More, More Politics (Ot But Relevant)

[dagger]

So defence policy, the Liberals will scrap the F-35 acquisition in favour of an open competition likely to lead to the Super Hornet. Funds saved to be diverted to accelerating naval construction.

Harper doesn't respond directly to this - having horribly botched a number of military procurements - but says

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper was quick to react to the Liberal pledge, saying Trudeau is not only giving up on the F-35 but on the capabilities now required by the air force.

“I don’t know where he is getting his information,” Harper said at a campaign stop in Windsor, Ont. “We, along with our allies, have been using this exact capacity with our current CF-18s in various parts of the world, including right now in the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.”

He was referring to the ongoing mission by CF-18s to bomb Islamic State targets, a mission that both the New Democrats and Liberals have vowed to end.

“Let me clear. We are not going to abandon our fight against ISIS, not going to abandon our allies, not going to abandon people in the region, not going to abandon that kind of capacity in our air force,” Harper said.

Of course, it's not clear what this has to do with military procurement, sounds more like political deflection.

In case you're wondering, the case for the F-35 has never been shakier

Financially, it's going to cost a whole lot more with an 80-cent dollar.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michael-byers-the-f-35-is-now-unaffordable-thanks-to-the-low-canadian-dollar

Operationally, it continues to struggle. Part of the problem is the lagging development of the full software package.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/15/politics/f-35-report-question-readiness/index.html

On June 29, the website War is Boring published excerpts of a test pilot's leaked report finding that the F-35 was "at a distinct energy disadvantage" in a mock dogfight in January and unable to turn quickly enough to engage the plane it is expected to replace, the F-16.

Lockheed Martin said War is Boring's presentation of the pilot's report is incomplete, insisting the aircraft used during this test was not equipped with the software, weapons system or stealth coating that make up today's production-ready F-35s.

"The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual 'dogfighting' situations," the company said in a statement, pointing to "numerous occasions" in which the JSF has beaten the F-16 in simulated combat.

But the test pilot's scathing critique was only the latest round of bad news.

In 2014, the entire fleet of F-35s was grounded following an engine fire during testing, and the program has experienced persistent software problems that have slowed mission testing and resulted in schedule delays.

There were also setbacks at key milestones, including the start of the flight test program, delivery of the first production-ready aircraft and testing of critical missions systems, according the GAO.

"I don't think we anticipated the number of issues that were going to arise out of testing, be it issues with the frame, the fuselage, the engines or the integrating of the software or the weapons systems," said Jerry Hendrix, senior fellow at the Center for New American Security.

And it's likely that the difficulties are far from over.

An April GAO report says future technical issues -- likely to drive costs up even further -- can be anticipated, as nearly 40% of the program's developmental testing must be still be completed.

A big part of the Conservatives procurement program seems to be a focus on the equipment - always the biggest, more advanced and shiniest, a cool political seller at first glance - rather than on the mission. If you haven't a clear policy on how the armed forces are to be deployed, then you lack a clear focus on what equipment to purchase, and go for the sexiest stuff.

The single-seat, single engine F-35 flying Arctic patrols?

Or today's other news, the attempt to buy those two French Mistral ships - helicopter carriers - that were supposed to go to the Russians. They would be the biggest ships in the Navy, and for a government that wants to project a forceful military image, they would probably sell well to a portion of the population.

However, the question is raised again, ***why*** would we buy these ships and how do they fit in our military policy?

The problem for Canada, according to defence sources, is that National Defence has done very little in the way of formal study on the long-term ownership costs and the hurdles of operating such sophisticated ships, which are capable of carrying 16 helicopters, 59 armoured vehicles, and more than 450 troops.

The Conservative government, National Defence and the Department of Public Works were roasted by the auditor general in 2012 for a lack of homework and incomplete public costing of the F-35 stealth fighter program, which has since been put on hold.

The Mistrals could potentially sell for $1.2-billion to $1.6-billion, according to published reports overseas, and if Canada did bid, they would require hundreds of millions of dollars worth of modifications to bring them in line with Canadian military standards.

The ships were not mentioned in the 2008 Conservative defence strategy, nor were they considered under the national shipbuilding program. However, some in the defence community say the government’s designated shipyards, which are in the process of being retooled for existing projects, are not yet technically ready to construct helicopter carriers.

