What Mark Norman thinks now
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
153.9249
Summary
Retired Vice Admiral Mark Norman served in the Royal Canadian Navy for many years, becoming the Navy s Chief of the Defense Staff in 2016. In 2017, he was charged with one count of breach of trust. This was believed to be the first time someone in Canada was ever charged with leaking government secrets.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hi, I'm Anthony Fury. Thanks for joining me for this latest episode of Full Comet.
00:00:08.640
I'm really excited about our conversation with today's guest, retired Vice Admiral Mark Norman.
00:00:13.880
Admiral Norman served in the Royal Canadian Navy for many years, becoming head of the Navy in 2013
00:00:18.600
and then vice chief of the defense staff, as in second in command of the whole Canadian Armed Forces, in 2016.
00:00:24.980
Then, something happened. Admiral Norman was relieved of his post in 2017 and criminally charged by the RCMP with one count of breach of trust.
00:00:34.960
The allegations were that he had publicly leaked cabinet confidences, top government secrets, about shipbuilding contracts.
00:00:41.580
This was believed to be the first time ever someone in Canada was charged with leaking government information.
00:00:47.100
And government leaks happen all the time. So why him? What was going on?
00:00:51.700
Given that the case was first referred to the RCMP by bureaucrats close to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau,
00:00:57.460
many people suspected that this began as a politically motivated attempt to target the Admiral.
00:01:03.280
Admiral Norman maintained his innocence throughout and maintained a vigorous defense.
00:01:08.200
Veterans, serving military members, Canadians of all walks of life rallied behind him,
00:01:13.120
donating to his defense in what is believed to be the largest civil defense fund in Canadian history.
00:01:17.960
And in 2019, the charges against Norman were dropped.
00:01:21.840
No reasonable prospects of conviction, they said.
00:01:24.300
And he received a settlement and an all-party apology in the House of Commons.
00:01:28.560
This whole saga is considered by many as a blight upon the government
00:01:31.480
that such a frivolous charge would have been issued in the first place against such a respected and senior military figure.
00:01:37.680
The conversation that follows is not about the ordeal that Admiral Norman underwent.
00:01:43.300
The terms of his settlement are such that he does not speak about the matter publicly.
00:01:47.000
However, if Norman's career had not been cut short,
00:01:49.960
he would likely still be second in command of the Canadian Armed Forces,
00:01:53.200
or maybe even now, be in charge as the chief of the defense staff.
00:01:56.660
So when it comes to discussing Afghanistan, China, Canada on the world stage,
00:02:04.080
and the evolving challenges this nation will face in the 21st century,
00:02:08.380
Admiral Mark Norman has one of the most informed and senior-level perspectives in the country.
00:02:19.040
Well, hello, Anthony, and it's great to be with you.
00:02:23.200
Absolutely, and, you know, we've really been focused on talking about COVID for the past year and a half.
00:02:28.620
We've really been, in some respects, I guess, insular in how we look at the issues that our nation faces right now.
00:02:34.920
But, you know, there's a whole world out there, and stuff has continued this past year and a half.
00:02:40.180
And what are the issues right now that you're thinking about when it comes to Canada and world affairs?
00:02:47.680
Okay, well, the first thing I'd like to say is I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you
00:02:52.620
and your listeners for the incredible support that my family and I received over a very troubling period
00:03:02.480
And I just think that many of your listeners were in my corner,
00:03:10.140
and I want them to know that I very much appreciated their support.
00:03:13.620
And I think, to your question more specifically, as we look beyond our own borders,
00:03:21.480
and even to the extent of our own borders, what we're seeing is a world that was changing
00:03:28.100
even prior to the arrival of the pandemic, and has continued to evolve.
00:03:36.080
And in some respects, I think, is a more dangerous place now than it was even five years ago,
00:03:44.600
and perhaps even at the very outset of the pandemic.
00:03:48.520
And I'm happy to explore some of those ideas with you.
00:03:54.240
Let's go into the different areas that we're talking about here.
00:03:59.560
There's the big country everyone's asking about, China, the rise of a global superpower.
00:04:05.740
What's going on with China right now in ways that matter to Canada?
00:04:12.200
I mean, first of all, you know, we continue to see China's impressive and genuinely impressive
00:04:20.120
military expansion, both in terms of quantity and quality.
00:04:25.820
We see China's ongoing and increasingly aggressive actions as it relates to their immediate neighbors
00:04:42.960
And we see ongoing coercion and economic pressure and the establishment of strategic relationships
00:04:54.240
often under duress, if I can put it that way, globally.
00:05:02.240
And then we see the underlying issues related to the interdependencies and interconnectedness
00:05:11.860
of the Chinese economy with the global economy in general.
00:05:15.780
And every one of those things that I've laid out have implications for Canada, either directly
00:05:21.540
or indirectly, as much as they're actively engaged in the Arctic to how the trade balance
00:05:32.420
with the United States potentially affects geostrategic stability going forward.
00:05:39.400
I mean, basically, we're saying kind of everything.
00:05:43.460
I mean, all roads lead back to China, which is kind of what they're hoping for with their
00:05:47.780
That's kind of what they want to do in terms of the relationships they forge with countries
00:05:52.500
around the world, economic ties, ties with universities.
00:05:55.640
And there are so many different aspects of China's presence or omnipresence, really, in
00:06:00.920
Canadian society that covers all these different industries, all these different facets of life.
00:06:06.200
I know previously we've had debates in Canada about, OK, you have to ban Huawei or you have
00:06:10.740
to ban the purchase of strategic assets by state-owned enterprises.
00:06:16.040
We need to get them out of the university school system.
00:06:18.940
What are the kind of predominant action item concerns that we should be talking about right now?
00:06:25.160
Well, I think what we need to do is we need to kind of look at this from China's perspective.
00:06:33.520
And I don't profess, and I, you know, complete transparency declaration here to you and your
00:06:40.740
viewers, I don't profess to be an expert in China.
00:06:45.960
And I think it's important that we try to understand where China is coming from.
