Full Comment - What Mark Norman thinks now

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,

00:02:01.920 sexual harassment and assault in the military,

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.

00:02:13.360 He joins me now.

00:02:14.940 Vice Admiral Norman, welcome to the podcast.

00:02:17.020 Thanks so much for joining us.

00:02:19.040 Well, hello, Anthony, and it's great to be with you.

00:02:21.700 I'm looking forward to our discussion.

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

00:03:00.440 that's now behind us.

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.

00:03:52.540 Yeah, I mean, let's go into the terrain.

00:03:54.240 Let's go into the different areas that we're talking about here.

00:03:57.100 I know there's state actors.

00:03:58.480 There's non-state actors.

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?

00:04:10.380 Well, I think a couple of things.

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

00:04:38.540 in the neighborhood of the Indo-Pacific.

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 1.00

00:05:46.880 Belt and Road Initiative.

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.

00:06:43.860 But, you know, I'm an observer.

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

00:06:56.360 put their actions in a context.

00:06:58.160 And then we can explore all of those disparate things that you've already listed in a context

00:07:06.140 of perhaps better understanding.

00:07:07.800 There's a couple of things we need to look at here.

00:07:10.720 One of them is history, obviously.

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

00:08:23.400 losing control of their population.

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

00:10:03.800 that we take very seriously.

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

00:10:41.560 do.

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

00:10:56.220 in China.

00:10:56.820 So it's interesting that these are things that are, they're very well vocalized by China's

00:11:02.220 leadership by Xi Jinping.

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

00:11:12.020 100% straight out of the horse's mouth.

00:11:14.720 Right.

00:11:15.260 And I think that that's a really good point.

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

00:11:54.220 attention.

00:11:55.020 And by we, I mean all of us.

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

00:12:07.920 to them.

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.

00:12:26.680 So what's the big deal?

00:12:27.980 Well, the big deal is that they're being very strategic.

00:12:33.300 They're being very coherent in their approach.

00:12:36.920 And ultimately, they have a plan.

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

00:13:11.180 Monetary Fund organizations like that.

00:13:13.680 But instead of being these sort of post-World War II, US-led and UK-led organizations, it's

00:13:20.380 basically China's version of it.

00:13:21.580 It's like, hey, come join these things.

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

00:13:26.880 be the dominant one.

00:13:27.640 And we'll say bye to the World Bank.

00:13:28.820 And it's like, that's the stuff we're actually kind of signing up for.

00:13:31.960 And the press releases and the website.

00:13:33.380 And, you know, they'll probably do these press conferences where everything looks nice.

00:13:36.520 And everything.

00:13:36.940 And they talk about good projects and so forth.

00:13:39.680 And who doesn't like that?

00:13:40.560 But it's like, guys, just be aware of what you're getting yourself into here.

00:13:44.380 Right.

00:13:44.480 And I think that that is an excellent and practical example of the very types of things

00:13:51.280 that should be of concern.

00:13:52.860 And, you know, to your opening question, what are the things that sort of keep me awake?

00:13:58.420 You didn't ask it that way.

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?

00:14:13.080 What happened?

00:14:14.360 And it doesn't happen overnight.

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,

00:14:52.860 how many they're building and so forth.

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.

00:15:21.280 We don't acknowledge that.

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?

00:15:38.120 Yeah.

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,

00:16:13.720 which is their perception of their history.

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,

00:19:24.840 but fundamentally that's it.

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.

00:20:08.940 The Australians are doing it all the time. 1.00

00:20:12.620 The Canada has done it recently.

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.

00:20:55.860 Yes, Navy still matter. 1.00

00:20:56.940 Water still matters.

00:20:57.800 You alluded to stuff going on in the Arctic.

00:21:00.360 That area is believed to be increasingly at play in the years ahead.

00:21:03.940 Obviously, stuff going on in the Pacific.

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.

00:21:21.080 15 ships that'll come in at a cost of...

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

00:21:32.500 when everything comes into play.

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

00:21:44.940 in eight days or eight weeks or whatnot.

00:21:47.660 What is this project in a nutshell?

00:21:51.760 What are its positives?

00:21:52.840 What are its challenges?

00:21:55.600 Yeah, so I want to come back to the issues around China and the comparisons in the building

00:22:03.200 in a minute.

00:22:04.880 But perhaps you'll remind me to go back there.

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

00:22:35.980 of our last carrier.

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

00:23:19.820 to have in Canada for yourself?

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.

00:24:04.220 It is very slow.

00:24:06.720 It is very painful.

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

00:24:47.560 ship. That makes it a little more complicated.

00:24:50.080 Um, but ultimately it gives, uh, the Navy and the government of the day more flexibility

00:24:56.200 going forward.

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

00:25:25.400 with us. What happened there, Mark?

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

00:33:09.160 rehashing that discussion now?

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

00:57:28.160 your friends about us. Thanks for listening.

Full Comment - August 30, 2021

What Mark Norman thinks now

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript