# Soldiers kicked out of military



## WannaBeFlyer (22 Oct 2007)

*Several refused to do a tour of service in wartorn Afghanistan*
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/10/22/4595602-sun.html
By KATHLEEN HARRIS, NATIONAL BUREAU

The Edmonton Sun     

OTTAWA -- The Canadian military has released several soldiers after they claimed conscientious objection to serving in wartorn Afghanistan, according to internal records from the National Defence department. 

Documents obtained by Sun Media through Access to Information cite a handful of cases where regular or reserve members were ordered or voluntarily released from the Canadian Forces for refusing deployment. 

"In the proud 120-year history of her expeditionary service, Canada has never had the luxury to afford her regular soldiers the option to pick and choose their missions," notes one report recommending a soldier's release. 

"Duty, the first Canadian military value, has always been sacrosanct. No trade or service in the Canadian Forces can afford to take on a soldier less than 100% committed to duty; both the duty to the organization and the duty to those they serve beside." 

In one case, a reservist was expelled "as soon as administratively possible" after refusing to deploy. The member had already received training to serve in theatre and imposed an "unnecessary burden" on the Forces, according to the heavily censored documents. 

Other regular members were let go for breach of what is called the "universality of service" principle. 

Naval Cadet Michael McWhinnie, spokesman for the chief of military personnel, said National Defence policy on voluntary release based on conscientious objection applies only to those who oppose war and armed conflict in general -- not those who oppose a particular mission, such as the one in Afghanistan. 

Because service is voluntary, the policy applies only in rare cases where a member has an "epiphany" about war or bearing arms. Conscientious objection to a specific mission or national policy would not meet voluntary release criteria. 

"You could say I love the military, I want to stay in, I'm just not going to Afghanistan, and the chain of command would probably look at you and say we don't want you in the military because you aren't capable of following lawful command," McWhinnie said. 

"That's our distinction in black and white: If it's a lawful command, you're obliged to follow it." 

The military considers a number of factors in determining suitability to deploy, but policy ultimately requires that every member "must be prepared to perform any lawful duty to defend Canada, its interests and its values, while contributing to international peace and security." 

Steve Staples, director of the Rideau Institute, said some are enticed by flashy ads, the prospect of steady employment or the chance to help out fellow Canadians in emergencies. He believes the Canadian Forces should find other roles for those who don't want to fight in Afghanistan. 

"They thought they were signing up to help Canada, not fight someone else's war in the Middle East," he said. 

Scott Taylor, a former soldier who now publishes Esprit de Corps magazine, said some resist deployment because they aren't psychologically or physically ready for combat or because they get cold feet. 

Many signed up to learn a trade or because they thought it would be an adventurous career path -- not to fight a war. 

"There was a long time when unless you were in the infantry, you wouldn't be doing any front-line stuff where there might be some danger," he said. "So it was kind of like a lifetime of training for a war you never thought was going to happen." 

_____________________________________________________________

My question:  how many soldiers is "several" exactly? Vague as usual.


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Oct 2007)

In an all volunteer force if someone doesnt want to do the job then they need to go.For every person who doesnt go on tour someone else has to go in their stead.


----------



## Reccesoldier (22 Oct 2007)

> In one case, a reservist was expelled "as soon as administratively possible" after refusing to deploy. The member had already received training to serve in theatre and imposed an "unnecessary burden" on the Forces, according to the heavily censored documents.



bs.  I can't see this happening.  There are a thousand reasons why a reservist could suddenly find himself or herself unable to go on tour.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Oct 2007)

...and in another earth-shattering announcement, GM has "let go" several employees who refused to help build cars. Bruce Monkhouse, whom drives a car, stated, "Some just aren't prepared to work with the automated machines nearby after watching movies such as 'Terminator' and should be found other jobs such as ' air bag deployer'."

Little Stevey and Scotty get to look moronic once again......................


----------



## exgunnertdo (22 Oct 2007)

> In one case, a reservist was expelled "as soon as administratively possible"



Expelled?  Makes us sound like an educational institution... :  I guess the correct term ("released") is too innocuous.  

From all of my years as a reservist, I know that if a unit gets to the point of using terminology like "unnecessary burden" that there is much, much more to the story than "I don't want to go to Afghanistan."  The refusal to go on tour was probably one sentence in a long narrative justifying the release of a member.

So we do the most beneficial thing for the member (release them), which is a cost to the CF in terms of a trained person, and we get painted as being unreasonable. Better we should hold them to their contracts and send them to Afghanistan against their will?  I have no heartache with someone (in any job, not just in our line of work) who wants to change their life's path and move on to other things.  If the army isn't for you any more, happy trails!  Just don't expect to continue to hold down a good job and a good paycheque while not fully committed.  Those positions back in Canada that people expect they can continue to fill aren't saved for "conscientious objectors."  They're part of the normal rotation of troops in and out of theatre.


----------



## geo (22 Oct 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> bs.  I can't see this happening.  There are a thousand reasons why a reservist could suddenly find himself or herself unable to go on tour.



Ditto that one Recce

Per the regulations (HR Mil 20/04) that t apply to reservists, they are entitled to give 30 day notice anytime before they are shipped out of Canada.  Once they are shipped out of the country, the reservists are considered "on active service" and are subject to the same regulations as their Reg brothers (CANFORGEN 89/06).

Any decision to release a reservist that went against the above two regulations would be the subject of a grievance that the reservist would win.


----------



## alfie (22 Oct 2007)

I can hear the NDP now, consientious objectors blah blah blah....good riddence and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out


----------



## RHFC_piper (22 Oct 2007)

Wow... I'm having a hard time comprehending this one.  