00:06:51.840
And this is not necessarily to defend their actions, but I think it's important that we
00:06:58.160
And then we can explore all of those disparate things that you've already listed in a context
00:07:07.800
There's a couple of things we need to look at here.
00:07:13.460
And that relates to China's ongoing concerns and ongoing position that, you know, never again
00:07:23.660
are they going to be beholden to anybody else or the victims of anybody else's aggression.
00:07:30.500
And I think that that is important because it permeates everything that they do and the
00:07:40.860
actions that they take and the fact that they have a long-term plan.
00:07:45.920
The other thing I think we need to look at here is, are the vast internal demographic economic
00:07:57.460
challenges that China is facing, you know, operating as a basically a, you know, a regime of
00:08:09.360
totalitarian rule, for lack of a better term, managing a massive population and trying to
00:08:17.120
grow an economy that continues to enable them to do the things that they want to do without
00:08:26.940
And I think, you know, the third thing is that, and it goes back perhaps to the first
00:08:31.980
point that China looks globally through the lens of opportunities and threats.
00:08:40.980
And historically, it's never really been too concerned, I would say, with what the West
00:08:49.520
was doing, particularly in the United States, until it set itself on its path of the last
00:08:56.040
20 to 25 years, which is to basically reset the global system.
00:09:03.180
And I think this is really important for people to understand.
00:09:06.560
This isn't about global domination in some perverse, Dr. Evil kind of way.
00:09:12.800
This is about resetting a system which the Chinese believe has been historically biased towards
00:09:20.600
the Western powers and in particular the United States.
00:09:24.400
And it goes back to, you know, the post-war treaties and the actions and arguably, you know,
00:09:31.840
post-war colonialism from a Western perspective and all of the instruments of international
00:09:39.860
affairs, you know, that they have seen as being not necessarily conducive to their interests.
00:09:49.000
So they're trying to reset a system which isn't particularly interested in the Western views
00:09:56.180
of democracy or the Western views of the, you know, human rights and those types of things
00:10:05.860
But to them, this is all about a system of control.
00:10:11.820
It's about a system of coercion and it's about a system of interdependence.
00:10:17.120
And they want to be at the center of that revised system.
00:10:20.680
So I know that didn't answer your question, but I think it's really important that we put
00:10:25.240
everything we're going to discuss in that context.
00:10:27.740
But one thing that's very interesting when you make the remarks about human rights and
00:10:30.900
press freedom and so forth, you can say, oh, well, how do you know that?
00:10:33.500
And it's like, well, actually, Xi Jinping circulated a document among senior public servants,
00:10:37.660
I think back in, you know, 2014 saying, just so you know, here are the things we don't
00:10:41.860
And that includes traditional human rights ideas, press freedom, you know, and so forth,
00:10:46.400
and listed all of these sort of Western no-nos that he's not particularly infused about,
00:10:50.980
you know, spreading widely and getting, you know, activist passions for among the people
00:10:56.820
So it's interesting that these are things that are, they're very well vocalized by China's
00:11:03.840
And yet I find it sometimes hard to make that crack through to sort of the Western
00:11:07.400
public consciousness to make people really appreciate that what you're saying is just
00:11:17.360
I mean, they're being completely open and transparent about this.
00:11:22.460
None of their actions, I shouldn't say none, but very few of their actions should come as
00:11:27.880
a surprise to anybody who's actually paying attention.
00:11:30.520
I think part of it and, you know, you know, the reason for this growing interest over the
00:11:37.220
last year or two, perhaps, who knows, stimulated by the issues around the pandemic.
00:11:47.940
But this growing interest in China is indicative of the fact that we haven't really been paying
00:11:56.980
And perhaps we don't necessarily need to have been paying attention.
00:12:02.040
You know, for the average Canadian, perhaps it's something that isn't really of concern
00:12:08.800
But, you know, at a political level, we haven't been paying attention.
00:12:11.640
At a machinery of government level, we haven't been paying attention.
00:12:14.880
You know, military strategists have been paying attention.
00:12:19.420
Investors have been paying attention and economists have been paying attention.
00:12:22.440
But writ large, it's been, well, you know, it doesn't really affect us.
00:12:27.980
Well, the big deal is that they're being very strategic.
00:12:39.040
And their plan will see, as I said, the resetting of a global system that may not be the way
00:12:48.740
we in Canada would want to see the world in, I don't know, 25, 50 years or so.
00:12:55.680
Yeah, one of the interesting conversations we had back in the 2019 Canadian federal election
00:12:59.620
was there's this organization that Canada is a part of called the Asian Infrastructure
00:13:04.840
Investment Bank, which was put together by China.
00:13:06.840
And, you know, it's pretty much an attempt to supplant the World Bank or the International
00:13:13.680
But instead of being these sort of post-World War II, US-led and UK-led organizations, it's
00:13:23.180
And, you know, they might not be a huge operation right now, but 20, 30 years from now, it'll probably
00:13:28.820
And it's like, that's the stuff we're actually kind of signing up for.
00:13:33.380
And, you know, they'll probably do these press conferences where everything looks nice.
00:13:36.940
And they talk about good projects and so forth.
00:13:40.560
But it's like, guys, just be aware of what you're getting yourself into here.
00:13:44.480
And I think that that is an excellent and practical example of the very types of things
00:13:52.860
And, you know, to your opening question, what are the things that sort of keep me awake?
00:13:59.600
But that's that was the gist of what you asked.
00:14:01.880
You know, my concern is that as a country, we're not paying attention.
00:14:07.220
And at some point, we're going to wake up one morning and go, oh, how did we get here?
00:14:16.120
It happens to a series of incremental actions, either acts of omission or acts of commission
00:14:22.360
that allow us to get into a place where things aren't the way we thought they would be.
00:14:29.200
And I would suggest things are potentially not the way we would want them to be going forward.
00:14:36.600
Mark Norman, I want to get your thoughts on the South China Sea and naval operations in that part of the world.
