# Air force commander Twitter post links Canada's airstrikes to soldier's death



## Scoobs (4 Nov 2014)

Checked and couldn't find this on the site, so I'm posting it.  If it is already elsewhere on the site, may the mods please relocate it to the appropriate location?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/air-force-commander-links-canada-s-airstrikes-to-soldier-s-death-1.2085178

Stephanie Levitz, The Canadian Press 
Published Monday, November 3, 2014 7:14PM EST 

OTTAWA -- The cloak of secrecy the government has thrown over Canada's first bombing runs in Iraq is set to lift at a briefing Tuesday, but the commander of the air force appears to be injecting a new element into their objective: revenge.

A photograph was posted to Lt.-Gen. Yvan Blondin's Twitter account Saturday from the funeral of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, killed in October by a known jihadist.

Along with the photo, Blondin wrote: "Dear ISIL, thinking of you. Some of my colleagues are in your area. Hopefully, they'll have a chance to drop by." 

The tweet was removed on Monday afternoon.

"The comments made by Lt.-Gen. Blondin were inappropriate and have been removed," Johanna Quinney, a spokesman for Defence Minister Rob Nicholson, said in an email.

"Our government remains committed to degrading the ISIL threat to protect Canadians at home, and our interests abroad."

Two days after Vincent was killed, a gunman described by the RCMP as having radical ideology killed a Canadian soldier on honour guard duty at the war memorial and then stormed Parliament Hill, where he died in a gunfight in Centre Block.

Though the prime minister has addressed the attacks both in a televised speech and in Parliament, he has never gone so far as to link them to the combat mission in Iraq.

Jonathan Rose, a political communications expert at Queens University in Kingston, Ont., said it's troubling to see a military commander make the connection.

"It certainly is a marked departure from traditional military communication and is worrisome, because it uses a tasteless image and message to shore up domestic support for a war," Rose said in an email.

"The content trivializes the seriousness of the mission and makes light of casualties."

The communication of the mission's objectives were the subject of intense debate in the weeks before the House of Commons voted on whether to join international air strikes against the al-Qaida splinter group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL.

Opposition MPs were frustrated in their efforts to learn specific details about the government's pre-combat mission, which involved deploying special forces "advisers" to help Iraqi and Kurdish Peshmerga fighters.

In the end, nearly all of them voted against extending that mission and starting a combat one, in part because the government had so steadfastly refused to disclose details.

Since then, the combat mission has been taking place in almost total secrecy, with the Canadian military denying media access to the air bases where the CF-18s, the refueller and two CP-140 Aurora surveillance planes are located, citing the security concerns of Canada's Kuwaiti hosts.

On Sunday, two CF-18 jet fighters dropped laser-guided bombs in the vicinity of Fallujah, west of Baghdad -- the first such Canadian activity in Iraq since the airstrikes were authorized.

But the government has refused to release details of their targets or success, saying it would come at a committee hearing Tuesday, 48 hours after the mission itself.

NDP defence critic Jack Harris said he was waiting for Tuesday's briefing, though he admitted he didn't expect much.

"We'll see how transparent it all is tomorrow," Harris said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My opinion:

-it could be the way the story is written, but I'm not sure why the MND wouldn't speak to the media on this one instead of a spokesperson just releasing an email;
-if it is just a spokesperson speaking, then this shows disrespect for a Flag Officer;
-political professors/commentators should not speak for us.  They should be careful about offering their opinions for us, "The content trivializes the seriousness of the mission and makes light of casualties".  Really?  When's the last time most commentators put their lives at risk in a combat zone?  I am CERTAIN that LGen Blondin knows the seriousness of the mission and definitely does not make light of any casualty; and
-BZ LGen Blondin.  Although normally these types of comments are kept internal to our CAF family, you only said what all of us are thinking.  LGen Blondin said nothing that would violate our duty to following our civilian masters, i.e. the Canadian Government, but why is it so wrong to say this?  Are we not bombing ISIS to try to get rid of them?  What do politically correct people think that we're doing over there?  Dropping flowers on ISIS?  Give me a break.  Wake up.

