted to wipe out canada it would only take minutes…canada wouldnt last 5 minutes fighting russia

Emily

If Russia wanted to wipe out Canada, they'd send missiles not planes.

Over in seconds.

So the F-35s are useless and expensive window-dressing.

And since Russia doesn't have that intention anyway…it would make more sense to spend the money on search-and-rescue planes for our Arctic, as well as decent supply carriers for overseas.

bonneau

exactly

http://intensedebate.com/people/Raging_Ranter Raging_Ranter

So we shouldn't bother with an airforce, or worry about our airspace over the Arctic at all then. Because it doesn't make any difference.

Emily

If Russia wanted to start a war….no.

But like I said they could use search and rescue in the Arctic.
Mike T.

To be honest, while northern defence is an issue (far bigger than the middle east), the air force is probably the least of the three.

If Russia isn't serious, we're spending too much on those planes.

If Russia IS serious, we're going to have to have something far more deadly than planes.

Emily

And since we can't begin to afford missile systems, maybe we should just make nice with the neighbours….like we were doing before Mackay got hysterical the first time.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Raging_Ranter Raging_Ranter

Because appeasement always works, especially when the other side knows you have no other option.

hosertohoosier

Full-scale war is not going to happen. What is likely to happen is that Canada and Russia will take actions to establish their presence – building bases and maintaining patrols in the far north. Demonstrating use and a military presence strengthens one's claims to territory. That is why our military presence matters.

If there was a military engagement over the Arctic, it would be more likely to resemble the British-Icelandic Cod wars, or some of the various limited naval wars that have occurred throughout history (eg. the various Anglo-Dutch wars). Such conflicts can often be won by the weaker power if it can demonstrate it has a greater will to escalate. For instance, Iceland WON the cod wars.

The Russians would not want to escalate the conflict enough to get the United States involved. The use of missiles would make little sense, because the United States would almost certainly retaliate, and because the fallout could reduce the value of the contested territory.

Mike R

Russia and Canada have issues, and each of them has the right to protect their interests with military force if need be. The chances of an armed conflict with Russia are very low at the moment, but that is hardly a reason for Canada to ignore violations, or potential violations of its airspace, any more than any other nation would do.

And, of course, Russia is hardly the superpower it was. While it retains a nuclear capacity we do not choose to develop, in any other terms we would hardly be a push-over for the Russians – even if we weren't backed up by an alliance of 800 million or so,

As I said, an armed conflict today is not likely. Who knows what challenges we will face over the next 40 years? And from whom. By the time we know it will be too late to create an air force if we don't keep one in being. No responsible government would give up that capacity – even a Liberal one.

hosertohoosier

I was agreeing with that perspective, in case it was unclear. I am pro F-35.

http://intensedebate.com/people/BGLong BGLong

Peter = Snollygoster ??
http://contrarian.ca/2010/07/30/snollygoster-revi…

h/t Contrarian and so on …
Dave

Boy. I bet Peter wishes now that he had followed through on his promise to put a "Rapid Reaction Battalion" in Goose Bay.

They would have been able to react, rapidly, or something like that.
Mike T.

Still no icebreaker, eh?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

Thank goodness for Sun News and the rest of Quebecor. It is right up there with Xinhua News, Izvestia and Radio Thailand for getting the news the people really need to them.
Kenneth Yurchuk

Conservative talking points are downright silly. The CF 35 will have less range, and is slower than the CF-18, not to mention more dangerous to the pilot due to the single engine design. The stealth capacity is overrated at best, and not an issue when it comes to defensive interception of foreign aircraft.. If we have to buy new aircaft, my preference would be the super-Hornet.

Mike R

It is hardly an "if", unless you wangt to disband the air force or think the CF-18 can be flown indefinitely. As for the technical merits, the F-35 is a true multi-role 5th generation aircraft. The Super hornet is capable, but it is the end of the development line for the Hornet – a 1970s design. Anyway, I'd leave the choice of aircraft to those who are going to have to fly them.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SunshineCoaster SunshineCoaster

But wait until Peter gets his kickback from this untendered contract. It will make both the sponsorship scandal and the Airbus scam look like child's play.