# The role of the military and its relation to alleviating humanitarian crises?!



## Future Prodigy (17 Mar 2008)

I just came back from a talk delivered at Wilfrid Laurier University by Romeo Dallaire, on the issues effecting global humanity. After the talk I approached him concerning his last segment of the presentation where he basically gave a short couple sentences on expressing the notion that now is one of the best times to join the ‘uniform,’ but he did not go into much detail. I am very intrigued by this and was hoping that you people here might expand on it a bit more. What exactly did he mean?!

I am now primarily interested in the role of the military in relation to international development. Mr. Dallaire made two points at the end of his talk, the 2nd one being that all the current Canadian forces missions are just and are actually making an impact on the societies in which they are fought. 

Could you elaborate a bit more on this view of the military and its role in the above topics and in relation to to reducing poverty, nukes, arms, child soldiers, human injustices, etc?

Mr. Dallaire has captivated me with the possibility of a military career having a real impact in the international world. I have never thought along those lines before and would love to read more about this view. 

I am very enthusiastic, more than this I NEED TO, about wanting to make some sort of difference in my career choice after I graduate this year - I am 4th year BA student at WLU. I feel it is an injustice to my education (liberal arts), and the material I have learned to just slip back into the status quo and do nothing for the 80% of the world’s population that suffers. Someone has to fight to help alleviate their suffering and I hope in some way shape or form I may be able to do that.

I don't want to sound like a brown-noser or anything but Mr. Dallaire really did inspire me, and give a bit of hope to the future – which can seem awfully bleak when you are studying the liberal arts.

Jason

Edited to correct thread title for grammar/spelling.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (17 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> p.s.  to be more clear: Which areas of the uniform would he have been suggesting? Just the combat arms regiment, or other groups like the intelligence sector, etc?



I'm going to guess that he meant joining the CF in general, since all branches and areas work together towards common purposes.  
As for the military info you seek?  You are definitely in the right place.  Have a go at the "Search" function and you should be able to pony up several months of reading on things military.  
Good luck, and welcome to the site.


----------



## TCBF (17 Mar 2008)

Jason,

Welcome to army.ca!

In my opinion, the Canadian Forces are the most RESPONSIVE means at hand in a crises.  Why?  Because we are the means of last resort and have the capacity for massive lethal force, society retains a tight grip on our direction.  We can change policy course in midstream.

That does not appear to be quite the case in other government departments.  Some of them appear to have developed into untouchable fiefdoms where any government policy found to be 'regressive' gets slowly misdirected and sabotaged.  CIDA's 'assistance' in Afghanistan is an alledged example.  Maybe it is - perhaps it isn't.  

Any such sluggishness in DND or the CF would result in firings and resignations.  In the rest of the bureaucracy, it may seem that nothing happens.  I think a lot of this resulted from our "Freedom FROM Information" Acts and privacy regulations which serve to cloak responsibility and abuse.  It is a bit different in the CF. In most cases, members of the Canadian Forces can answer media questions if they so choose.  A democracy WANTS it's people in uniform to tell them what is going on.  Few other federal/provincial/municipal/contractual employees have that privilege.

Now: SHOULD we be the main force of development? NO.  We exist to provide the secure environment for the development 'experts' and their projects.  Using armed forces to build schools, hand out pencils, fight fires and shovel snow is an INCREDIBLE misuse of expensively trained and maintained assets, where other more specifically trained, cheaper and unemployed assets allready exist on site.

Where would you like to fit in?  Your choice.  You could even join CIDA!


----------



## leroi (17 Mar 2008)

Jason,

I'm new on this site and a civilian. I'm responding because my son is going through a similar transformation. He's a University of Guelph student. I'm guessing  Mr. Dallaire's_ It's a good time to join the uniform_ is in reference to General Rick Hillier who is now in charge of CF. But that's just a guess. Hillier seems to be a real take charge type of guy; an iconoclast who's not afraid to do the right thing for CF. (IMHO.)  I suspect his star is rising and predict he's going to upstage  many of our illustrious politicians in the near future. The April 2008 issue of _The Walrus _ contains an excellent piece on General Hillier titled, _Too Few Hilliers: The General Goes Where Ottawa Mandarins Fear to Tread._

The Recruiting Office nearest you is in Kitchener and they are a great resource to provide you with the direction you need. They are quick at processing applications, too (I hear this is because they aren't as busy as, say, Toronto).
Don't underestimate the power of this site:  I came here to get information on BMQ and was astounded by the collective wisdom that they have pooled here at Army.ca.--pure Canadiana ...

I wish you the best of luck.  Your desire to do something valuable with your degree is commendable and a worthy aim.


----------



## McG (17 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> I am now primarily interested in the role of the military in relation to international development. Mr. Dallaire made two points at the end of his talk, the 2nd one being that all the current Canadian forces missions are just and are actually making an impact on the societies in which they are fought.
> 
> Could you elaborate a bit more on this view of the military and its role in the above topics and in relation to to reducing poverty, nukes, arms, child soldiers, human injustices, etc?


Try these:
http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/104-No-Security-Without-Combat.html
http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/76-The-Truth-About-Peacekeeping.html
http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/12-Peace-Making,-not-Peacekeeping-is-the-order-of-the-day.html


----------



## Future Prodigy (17 Mar 2008)

mcg - I don't quite follow why you suggested those readings? I'm not against just wars fought for the betterment of universal humanity - this implies that it must not be a nationalistic close minded view of humanity, where our needs must be met over others.. normally leading to a form of neo-colonialism/imperialism - and i believe strongly in this theory. I support that if 1 life taken saves a 1000 then it is a requirement. However, i have never heard someone talk about the military in such rhetoric... i.e. why i made this thread.


----------



## CougarKing (17 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Now: SHOULD we be the main force of development? NO.  We exist to provide the secure environment for the development 'experts' and their projects.  Using armed forces to build schools, hand out pencils, fight fires and shovel snow is an INCREDIBLE misuse of expensively trained and maintained assets, where other more specifically trained, cheaper and unemployed assets allready exist on site.
> 
> Where would you like to fit in?  Your choice.  You could even join CIDA!



TCBF,

What about the Kandahar PRT? Isn't what you said above pretty much what the mandate of the PRT is? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Jason,

If you are seriously interested in the more humanitarian aspect of the CF, perhaps you should set your sights on becoming part of the Kandahar PRT or do a search on the "DART" units of the CF.

Here is more info on the CF's own PRT unit in Kandahar; the US Army also has their own PRT units in Iraq, IIRC.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0013061

http://www.mdn.ca/site/kprt-eprk/act_e.asp

Interestingly, the Kandahar PRT has members of Canadian civilian police forces, the DFAIT and the CIDA as well.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> mcg - I don't quite follow why you suggested those readings? I'm not against just wars fought for the betterment of universal humanity - this implies that it must not be a nationalistic close minded view of humanity, where our needs must be met over others.. normally leading to a form of neo-colonialism/imperialism - and i believe strongly in this theory. I support that if 1 life taken saves a 1000 then it is a requirement. However, i have never heard someone talk about the military in such rhetoric... i.e. why i made this thread.



MCG provided these readings (and look at the rest of Ruxted too, by the way) to answer your questions WRT the military role in development, assistance and so on. I think the short answer is these are *not* our roles, but we do them in theater for our own practical purposes and to support the end goals of the mission. Like the big boss said; *"We're not the public service of Canada, we're not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people."*

The idea that the military has any formal role is development assistance comes from a combination of three factors: the notion of "Responsibility to Protect" or R2P, the fact that the helping hand allied to the mailed fist is a historically valid means of dealing with insurgencies and the fact that other agencies which are supposed to be doing the humanitarian and reconstruction work are often ineffectual, unable or unwilling to do the work. 

I would argue that R2P is an inherently flawed notion, and indeed taken to its logical conclusion would compel nations to mount military actions without consideration of any overriding national interest. No only does that bring us back to the situation of the religious wars prior to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, where R2P was defined as invading neighbouring nations to save the immortal souls of the oppressed (Catholic/Protestant) people, but it also invites some practical considerations as well. Are you willing to invade China today to save the people of Tibet? Can you do this with any chance of success? Are you willing to incur the costs (up to nuclear response)?

Doing the right thing to support our own interests in theater is just a smaller scale application of the idea of supporting our national interests. It is considered in the national interest to dispatch the military in the first place, so to support our own interests in theater and win the peace, we engage in small scale reconstruction work of our own so long as it does not interfere with the overall conduct of the mission.

Contrast the impromptu rescue fleet of USN, RAN and Japanese Self Defence Force ships responding to the Tsunami crisis in Indonesia a few years ago with the totally flat footed response of the United Nations and other NGO's. Since the military is self contained and in theater we are able to do the job organizations like the United Nations and various agencies and NGOs  cannot, which is a bitter pill for many to swallow and the source of quite a bit of animosity towards the military as well (how do NGOs justify fundraising for relief efforts when the soldiers are the ones out there getting roads built and conducting medical clinics?).

I hope this is not too negative or cynical of a viewpoint for you. If you think about it, acting as the sword and shield of a liberal democratic nation like Canada preserves freedom and opportunity for our own people, which allows Canadians the scale and scope of actions and resources to engage in assisting other nations and peoples, and provides a beacon of hope for the oppressed peoples of the world.


----------



## Future Prodigy (18 Mar 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> MCG provided these readings (and look at the rest of Ruxted too, by the way) to answer your questions WRT the military role in development, assistance and so on. I think the short answer is these are *not* our roles, but we do them in theater for our own practical purposes and to support the end goals of the mission. Like the big boss said; *"We're not the public service of Canada, we're not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people."*
> 
> The idea that the military has any formal role is development assistance comes from a combination of three factors: the notion of "Responsibility to Protect" or R2P, the fact that the helping hand allied to the mailed fist is a historically valid means of dealing with insurgencies and the fact that other agencies which are supposed to be doing the humanitarian and reconstruction work are often ineffectual, unable or unwilling to do the work.
> 
> ...