00:14:42.020
A lot of people say if there's a World War Three or something like that, if there's a flare up,
00:14:45.640
it's going to be commenced, at least in the water.
00:14:48.340
I just plugged in into Google China aircraft carrier because I want to get the list of how many they had,
00:14:53.960
And we'll get your thoughts on procurement in a minute.
00:14:55.460
But when I actually plugged that into Google, I got a news alert that said,
00:14:59.180
this is from a news agency in Australia, Beijing threatens the UK after HMS Queen Elizabeth,
00:15:06.300
so one of the United Kingdom's vessels, enters South China Sea.
00:15:10.880
So this is the kind of stuff that I guess, you know, you'll tell me the frequency of it weekly or whatnot.
00:15:15.740
There's vessels that are going there saying we're in international waters.
00:15:18.040
And China says, oh, no, we have different charts and maps than you do.
00:15:22.200
We've got major disputes over this sort of stuff, seemingly minor little disagreements about a few kilometers,
00:15:29.460
nautical miles here and there, but apparently not the stuff that could lead us to major conflagration.
00:15:34.980
What are your thoughts on the South China Sea right now?
00:15:38.260
So this is an area of enormous geostrategic importance, as you implied in your question.
00:15:49.920
And so again, let's just take a minute and let's just look back at how China views this and why this is such a problem.
00:15:58.520
So decades ago, based on history and their views that I described a few minutes ago,
00:16:08.780
where never again are they going to allow themselves to be bullied by others,
00:16:16.500
They established basically an extension of what they are declaring as internal waters.
00:16:28.160
And they expressed this through something that is openly referred to as the nine dashed line.
00:16:35.400
And this, if you or your viewers or your listeners want to Google it and check it out,
00:16:42.780
you'll see maps of the South China Sea with a series of lines on them,
00:16:49.200
which basically encircle most of the disputed areas that have been in the news for the last decade or so.
00:16:57.440
And what they're arguing is that these were historically Chinese waters and that many of these islands and shoals,
00:17:07.960
et cetera, et cetera, are extensions of China's continental shelf, et cetera.
00:17:12.540
All of the arguments that you would imagine would take place in an international maritime legal framework.
00:17:20.540
And beyond that, they've been basically annexing territory, both water and shoals, islands,
00:17:35.000
turning them into habitated islands and declaring them as Chinese territory in the belief that almost like squatters,
00:17:47.060
that they can establish ownership, whether it's legitimate or not, by simply being there.
00:17:53.520
And then they're being increasingly aggressive with the use of both their military assets,
00:17:59.340
but more importantly, their Coast Guard, which is a paramilitary or military organization in the Chinese context,
00:18:06.780
and their fishing fleet, which is simply an extension of their own government machinery.
00:18:14.300
And so, and they're pushing people out and they're responding very aggressively to the entrance or transit through these waters by foreign powers.
00:18:30.280
Now, this is important from an international legal perspective,
00:18:34.080
because there's such a thing as freedom of navigation, the right of innocent passage.
00:18:39.240
This allows you to go through waters, which are international in nature,
00:18:45.220
because you're going from one international water to another international water.
00:18:49.720
The most obvious in this case would be the Taiwan Strait.
00:18:53.520
Of course, China claims that Taiwan is basically a rebel province of China,
00:18:59.980
and that it's therefore part of Chinese territory,
00:19:02.860
and therefore they would claim that the waters between that island and the mainland would be Chinese territorial waters.
00:19:11.680
Well, territorial waters typically only extend 12 miles either side of the landmass.
00:19:19.900
You can make more sophisticated claims based on a bunch of legal arguments,
00:19:26.040
So, you know, if it's 24 miles, it's pretty much a slam dunk.
00:19:30.040
If it's any more than that, then you start getting into some gray areas around whether there's international waters there or not.
00:19:37.440
In the case, in this case, we're talking 100 plus miles.
00:19:41.680
And this is a really sensitive issue for countries like the United States,
00:19:49.460
who are the flag bearers, pun intentional, for this premise of freedom of navigation.
00:19:59.480
And they ask allies, and allies support this principle by sailing ships through some of these contentious waters.
00:20:16.680
And now with the United Kingdom, the biggest issue there is the fact that they have deployed
00:20:22.040
one of their brand new world-class supercarriers with escorts
00:20:30.100
and are making a fairly blatant statement to the Chinese that they consider these international waters,
00:20:38.780
which, of course, infuriates the Chinese and then just causes them to escalate this further.
00:20:44.340
A long response to your question, but hopefully useful.
00:20:49.540
Mark, I want to get your thoughts now on military procurement for Canada,
00:20:52.840
particularly when it comes to naval procurement, since you've just established that.
00:21:00.360
That area is believed to be increasingly at play in the years ahead.
00:21:06.220
We're currently engaged in the Canadian Surface Combatant Project,
00:21:09.620
where we're trying to procure, I guess, 15 new warships,
00:21:13.100
beginning in the mid to late 2020s is, I guess, when they'll hopefully...
00:21:18.020
Well, I guess the last ones won't be delivered until much later than that.
00:21:23.700
Well, right now, the Parliamentary Budget Office is saying $77 billion.
00:21:26.920
Knowing government, as I do, I'm going to expect that's going to be even higher than that
00:21:34.740
And it's like, okay, great, we need these vessels.
00:21:36.900
At the same time, you're like 15 ships, this many years, this many decades ahead.
00:21:41.480
Meanwhile, we see the news stories about China builds bridge or hospital or whatever
00:21:55.600
Yeah, so I want to come back to the issues around China and the comparisons in the building
00:22:07.440
But to your question, you know, fundamentally, this is about replacing and ultimately modernizing
00:22:18.960
and upgrading a capability that has historically been part of the Royal Canadian Navy.
00:22:26.500
It's been the central component of the Royal Canadian Navy basically since the 1980s after we got rid
00:22:38.500
And it's also about rebuilding the capacity to build our own ships.
00:22:47.160
And I guess some would argue that that is something we don't need to necessarily do.
00:22:52.180
But with knowing how to build ships comes the ability to repair and overhaul your own ships.
