I read a tremendously thoughtful tweet thread from Annalise Schamuhn yesterday which reminded me that the ability to hold two ( or more) seemingly conflicting ideas is absolutely necessary when dealing with complex issues.
At the moment
Lt(N) MacDonald considers herself to be the victim of an Assault
Adm McDonald considers himself to be innocent of the alleged crime
There was insufficient evidence based on both the testimony and (in some cases) a refusal to testify to lay charges,
Where does that leave us. The two opposing thoughts are to
support and believe the alleged victim and ensure that due process is followed
with the presumption of innocence. I do not think these to be incompatible.
Like so many serving, retired CAF members and interested civilians
I have watched with, quite frankly, horror the events surrounding Adm Art
MacDonald’s situation concerning his appointment. For those currently serving to
comment would be entirely inappropriate. In fact to do otherwise would contravene
legal restrictions. For others I think the time to speak is now.
When serving I had known the Admiral, albeit not well, for a number of
years. He was always very competent, tremendously amiable and dedicated. I
liked him. I suspect if we were to renew our acquaintance in other
circumstances, I would like him equally well. He is a likeable individual.
None of that is germane to the fact that he is not suitable
to be our CDS.
Upon reading his letter to his GOFOs I am struck by three things.
The start point, the adopted strategy, and the focus of his words. Each reminds
me of an aphorism. The first when down home and when asking for directions it
is not uncommon to hear in reply “Well I wouldn’t start from here” the second
when talking about young Army Officers’ first forays on Field Exercises “Lost
but making good time” and lastly “leadership demands personal subordination and
sacrifice to the greater good.”
Contrary to the Admiral’s claim and the start point of his
argument, a failure to press charges, for whatever reason is not an exoneration,
neither in form nor function. A decision not to proceed based on insufficient
evidence neither exonerates nor condemns. Exoneration can only come from those who
govern the Admiral ( ie MND / PM). They, in order to achieve such an effect,
would have to publicly state “We have
reviewed all available details and have determined that Admiral MacDonald is cleared
of suspicion and as a result we consider him free of any taint and as such
enjoys our complete confidence in his ability to Command the CAF.”
Notwithstanding the election the GoC has had sufficient time to come to that
conclusion and make such a proclamation. That they have not done so informs (or
should inform) the Admiral’s start point.
Despite claiming an exoneration that does not exist it is important
to note this such a claim is also besides the point. The CDS serves at the pleasure
of the GOC, all Order in Council appointments do. The only issue is “Does Admiral
McDonald enjoy the confidence of the elected Government.” A lack of being
charged is a far step from crossing that bar.
His chosen path is equally concerning. Public statements about
his intention to return to his appointment, followed by a letter to the CAF
GOFOs indicates one of two things. Either he truly does not understand how
Orders in Council and the machinery of government actually work or that the
intent behind such actions is not targeting his return but rather any
negotiations that might inform his release.
If the first instance such ignorance is disqualifying. In the second there
is a demonstration of a willingness to ignore the impact on Lt(N) MacDonald as
well as to continue to negatively impact the morale of the CAF for personal
gain: This too is disqualifying.
Lastly, the irony in holding a leadership appointment is that one
must always be willing to lose such a position in order to deserve it. This is often portrayed in the language used
to communicate. Even the most cursory reading of the Admiral’s letter reveals a
focus almost entirely on his status as opposed to the system and the indviduals
who make up the CAF. It has been noted
elsewhere but the contrast between his letter and LGen Cadieu’s note is stark.
It is inescapable that fundamental cultural and systemic
change is needed by the CAF. Many academics, politicians and casual observers
offer up the solutions to these problems. Some are informed and unbiased, most considerably
less so. Contrary to what they might demand in their own fields few are willing
to turn to analysis based an examination of facts but rather seem to follow the
populism of immediate commentary so common in today’s “fast fashion-esque” dissemination
and consumption of “news.” But regardless of the larger issues what should be
clear is that Admiral MacDonald has not helped argue his case. He has started
in the wrong place thereafter moved in the wrong direction and used language
that centered the issue on himself. A CDS might reasonably be expected to be more
thoughtful, more capable and less self-serving.
My final thoughts in this instance are with Lt(N) MacDonald.
I have no legal education that would allow me to make an informed judgement on
the decisions made regarding the allegations, investigation etc (btw very very
few of those expressing opinions on those details actually do !!) but I do know
that she should have reasonably expected better treatment from a leader who
claimed exoneration. When we say “this hurts the system” what we are also saying
is that “we are hurting individuals in the system.” Her hurt has been perpetuated not healed. That by itself is a condemnation.
It is of little comfort, but I do believe that the revealing of these deep cultural and systemic ills are necessary to be better. The overwhelming majority of CAF members, at all levels, are not just good but are great representatives of Canada and its values. I don’t rejoice about our current circumstance, nobody could, but I take comfort that it is being revealed and will therefore be addressed. We don’t get to decide our start point, we are not lost ( ie we know the issue !!! ) but neither are we yet making good time. I have confidence we will. The path will neither be smooth let alone uninterrupted but neither should our stumbles along the way be misconstrued as failure.