SO under your rhetoric why do you believe we should be in afganistan?! Despite what the role of the military was historically i believe we most evolve... and i'm very interested in dallaires points concerning the future roles of the military in alleviating these basic humanitarian crisis's. I'm positive any notion of a self-interested nationalism would not fly well with him, we need to stress the inherent value of all life, despite our geographical locations... and then pursue measures to alleviate their problems (whether through military force, etc)

After reading some posts here, I'm starting to wonder whether i have romanticized the military profession. It seems some people here are fixated on the fighting aspect of the military and not as concerned with the bigger issues with which the fighting is directed. We should never fight for a narcissistic nationalism, but rather for everyone (despite creed, color, gender!). This notion of our superiority due to our birth - in the lucky sperm club - is ridiculous. It is our human duty to protect everyone. One reason i somewhat support Peter Singers argument for a one world UN military

I hope this is not too negative or cynical of a viewpoint for you. If you think about it, acting as the sword and shield of a liberal democratic nation like Canada preserves freedom and opportunity for our own people, which allows Canadians the scale and scope of actions and resources to engage in assisting other nations and peoples, and provides a beacon of hope for the oppressed peoples of the world.

This is an interesting point... i need to think about it


----------



## a_majoor (18 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> SO under your rhetoric why do you believe we should be in afganistan?! Despite what the role of the military was historically i believe we most evolve... and i'm very interested in Dallaires points concerning the future roles of the military in alleviating these basic humanitarian crisis's.



We are in Afghanistan to prosecute a war against the Al Qaeda network and their allies the Taliban, who attacked us on September 11, 2001. The 9/11 attacks were acts of war against the United States, who we are obliged to come to the aid of under many treaties between our nations, as well as an indirect attack on Canada and our values (including the mass murder of Canadians in the World Trade Centre "Twin Towers").

Militarily defeating the Taliban and allowing the Afghans to install a democratic government under a Loyal Jirga ejected the AQ and prevented them from having a secure base and State resources to continue their attacks against us. Maintaining a military presence is required to prevent the Taliban and AQ from re-establishing themselves in Afghanistan and continuing their efforts against the North American metropole (*the overarching goal*), and providing a screen for the local government to create stable and functional institutions and policies to ensure long term national and regional stability which also serves *our* goal of maintaining peace and prosperity within our nation and throughout the world.

This also explains why we are not in the Sudan; they do not directly threaten us, nor do they shelter groups like the AQ who work to threaten us and our interests. (So we don't quibble, the Sudan _did_ harbor the AQ in the past, and _may_ continue to do so today, but not in numbers that threaten us). Since neither Canada, the Anglosphere and the West as a whole do not have infinite resources, we can only deal with the most pressing issues first.

WRT solving a humanitarian crisis, the cause of the crisis is often a corrupt and dysfunctional government in the area in question. R2P would suggest we can invade them at will to solve these problems, but historical evidence is lacking. The US Marines invaded and occupied many Caribbean and Central American nations in the early part of the 20th century both to secure the approaches to the Panama Canal (*the overarching goal*), but also in pursuit of humanitarian goals. They built roads, hospitals and schools, ran corruption free customs services to raise government revenues and trained local police and military forces. While these were able to solve local humanitarian problems while the Marines were there, the local elites were not removed nor their attitudes changed, so once the Marines left, the elites went back to their corrupt ways and their nations descended into chaos and neglect (read Max Boot "The Savage Wars of Peace" for a more detailed account).

If you want to emulate General Rick Hillier and be part of the Canadian Forces; who's job is to kill people; then you will be working on one aspect of the problem. If you want to do the redevelopment and reconstruction work outside of the narrow boundaries that the military can supply, then join a development agency or an NGO (or form your own for that matter). Just make sure you are clear in what your wants, needs and expectations actually are so you don't end up frustrated or dissapointed.


----------



## Future Prodigy (18 Mar 2008)

So, in your view.. the mission of the military is nothing beyond killing people in order to serve our own Canadian self interests? Yeah, i may have to do some major reconsideration then... i don't know if i could live with that. The notion of superiority and service to self interests - whether it be nationalism, racism, etc - is in excusable in our day and age. 

I do not want to join the military because i'm so young high school kid that wants to shot guns, drive fast cars, and jump out of planes. I want to make a 'difference' in the world! I see Afghanistan as a respectable mission and fighting for the rights of humanity, not just serving Canadian interests. But maybe like i said, i have romanticized things and in the process blinded myself to the reality of our narcissism. Ideally, militaries should fight for the helpless/voiceless/defenceless. We who are in power have the responsbility to do so... that was why i wanted to join the military to protect those who could not do it themselves, but im starting to think this is the wrong view?!


----------



## Future Prodigy (18 Mar 2008)

thucydides -  i find your quote kind of ironic. It seems to fly against everything youve posted. "If the greatness of life is measured in deeds done for others, then Canada's sons and daughters who have made the ultimate sacrifice in Afghanistan stand among the greatest of their generation" .. this seems to be beyond any national self interest?


----------



## Yrys (18 Mar 2008)

little hijack 


			
				Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> The notion of superiority and service to self interests - whether it be nationalism, racism, etc - is in excusable in our day and age.



The ability to kill people (which was write) doesn't equal in my mind killing people. But as I'm no SME, I will
let that to people that must be tapping at their keyboards at the moment...