“Nobody knows if these ships will make sense for Canada because they haven’t been considered as part of a comprehensive defence and foreign policy review,” Michael Byers, a political science professor and defence academic at the University of British Columbia.

“It would carry substantial risk. It would reorient the Navy and impact the Air Force in terms of maritime helicopters. There are lots of follow-on consequences that need to be considered before you move forward.”

[Moon The Loon]

"However, the question is raised again, ***why*** would we buy these ships and how do they fit in our military policy?"

Well, I dunno 'bout that. HMCS' Preserver & Protector are pretty well gone. Out RCN has little more than 25 year old design frigates, none of which are ice capable, a small number of coastal defence vessels, again none of which are ice capable and 4 (?) clapped out British hand-me-down diesel electric boats which may or may not resurface once submerged.

Looking at the specs for the Mistrals, not only are they huge, they have huge capacity. The deck also looks capable of handling quite a range of aircraft. It's certainly not a slanted deck to accommodate larger aircraft such as fighter jets or heavy transport craft, as any modern aircraft carrier deck must be. But as a helicopter or medium turboprop platform, it couldn't be a better support vessel for such things as evacuations, resupply missions, troop transport, hospital support. Whether or not they are double-hulled and ice capable, I am only assuming that since they were designed for the Russian navy, they would be.

As an off-the-shelf vessel, they could very well be a bargain. Enter the procurement folks and the overall discussion how the current government has fundamentally abandoned the process.

Therein lies the dilemma, methinks

Edit: According to http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=531#pictures the vessel has a "reinforced hull to operate in Arctic zones."

[flyinghigh]

I have always wondered why the F-35 was so necessary for Canada. The Super Hornet is more advanced than the present aircraft and I do think that two engines are better than one for out part of the world which is where they will be most of the time.

[j.k.]

We should have the capability offered by equipment like this.

No need to 'rush' though just to save a couple bucks... Especially since we'd have to modify them to our specs anyway - these particular vessels have been fitted with Russian weapons and specs fired to accommodating their needs.

Government just needs to get off their asses and order a couple new ones along with sorting out our fighters... And a few coastal patrol icebreakers... And a couple nuclear sub's... and how are those Sikorskys doing btw?

[Guest]

No worries J.K. Mr. Trudeau has promised to bring our Navy up to speed...... Hopefully not like the last time the Liberals took care of our armed forces.

[Mitch Cronin]

Harper would probably have us order a fleet of B-52s.... he evidently cherishes our new role as bombers. How many Canadians do you suppose actually support that?

He's a friggin' madman gone goofy with power.... He needs to be sent packing... I wish we could boot him out of the country!

[acsidestick]

Moon, Re;The deck also looks capable of handling quite a range of aircraft. It's certainly not a slanted deck to accommodate larger aircraft such as fighter jets or heavy transport craft, as any modern aircraft carrier deck must be. But as a helicopter or medium turboprop platform,

Moon, the Mistral is actually very specific to the role of only being a helicopter carrier. In fact, it is designed to accommodate two specific helicopters, neither if which Canada has.

With a flight deck 653 feet long, it is not fixed wing capable nor was it designed to be. There is no takeoff catapult system nor landing cable system. Interesting enough that the only modern fixed wing aircraft that could use it would be an F35, though proper support for airfield type operations is not in the design.

As Canada has been unable to order a helicopter for 20 years,I think ordering a helicopter Carrier for helicopters we can't decide to buy is really putting the cart before the horse. Also of importance is the Mistrals are too lightly armored and armed to protect themselves in combat and are designed to require an escort fleet to protect it. This would mean Canada would have to order at least 10 ships per carrier to sail with it at all times. The ship was designed to sail as a fleet flagship, and cannot travel alone. It is a huge, easy target of such capital investment that its potential as a terrorism target is too big to ignore.

Aircraft carriers are the biggest and sexiest possible projections of a country's foreign military abilities. Practically, however, purchasing 22 ships to preserve peace is a pipe dream. As a special ops carrier, it would be well suited, but not nearly as well suited as a multiple helicopter cruiser or heavy destroyer with capable self defense.