My understanding of the situation is;

A Reg F member doesn't want to deploy...  so he says he's a contentious objector?  Why wouldn't he put in for a OT to another trade? then he would have to retrain before he could deploy... or what about transferring to a Coy in his Battalion which is not deploying, siting personal reasons (family, etc)? There has got to be many other ways than becoming a "contentious objector"...  unless it's some kind of political crap.. just screaming for political attention.   Jees... unless I'm mistaken, Reg F units know well in advance that they're deploying... and anyone in the military today should know full well what is going on in the 'Stan... it shouldn't be a shock in any way. and if it is, it's time for such a member to pull their head out of the sand.  There should be plenty of time for any Reg F member to get them selves off tour, with out pulling a pin on a political grenade, before they deploy.  This is just silly.

As for the PRes Members;  WTF... seriously WTF?!?   I fought hard to get on a tour.. competition is hard in the PRes for tours.  I can name 50 people in my unit alone who would gladly go in the place of someone who decided to back out... and all of them have seen my holes and scares, and they know the risks and are still willing to go.  Hell... I'd go again right friggin now!  How can a reservist volunteer with out knowing the risks, go through selection without realizing what their going for and then decide they're a "contentious objector"?   It's not like they were drafted.  SILLY... Idiots!

I just don't understand this... but ya know what, if I were the other dudes in these guys sections, I'd be breathing a sigh of relief.  Better to weed out the objectors here than be stuck in a firefight with one over their... there is no room for contentious objectors in combat operations.


----------



## geo (22 Oct 2007)

WRT the Regs... why would anyone permit someone to slide to another coy to avoid deployment.  You're a volunteer in the army - the day you stop volunteering & only treat it as a "job" is the day you have to reconsider what you do.  WRT CTs... while you are awaiting your CT, you'd still be expected to go.

WRT reservists, they are volunteers & I am highly sceptical of what the article says.  
In LFQAs Roto4; out of 360 volunteer reservists, 4 pulled out for reasons I would consider inadequate.


----------



## 3VP Highlander (22 Oct 2007)

I joined the Army a long time ago and have done my share of tours.  I am now a reservist and would gladly go on tour again.  I personally have no time for someone who does not have a valid reason to not deploy.  I can fully understand and support individuals who cannot deploy due to circumstances beyond their control... wife having a terminal disease for example.  

  But if you sign on the dotted line for the miltiary and then come out and say that you are a contentious objector,  you should get out of the military.  OT of another trade is not an option in my mind.  Be a soldier first.


----------



## RHFC_piper (22 Oct 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> WRT the Regs... why would anyone permit someone to slide to another coy to avoid deployment.  You're a volunteer in the army - the day you stop volunteering & only treat it as a "job" is the day you have to reconsider what you do.  WRT CTs... while you are awaiting your CT, you'd still be expected to go.


 
Well.. My point was; there are some circumstances which may keep a member from deployment. I'm a firm believer of "Family First", If I had to make a choice between family and deployment, sorry blood is thicker than the ink I signed with. But, with that said, thats about it for reasonable reasons not to deploy.
I agree with 3VP Highlander;


			
				3VP Highlander said:
			
		

> But if you sign on the dotted line for the military and then come out and say that you are a contentious objector,  you should get out of the military.



A true contentious objector would not join to begin with.  

I think people just don't understand the true nature of the job, and I think we've become much too touchy-feely when recruiting... Potential recruits need to know what the job truly entails, more so than how their college will be paid for... Now more than ever.  



			
				geo said:
			
		

> WRT reservists, they are volunteers & I am highly sceptical of what the article says.
> In LFQAs Roto4; out of 360 volunteer reservists, 4 pulled out for reasons I would consider inadequate.



I'm doubting the article as well... It's far too much work for a reservist to get on a tour, just to turn around and object late in the game... But it's not all that far fetched;  Case in point; I remember reading something about a reserve officer becoming a contentious objector a while back... he wasn't even set to deploy... I wonder what ever happened to him?



			
				3VP Highlander said:
			
		

> OT of another trade is not an option in my mind.  Be a soldier first.



True, but some people don't want to be at the pointy end... they just want to help the people at the pointy end.  Not all soldiers can carry the sword.. some have to carry the food.


----------



## WLSC (22 Oct 2007)

> WRT reservists, they are volunteers & I am highly sceptical of what the article says.



There's two case I know of.  From my perspective, not realy a bad call for the first one.  The second one, it was with no real ground.  I have a hard time with combat arm personnal how refuse to go on combat role because they prefer to stay behind !


----------



## Reccesoldier (22 Oct 2007)

It should be made clear that people here are talking about two separate issues. 

1. Little Johnny joined the CF and decided later that he didn't want to play (contentious convenient objector)...

SOLUTION: Don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out...

2. Little Johnny joined the CF and after training in good faith was for some reason UNABLE to go on tour...

SOLUTION: Better luck next time, his training will be a value to the unit regardless.

Interesting to note that these problems and solutions do not change depending on Johnny's component.

A small personal note.  I was reg force for 21 years and was asked on very short notice to go on tour to Afghanistan.  For personal reasons I was unable to go.  I was told, "go or get out"... I left.

This was a personal decision, made mostly in RAGE :rage:.  I could have fought to stay (and won) on quality of life or simply by going to see the padre but I decided that I would not play those games.  You see *I* had resolved early in my career to never be _one of those people_, my departure was my decision.  

In spite of the attitudes of some key figures during this incident I do not think it would have been possible for them to force me out.  Indeed one in particular tried to deny me the right to switch components, he was administratively summed up as there was NO reason why I could not serve.


----------



## geo (22 Oct 2007)

RHFCPiper,
The reserve officer cadet (former Navy OR) who was a conscientious objector was RTUd from his Basic officer courses - was failing his course when he asked to be sent home for conscientious reasons.  He is the NDP and antiwar poster boy who has formed the Military families objector group.