- mod edit to clarify subject line -


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Nov 2014)

Personally, I like and agree with his tweet.  It's a reflection of how things have changed for the PC gang to come visit.  I can't imagine the likes of Bomber Harris or Patton etc taking back a comment like that if tweeting was available back then.


----------



## Halifax Tar (4 Nov 2014)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Personally, I like and agree with his tweet.  It's a reflection of how things have changed for the PC gang to come visit.  I can't imagine the likes of Bomber Harris or Patton etc taking back a comment like that if tweeting was available back then.



We are in a much different time, one in which the general public doesn't really perceive ISIS/ISIL as a threat.  At the same time most Canadians couldn't compotently discuss with you what our "interests abroad" are because they don't pay to attention to anything after hockey night in Canada. 

While I agree with the Lt-Gen's comments and I heartfully appreciate that kind of honesty and brashness it does not sit well with our political masters.  They are quite willing to send us anywhere but for gods sake don't act like you actually want to be there and want to bring violence on those who would bring violence on us!

Bomber Harris and Gen Patton operated in an environment where whole societies understood the risks and the necessity of the war.  Today we are much more clouded.  I cant imagine either of these historical figures being anything but fully frustrated in our current time.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Nov 2014)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> -it could be the way the story is written, but I'm not sure why the MND wouldn't speak to the media on this one instead of a spokesperson just releasing an email;
> This isn't the only department responding to media via e-mail these days.  Organizations often do this as a way to avoid having media share bits of spoken comments out of context.
> 
> -if it is just a spokesperson speaking, then this shows disrespect for a Flag Officer;
> ...





			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> While I agree with the Lt-Gen's comments and I heartfully appreciate that kind of honesty and brashness it does not sit well with our political masters.  They are quite willing to send us anywhere but for gods sake don't act like you actually want to be there and want to bring violence on those who would bring violence on us!


Nothing wrong with wanting to be in the fight, but I think some get squeamish about looking like we "enjoy" the fight too much.  Doing the job because it needs doing, not because one wants to spill blood.  Again, I'm *convinced* our pers are doing the job they're expected to do with a professional attitude, but sadly, the message can be lost on/misunderstood by the receiver.



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I can't imagine the likes of Bomber Harris or Patton etc taking back a comment like that if tweeting was available back then.





			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Bomber Harris and Gen Patton operated in an environment where whole societies understood the risks and the necessity of the war.  Today we are much more clouded.  I cant imagine either of these historical figures being anything but fully frustrated in our current time.


Maybe,  but let's not forget one of these guys was fired from a job because of what he said - as well as others later in the war.


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Nov 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Maybe,  but let's not forget one of these guys was fired from a job because of what he said - as well as others later in the war.


Yes, he did get smacked down (Patton), but it was only a temporary setback.  This tweet in question, however, is rather mild by their standards.

Today's Chronicle Herald MacKinnon cartoon is appropriate.  http://thechronicleherald.ca/editorial-cartoon/2014-11-04-editorial-cartoon


----------



## Halifax Tar (4 Nov 2014)

I see your points but equating Gen MacArthur's actions and statements challenging civilian control of the military and the use of atomic weapons in Korea to Lt-Gen Yvan Blondin's tweet is a bit of a stretch.  At the same time there was no love-loss between Truman and MacArthur in any stretch.  This situation was a deep and personal conflict IMHO.  

As for Patton you need to read the link you provided.  It has more to do with alleged war crimes committed by his subordinates using his "rousing speeches" as a catalyst for those alleged actions. 

Having said that Patton was brash and straight forward he also slapped soldiers and made statements publically slighting allies during the war.  Again hardly the same as tweeting: "Dear ISIL, thinking of you. Some of my colleagues are in your area. Hopefully, they'll have a chance to drop by."