In the world if aircraft carriers, you are either all in, or it is an election year. You can't just order two ships.

[dagger]

"However, the question is raised again, ***why*** would we buy these ships and how do they fit in our military policy?"

Well, I dunno 'bout that. HMCS' Preserver & Protector are pretty well gone. Out RCN has little more than 25 year old design frigates, none of which are ice capable, a small number of coastal defence vessels, again none of which are ice capable and 4 (?) clapped out British hand-me-down diesel electric boats which may or may not resurface once submerged.

Looking at the specs for the Mistrals, not only are they huge, they have huge capacity. The deck also looks capable of handling quite a range of aircraft. It's certainly not a slanted deck to accommodate larger aircraft such as fighter jets or heavy transport craft, as any modern aircraft carrier deck must be. But as a helicopter or medium turboprop platform, it couldn't be a better support vessel for such things as evacuations, resupply missions, troop transport, hospital support. Whether or not they are double-hulled and ice capable, I am only assuming that since they were designed for the Russian navy, they would be.

As an off-the-shelf vessel, they could very well be a bargain. Enter the procurement folks and the overall discussion how the current government has fundamentally abandoned the process.

Therein lies the dilemma, methinks

Edit: According to http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=531#pictures the vessel has a "reinforced hull to operate in Arctic zones."

The government has considered an interim solution for the retirement of the supply ships: convert an existing cargo ship. That would cost a tiny fraction of what it would take to buy and deploy a Mistral carrier. But it wouldn't make for nearly as good a photo op for Harper. Imagine standing on the bridge of a cargo ship and declaring "Mission Accomplished".

[Don Hudson]

Mitch, re, "How many Canadians do you suppose actually support that?"

Well, just as in the United States, (when it comes to Washington, the Pentagon and 'middle' America), we the people, were never asked because affairs of state, as James Madisson observed, should not and do not concern us.

I hope and believe that this election is our country's opportunity to answer that question.

Prior to Mr Harper's administration, Canada was not an "aligned" nation, but nor was it invisible on the world "stage". But thanks to fundamental shifts in foreign policy under Mr Harper's watch, Canada has declared military and foreign policy allegiances with the U.S. and in doing so formally partitioned the Middle East into worthy and unworthy victims of war and terrorism.

There is nothing good that can come from such declarations and alliances. For the first time, we in Canada are looking over our shoulders; some no longer sport the Canadian flag on their backpacks, a tiny but significant symptom of the changes made under this administration.

Who among us actually like the Canada Mr Harper has given us? ed: We might even ask ourselves the same question some of the presidential candidates were asking, albeit rhetorically: Do we feel safer in Canada and as Canadians and, more importantly, are we safer as a result of Mr Harper's stewardship of our country?

Even Mr. Chretien knew it was dangerous to do so, quite correctly sending troops to Afghanistan where the real problems, including Al Qaeda, were, as the United States manufactured consent under knowingly-false pretense in order to invade Iraq which had nothing to do either with Al Qaeda or 9/11. Sadam's only mistake was invading Kuwait; the resulting war was "discipline" administered to a former "ally".

BTW, anyone watch the U.S. Presidential Republican debates last night? I couldn't believe how most of them were spouting left-wing rhetoric. They seem to have hints that the middle class, or what is left of it, is somehow grumpy.Truly, it was a surprise about how much care and compassion for ordinary people was issuing from that stage, in the midst of promises to kill Obamacare and dramatically increase military power while daring to drop hints of a new U.S. isolationism.

[boestar]

I was under the impression that we were spooling up to build some new ships in Halifax. They are hiring lots of people at the shipyards.

Halifax Shipyard is currently undergoing a significant construction phase (2013 - 2015) in order to accommodate the production of the Royal Canadian Navy's new combat vessel fleet.

An investment of more than $330 million will shift Irving Shipbuilding into one of the most modern shipyards in North America. The investment is designed to ensure our facilities are ready to undertake production of the AOPS vessels scheduled to start in 2015, as well as the larger combatant ship contract currently scheduled to begin production in 2020.

[mo32a]

Mitch - go back into hibernation, you seem to be off the rails again.