00:23:00.280
And if you imagine a worst case scenario where you don't have the luxury of shopping on the
00:23:09.400
international market and things are happening really quickly, you have to ask yourself the
00:23:14.640
question, do you want to be dependent on others or are there certain capabilities that you want
00:23:22.300
So that's some of the context for 15 ships basically is the rough calculation of the number necessary
00:23:35.160
to provide the kind of presence and availability of a fleet that has to cover three oceans that may have
00:23:48.440
to deploy into harm's way, as we were discussing a while ago in relation to the actions related to China.
00:23:58.840
China. And so, you know, this is a massive undertaking.
00:24:09.240
Arguably unnecessarily so on both of those fronts.
00:24:16.320
But we're talking about what is the essence of the Royal Canadian Navy's surface fighting fleet.
00:24:24.260
Other navies have more ships and they have different types of ships that can do different
00:24:31.460
things. When you're only talking in the order of 15 ships, as we are, the decision was made that we
00:24:40.520
would build, in essence, a hybrid or a combination of a couple of different capabilities into a single
00:24:50.080
Um, but ultimately it gives, uh, the Navy and the government of the day more flexibility
00:24:58.000
Mark, moving on to something different, what's happening on the ground in Afghanistan right now?
00:25:02.880
It has really been something. Evocative images that we've seen, uh, those pictures of people
00:25:07.300
clinging onto planes and a lot of questions about what could, what should Canada have done differently?
00:25:13.500
A lot of people were saying, look, this is going to happen. You're going to have to get interpreters out.
00:25:17.240
You're going to have to get, uh, the people who acted as security guards for the embassy out,
00:25:20.740
a whole bunch of other positions, people who were basically de facto honorary Canadians on the ground
00:25:28.600
Well, I don't know precisely what happened, but I think, uh, I think we can safely, um, look at this
00:25:35.340
through the lens of, um, I think, uh, a general sense of, um, naivete. I think there was perhaps a bit
00:25:44.420
of arrogance. Um, that's not exclusive to Canada. I think the, the Western countries in particular
00:25:50.080
assumed, um, a great deal more capacity and capability in terms of the Afghan security forces
00:25:58.600
than actually existed. Um, and then of course, uh, when we look at, uh, the fairly aggressive
00:26:04.960
timeline promulgated by the United States with respect to their withdrawal, um, I, I'm, I'm surprised
00:26:12.620
that, uh, prudent military planning didn't take into account some worst case scenarios. I, I, I have no
00:26:20.020
doubt that some of those scenarios were, um, certainly being considered, uh, within the Pentagon
00:26:27.580
and, uh, elsewhere. But, uh, the reality is that much of this was politically motivated and,
00:26:32.780
and, uh, the political actions drove, um, where we are today. And of course, the Taliban
00:26:37.880
have been, um, they've been waiting, um, and they've, uh, they've planned this. They didn't just
00:26:45.320
decide, uh, the other day to, uh, to make this happen. They, they've, uh, they've been planning
00:26:50.880
this for 20 years since, uh, the Western forces rolled in, in 2001. So, um, you know, that that's,
00:26:58.000
that's a probably oversimplistic view, but, uh, that's my sense of what I'm interpreting,
00:27:04.240
uh, based on what I'm seeing and reading. And as for Canada specifically, I mean, um, what could
00:27:11.260
or should have been done? I, I think, uh, the early indicators were pretty compelling. Um,
00:27:17.140
I think, uh, this caught, uh, senior decision makers flat-footed. Uh, certainly, um, the government
00:27:25.940
was focused on calling the election and, uh, and, and that was their priority. And, uh, this,
00:27:32.360
this certainly didn't fit into, uh, their plans. So a combination of things just created a situation
00:27:38.520
that we should have been prepared for, but weren't prepared for. And, and now we're trying to play
00:27:42.940
catch up. And of course the, the speed of events on the ground has, has, uh, overtaken the West's
00:27:49.840
ability to really, uh, take much more control of the situation than perhaps just providing some very,
00:27:57.960
um, isolated security around the airport, which is, uh, the latest situation that we're, we're seeing
00:28:03.780
and hearing. Yeah. I've heard two sort of different competing opinions on the Afghan national army. One
00:28:08.620
basically saying, look, these guys had 20 years to get their act together. I mean, what on earth is wrong
00:28:12.600
with them? And the other that, no, you actually can't create this, this, you know, great functioning
00:28:17.380
standing army in that short a period of time. It's actually not a long period of time to expect
00:28:21.740
them to be able to go it alone and in the sort of transformations they had to do, uh, to their
00:28:26.180
country and their governance. And I think you're the perfect person to ask about that. I mean, what,
00:28:29.620
what should we have expected with the Afghan national army? Well, I, I think, uh, you know, those,
00:28:36.400
those differing views are both, uh, completely understandable depending on where people are coming from.
00:28:41.920
Um, perhaps reality sits, uh, somewhere in the middle. Um, I, cause I think that there are merits
00:28:50.180
to both sides of the argument, um, as it relates to the challenges of creating a Western style, um,
00:28:59.340
you know, security forces model, a combination of standing army militia type scenario, police,
00:29:08.980
that sort of thing. Um, you know, it, it's doable on paper. Um, but a number of things I think have,
00:29:16.400
have, uh, plagued, uh, its ability to be successful. Um, the first thing is you got to look at the society
00:29:24.600
in, in, in, in its entirety and in general, um, loyalty, uh, um, as we understand loyalty to a
00:29:32.420
nation, loyalty to a government, those principles that we, we, we hold dear here in the West, that
00:29:38.960
those, those don't apply. And it, it's not that they're bad people. They just, that's not their
00:29:43.840
frame of reference. So, um, loyalty is to the person who's looking after you. Loyalty is to your
00:29:51.520
chief. Loyalty is to, so if you translate, uh, your local chieftain into, uh, a colonel or a general,
00:29:59.800
then that loyalty flows through that person. It doesn't flow through the office. Um, and so it's a
00:30:07.860
very personal set of relationships and that just compounds and multiplies as you look at it across
00:30:13.520
the entire force. Of course, we also have the other problem with, um, the challenges associated with,
00:30:20.160
uh, the, what I would call the political and bureaucratic infrastructure of the nation, just
00:30:26.020
not really, um, what it needed to be. Um, and my instinct, and this seems to be, um, reported,
00:30:35.600
uh, somewhat, uh, is that, uh, notwithstanding all the effort that was put into training
00:30:42.880
the army and equipping the army, those underlying, uh, issues of loyalty and integrity, um, from a
00:30:51.560
Western perspective, just weren't there. And those are the things you can't, uh, you can't create,
00:30:57.420
um, even over a 20 year period of time. And my sense is that a lot of, um, a lot of these, um,
00:31:05.600
I'll call them militias. That's not fair, but that's the best way to characterize them.