----------



## Haggis (22 Oct 2007)

I, too, am having a hard time with this one.  As Naval Cadet Michael McWhinnie, spokesman for the chief of military personnel, said 





> National Defence policy on voluntary release based on conscientious objection applies only to those who oppose war and armed conflict in general -- not those who oppose a particular mission, such as the one in Afghanistan.



I find it unbeleivable that anyone can make it through BMQ/SQ and not know that it is the primary role of the CF to be able to FIGHT and WIN on behalf of Canada; to KILL another person, if need be, in that role.



			
				RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> A true contentious objector would not join to begin with.
> 
> I think people just don't understand the true nature of the job, and I think we've become much too touchy-feely when recruiting... Potential recruits need to know what the job truly entails, more so than how their college will be paid for... Now more than ever.



On BMQ we shoot at people-shaped targets, not circles or squares... people-shaped targets!  We practise violence, from the Infantry soldier on the bayonet assault course, to the Air Weapons Tech who loads laser guided bombs on a CF 18 to the sailor feeding cannon rounds into a 3" .50 gun, IS THERE ANY DOUBT AS TO THE END EFFECT WE ARE TRYING TO ACHEIVE?????



			
				3VP Highlander said:
			
		

> But if you sign on the dotted line for the miltiary and then come out and say that you are a contentious objector,  you should get out of the military.  OT of another trade is not an option in my mind.  Be a soldier first.



+1!  Everyone who serves on full time service in the CF today has unlimited liability.  You'd have to be posted somewhere really remote (like the Moon) to not have a grasp of what the CF is doing in the world today.

Live up to that or get out.


----------



## WLSC (22 Oct 2007)

Reccesoldier

I, by no meen, ment to target case like yours.  It is not the place to be to specific but this case was one of cut posn in the safe rear and being transfert to a let's say more active role.  The anwers was no combat role for me !!  That, I have a hard time with.  If you volunteer to go on a dangerous mission but at your own condition, it doesnt work !!!


----------



## kratz (22 Oct 2007)

I have posted this previously, but it is worth mentioning again:

As a reserve support trade, being loaded onto OSQAB (now-a-days NETP) is rare. So as a LS during this Padre Hour I had to hand out a +1 to the message the padre had for the students. He spoke on how not to go running to padres, medics, others...when things get rough...They are there to help, but you have to sort things out for yourself. He had to deal with so many members that wanted to not sail, deploy ect...

Most of the people he was speaking to had only been in less than a year. So his message was perfect. This is the job you signed on for (even part-time) so if you can't handle it get out now. I do not see it as kicking a member out, as ensuring they know what they signed on for.


----------



## geo (22 Oct 2007)

It's a funny thing.  I am now on class B - full time.  I have to volunteer to go on a mission.
The person sitting next to me is a Reg, working full time.  By the nature of his career, he IS a volunteer.

I firmly believe a reservist who has agreed to serve full time for an indefinite period should be treated the same way as a Reg and be subject to predeployment training AND deployment, should there be a need for him & his trade.

Opinion?


----------



## WLSC (22 Oct 2007)

Posted by: geo 


> I firmly believe a reservist who has agreed to serve full time for an indefinite period should be treated the same way as a Reg and be subject to predeployment training AND deployment, should there be a need for him & his trade.



Yep, no argument from me !  8)


----------



## Kiwi99 (22 Oct 2007)

We had a guy in my sect who did all the work up training for 1-06, then decided that the war was wrong and didn't want to go.  He went before the CO who gave him some time to reconsider.  Two weeks later he went before the CO again and stated that he still thought the war was wrong, and wanted an OT.  The CO refused, saying that if he will not deploy with the infantry, why would he deploy with any other trade.  Remember, this is after work up training, after we all finally realised where we were going and the dangers associatted.  He used the term concientious onjector in place of coward.  Anyone in the CF, esp land elements, who refuses to go to war, should be at clothing half an hour later turning in their kit, and then half an hour later walking out the main gate in civvies.  There should be chance of an OT, or cross posting within their unit to a non-deploying company.  Don't wanna fight, then bugger off!

Thats probably not very PC, but this country is weak enough, why weaken the military anymore than the NDP, Bloc and Liberals already are.


----------



## geo (22 Oct 2007)

OT... sure, you can have it, AFTER we get back from deployment.
In the meantime, keep your gunpowder dry & your a$$ down.


----------



## Haggis (22 Oct 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> I firmly believe a reservist who has agreed to serve full time for an indefinite period should be treated the same way as a Reg and be subject to predeployment training AND deployment, should there be a need for him & his trade.



In theory, this is the case.  

As you are doubtless aware a Reservist on full time service is required to sign the Statement of Understanding (SOU) found at A-PM-245-001/FP-001 Chapter 19, Annex D.  

For those who are unaware, para 2b. of said document reads:

"b. during my period of service, I may be required to perform service anywhere in or outside Canada. Service outside Canada is active service in accordance with National Defence Act Section 31(1) and as provided by Order in Council PC 1989-583 (6 April 1989) and such other Orders in Council as may be passed from time to time. I acknowledge that being on active service means:

(1) I am subject to the Code of Service Discipline (CSD) at all times and may be subject to increased punishments should I be convicted of offences under the CSD; and
(2) I may be retained on continuous full time service for up to one year after my period of active service;

However, in practise, this isn't done as employing units do not want to lose the capability that they hiired that Reservist to fill.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Oct 2007)

Its my understanding (unless it has changed) that reservists are asked if they want to go overseas, complete the work up training etc.  It would appear to me those reservists would know by now what is in store for them.  Now it is conceivable that situations will arise that will prevent reservists (or regs for that matter) from not fulfilling their commitment, but deciding that you don't agree with war or the mission after you said you wanted to go is asinine and grounds for dismissal.  That said I don't think I would want to go over with someone who was told to suck it up and go, I'd rather be over there with people that want to go.