So you're saying that you don't buy products that serve yourself in an unfair way versus persons that produced them.
All your clothes are fairtade, made with ecological tissues, all your foods have been paid a fair price, which mean
NO white sugar whatsoever (sugar is in most food produce) (workers that produce it have relative slave life conditions), chocolate is from smalls cooperatives, etc. 

Your runnings shoes have never been make by big brands that exploit people oversea. You don't buy anything from China, which also
include products (as medicaments, cereals, etc) with label as "made in Canada" but contain parts or ingredients comming
 from China. You never bhought or accept to receive flowers that are made in south america (all flowers except fairtrade one and biological one) in usually hell health conditions for those workers. You also convince you mother, sister or other female relative to not receive them.
You never have eat meat because it would have serve your self interest and would have been a promotion of poor conditions of elevage and transport for animals. You will recycle the computer and other tech gizmo that you have used, to be sure it doesn't end up in a garbage in another country, polluting their water and lands.  You don't live by the capitalist system.

You also didn't receive a free education, provide by taxpayers moners, at their detriment FOR you self interest. Idem for health issue.

W   W, how do you do that ?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (18 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy. You may be over thinking this thing a little bit too much. All of us joined because we want to do something meaningful with our life and military service can certainly provide that outlet. Having said that we are not thinking and living ideology everyday (like most of us did when we were in University). It's a way of life that runs the gamut between being in Canada (most of the time) training and doing a lot of mundane stuff from day to day (not everyone is in the Army training to do battle in afghanistan) like making machinery work that flys, sails or rolls along, technical trades in computers, research, etc.
Depending on your trade or classification there are opportunities to go overseas and do some pretty interesting and meaningful things, but our raison d'etre is to be ready to defend the country and it's interests in the way in which we are directed by the Canadian Government...we don't get to choose the whys and wherefores.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (18 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> So, in your view.. the mission of the military is nothing beyond killing people in order to serve our own Canadian self interests? Yeah, i may have to do some major reconsideration then... i don't know if i could live with that. The notion of superiority and service to self interests - whether it be nationalism, racism, etc - is in excusable in our day and age.
> 
> I do not want to join the military because i'm so young high school kid that wants to shot guns, drive fast cars, and jump out of planes. I want to make a 'difference' in the world! I see Afghanistan as a respectable mission and fighting for the rights of humanity, not just serving Canadian interests. But maybe like i said, i have romanticized things and in the process blinded myself to the reality of our narcissism. Ideally, militaries should fight for the helpless/voiceless/defenceless. We who are in power have the responsbility to do so... that was why i wanted to join the military to protect those who could not do it themselves, but im starting to think this is the wrong view?!



Future Prodigy,

The military of a state exists first and foremost to protect _that_ state.  Self-interest is the hard centre of a nation's foreign policy when you strip away the fluff.  The Rwandan operation foundered in no small part on this issue, and the same can be said for other attempts to employ UN forces when there was no real national self-interests at state.  The use of military force should be in those matters that are of great interest to the nation using that force.  Wanting to help because of images on the news can lead to problems when the rubber hits the road.  Will is very important, and will springs in no small part from self-interest.

The military of a given state can still execute tasks that benefit another nation, but when military force is applied you will usually find some element of national self-interest at stake.

Cheers


----------



## George Wallace (18 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> So, in your view.. the mission of the military is nothing beyond killing people in order to serve our own Canadian self interests?



This is a overly simplistic deduction on your part.  I would say that you are having a great deal of difficulty in absorbing the meaning behind the Canadian Forces Military Ethos.



			
				Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> Yeah, i may have to do some major reconsideration then... i don't know if i could live with that.



 ???  I have to truly wonder what you though a nation's military was for?



			
				Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> The notion of superiority and service to self interests - whether it be nationalism, racism, etc - is in excusable in our day and age.



To turn this around, you have just made a very biased opinion, without really looking at the matter with an open mind.



			
				Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> I do not want to join the military because i'm so young high school kid that wants to shot guns, drive fast cars, and jump out of planes. I want to make a 'difference' in the world! I see Afghanistan as a respectable mission and fighting for the rights of humanity, not just serving Canadian interests. But maybe like i said, i have romanticized things and in the process blinded myself to the reality of our narcissism.



I think you have been looking at the world with blinders and rose coloured glasses on.  You have a very narrow and closed mind on many things.  Even in your search to find more information, you are not accepting it, nor are you understanding what little you have absorbed.  Please browse through some of the subjects posted here and widen your perception of the world and the use of Canada's military at home and abroad.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (18 Mar 2008)

How about this:
A good chunk of the planet is screwed up and sucks.  We don't have the money or resources to go to every place that sucks and make it better, so we have to pick and choose.  One of the deciding factors is "what will it get us", which is what the people ultimately want from the Gov-good bang for their bucks.  We also belong to a big, dysfunctional family (UN) who all expect everyone else to help (meaning the US).  As part of the family, Canada had dodged its turn to step up a few times over the years.  Now it is our turn, otherwise the family will be really pissed with us.  
Fight the bad guys on their own turf to avoid another 9/11.  As part of an effective counter insurgency operation you need to win over the locals, and you need to spend money to do that.  It is a nice side affect that it helps peoples every day lives, but to be perfectly honest if paying to unleash a horde of trained rats was the best solution, we probably would be doing that.  
However, that is at the policy level.  Pretty much every soldier that has been there has been genuinely moved by the strife of the people of Afghanistan, and really gives a crap about helping them.  That is the human element, and IMO is a function of how good our military is.  Therein lies the disconnect between the CF support of the mission and the lack of promotion on the part of the government.  
Maybe I'm way off.  I'm no poli-sci major.  But that is how I see it.