00:31:11.000
Uh, just basically either never showed up to fight or, um, just decided that it wasn't worth
00:31:17.360
fighting. Um, I'm not, I'm sure there were a number of deals made at the senior officer level,
00:31:23.860
um, with the, with the Taliban. And, and, uh, so the force existed on paper, but it didn't really
00:31:30.760
exist. That that's a long answer. And, um, you know, is it, is it something that should have been
00:31:37.580
foreseen? Perhaps. Um, I think there was a high degree of confidence being put into, um, the capacity,
00:31:48.660
uh, of the Afghan security forces. I mean, fundamentally it was the key, it was the foundational
00:31:55.780
element of the West's ability to withdraw. So, um, if, if the political motivation was to get
00:32:03.060
everybody out of there, uh, eventually, and the way to get them all out of there was to build
00:32:09.040
a robust Afghan security force, then, um, my sense is that anybody who was raising concerns about
00:32:17.220
the robustness of the Afghan security force was probably silenced, or at least, um, not paid enough
00:32:24.560
attention to, because this was a, uh, juggernaut of, uh, Western intent to, uh, to get out of there.
00:32:32.280
And of course we were out of there in 2012 and other nations around the same time. And it's been
00:32:37.220
the Americans that have really been holding down the fort, um, for the last several years.
00:32:42.500
Those points you bring up though, that, that the loyalties are tribal, that we're dealing more with
00:32:46.840
people who, who think and conduct their, their daily affairs on, on a regional basis, as opposed to,
00:32:51.920
uh, a national basis in terms of thinking of a federation. I mean, those are the points that
00:32:56.580
people bring up who say, we should have never really been, been in there in the first place,
00:33:00.500
aside from maybe a very limited campaign early on to sort of, you know, directly target, uh,
00:33:04.980
the real bad guys. And then you get out kind of thing. So what do you say to people sort of
00:33:10.660
Well, um, I think unfortunately it's, it's, uh, it's easy to look back at this and, and
00:33:22.440
draw a whole bunch of conclusions in hindsight, um, and point out what now appears to have
00:33:27.940
perhaps been something that should have been obvious. Um, but I don't think it's that simple.
00:33:33.880
And, and, and history is full of examples where, um, you know, the best of intentions and the best
00:33:41.060
of decisions are made at the time and with the information that was available. Um, you know,
00:33:48.940
the, the whole, the whole strategy, if you will, around trying to convert Afghanistan into a functioning,
00:33:57.960
um, democracy with all of the bureaucratic and political infrastructure that goes with it,
00:34:06.420
um, it is a very noble and admirable goal. And sure, I can see how people would see that as
00:34:15.400
perhaps naive or even, uh, unachievable, but it doesn't mean it's not worth trying. And, um,
00:34:22.560
you know, I think that the, the, the problem with this is that in many respects, the West
00:34:31.300
lost its, um, inertia and the appetite to do this waned. Um, and, and I think for understandable
00:34:42.280
reasons, um, you know, there were the, the losses of life, the injuries, the, the, the blood and
00:34:50.380
treasure as, as, uh, the saying goes, that was being expended to try and achieve this was,
00:34:56.220
was astronomical. And, um, and the respective governments, NATO, um, you know, Canada included,
00:35:06.120
the United States, the Brits, the others kind of just lost their stomach, uh, to be honest. And,
00:35:12.720
um, and started to put timelines on things that weren't really appropriate and stopped to look at
00:35:25.000
the conditions that were required to transition along the path, whatever that path was determined
00:35:32.920
to be and started looking at milestones in terms of dates and times, because that's what happens when
00:35:40.400
things become political. And this became political. Um, and, uh, it, it's as much a failure of
00:35:48.140
the policymakers and politicians, uh, collectively, uh, in fact, is more so the case than it is a
00:35:57.020
military failure. The military does what it's told. Sure. It advises, it implements the, the strategy.
00:36:03.680
And, um, you know, I have no doubt that the soldiers that showed up to be trained were properly
00:36:09.560
trained, the soldiers that showed up to be equipped were properly equipped, but then the challenge is
00:36:15.380
how did this, how does the rest of it all come together? Speaking of a loss of inertia, are there
00:36:20.000
going to be spillover effects in terms of how both Canada and allies in the United States, how we think
00:36:26.720
about any future campaigns in terms of assessing whether or not to even do them? And also whether
00:36:32.220
or not there's a demoralizing component in terms of whether or not we do them successfully, whether or not
00:36:36.920
we have positive inertia behind them. I think the short answer, um, which, you know, I'll, I'll go
00:36:45.180
beyond, um, the short answer is yes. And I think you've laid out a couple of very, um, important
00:36:52.720
considerations and I would probably add one or two. Um, there's several, but, but I think to keep this as
00:37:00.160
simple as possible, I think we need to look at this through the lens of, um, the implications as it relates
00:37:07.440
to the political and bureaucratic policymaking machinery of Western nations and their decisions or not
00:37:15.420
to employ this kind of, um, armed force in the future. Um, I think we need to consider the implications
00:37:26.420
of those who, um, were on the ground, um, and what, what they're feeling. Um, and then also we need to
00:37:35.600
consider, um, the external perspective. And I think that this is, this is one that concerns me. I mean,
00:37:41.860
those other two concern me a lot, but it's also how the West and the U S in particular, as the de facto
00:37:49.020
leader, um, of this initiative, um, are going to be seen by the rest of the world, either countries
00:37:56.400
that would perhaps at some point, either now or in the future, look to the West for help, um, or,
00:38:05.540
uh, competitors who will look at the West and think, oh, well, there you go. You can't rely on
00:38:11.380
these guys. They can't deliver. Um, and, uh, Hey, why don't you, uh, why don't you work with us and,
00:38:17.600
uh, we'll, we'll look after you. We understand you better. I mean, the, these types of considerations.