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Nov 2014)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Yes, he did get smacked down (Patton), but it was only a temporary setback.





			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I see your points but equating Gen MacArthur's actions and statements challenging civilian control of the military and the use of atomic weapons in Korea to Lt-Gen Yvan Blondin's tweet is a bit of a stretch.  At the same time there was no love-loss between Truman and MacArthur in any stretch.  This situation was a deep and personal conflict IMHO.


Indeed, elected trumps military.


----------



## Halifax Tar (4 Nov 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Indeed, *electorate* trumps military.



FTFY 

But I fail to see how this is relevant.  I have never argued otherwise.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Nov 2014)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I have never argued otherwise.


Just saying that then, just like now, politicians will not be shy about .... "regulating", in one way or another, what men/women in uniform say in public.


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Nov 2014)

Taunting the enemy is as old as war itself.Too much for the pc crowd in Ottawa perhaps,but I bet it was a popular sentiment for the guys at the pointy end of the spear. 8)


----------



## sandyson (4 Nov 2014)

If someone is keeping a tally, I for one liked Blondin's comment.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Nov 2014)

Comment made me smile.  It's just like when US SOF and CIA dudes deployed to Afghanistan in September 2001 weaning NYFD ball caps.


----------



## YZT580 (4 Nov 2014)

There were numerous bombs dropped in WW2 that carried messages on the nose.  I put that tweet in the same category.  It is a verbal two finger salute without being either racist or rude.  Good on him, there are too many PC people running around with absolutely no sense of humour.   Plus, it is a good line


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Nov 2014)

I think the "political communications expert" should stay in her lane.  It's not like ISIS is the local community church kids group.  They cut people's heads off for Christ sake.


----------



## Furniture (7 Nov 2014)

It's a sad day when we can drop bombs on people, but we can't talk about it like we are proud of doing it. I totally agree with the RCAF boss, I wish we had more planes over there to swing by and pay ISIS a visit.


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Nov 2014)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> It's a sad day when we can drop bombs on people, but we can't talk about it like we are proud of doing it. I totally agree with the RCAF boss, I wish we had more planes over there to swing by and pay ISIS a visit.



In a way I agree with you. We can talk amongst ourselves like that all we want. It's when it gets outside our circle that lace knicker wearing people feel uncomfortable with that kind of chat. 

When General Hillier said "murdering scumbags" there were a few people that were not "down with that ".
I thought the CAS comments were funny.....


----------



## observor 69 (7 Nov 2014)

JULIE VAN DUSEN  @JULIEVANDUSEN     ·   Oct 6   2014

Question to Laurie Hawn mp-q how do you degrade Isis within 6 months? A You kill them" #cdnpoli #hw


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Nov 2014)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> It's a sad day when we can drop bombs on people, but we can't talk about it like we are proud of doing it. I totally agree with the RCAF boss, I wish we had more planes over there to swing by and pay ISIS a visit.



I would rather we (the west) just suddenly showed up, dropped the bombs and then mentioned "oh yea we thought we would drop by and visit and bomb the snot out of you". Sadly by the time we have telegraphed exactly what we are going to do, most of the best targets are gone.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (7 Nov 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> In a way I agree with you. We can talk amongst ourselves like that all we want. It's when it gets outside our circle that lace knicker wearing people feel uncomfortable with that kind of chat.
> 
> When General Hillier said "murdering scumbags" there were a few people that were not "down with that ".
> I thought the CAS comments were funny.....



That comment by General Hillier was a political calculation, he knew we would take casualties and while it wasn't well received when he initially said that, the minute the first casualties started coming home Canadians remembered General Hillier's words which provided an immediate boost in support for the operation because they now identified the Taliban as "murderers and scumbags!"

Blondin's comment wreaks of emotion while Hillier's comments seem calculated and deliberate in comparison.


----------