----------



## Future Prodigy (18 Mar 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This is a overly simplistic deduction on your part.  I would say that you are having a great deal of difficulty in absorbing the meaning behind the Canadian Forces Military Ethos.
> 
> I disagree, that was his words... which is why i was asking him for clarification. I did not deduct anything!
> 
> And i will not argue that my idealist view is close minded because that is a subjective statement in and of itself, which can as easily be applied to your worldview.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (18 Mar 2008)

Prodigy,

If this were a play, I would find your statement that you "will not argue that your idealist view is close-minded" somewhat ironic.  By refusing to argue, aren't you being close-minded? 

Cheers

T2B

p.s. Writing in red font makes it hard to read.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Mar 2008)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Prodigy,
> 
> p.s. Writing in red font makes it hard to read.



Not to mention the fact that your inclusion of your comments within the quote of another poster is very confusing.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> And i will not argue that my idealist view is close minded because that is a subjective statement in and of itself, which can as easily be applied to your worldview.



Your logic escapes me.  How do you apply a "closed minded" view to a "worldview"?


----------



## a_majoor (19 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> thucydides -  i find your quote kind of ironic. It seems to fly against everything youve posted. "If the greatness of life is measured in deeds done for others, then Canada's sons and daughters who have made the ultimate sacrifice in Afghanistan stand among the greatest of their generation" .. this seems to be beyond any national self interest?



But who are the others? If I were to die in Afghanistan it would be to ensure my son and daughter could live for another generation in a free market liberal democracy: *the "others" are me and mine; my fellow Canadians*. It is a very pleasant side effect that this _also_ benefits our Afghan bretheren (not to mention the Americans, British, Dutch and everyone else on the planet to some greater or lesser degree), but always remember the *primary* motivation.


----------



## Future Prodigy (19 Mar 2008)

Sorry about the red, i couldn't figure out how to unquote myself once i hit the button - I'm still trying to figure things out  ???

Thucydides - see thats the problem with our individualized North American society... we focus solely on the nuclear family, and our concept of relations does not extend to a bigger circle. This is a microcosm for the ills of the world!


----------



## Yrys (19 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> I'm still trying to figure things out  ???



Try in Milnet.ca Admin : Need HELP figuring out Army.ca functionality??.
It will take less time ...


----------



## Future Prodigy (19 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> Sorry about the red, i couldn't figure out how to unquote myself once i hit the button - I'm still trying to figure things out  ???
> 
> Thucydides - see thats the problem with our individualized North American society... we focus solely on the nuclear family, and our concept of relations does not extend to a bigger circle. This is a microcosm for the ills of the world!



After i think about it, I'm really starting to get worried about the state of affairs in Canada and elsewhere. This biological notion of humanity is so limited... we must open our minds to incorporate the concept that familial ties go beyond biology... this is the first step in the process to eradicating the problems of the world.

I'm still curious as to what people have to say about my "original" post!? We have digressed tremendously. 

p.s. i might have come across wrong in this forum. I really do appreciate the work the military does, i just think we need to broaden our scope on issues (this is applicable to all of society). I am still attracted to the prospect of a job in the CF but i want it to be something that makes a difference and benefits people. Whether i will ever find such a outlet, seems to be debateable - aside from the obvious SAR tech


----------



## teabag (19 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy, I'm not sure what you want me to say in response to your original post.  Skimming this topic, I found the responses provided thus far suitable, appropriate and offered opportunities to further your research.  I am left wondering if you genuinely seek our input or are looking for spaces to voice your own.  You are a senior University student and presumably possess good information gathering skills, so I hope that the contributions by the community will allow you to decide whether a career in the Canadian Forces is a good decision for you.

Poverty, nuclear weapons, child soldiers and the like are topics that people in general should address.  Just because I wear the uniform does not mean I do not care or am complacent about those issues - I sponsor three children in developing countries, for example.  I am aware that our actions as Canada's military could have a direct or indirect influence on such things.  If you are looking to put your conscience at ease, there are also many charities that are directly involved in those matters on an international level.  Try Charity Navigator:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/

Once again, I'm glad you are considering becoming a part of the Canadian Forces family.  Your keen interest in learning about our ethos has shown you are thoughtful when it comes to deciding what you want to do with your life and how you could potentially help others.


----------



## Future Prodigy (19 Mar 2008)

teabag said:
			
		

> Once again, I'm glad you are considering becoming a part of the Canadian Forces family.  Your keen interest in learning about our ethos has shown you are thoughtful when it comes to deciding what you want to do with your life and how you could potentially help others.



What is the military ethos? I am interested in this and the mandate of the military... but alas, although i am a university student i am not the greatest with the internet.

I am in a sense trying to start a debate i guess... i'm playing the devils advocate here. This is very much my own thought patterns espoused on you guys. I'm trying to work through/make sense of my mental musings. I want to enter CF as a career but i cant seem to make sense of it in light of the issues ive been raising and the moral/ethical world view i have shaped in my last 4 years of studies at university.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Mar 2008)

Google can be your friend....