00:38:23.040
So I think West, I think the policy side of this is going to be, um, overly simplified as being gun shy,
00:38:31.780
literally. Right. Um, I think the internal, um, considerations, uh, are, are going to be, um, uh, morale,
00:38:40.640
um, and a sense of purpose. Um, I know that in, in terms of my peer group going through, um,
00:38:50.720
our careers in the military, an entire generation before Afghanistan was defined by our collective
00:38:57.760
experiences in Bosnia, um, where, um, that there was a sense of, um, success, but also a success,
00:39:06.900
a sense of, uh, we can do better. We need to do better. That informed, uh, a lot of the decisions
00:39:13.120
that were made around Afghanistan. And of course, now you have a whole generation, um, who have,
00:39:19.320
uh, lost, um, uh, friends, they've lost family. Um, they've been injured, they've been affected.
00:39:27.560
And, and, uh, I know a lot of them are, are struggling, uh, and they're looking at this and,
00:39:33.720
and they're, they're quite disappointed and dismayed, uh, with the, this recent turn of
00:39:39.400
events. And again, we've discussed in other conversations, my concerns about some of the
00:39:45.920
big players internationally, China, Russia, and others who will be looking at this as an opportunity,
00:39:51.460
I think, to, um, not necessarily on the ground specifically to intervene, although that wouldn't
00:39:59.340
surprise me, but more broadly look at this and say, uh, what I said earlier, Hey, look,
00:40:05.320
you can't trust the Americans. You can't trust the West. Uh, why don't you work with us? We're
00:40:09.680
more reliable. We're going to, we're going to listen to you. We're going to work with you. We're
00:40:13.400
not going to tell you what to do, et cetera, et cetera. Those, those are my three broad reactions.
00:40:18.660
I think. Admiral, speaking of morale, speaking of demoralizing issues, there's been a lot of
00:40:24.120
headlines. There's been reports, there's been discussion in the house of commons and committees
00:40:27.820
about sexual harassment, sexual assault in the Canadian forces, uh, ranging in, well,
00:40:34.000
we're told, I guess there's hundreds of, of accusations. Some of them are ones involving
00:40:38.160
higher ups that have received, uh, media attention, uh, ranging in, in severity. And then there's
00:40:43.380
even the case of, uh, Major General Danny Fortin, who has now been charged with one count of sexual
00:40:47.420
assault for an incident that happened decades ago. And he is accusing this of being, uh, really
00:40:52.020
chalked up and him losing his job, being chalked up to a political calculation. He's eager to get
00:40:56.200
into the courtroom, uh, to defend himself. So there's just a whole wide variety of stories,
00:41:02.040
uh, that are coming forward in this broader narrative, uh, that is being presented as,
00:41:06.840
as military that in some sense is in crisis because of this broader issue. Can you shed light
00:41:11.680
on, on what's going on right now? Um, well, I think I'll offer two perspectives. I, I'm not,
00:41:21.840
uh, I'm not going to get into any specific cases or allegations, so I'll try to keep my comments as
00:41:30.940
broad as possible. But, um, you know, I think there's a, I think there's a couple of key things
00:41:37.060
to consider here. And one is what, what, what exactly are we seeing? What is it an indication of
00:41:45.180
and what is it not necessarily an indication of? And I think what we're seeing here is a combination
00:41:52.660
of a variety of things. I think there is, um, an understandable and a long overdue, uh, sense of
00:42:02.100
pent up frustration, uh, inside the rank and file. Those who have suffered, um, countless, um,
00:42:11.300
examples of either abuse or, um, uh, ill treatment or, um, uh, maybe just, um, a lack of action,
00:42:25.640
uh, on a scale, if you look at it from, from worse to least worse. Um, and, and I think this is part of
00:42:33.240
what's, what's playing out, but it's not the only thing. I think one of the other big pieces of this
00:42:39.000
is, um, um, an institutional failing, um, with respect to not taking these issues seriously,
00:42:48.520
uh, when we were given opportunities to do so. And I, I think back personally into the 2015 period,
00:42:56.240
but we could have done more before that, but let's just go back to 2015 when we, the senior leadership
00:43:04.100
were presented with, uh, an opportunity to, to really come to grips with this and to acknowledge
00:43:09.540
the significance of the problem. And, um, it, we, it was, it was superficial. I would go as far
00:43:18.220
as to say in some respects, it was a window dressing, even with everything that was going on in the,
00:43:24.380
the, the Duchamp, uh, Madame Duchamp era, there was still, uh, a very pronounced, um, reluctance,
00:43:34.100
to accept this. Uh, and of course, you know, any, any behavioral issue, addictive issue, all of these
00:43:42.060
things, the, the first thing you got to do is you got to admit you have a problem. Well, we weren't
00:43:46.660
prepared to admit the seriousness of the problem. And that has spilled over into, um, some cultural
00:43:54.600
impacts that have caused people to think that it's not as bad as it really is. And therefore
00:43:59.220
haven't taken it seriously. And also I think it fed some of this frustration I was speaking to
00:44:04.480
earlier. And the last issue, um, on that I would comment on is that, um, we gotta be really careful
00:44:12.900
here. Uh, you know, we don't, uh, um, we don't paint everybody with the same brush. Uh, I don't know
00:44:19.720
what the statistics are, but the vast majority of the people serving in the armed forces of all types
00:44:26.220
and all genders are, and all, um, backgrounds are incredible Canadians. Um, and that all they want
00:44:34.540
to do is do the best job they possibly can. They want to do the best job they can as leaders. They
00:44:40.940
want to be well-led, uh, and they want to serve Canadians and, um, that they recognize that there's
00:44:48.020
work to be done. Um, they have a decent sense of right and wrong. Um, but unfortunately, uh, what
00:44:55.760
we're seeing is, are a series of these high profile events, which cause people to ask, I think,
00:45:03.840
legitimate questions. But my concern is that there's a sense of, um, tarnishing, if you will,
00:45:10.280
the entire institution. And, uh, certainly, um, I don't think that that's, um, appropriate or even
00:45:18.860
fair. Uh, and I think that there will be, you know, I think they'll get there. Um, and the last
00:45:25.240
issue is the internal one, and that is the impact on morale of all of this happening. And I think,
00:45:30.680
uh, it's fair to say that there are a lot of those incredible people that I described earlier who
00:45:36.300
have done nothing wrong and, and are just good people trying to do the best they can.
