• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Def Min's "Architect" Statements (split fm Walts et. al.)

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,526
Points
1,260
Not exactly claiming a medal, but ...

What.  The.  F#$%^&*k???
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has apologized to Canadian, American and Afghan troops that he served with in Afghanistan for claiming that he was the “architect” of Canada’s most famous and bloodiest combat operation of that war.

The minister made the claim in a speech last week in India. He told a gathering of security experts in New Delhi on April 18 that “on my first deployment to Kandahar in 2006, I was the architect of Operation Medusa where we removed 1,500 Taliban fighters off the battlefield … and I was proudly on the main assault.”

The description was denounced as “a bald-faced lie” by a retired Canadian officer familiar with the planning done for Operation Medusa in the late summer and fall of 2006. Other officers who served in Afghanistan expressed similar anger and disappointment in Sajjan’s speech.

“What I should have said was that our military successes are the result of the leadership, service and sacrifice of the many dedicated women and men in the Canadian Forces,” Sajjan said in a statement on Thursday. “I regret that I didn’t say this then, but I want to do so now.”

“Every military operation our Forces undertook in Afghanistan, including Operation Medusa, relied on the courage and dedication of many individuals across the Canadian Forces. My comments were in no way intended to diminish the role that my fellow soldiers and my superiors played in Op Medusa.” ...
Here's the speech text (also archived) - also attached if links don't work for you.
:facepalm:
 

Attachments

  • Minister Sajjan Keynote Address to ‎Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi, India - Canada.pdf
    31.7 KB · Views: 828
So the question is this the same as wearing medals you are not entitled to and given his former rank and his new position should he resign? I say yes however I doubt if he will.
 
What would compel him to do this? Its one thing to tell tall tales in the Legion basement, but as the MND at a speech on the world stage?
C'mon man! :facepalm:
 
I initially thought, his speech having been presented in India, it was a misconstrued/mistranslation....


....that is until the official transcript came out, followed by his retraction.

Utter disappointment.
 
I'm kinda surprised that, considering how many levels of OK such thing have to go thru, that nobody picked up on that bit before it got to print.

As someone waaaaaay smarter than me once said around these parts, folks don't resign like they used to these days ...
 
milnews.ca said:
I'm kinda surprised that, considering how many levels of OK such thing have to go thru, that nobody picked up on that bit before it got to print.

As someone waaaaaay smarter than me once said around these parts, folks don't resign like they used to these days ...

Cudmore takes the hit?
 
FSTO said:
Cudmore takes the hit?
I don't know how much contact the Director of Policy in the Minister's Office has with this kind of communications product as part of the approvals "sausage machine", so I couldn't even guess that at this point.
 
“on my first deployment to Kandahar in 2006, I was the architect of Operation Medusa where we removed 1,500 Taliban fighters off the battlefield … and I was proudly on the main assault.”

I'm kinda surprised that, considering how many levels of OK such thing have to go thru, that nobody picked up on that bit before it got to print.

His statement was massive: "the architect" of a operation does lead someone to wonder. Also  ...." I was  proudly on the main assault.”

Me, that's pretty damn good for a Militia officer, in the midst of a real war dominated with Cdn military professionals, especially as he was Staff  doing the "plans, designs, and reviews" of the Op, then going on the main assault.

Now we see why he ran for the Lieliberal party.
 
Rifleman62 said:
His statement was massive: "the architect" of a operation does lead someone to wonder ...
Even if they'd written "an" instead of "the", it may have been at least ... wiggle-roomy, but this is pretty definite, indeed.
 
Rifleman62 said:
His statement was massive: "the architect" of a operation does lead someone to wonder. Also  ...." I was  proudly on the main assault.”

Me, that's pretty damn good for a Militia officer, in the midst of a real war dominated with Cdn military professionals, especially as he was Staff  doing the "plans, designs, and reviews" of the Op, then going on the main assault.

Now we see why he ran for the Lieliberal party.

He's been played up as the "warrior politician" by the media, perhaps assumptions were made by his staffers ?  Or he simply began to see history different than it actually happened, maybe ?

 
Halifax Tar said:
He's been played up as the "warrior politician" by the media, perhaps assumptions were made by his staffers ?
1)  That's supposed to be why a number of sets of eyes (both bureaucratic and political, usually) look at such stuff before it's approved and handed to the Minister, so if that's what happened, #SystemFail.
2)  The job of his staffers is presumably to ensure things are correct, not just congruent with media narrative.*
Halifax Tar said:
... Or he simply began to see history different than it actually happened, maybe ?
Only he can know that for sure ...

* - Yeah, I know that's an ... optimistic statement when it comes to political statements developed/groomed by political staff, but the general principle still applies - you have to know reality before you can adequately bend it.  If bureaucrats handled this at some point, though, it IS their job to "speak reality to power".
 
He read the speech before hand and undoubtedly rehearsed the presentation. Even if he didn't, when he got to the inflated parts, a WTF second and ad libbed to correct the speech.

Absolutely inexcusable conduct.

The only thing missing was  " I was proudly bravely on the first wave of the main assault.”

Was he on the main assault?
 
I have seen a favourable reference to him in a FOO party's log from that time frame. He was working developing intelligence in the forward area, so he probably had a role in establishing the enemy paragraph of the operation order. To claim anything more was a lapse in judgement and a case of ego run amok, something politicians do all too frequently.
 
Rifleman62 said:
He read the speech before hand and undoubtedly rehearsed the presentation.
In my limited experience with the government info-machine, this may or may not happen, depending on the Minister or the circumstance, so that's never a "for sure".  That said ...
Rifleman62 said:
... when he got to the inflated parts, a WTF second and ad libbed to correct the speech.
:nod:  One would hope ...
Rifleman62 said:
Absolutely inexcusable conduct.
Line crossed, indeed ...
 
Rifleman62 said:
He read the speech before hand and undoubtedly rehearsed the presentation. Even if he didn't, when he got to the inflated parts, a WTF second and ad libbed to correct the speech.

Absolutely inexcusable conduct.

The only thing missing was  " I was proudly bravely on the first wave of the main assault.”

Was he on the main assault?

Of course. The Regs always position the Senior Officer reservists in the front rank during major battles.... it saves wear and tear on the minesweepers :)
 
I know he has James Cudmore on staff as one ex journalist, who's his speech writer?  Brian Williams?!?  ::)
 
Back
Top