Here's part of the ethos picture, well expressed, as an introduction (video + transcript).

Happy hunting!


----------



## Future Prodigy (19 Mar 2008)

"internationally, the CF supports Canadian foreign policy objectives such as protecting human rights and alleviating human suffering.

Among the CF's particularly difficult and dangerous tasks is intervening in failed states, such as Afghanistan, to promote international stability."

Straight from the horses mouth... these are what sparked my thread.  Dallaire brought these topics up, and yet from the responses i have seen, thus far, this 'official' ethos is not held to on the ground level?


----------



## medaid (19 Mar 2008)

I don't get it. We are following the ethos on the 'ground' level so to speak.


----------



## leroi (19 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> "internationally, the CF supports Canadian foreign policy objectives such as protecting human rights and alleviating human suffering.
> 
> Among the CF's particularly difficult and dangerous tasks is intervening in failed states, such as Afghanistan, to promote international stability."
> 
> Straight from the horses mouth... these are what sparked my thread.  Dallaire brought these topics up, and yet from the responses i have seen, thus far, this 'official' ethos is not held to on the ground level?



Future Prodigy,

This quote reflects precisely _what_ Canadian Forces are doing in Afghanistan.  That _is_ the ethos of Canada's mission; that is _why _ they can't pull out easily now--despite the costs in terms of both lives and dollars; if Canada pulls out now, we will be seen on an international level as moral cowards and hypocrites because the insurgents will turn violently on the civilian population of Afghanistan.  But more importantly, pulling out now would exacerbate suffering contrary to our  objective to alleviate same. 

Canadian soldiers are well-respected in Afghanistan and I would even go so far as to say _loved _ ... This evening, I heard that spoken from the lips of another university student who is from Afghanistan--but lives in Guelph.  He is in touch with family and friends in Afghanistan now:  he is glad to be in Canada but is thankful for everything our Canadian soldiers have done for his country ...

Don't forget, Canada lost three soldiers in the past week--this is the ultimate sacrifice that a human being  (for his or her country) can make to uphold the principles of which Mr. Dallaire spoke ...

So you see, _the official ethos _ is indeed _being held on the ground level_ ...


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (19 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> "internationally, the CF supports Canadian foreign policy objectives such as protecting human rights and alleviating human suffering.
> 
> Among the CF's particularly difficult and dangerous tasks is intervening in failed states, such as Afghanistan, to promote international stability."
> 
> Straight from the horses mouth... these are what sparked my thread.  Dallaire brought these topics up, and yet from the responses i have seen, thus far, this 'official' ethos is not held to on the ground level?



Going to the DND main site you will see the military's mission and tasks in broad terms.  http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/index_e.asp

You will note that "Protecting Canadians and defending our sovereignty is our first priority."  Defending North America comes right after, followed by contributing to international peace and security.  

This is pretty much what I have been saying.  Canada comes first when choices and decisions have to be made.  This does not, however, preclude helping others.  We have sent forces to humanitarian missions, but these have sometimes come to grief when they are more than simply providing disaster relief.  The argument can certainly be made that Canada should help more in the world in order to prevent foreign problems coming to roost in Canada. 

The point I am trying to make is that there is more to the military than simply helping people in the world.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> "internationally, the CF supports Canadian foreign policy objectives such as protecting human rights and alleviating human suffering.
> 
> Among the CF's particularly difficult and dangerous tasks is intervening in failed states, such as Afghanistan, to promote international stability."
> 
> Straight from the horses mouth... these are what sparked my thread.  Dallaire brought these topics up, and yet from the responses i have seen, thus far, this 'official' ethos is not held to on the ground level?



First off you have to understand where your comments came from and of what you are talking about.

You have heard comments on Canada's role at the Strategic level.  Then you are wondering why things are different at the Tactical level.  We'll  confuse you a little, more by mentioning that in between there is the Operational Level.  If you look at the Strategic Level, you will find that there are political policies being dealt with.  Once you get down to the Tactical Level, the people implementing the plans, are not concerned about political policies, but in getting the job done and coming home alive following their mandated Rules Of Engagement.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (19 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> What is the military ethos? I am interested in this and the mandate of the military... but alas, although i am a university student i am not the greatest with the internet.



That almost strikes me as impossible.



			
				Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> in light of the issues ive been raising and the moral/ethical world view i have shaped in my last 4 years of studies at university.





			
				Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> from the responses i have seen, thus far, this 'official' ethos is not held to on the ground level?



Less learning and more doing.  There is only so much that you are going to get out of a book.  How about you just join and then see where it takes you?  How bad can it be?  You are a 21 year old religion and culture student at Laurier in your third year.  You have lots of time to experience life and have a well rounded career.  The CF will never look bad on a resume.

This thread is starting to have a bit of a "I'm fishing for term paper research shortcuts" feel to it...


----------



## Future Prodigy (19 Mar 2008)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> That almost strikes me as impossible.
> 
> Less learning and more doing.  There is only so much that you are going to get out of a book.  How about you just join and then see where it takes you?  How bad can it be?  You are a 21 year old religion and culture student at Laurier in your third year.  You have lots of time to experience life and have a well rounded career.  The CF will never look bad on a resume.
> 
> This thread is starting to have a bit of a "I'm fishing for term paper research shortcuts" feel to it...