00:45:40.280
are very, um, they're dismayed by this. They're, they're, they're, uh, they're disappointed by it.
00:45:48.000
They're embarrassed about it. Um, and, uh, you know, they just, they, they, they want to get on a path
00:45:54.800
forward and, uh, and, and continue to build the institution and rebuild the confidence, um, uh, of
00:46:02.540
Canadians that, that they deserve to have. So those are my broad thoughts, um, on that. Uh, it's not
00:46:09.620
going to be fixed, uh, immediately. It's taken decades to, to, to screw it up decades to get
00:46:16.520
where we are. And, um, it's going to take years, um, perhaps a decade, um, a couple of generations
00:46:24.060
of senior leadership, um, which tend to cycle through every three to four years. So, you know,
00:46:30.620
you, you, you need a few, you need two or three of those to really start having a lasting effect
00:46:37.320
in terms of how you, um, are, are affecting the culture. So, um, but I think they're on the right
00:46:46.000
track. I think the steps that are being taken now are appropriate. Um, and, uh, I think really the
00:46:54.360
only, the only thing is that had we taken this more seriously in 2015, perhaps some of this
00:47:00.140
might not have happened the way it did. Um, some of those accusations will still be there.
00:47:05.580
We're certainly the ones that predate 2015. There's no doubt.
00:47:09.460
Well, one of the challenges with, I guess maybe the way we talk about this in the media,
00:47:13.800
the way they talk about this politically is right now we're told, I think that this is the,
00:47:18.080
the most pressing crisis in the Canadian military, uh, right now. And I take your point of the
00:47:23.420
generational change and serious allegations obviously have to be taken seriously. Uh, but
00:47:27.420
also in this conversation, we've talked about procurement. We've talked about the threats
00:47:30.460
Canada faces. We haven't been able to begin to talk about, uh, recruitment challenges that
00:47:34.940
the reserve is reportedly not in the best shape in terms of, uh, need to expand the reserve forces
00:47:39.740
and so on. Is it fair to say that the, that the sexual harassment, uh, stories and the allegations
00:47:44.880
that that is the greatest HR challenge, but we don't want the Canadian public. And of course
00:47:49.880
the politicians to, to also not put pressure onto solving these other challenges as well.
00:47:54.580
Yeah. I think, I think what you're describing is, is accurate. Um, I, I, I'm going to avoid
00:48:02.800
ranking or prioritizing the challenges themselves and rather, rather than combining them as you've
00:48:11.520
alluded to in your question, because every one of these has, um, an impact somewhere else. And
00:48:18.300
this is by definition, what, uh, academics have referred to as a wicked problem, uh, in that,
00:48:24.440
um, it, it, it, as you start to try and fix one piece of, of this complex problem, you actually create
00:48:33.040
second and third order problems elsewhere. And, and you alluded to a couple, you know, if you've got a
00:48:37.960
crisis in leadership, people are leaving. So you've got higher than normal, um, uh, um, departures. So
00:48:47.020
you've got a retention problem, you're trying to recruit, but there's a perception associated with,
00:48:53.180
um, the, the, the conduct inside. So that affects recruiting, you know, the, all these things are
00:48:59.620
created. I think fundamentally that, that the, the, the, the challenge, and this is somewhat, um, uh,
00:49:09.000
presumptuous of me to say it, but I think the challenge facing the iron forces in Canada is,
00:49:15.180
um, really a sense of purpose and identity with respect to, um, recognizing how important the
00:49:24.740
iron forces are in the incredibly complicated and challenging world that we live in today. And that
00:49:31.640
I, I sadly foresee, uh, coming in the decades to come. And so it's a sense of not only the members of
00:49:39.880
the armed forces themselves, embracing what that means in terms of their overall preparedness,
00:49:46.220
equipping, training, their culture, um, all of those issues that affect their ability to fight,
00:49:53.620
but it also has to do with the views of Canadians, um, and, and the views of decision makers. If you
00:50:00.560
don't see your armed forces as a fighting force that has a legitimate purpose, defending the country
00:50:06.000
or defending their interests, then it's hard for the armed forces to get their heads around,
00:50:10.600
um, doing their jobs when the people who are paying for them don't necessarily think that their
00:50:18.080
jobs are important. And I, I, I get a sense that that's part of what's at play here. And all of these
00:50:25.640
other things that we've been talking about are important, um, uh, contributors to, to, to this,
00:50:34.260
this very complicated fabric that, that we're seeing unfold right now.
00:50:39.720
Mark, before we go, you alluded earlier to the idea of those, the issues that keep you up at night.
00:50:44.360
And I know we've taken a look at what's happening with China. Uh, we've talked about what's going on
00:50:48.540
in Afghanistan and the perhaps ensuing power vacuum we're going to see there. What are the things that
00:50:53.840
we're not even talking about right now that concern you that we should be ahead of the curve about?