----------



## RHFC_piper (22 Oct 2007)

By definition, as stated before, a contentious objector is one who opposes war and armed conflict in general...  Why are they in the forces; who knows.  Should they be in the forces; No.  Simple.

When I recruit people for my unit, I don't lie, I don't fill them with false information and I don't hold back... I'm sure at some point this will backfire on me, but that's what they get for making me the unit recruiter.    When a potential applicant asks what we do in the infantry, I give them our roll.  When they ask about the risks, I tell them about my short tour.  All recruiters should do this.  I've seen some who try to sell the forces as a good way to get education paid for, or a good way to get into a police force.... and I've had people ask if there were any less dangerous trades... there are, I don't lie to them... it's when they ask about trades that don't involve killing or combat.  The only answer I have for them is; Every trade in the CF is involved, either directly or indirectly, in combat. Weather it's the combat arms in the front fighting, or the CSS trades in the back supplying and supporting them... All trades are force multipliers for combat; remove one and our combat effectiveness drops.  So, in essence, everyone in the CF is fighting.
This is the job, this is the lifestyle... Objectors need not apply. 

For the OT's and transfers before tour;  There were a few in my Coy, who, due to family issues and the such, did not want to deploy on that particular mission... They had deployed before, and they wanted to deploy again, just not right then.  The solution was a transfer to a Coy which was not deploying.  The CoC was accommodating, to an extent... the members knew they could be called upon anyway, as they were now in the 10% pool.  Some deployed, some didn't.  They were not objecting to the fight, circumstances were just not in their favour.
There were also some who were OTing anyway, and the course for their OT trade was starting before the tours end.  Same solution as above.  Why screw a soldiers career goals for deployment, especially when there are enough people willing to take their place. Again, not an objector, just someone who wants to change their career path.

There were even some reservists who were facing the choice of not deploying after getting their offer (before going up to the Reg F unit), due to Family as well as civilian careers.  Some members were faced with the choice of going over seas, taking a huge pay cut and coming back to unemployment, or not deploying at all... some of us took option 1... I quit my civi job which was paying me a bit more than deployment (I didn't like the job much anyway... but that doesn't matter)... needless to say, my old job wouldn't have been waiting for me if I didn't quit.  

So, there are many reasons not to deploy when you are called upon, and most can be dealt with by case.  Of course, a member who never deploys siting these reasons might as well look elsewhere for employment, but for the most part, these cases are not black and white.

The case of these Objectors, on the other hand, is pretty cut and dry;  out



But with all this said; I am still baffled by the reservists.  By now, every reserve unit in Canada should have deployed at least one member.  Especially combat arms units.  These "objectors" should have known long before volunteering what they were getting into. No excuse. 
But why would they jump through all the hoops?!?


----------



## the 48th regulator (22 Oct 2007)

Maybe we should implement a way that since these objectors are signing a contract, that if they do not uphold their end they owe the Government the monetary value of the training that they have received.

Let's then see how many objectors there will be.

dileas

tess


----------



## Korporaal (22 Oct 2007)

Gentleman;

I`m a little confused here, maybe I can be enlightened as to the true situation regarding Reservists service in the Canadian Forces and deployment.

I`ve applied to the Reserves  but before I made this decision (had to get the OK from the wife, which was granted on condition that I dont volunteer for deployment) I made substantial enquiries about depoloyment to Afghanistan and the possibilities thereof.
I was told repeatetdly by the recruiters of 2 different regiments that this is voluntary for Reservists and that the only time you will be called up by the government for deployment to a war zone is if there is a general state of war declared, at which time all bets are off and everybody, civilians as well, will be required to do there duty...this I accept...have been there and have got the T-shirt.

Here is the question...can a Reservist be sent off to Afghanistan against his will,  e.g I`m a 1 man professional business person, if I dont work my family does not eat, our mortgage is not paid, and there is no money in the bank account...can the DND send me off the Afghanistan in spite of these circumstances or is it purely voluntary.

I was led to believe that competition for deployment training is very stiff and that you must be able to commit at least 1 year to training. I cannot see the average "married with kids Reservist", being able to make this time commitment.  

This might be the reason why the Reservist who was mentioned in the newspaper article was not able to deploy. 

Whats your opinion


----------



## Snaketnk (22 Oct 2007)

Korporal, what you said is entirely true, but the way I read the article, it seems like the reservist in question volunteered to deploy, did the pre-deployment training, and then claimed to be a conscientious objector. That is why he was released. 

Going overseas, except in an all-out war (as you mentioned) is completely voluntary for reservists. Volunteering, costing the government many thousands of dollars in pre-deployment training, and then saying "Oh yeah, War is bad, so I won't go" is, in my opinion, intolerable. This sounds like a perfect situation for the 48th regulator's proposal.


----------



## Haggis (22 Oct 2007)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> By definition, as stated before, a contentious objector is one who opposes war and armed conflict in general...





> So, there are many reasons not to deploy when you are called upon, and most can be dealt with by case.  Of course, a member who never deploys siting these reasons might as well look elsewhere for employment, but for the most part, these cases are not black and white.



There is a huge difference between a legitimate conscientious objector and someone who DAGs RED for every deployment (I see them here at NDHQ.  Every unit has them.)

Given the universality of service requirement, a conscientous objector cannot, IAW their beliefs, be deployed on any operation where combat is a remote possibility.  They may as well be given a 4c release, with the thanks of the Canadian public for thier service to date.