ACTUALLY.. I'm a 4th year 23 year old student and my schools on strike right now, so your term paper comment is redundant! I ask out of sincere curiosity, as i have been given the profession some thought but am trying to work things out in my head. I don't want to just join if i feel deep down there is a conflict in interest, which is why im trying to work things out now... i really do want to make a difference in my career choice and i dont want to just be another number in the status quo.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Mar 2008)

The realms from Strategic to tactical are all intertwined, and need to be aligned properly in order to function. The CF exists to protect Canada and Canadians (Strategic), thus it also protects me and mine (Tactical). You should also re read my comment, I also included all Canadians as the people I protect first and foremost.

As Tango2Bravo said, this does not preventing us from helping others, indeed there may be occasions where helping others is indeed the best way to support the national interest. As Zipperhead Cop pointed out; a horde of trained rats might also prove to be the most effective means of solving a problem (although I can't imagine what that problem would be..... ???). The government chooses the tools to solve the problem, we in the CF are tools to meet a broad range of potential problems and deal with threats to Canada and Canadians.

Just like your own toolbox in the garage or in your closet, various tools are designed to do particular things. You can extend their uses a bit, like using a screwdriver to pry something open, but it is neither safe nor desirable to do so for a prolonged period. "We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people." isn't rhetoric, it is fact. We can undertake limited humanitarian aid and reconstruction, and will do so when it supports the CF mission on the ground. If you are looking at bigger scales of aid or reconstruction, there are other appropriate organizations which concentrate on these issues (and occasionally hire private contractors for security if they are unwilling to deal with military forces).

Your desire to do development and aid is great, and I encourage you to do so, but please ensure you understand the strengths and limitations of organizations to deliver aid and development and choose accordingly. If you join the CF _only_ to do humanitarian work, you may find it frustrating. If you want to be a humanitarian first responder, the CF is one avenue to approach, many NGO's do this sort of work as well, but are not self contained like a military formation. Long term aid and development can be conducted by NGO's and government agencies, if that is what you want to do, then a short career in the CF might be a good stepping stone to reach those goals.

Bon Chance!


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (19 Mar 2008)

Prodigy,

The following is taken from Duty with Honour: The Profession of Arms in Canada published by DND under the authority of the CDS in 2003:

"A Canadian Statement of Canadian Military Professionalism - The profession of arms in Canada is composed of military members who are dedicated to the defence of Canada and its interests, as directed by the Government of Canada.  The profession of arms is distinguished by the concept of service before self, the lawful, ordered application of military force, and the acceptance of unlimited liability."

Soldiers are obedient to the lawful authority of the Government of Canada.  We can be ordered into harms way, which makes us rather unique.  We are not, however, automatons who blindly follow orders.  There are certainly ethical choices and decisions to made.  Our men and women overseas live this everyday.

I would add, however, that the ethical choices made by professional soldiers usually deal with how they discharge their duties within a greater operation, not the strategic nature of the operation itself.  Soldiers tend to be concerned with "_Jus in Bello_" or how the laws by which the war is fought.  The leaders of a country are concerned with with "_Jus ad Bellum_" or the justification for the war itself (although they remain accountable for how the war is fought).  My view of international politics may be somewhat ancient or _classical_, but I have yet to meet something that can realistically replace it.

I don't know if I would characterize the military in terms of "another number in the status quo" or not.  I see us as members of the profession of arms.  Do you wish to be a part of that?  I have served for some nineteen years now.  I find it rather self-actualizing.  I have had the chance to work with some awesome people and have done things that few Canadians outside the military have.  As an example, I have watched a nation come up with a constitition while working with their fledgling professional military to protect the process.  Others here have done much much more in a host of places both here at home and overseas.


----------



## Future Prodigy (19 Mar 2008)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I don't know if I would characterize the military in terms of "another number in the status quo" or not.  I see us as members of the profession of arms.  Do you wish to be a part of that?  I have served for some nineteen years now.  I find it rather self-actualizing.  I have had the chance to work with some awesome people and have done things that few Canadians outside the military have.  As an example, I have watched a nation come up with a constitition while working with their fledgling professional military to protect the process.  Others here have done much much more in a host of places both here at home and overseas.



See these are the kind of things im interested in. I don't want to sound anti-national, or treasonous, or anything like that, but i will not support any war effort that is geared solely towards obtaining resources or things that our country needs economically; that is nothing but war-mongering bullying. My firm belief in the inherent worth of universal humanity and an objective morality far outweighs any notion of nation states. This does not mean though that I am a pacifist or unwilling to go to war, it just has to fit a wider range of criteria (the ones posted above are a good example):

"internationally, the CF supports Canadian foreign policy objectives such as protecting human rights and alleviating human suffering. Among the CF's particularly difficult and dangerous tasks is intervening in failed states, such as Afghanistan, to promote international stability."

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

Thucydides - i think your misreading my posts... I do value humanitarian aid and development work, but I am not really trying to look at the military's role through that avenue. I am more concerned with the above - this being the CF's duty to the international community in protecting human rights and alleviating human suffering, and also forcefully intervening in failed states.