00:50:58.180
I know, I don't know if you use this phrase, but some people talk about fifth generation warfare in
00:51:02.100
terms of everything being so heavily focused on cyber attacks, concerns around that artificial
00:51:06.400
intelligence, autonomous systems, uh, uh, maybe there's other non-state actors that aren't, uh,
00:51:11.860
particularly on the radar that we're not talking about in public discussion.
00:51:15.240
What are those issues that keep you up at night once?
00:51:18.480
Yeah. So the, the types of things that you described would fall into two categories. They're either,
00:51:23.240
um, potential threats that need to be properly addressed or their potential methodologies. Um,
00:51:31.140
and they can be used, uh, either, um, by adversaries or by us. And so I can, all of those things
00:51:41.620
are out there and they're active. And as you, as you alluded to, you know, they, they, they,
00:51:47.060
they factor into the thought process. I think that the, to try and put it in one thought, if I can,
00:51:55.940
I think what really disturbs me is, um, an underlying sense of a lack of purpose, um, a lack of a sense of
00:52:08.660
who we are as Canadians, what we believe in and how we want to, um, make the world a better place
00:52:18.160
or how we want to identify and defend our interests. And I think that those conversations are, um,
00:52:27.840
they're, they're shallow, um, they're transactional and, uh, they lack the kind of strategic depth and
00:52:36.160
commitment that I think we need to have. And, and they are not helped by political rhetoric. Um,
00:52:42.800
as soon as these things become political, as soon as we start trying to, um, uh, assign some sense of
00:52:51.280
relative value to, uh, the merits, uh, of a point, um, because of the party that it comes from or the
00:53:00.000
leader of the party or any of these other issues, then we, we, we dilute the value of the conversation.
00:53:06.800
And we need to be looking at this as a nation. We need to be looking at this, uh, from the perspective
00:53:12.480
of, um, where we want to be in 10, 20, 50 years, not, um, what is the issue that, that is the most
00:53:21.200
pressing issue today, um, as it relates to, um, uh, the political rhetoric or a election cycle or whatever
00:53:31.360
that that may be. Um, I'm not avoiding the specifics of your question. I just think that
00:53:36.400
all of those things, they, they color how we look at things, but fundamentally, I don't think we're
00:53:43.760
looking at the right things, um, uh, from a strategic perspective. Mark Norman, I know there's a lot of
00:53:49.920
interest in you as a person and what you're going to do next and what you've been up to. Uh, please tell
00:53:54.880
us some of that. I also understand that there's a charity that you take a great interest in right now.
00:53:58.880
Yeah. So I, um, I took a bit of time to think about what I wanted to do when I grew up. Um,
00:54:07.600
and, uh, I, uh, I, I wanted to, uh, do things that I thought were of value to, um, others. Um,
00:54:18.480
and that would give me a chance to sort of, um, either contribute to somebody else's success or payback.
00:54:25.360
So I, I've got a couple of initiatives that I'm working on. One, the, is the Royal Canadian Navy
00:54:31.520
Benevolent Fund, which is an incredible organization that's been around. It'll be 80 years, uh, next year,
00:54:37.840
celebrating its, uh, 80th anniversary. And it looks after, uh, sailors, um, serving and retired veterans,
00:54:46.640
um, and their families. Um, and, uh, but in addition to that, I'm doing some consulting work
00:54:53.440
through, um, a couple of firms, uh, one here in Ottawa, uh, and, and that's where I'm helping
00:55:00.240
either startup Canadian companies or other companies that are looking to come into Canada
00:55:06.240
and, um, and get involved with, uh, some of our defense and security, um, activities. And that's
00:55:13.120
really exciting. Um, it's interesting and it's just fun to be part of something that's, um, uh,
00:55:20.320
not, uh, typical procurement in the classic sense, but it, it's also an opportunity to help
00:55:25.360
these folks, uh, you know, get, get their fledgling companies up and running. So,
00:55:30.480
so those are, and I do a lot of cycling and try to keep active and keep fit, but you know, that's,
00:55:35.680
that's it. And I'm still, I'm still watching very carefully and hopefully at some point in the future,
00:55:41.600
there'll be an opportunity to, to make, uh, a different type of contribution. If, if, uh,
00:55:47.440
the circumstances change, um, we'll see what happens in the next few weeks here.
00:55:51.920
Mark Norman, I can tell you when I was writing on your story, when you were on the front pages
00:55:56.720
regularly of the newscasts of the papers and the correspondence I got from readers, from,
00:56:01.600
from veterans, from people currently serving and other media can say the same as when you talk,
00:56:06.400
when you were speaking just a few minutes ago about what it means to be Canadian, what it means
00:56:09.920
to stand up for our nation and stand up for our values. I mean, a lot of people saw, uh, standing up
00:56:15.760
for integrity in the story of vice Admiral Norman, that, that that was what it meant to, to stand up for things.
00:56:22.400
Well, I'm, I'm really humbled by, uh, what you just said. And, um, I think I've, I've said this to you,
00:56:28.720
uh, perhaps in private, uh, but I'll say it publicly. Uh, I, um, I took incredible strength and, uh, uh,
00:56:38.400
and incredible motivation from all those people who stood by me and my family. And I think that's a
00:56:45.280
reflection of who we are, uh, as Canadians. And, and I think that that's, that's a really good sign.
00:56:51.520
Um, I, I think, uh, we're at a bit of a crossroads here and we need to make some tough decisions about
00:56:57.600
who we want to be going forward. And, uh, I thank you for your time and your support. And I thank
00:57:03.760
your listeners for their ongoing support. So, uh, thank you very much.
00:57:07.520
It's been a great conversation. Thank you, Mark. Full Comment is a post-media podcast. I'm Anthony
00:57:13.520
Fury. This episode was produced by Andre Proulx with theme music by Bryce Hall. Kevin Libin is
00:57:18.560
the executive producer. You can subscribe to Full Comment on Apple Podcasts, Google, Spotify,
00:57:23.600
or wherever you get your podcasts. You can help us by giving us a rating or a review and by telling