[Moon The Loon]

Asidestick & dagger: Points well taken. 22 ships? I figured we'd want no more than 2. I didn't even want to go into the fleet discussion where a large ship such as this would need continuous above and below waterline protection, neither of which we can afford to acquire/operate.

Still, for the secondary roles the ship is capable, it could be a fine acquisition. But Canada is not, or at least never used to be a war-faring nation. It seems we might be now.

In practice, the idea of refitting existing models of heavy (preferably nuclear powered) icebreakers could be the best short term solution. Such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_icebreaker

The Russians are currently the only builders of these dedicated ice breaking vessels, according to the article. The current government isn't exactly on best terms with the manufacurer's President.

[Mitch Cronin]

Mitch - go back into hibernation, you seem to be off the rails again.

Lol.... I keep lookin' for these "filters" people talk about, but I never have found them?

[Guest tailwheel]

Mitch, re, "How many Canadians do you suppose actually support that?"

Well, just as in the United States, (when it comes to Washington, the Pentagon and 'middle' America), we the people, were never asked because affairs of state, as James Madisson observed, should not and do not concern us.

I hope and believe that this election is our country's opportunity to answer that question.

Prior to Mr Harper's administration, Canada was not an "aligned" nation, but nor was it invisible on the world "stage". But thanks to fundamental shifts in foreign policy under Mr Harper's watch, Canada has declared military and foreign policy allegiances with the U.S. and in doing so formally partitioned the Middle East into worthy and unworthy victims of war and terrorism.

There is nothing good that can come from such declarations and alliances. For the first time, we in Canada are looking over our shoulders; some no longer sport the Canadian flag on their backpacks, a tiny but significant symptom of the changes made under this administration. Who among us actually like the Canada Mr Harper has given us?

Even Mr. Chretien knew it was dangerous to do so, quite correctly sending troops to Afghanistan where the real problems, including Al Qaeda, were, as the United States manufactured consent under knowingly-false pretense in order to invade Iraq which had nothing to do either with Al Qaeda or 9/11. Sadam's only mistake was invading Kuwait; the resulting war was "discipline" administered to a former "ally".

Non aligned? Canada has been a NATO and American ally for a long time. You mention Afghanistan and as you say, it was the Liberals who got us involved in that one.

Harper got us into the Libyan affair in cahoots with Obama and Europe which I thought was foolish from the beginning and that the end result was predictable.

Some no longer sport Canadian flags on their backpacks? Perhaps so. I wouldn't do so in most of the Middle East. But is that due to Afghanistan or is it Libya? Perhaps it is our support for the only free country in the Middle East. Maybe we should sacrifice the only place where freedom of speech exists in that part of the world so we can comfortably wear our flag on our backpacks. If Canada had the ability to do so,a military adventure bombing Israel and removing their government would be extremely popular in most of the Arab world and we would be treated as heros. And we could wear our flag on our backpacks in some areas(although we would still be killed in other areas).

But I bet the Danes don't wear their flag on their backpacks over there either. After all, an independent media outlet had a cartoon contest resulting in millions wanting to kill every Dane. There are more important things in life than the flag on your backpack. Standing up for free speech is one of them. There is a reason that terrible Denmark is refusing refugee resettlement.

[FireFox]

For the first time, we in Canada are looking over our shoulders;

I find it hard to believe that anyone of your age can come out with a statement like that.

In your repeated zeal to demonize the USA (and Harper), you consistently prove yourself incorrect.

[Guest]

Why the hell would he want B52s???? Much better bombers available for purchase now a days.... I like the B2.

[Guest]

And then there is "REAL NEWS" He says he would revise this numbers but did not say in which direction.

September 21, 2015 7:16 pm

Liberals would revise $10B deficit figure if economy gets ‘radically worse’

By Giuseppe Valiante The Canadian Press

TORONTO – The Liberals would revise the numbers on their promise to run annual deficits over the next three years if the economy takes a dramatic fall, party leader Justin Trudeau said Monday.

During a town hall-style rally in downtown Toronto, Trudeau said his party would re-examine its commitment to running $10-billion deficits annually before balancing the books in 2019 if the country’s economic situation becomes “radically worse.

“We always said we would run modest deficits,” Trudeau said. “And we also said if the situation becomes radically worse, we would revise those numbers.”