On the other hand, the member who is perpetually DAGging RED, but goes on every high speed course, makes every sports day, mess dinner and parade should be looked at in a much harsher light.



			
				Korporaal said:
			
		

> Here is the question...can a Reservist be sent off to Afghanistan against his will,  e.g I`m a 1 man professional business person, if I dont work my family does not eat, our mortgage is not paid, and there is no money in the bank account...can the DND send me off the Afghanistan in spite of these circumstances or is it purely voluntary.



The short answer is "no".  Unless an Order in Council is passed placing you on active service (which hasn't been done in over sixty years) you must volunteer.


----------



## Korporaal (22 Oct 2007)

Gents...thank you, that makes sense to me.

I was starting to get worried reading all the posts.

My wife has told me in no uncertain terms that she would leave me if I volunteered. She says that I`ve done my bit for Western civilization against the communist Peoples Liberation Army of Namibia, Cuban, Russians and East Germans in South West Africa/Angola in 81 and 82., but she does undertand that I`m more comfortable with the military than civilians generally. 

Conscientious objectors..had them in South Africa...I have no time or respect for a "man" who lives under a soldiers protection then criticises how the protection is given.


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2007)

MG said:
			
		

> Scott Taylor, a former soldier who now publishes Esprit de Corps magazine, said  "There was a long time when unless you were in the infantry, you wouldn't be doing any front-line stuff where there might be some danger," he said.


Really?  I know Scott's time in the CF was short, but has he really forgotten all the other arms that were always around?  or that Infantry were not the only Combat Arm?  What time is he thinking of?



			
				RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> I remember reading something about a reserve officer becoming a contentious objector a while back... he wasn't even set to deploy... I wonder what ever happened to him?


http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/50044.0.html


----------



## iwasthere (22 Oct 2007)

RHFC_Piper,

We were on the same rotation if Im not mistaken, and there was a reservist who pulled pin due to family reasons... I believe anyways. I could be wrong. This have anything to do with him? He pulled out in/around Wainwright.


----------



## aesop081 (22 Oct 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Anyone in the CF, esp land elements, who refuses to go to war, should be at clothing half an hour later turning in their kit, and then half an hour later walking out the main gate in civvies.



The air force doesnt need those people either. When an infantryman shoots a bullet, he/she kills one person.  I drop a  torpedo, a sub explodes and 100 people drown. If our recruiting comercials weren;t so damned PC , people would know what they are getting into.


----------



## RHFC_piper (22 Oct 2007)

op_sec said:
			
		

> RHFC_Piper,
> 
> We were on the same rotation if Im not mistaken, and there was a reservist who pulled pin due to family reasons... I believe anyways. I could be wrong. This have anything to do with him? He pulled out in/around Wainwright.



Well... that kind of anchors my point that deployment isn't for everyone, and lots of factors contribute to troops pulling out.  But, this thread is about soldiers who have decided that they are contentious objectors to the conflict while on work up training for deployment, and site this reason to pull out of the tour... and their subsequent, and deserved, release from the forces.

There were people from TF3-06 who didn't deploy for various reasons, but I don't remember anyone coming out as a contentious objector.  

My main argument, and source of confusion, is in regards to the reservists who have taken the "objector" route and bailed from their tour...  it's just baffling.


----------



## iwasthere (22 Oct 2007)

Fair enough, just checking.


----------



## geo (22 Oct 2007)

People drop out OR are dropped for a variety of reasons... I will limit myself to the Reservists - though Regs are in the same / similar boat:
Good ones:
- Dagged RED
- Poor appraisal - needs more experience
- Poor appraisal - lousy performance / zero teamwork
- Family reasons - Death / disease in the family, gotta look after the family / family business / Wife & or kids have gone balistic...

Lousy ones
- Feels he needs more experience - though NCOs & Offrs don't
- Wants to take his QL5 or PLQ ...
- Got a call for a civy job - after 8mths of leadup training
- Got a call for a military job (class B) - after 8 mths of leadup training
- "Personal" reasons - withouth specifying


----------



## Future Pensioner (23 Oct 2007)

*Naval Cadet Michael McWhinnie, spokesman for the chief of military personnel, said National Defence policy*

Since when did "Naval Cadet's" become spokesmen for the Military?????


----------



## geo (23 Oct 2007)

Future Pensioner said:
			
		

> *Naval Cadet Michael McWhinnie, spokesman for the chief of military personnel, said National Defence policy*
> 
> Since when did "Naval Cadet's" become spokesmen for the Military?????



well.... I did look him up and there he is, as big as life on the DIN
NCdt in public affairs -  function = "OJT"

have a feeling that someone is going to be talking to him about this.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Oct 2007)

MG said:
			
		

> Steve Staples, director of the Rideau Institute, said some are enticed by flashy ads, the prospect of steady employment or the chance to help out fellow Canadians in emergencies. He believes the Canadian Forces should find other roles for those who don't want to fight in Afghanistan.
> 
> "They thought they were signing up to help Canada, not fight someone else's war in the Middle East," he said.



OK, I'm coming to this thread a bit late; however, I must reply to "Mr." Staples.  His bias shows when he says They thought they were signing up to help Canada, not fight *someone else's war * in the Middle East.  If you're not deployable, and if you "don't want to fight" in Afghanistan, well, then, we DO have other roles for them to fill.  It's called CSLI (Civvie Street Light Infantry).  In other words: get out.  We need every person we have to do whatever job we tell them to do.  This is a volunteer army, and if they don't like it, that's too bad.  Just as the army doesn't get to choose which wars to fight, neither do the soldiers get that right of choice.  


			
				MG said:
			
		

> Scott Taylor, a former soldier who now publishes Esprit de Corps magazine, said some resist deployment because they aren't psychologically or physically ready for combat or because they get cold feet.
> Many signed up to learn a trade or because they thought it would be an adventurous career path -- *not to fight a war.*
> "There was a long time when *unless you were in the infantry, you wouldn't be doing any front-line stuff * where there might be some danger," he said. "So it was kind of like a lifetime of training for a war you never thought was going to happen."



I don't know where to begin.  First of all, joining the ARMED forces for a trade (which is fine) but then being surprised that there may be danger involved?  PUTZ!  Why then did even postal clerks get weapons training?  I mean, really....

As for that BS line that "only the infantry" are in the front line stuff, I suggest to "Mr." Taylor that he reach back, WAAAAY back into his memory and recall those around him during his brief tenure in the military.  Those tanks weren't manned by infantrymen: they were manned by crewmen.  The FOO?  Artillery _officer_, if you could imagine that!  The echelon?  Armourers, vehicle techs, maintainers of all stripes!  All in the A1 ech, which was, even back in Germany, a mere "tactical bound" behind them fightin' troops in the infantry!  And lets not forget the Admin Clerk who doubled as the company clerk!  Oh, and I suppose that the then Private Taylor never ate anything while in the field.  For if it were hard rats, then some supply tech somewhere did something about that, and if it were fresh, then we're talking cooks!

I recall a recruiting pamphlet from the 1970's.  On the cover was a sergeant from The RCR, standing alone in a field ("You stand alone").  Opening up the pamphlet that same sergeant (in the same pose) was now surrounded by everything from tanks to techs ("But you're never alone").  Even in that era, the focus was on WARFIGHTING.  Yes, the cold war was on, but the message was clear:  you may join for trades training, but in the end, you are a SOLDIER, part of a team.


Sorry for my rant.  I'm off to have a coffee....

EDIT: just to say that I've had my meds (coffee and smoke) and to add this "inspirational photo"


----------



## geo (23 Oct 2007)

Good rant Rockpainter +1
Experts?  Peshaw!


----------



## Haggis (23 Oct 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> well.... I did look him up and there he is, as big as life on the DIN
> NCdt in public affairs -  function = "OJT"
> *have a feeling that someone is going to be talking to him about this*.



Why... for telling the truth?  Whomever "talks to" this NCdt should probably say "well done, lad." Do you think for a minute that CMP doesn't see things the same way?  Our current CMP is an Infantry officer who is doubtless well aware of the personnel challenges facing *all* deployed operations.



> I recall a recruiting pamphlet from the 1970's.  On the cover was a sergeant from The RCR, standing alone in a field ("You stand alone").  Opening up the pamphlet that same sergeant (in the same pose) was now surrounded by everything from tanks to techs ("But you're never alone").



I remember that pamphlet clearly.  As a cadet I kept one taped to my door until I was old enough to join the CF.



> Even in that era, the focus was on WARFIGHTING.  Yes, the cold war was on, but the message was clear:  you may join for trades training, but in the end, you are a SOLDIER, part of a team.



There's pages and pages of discussion on this board as to how and when we "lost our way".  I believe it started when our name was castrated from "Canadian _Armed _ Forces" to "Canadian Forces".

Nonetheless, given the almost obsessive and constant media coverage of our mission in Afghanistan, anyone who now joins the CF and who doesn't have a pretty clear understanding of who we are and what we do is, quite probably, going to be found to be in violation of the CF Drug Use Policy.


----------



## exgunnertdo (23 Oct 2007)

I agree with Haggis, the NCdt said what he should have said - Unfortunately, he can't tell the reporter to go pound salt, (cause then we sound like we're hiding something  :)  He has to give a response, and he defended the system - you can't follow orders, you're gone.

Keep in mind - NCdts/OCdts come from all walks of life, sounds like this one is getting some good employment (assuming he's a future PAffO), not just photocopying and making coffee.  Doesn't appear to be out of his depth, either.


----------



## RHFC_piper (23 Oct 2007)

:rofl:

Mortarman Rockpainter.  I'm posting that picture in my office (RHFC unit recruiting office) and including it in all my Recruiting handouts... fantastic!  :cheers:


----------



## Greymatters (23 Oct 2007)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> ... contentious objector...



Is that supposed to be 'conscientious objector', or is 'contentious objector' the new word for these people? 

Ditto on the poster, right up there with the one about 'how about a nice big mug of STFU?"


----------



## observor 69 (23 Oct 2007)

I'm sorry but my doctor has advised me that any exposure to the sight or sound of Steve Staples will make me violently ill and endanger my health.
Unfortunately I was exposed to 3 seconds of Mr.Staples yesterday while channel surfing and felt an immediate wave of nausea.
I have had to restrict myself from watching panel discussions were Mr.Staples is present to provide a "balanced" discussion.


----------



## RHFC_piper (23 Oct 2007)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Is that supposed to be 'conscientious objector', or is 'contentious objector' the new word for these people?



Yes... my bad.. The spell check in my brain was turned off... 


But it still fits somewhat;

Contentious:
1. Inclined or showing an inclination to dispute or disagree, even to engage in law suits.

2. Involving or likely to cause controversy.

3. Having or showing a ready disposition to fight (not so much in this case)


But I digress;  Poor context / spelling, etc... which is why I'm not a novelist. 





			
				Greymatters said:
			
		

> Ditto on the poster, right up there with the one about 'how about a nice big mug of STFU?"



Indeed.  If only I were allowed to post all those fantastic, sarcastic, and oh so non-PC posters in my office.  Maybe then I wouldn't get parents asking me if, when and where their child would be doing "missionary work", or have applicants ask me if they could join, but not use weapons or run, 'cause it's against their beliefs (yes... running... against their beliefs... right.)  Oh well... one can only dream.