Many of the Liberals’ election promises hinge on Trudeau’s plan to borrow tens of billions of dollars by selling government bonds and spending the money earned from that on building roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects across the country.

The party hasn’t yet provided a fully costed platform detailing the price tag of their election promises, a shortcoming that NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has seized upon in recent days.

Mulcair said Trudeau plans to saddle future generations with debt while Conservative Leader Stephen Harper warned the Liberals would set the nation on a slippery slope of never-ending financial black holes.

Chris Ragan, a professor of macroeconomics and economic policy at McGill University, said Trudeau’s deficit plan is not necessarily a bad thing for future generations.

If a country borrows money to build a bridge that will last 50 years, Canadians who use it over that time period should also be expected to finance it, Ragan said.

“In terms of fairness across generations, that’s quite sensible,” he said. “If you’re building assets that are delivering services over the next 50 years then borrowing so that future generations pay back that bill – it’s appropriate.”

Ragan said that in order for Trudeau to run a $10-billion annual deficit, he’ll need to issue the same amount in bonds, which would be bought by pension funds, large financial institutions and regular Canadians.

“There will be no problem raising that money,” he said.

But there could be a problem keeping that number strictly to $10 billion, said Don Drummond, a former chief economist at TD Bank who worked at the federal Finance Department from 1977 until 2000.

He said the number could get away from the government if future spending rates don’t adjust to growth rates.

Drummond said successive governments in the 1970s and 1980s failed to adjust spending levels and as a consequence the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio was so high the Liberal government in the 1990s had to make deep cuts to programs to stave off a Greek-style financial crisis.

He said it’s virtually impossible for either the NDP or the Conservatives to guarantee they’ll balance the budget.

“(The NDP and the Tories) are trying to target zero and the Liberals are trying to target minus $10 billion and neither one will hit it,” he said. “I can guarantee they won’t hit it right on the head.”

Drummond said he expects Canada’s economic environment to get worse – in 10-20 years. He said Canada is likely to experience lower rates of growth over the next decade because as the population continues to age, productivity will likely decrease.

He said neither the Conservatives, Liberals nor the NDP are sufficiently preparing the economy for what he thinks will be a new norm of lower growth.

“I think a whole new policy paradigm is necessary,” Drummond said.

[dagger]

Harper suggests cancelling the F-35 commitment - there is no contract - would cripple the country;s aerospace sector, but is that why we would pay double for an aircraft that fails to adequate address certain likely-to-be primary defence policy needs, like Arctic sovereignty patrols? I think the aerospace sector would be fine with any US-made jet, because most of our large aerospace companies work for many airframers. Take Heroux-Devtek, which is supposed to make landing gear for the F-35. They would probably continue to make them whether Canada buys the plane or not, but in nay case, they also make landing gear for the F-18 and pretty much every North American aircraft, from the CL-215 water bomber to the Boeing 777. the C-17, the Hercules, Orion, Helicopters of all sizes and shapes, Embraer, Bombardier, etc. Last year, they snagged the contract to build landing gear for the Boeing 77X family. There's a good chance that most of you pilots landing an aircraft tomorrow for a Canadian carrier will be landing on their landing gear.

So the idea that they will be ruined by Canada's fighter procurement decision is a little far-fetched.

[Guest tailwheel]

Thanks Dagger,

While there may be more to it, it is good info you are providing.

[boestar]

My uderstanding was that the agreement in principle to procure the F35 was partied with certain contracts being given to Canadian companies and that cancellation would result in that business going elsewhere. This extends beyond the Landing gear to more advanced systems.

I am NOT a fan of the F35 at all and I do not think it is the right aircraft for Canada. I think that we have the expertise in Canada to build our own uniquely Canadian Fighter but in the meantime buy some Hornets and carry on. It is a proven capable platform and is multirole capable.

And infinitely Familiar to Canada

[J.O.]

The best quote I've seen so far in this campaign - Thomas Mulcair speaking to the F35 issue - accused the PM of engaging in "decision-based fact making". Pretty well describes the past five years.