----------



## geo (23 Oct 2007)

Oh well..... MYTH BUSTED...
The reserve soldier who was refered to in the Edmonton Sun article DID NOT get kicked out for his troubles.

While in Wainwright he asked to be returned to his parent unit.  Employment unit recommended that he be disposed of but, the fella was within his rights when he gave in his notice.

People may or may not agree with it being "right" to terminate his employment after all that workup training but, the rules and regulations say that he can.... and he did... case closed.


----------



## Greymatters (23 Oct 2007)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> Indeed.  If only I were allowed to post all those fantastic, sarcastic, and oh so non-PC posters in my office.  Maybe then I wouldn't get parents asking me if, when and where their child would be doing "missionary work", or have applicants ask me if they could join, but not use weapons or run, 'cause it's against their beliefs (yes... running... against their beliefs... right.)  Oh well... one can only dream.



Hello, Id like to join a military unit but not have to run, fight, carry a rifle, and oh some unarmed missionary work would be nice....

Oh man, sanity check....


----------



## geo (23 Oct 2007)

Military unit that does not run, fight or carry a rifle?  Isnt' that the airforce?


----------



## observor 69 (23 Oct 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Military unit that does not run, fight or carry a rifle?  Isn't' that the airforce?



My job in the old NATO war task in Baden was to live in my HAS, service and repair a 104, be prepared to operate under NBCW conditions and if required defend the airfield, my HAS and aircrat. Seemed like enough for me.


----------



## RHFC_piper (23 Oct 2007)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Hello, Id like to join a military unit but not have to run, fight, carry a rifle, and oh some unarmed missionary work would be nice....
> 
> Oh man, sanity check....




Not even joking.  Serious as a heart attack.  

Some days I wish I could post all the fantastic things which happen in my office... All the amazing things people put on their applications and all the awesome questions I'm asked.

People actually cringe when I tell them about the entry PT test... I had one applicant ask me if I was serious about the "Recreational Narcotic" questionnaire, then asked if it were really necessary for the military to do a criminal record check. 
There are days when I just want to tell people where to go, how to get there, and what to do while there... but I just answer their questions and process paperwork as best I can... or just tell them the truth, which sends lots packing.


----------



## Kiwi99 (23 Oct 2007)

Earlier I mentioned the guy who quit after work up and before deploy,ment.  I got another one.  We had another guy in the platoon who was a reservist who decided, the day after we got to Afghanistan, that he didn't want to be there anymore, for whatever reason.  And apparently, as a reservist, he had that right.  It took a long time to get him home, almost three months I believe,  in fact, he still had his HLTA.  He didn't really go on operations or anything, just stayed in KAF.  And it took forever to get a replacement.  I have no idea why he wanted to go home, and really don't care.  But for three months we were technically a man short.  So this whole option to go back if you don't like stuff, in my opinion, is crap.  Unless it's a family emergency, you are STAYING!!!  That goes the same for mental health issues as well.  After all, aren't we preached to about the positive effects of staying with your buddies?  Hell, war aint that bad, nobody screws with ya, get to do what ya want, that old chestnutt.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Oct 2007)

There's reg force guys in that boat as well


----------



## geo (23 Oct 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Earlier I mentioned the guy who quit after work up and before deploy,ment.  I got another one.  We had another guy in the platoon who was a reservist who decided, the day after we got to Afghanistan, that he didn't want to be there anymore, for whatever reason.  And apparently, as a reservist, he had that right.  It took a long time to get him home, almost three months I believe,  in fact, he still had his HLTA.  He didn't really go on operations or anything, just stayed in KAF.  And it took forever to get a replacement.  I have no idea why he wanted to go home, and really don't care.  But for three months we were technically a man short.  So this whole option to go back if you don't like stuff, in my opinion, is crap.  Unless it's a family emergency, you are STAYING!!!  That goes the same for mental health issues as well.  After all, aren't we preached to about the positive effects of staying with your buddies?  Hell, war aint that bad, nobody screws with ya, get to do what ya want, that old chestnutt.


Kiwi
As per Canforgen 89/06 reservists are on "active service" the moment they leave Canada.  
They are to be treated like the regs and punished (where necessary) under the same regs as Regs.  
Scale of punishment is same as regs.
Soo... the same way as a reg may determine that he wants to get out once he is in KAF, he can be compelled to fulfill his duty - but, would you trust him with the rifle being operated next to you?


----------



## Haggis (23 Oct 2007)

> We had another guy in the platoon who was a reservist who decided, the day after we got to Afghanistan, that he didn't want to be there anymore, for whatever reason.



This is not a new phenomenon.  My last tour was a winter tour which meant that one of the HLTA blocks fell over Christmas.  Following that block, there were literally dozens of requests for compassionate repats.  Surprisingly, none were from Reservists.



> And apparently, as a reservist, he had that right.



Not really.   To expand upon what geo posted, CMP Instruction 20-04 states, in part:

"Res F members on Cl “B” and Cl “C” Res Svc serving outside Canada are on active service, and as such, are required to complete the period of service for which they volunteered.  Voluntary requests to cease that period of service *will be subject to the same consideration as would apply to Reg F mbrs  * in similar circumstances."


----------



## the 48th regulator (23 Oct 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Earlier I mentioned the guy who quit after work up and before deploy,ment.  I got another one.  We had another guy in the platoon who was a reservist who decided, the day after we got to Afghanistan, that he didn't want to be there anymore, for whatever reason.  And apparently, as a reservist, he had that right.  It took a long time to get him home, almost three months I believe,  in fact, he still had his HLTA.  He didn't really go on operations or anything, just stayed in KAF.  And it took forever to get a replacement.  I have no idea why he wanted to go home, and really don't care.  But for three months we were technically a man short.  So this whole option to go back if you don't like stuff, in my opinion, is crap.  Unless it's a family emergency, you are STAYING!!!  That goes the same for mental health issues as well.  After all, aren't we preached to about the positive effects of staying with your buddies?  Hell, war aint that bad, nobody screws with ya, get to do what ya want, that old chestnutt.