[deicer]

Well, there's politics, then there's the truth....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/forecast-for-economic-growth-in-2016-gets-gloomier/article26465986/

Forecast for economic growth in 2016 gets gloomier


Bill Curry

OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail


Published Tuesday, Sep. 22, 2015 6:00AM EDT

Last updated Tuesday, Sep. 22, 2015 7:27AM EDT

For the third month in a row, economists are lowering their expectations for growth in 2016, adding pressure on federal finances at a time when party leaders are crisscrossing the country promising billions in new spending and tax cuts.

[Don Hudson]

tailwheel, re, "Non aligned? Canada has been a NATO and American ally for a long time. You mention Afghanistan and as you say, it was the Liberals who got us involved in that one"

NATO is not an organization of which one is an ally or with which one aligns - one joins NATO as a supporting partner and is by definition a real "coalition of the willing", not a manufactured illusion of one. NATO is not a powerful country which exercises a unique exceptionalism, it is by make-up and definition, many countries among which Canada plays a strong role. Putting it another way, joining the U.S. government for a common purpose particularly for invasions or wars, is certainly not the same as joining NATO.

It is not correct to state that Canada has been an ally of the U.S. (Washington), militarily, which was the point being made in my post. One cannot leave, without being challenged anyway, the impression that Canada was an ally of the U.S. in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example. In fact, Canada strongly urged Washington to seek the cooperation of many nations; Canada refused to join the U.S. in its 2003 badly-conceived plans and rightly so in my opinion because there was no military reason to invade Iraq - WMDs did not exist and Al Qaeda was not in Iraq. The U.S. had a devil's time doing so and finally invaded essentially unilaterally, (with France, Great Britain, Australia - two of which contributed troops, and other, smaller countries of the 48 who had signed on but contributed little material support). It is a known fact that Washington lied to Congress, the American people, to the United Nations and to the world about WMDs in a bid to legitimate the invasion. Al Qaeda, the original reason stated for going into Iraq after the visceral, post-9/11 reaction was known at the time to be in Afghanistan and Pakistan with elements elsewhere, but not in Iraq. But Bush/Washington invaded Iraq anyway and it took Obama to clean up what the previous administration did and to accomplish real results, doing what ten years of invasions, wars and deaths could not accomplish.

The "flag" item, which I have used before in arguments against the changes Mr Harper has wrought, was intended as a metaphor, not as an actual caution or lament.

Firefox, if you care to read my historical posts carefully rather than shooting the messenger from the hip, you may perhaps appreciate that I try to balance my views of the U.S. with a strong and positive view of the American people - imaginative, generous to a fault, cultural leaders and a powerful world economic engine. Every once in a while I clarify that my views apply to Washington, the Pentagon and political parties where applicable, emphasizing the enormous gulf between the American peoples' wishes/opinions and what their government does in their name. I do not demonize the U.S. nor do I even intend to do if such appears to others who may have entirely different views of how the U.S. conducts world affairs and its wars. My critiques of U.S. foreign policy are not heated imaginings but facts of history which anyone can access by reading. One may entirely agree that the U.S. has every right to an unusual exceptionalism and that is certainly their right to think and write as such. My views and my biases are clear, and I'm willing to engage discussions with posts which actually make a point. For the benefit of other readers, I would like to know what my age has to do with such views.

I write only because Canada has become a more hawkish place and is occupying a more hawkish position on the world stage. That has consequences which I believe should be taken in to consideration, first, given our history of peace-making, and second given present increases in threats to our country and our citizens at home and abroad.

I don't live in a bubble and perhaps such outcomes would have come with any government given world changes and perhaps a stronger stance has been necessary. In the end, I'm one citizen with one view. I would never presume to convince, but if some reflection on these matters results then that is what an election is about.

[Airband]

'it took Obama to clean up what the previous administration did and to accomplish real results,'

They being what exactly?

[Don Hudson]

Surely, this must be obvious?

The original justification for the invasion of Iraq was the presence of Al Qaeda* and the hunt for bin Laden. When this did not work and instead resistance to the notion of invasion increased, the Bush administration began manufacturing other "reasons" to invade Iraq* but the quest to find and destroy Al Qaeda and its leader remained foremost. Both were accomplished during the Obama administration, although the destruction of an idea and an ideology is never truly accomplished.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War