I find this hard to beleive.

Can you site me the clause which allowed him to claim his reserve status as being special.

Also, you lost me on the mental health issue portion, are you talking about someone who developes them on tour, and askes for help, or someone at home before the tour?

dileas

tess


----------



## Kiwi99 (23 Oct 2007)

48th, I have no idea of the clause.  It's what the guy said and next thing we know, albeit 3 months later, he's going home.  If he was in fact given a special 'reprieve', it was not my decesion.  But when a guy decides he doesn't want to be there before even unpacking his kit, it is kind of strange.  You may find it hard to beleive because you weren't there when he told us he wanted to go home.  People with way more money allowed him to go, not me, so ask them.  As for the mental health, people who develop the problems in theater.  Every lesson they have ever given us says that it is best to stay with your buddies, so they should.  Even if they ask for help.  Thats as far as I am going to go with ref to menatl health, too many people get too emotional.

So there may not be a special clause related to this example.  Indeed, posts following mine, ie; Haggis, were able to highlight the issue better with more effective responses than simply finding stuff hard to believe.  But. 48th, it's good to see that we are at loggerheads again, you and I.  Always good to agree to disagree.


----------



## the 48th regulator (23 Oct 2007)

One more question, considering you feel we are not agreeing to anything yet again, was this guy a good troop all throughout the work up training?

Are you saying that no one, in the section, noticed that this guy was ready to implode at the drop of a dime, until the first day he got into theatre?

Thats right, I was not there so please clear things up for me.  I just feel there is more to your story than you have explained.  

dileas

tess


----------



## Kiwi99 (23 Oct 2007)

48th,  he was not a great troop, neither was he a bag of $@&%.  And when we got to theater it was a bombshell on everyone, even his best buddies in the platoon were surprised. Now, he didn't implode, he just decide he didn't want to be there.  He still was for three months, even went on HLTA.


----------



## the 48th regulator (23 Oct 2007)

> Now, he didn't implode, he just decide he didn't want to be there.




My mistake then,

First day he was on the ground he decides he does not want to be there, no body saw this coming. 

As per your post, he is allowed to do this because he was a reservist and had the right. So what do the the people of the Chain of command do? They keep him in country for another 3 months.

I will pull away, otherwise I will be blamed for inciting your ire.....

I just feel that the section level of cohesion would have caught something like that. Guess I am wrong, since I wasn't there.

Must be the new army, I guess.

dileas

tess


----------



## Haggis (23 Oct 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> 48th,  he was not a great troop, neither was he a bag of $@&%.  And when we got to theater it was a bombshell on everyone, even his best buddies in the platoon were surprised. Now, he didn't implode, he just decide he didn't want to be there.  He still was for three months, even went on HLTA.



Well, unlike another high profile repat on an earlier tour, he didn't attempt to use his head as a clearing bay, thereby endangering many others in the process.

Reg/Res:  it doesn't matter and it doesn't make a difference.  All have to meet the same standards to deploy and it is the C of C of the deploying unit and thier higher HQ who declares both the members and the unit OPRED, or "good to go!".

The press seized on the Reserve angle for the same reason they siezed that angle in the death of Cpl Boneca.  It sells papers.


----------



## Kiwi99 (23 Oct 2007)

48th, PM inbound with more details for ya.  Heads up!


----------



## the 48th regulator (23 Oct 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> 48th, PM inbound with more details for ya.  Heads up!



Cheers brother,

PM received, and replied.

Hopefully we are on the same page, and you understand my questions.

dileas

tess


----------



## 1feral1 (23 Oct 2007)

My 2 cents.

Reasons not to deploy, well if its warranted such as  'ill health of a family member', or something similar on compassionate reasons, yes, but its when you got through the hoops, and then wimp out for some other limp dicked reason, sure don't send them, but they knew the risks, on joining, and the work-up trg for the mission, and the admin/trg time to get them where they are prior to going over.

Punt!

My view is you want personnel there who want to be there, and be there for the group as a whole, if not  - piss off. They become a liablility instantly, and a morale problem for the rest of us.

I was injured on my tour, kept my mouth shut until not long before we left, and I was asked if I wanted to return early. No way. We left as a group, and I WILL be returning with the same group. There was no way I was going home early!

We did send men home, but for what anyone of us would consider genuine compassionate reasons. No one went home for any other reason. Some even broke into tears upon their farewell, because theyt did not want to leave their mates!

Thats dedication and loyality.

Again my 2 cents.

Wes


----------



## Greymatters (23 Oct 2007)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> Some days I wish I could post all the fantastic things which happen in my office... All the amazing things people put on their applications and all the awesome questions I'm asked.
> them the truth, which sends lots packing.



I did that type of R&S work for only about 2 months, but with serving Reg and Res force members, and that was enough laughs.  It was hard to imagine how some of them even got to where they were, never mind the ones you are dealing with that are fresh off the street.  My sympathies!


----------



## RHFC_piper (23 Oct 2007)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I did that type of R&S work for only about 2 months, but with serving Reg and Res force members, and that was enough laughs.  It was hard to imagine how some of them even got to where they were, never mind the ones you are dealing with that are fresh off the street.  My sympathies!



Heh... they're not all "fresh off the street"... Most of the ones I've been dealing with lately are for the Co-op program; still in high school...  Fun on a bun.

But they're not all bad.  Just minor issues...   Besides, I like scaring them with war stories (when they ask about my tour)...  good for a laugh some days.


----------