This is what I am more interested in. I am willing to go to war and die for these kind of goals, for they are a lot broader in scope than a sole nationalistic agenda of protecting only Canadians. So, i guess... in essence, i'm asking for a further expansion on these goals. Do most CF missions fall under this or are they like tango2bravo mentioned for the defense of Canadian interests (i.e. nationalism again)? Sorry for being redundant i am still in the process of trying to figure things out myself - thanks for bearing with me.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (19 Mar 2008)

I draw your attention to the quote "...dedicated to the defence of Canada and its interests..."  I also draw your attention to unlimited liability. 

Most our our military's operations have been conducted with the intention to aid an ally or a nation in peril.  That being said, do not fool yourself into thinking that Canadian interests are not at the heart of the use of military force.  Just what is in a nation's interests is open to debate, and for a nation like Canada we are usually looking at second and third order effects when making decisions.

In addition to the rather nice sounding watching the birth of a constitution bit, I have also participated in offensive combat operations against an enemy.  I don't pick the enemy.  You don't really get to pick and choose which missions to go on and what tasks you carry out.  _How_ you carry them out, however, is certainly your concern and indeed your lawful obligation.  I do not have a criteria regarding the _Jus Ad Bellum _ aspect (why we go to war or an operation).  I worry about my part in that operation.  If you are carrying _criteria_ for political level decisions that are the purview of the lawful Government of Canada then you may have some issues down the road.

If you are serious about joining the _Canadian_ Forces, you should ask yourself this question.  Are you willing to fight in order to defend_ Canada_?


----------



## Future Prodigy (19 Mar 2008)

It depends how you define canada! I am not willing to fight for a canada that exploits other countries via neo-imperialist means (to be fair, we have not fallen trap to such an ideology/agenda, as our southern brother has, but if it got around to that then no i would not). I am willing to fight for canadian values, ideals, political systems and physical lives, but not so the consumerist/materialistic status quo can be maintained - i also as you may realize think a drastic change in our lifestyle within canada needs to occur as well. So, the answer is not black and white.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> ... I do value humanitarian aid and development work, but I am not really trying to look at the military's role through that avenue. I am more concerned with the above - this being the CF's duty to the international community in protecting human rights and alleviating human suffering, and also forcefully intervening in failed states.



Ah!  Another twist.  All members of Canadian society fall under the Laws of Canada which we all know have articles protecting Human Rights.  We are also, for the most part, Christian and "Samaritans" or Charitable towards those who are suffering.  It is part of our 'Western' and more particularly Canadian upbringing.  Canada's Military are bound by the Laws of Canada, International Laws, and the Laws of whatever nation they may set foot in.  Also, members of the CF do not drop their Religious, Ethnic, or Moral values just because they join the CF.

I hope that helps.


----------



## Future Prodigy (19 Mar 2008)

george - could you elaborate a bit more on that?!


----------



## aesop081 (19 Mar 2008)

Future prodigy,



			
				Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> What is the military ethos?



Amazing what a search turns up........

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33510.0.html


----------



## zipperhead_cop (19 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> It depends how you define canada! I am not willing to fight for a canada that exploits other countries via neo-imperialist means (to be fair, we have not fallen trap to such an ideology/agenda, as our southern brother has, but if it got around to that then no i would not).



In the CF you don't get to decide what flavour of Canada you choose.  However, you can start by using a capital "C" when you bother to write the name of our nation.  
Once you join the real world, you will find all that tripe they pounded into you at school is just that-tripe.  There is a reason most of this rhetoric exists only in universities.  A bunch of professional students pushing their views on a bunch of kids who don't know better.  



			
				Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> I am willing to fight for canadian values, ideals, political systems and physical lives,



Most people are, but that doesn't make you soldier material.



			
				Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> but not so the consumerist/materialistic status quo can be maintained - i also as you may realize think a drastic change in our lifestyle within canada needs to occur as well. So, the answer is not black and white.



Yeah, that "lifestyle change" didn't work in Russia, Cuba or most of the rest of the planet that tried the Communist experiment, which failed so spectacularly.  It will never happen.  Period.  I think I can speak for a vast number of regular citizens who are pretty much unwilling to make our lives more difficult for the sake of making someone elses easier.  We already pay unreasonable taxes, and I have no interest in paying more.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (19 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> It depends how you define canada! - i also as you may realize think a drastic change in our lifestyle within canada needs to occur as well.



Assume nothing regarding what I realize about what you think.  What kind of changes do you envision, and how do you propose making them?  Do you wish to re-define Canada?


----------



## TCBF (19 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> It depends how you define canada! I am not willing to fight for a canada that exploits other countries via neo-imperialist means (to be fair, we have not fallen trap to such an ideology/agenda, as our southern brother has, but if it got around to that then no i would not). I am willing to fight for canadian values, ideals, political systems and physical lives, but not so the consumerist/materialistic status quo can be maintained - i also as you may realize think a drastic change in our lifestyle within canada needs to occur as well. So, the answer is not black and white.



- Actually, if they ever introduce conscription again (three times lucky!) you will fight who you are told to fight.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy, I think things are going a bit off the rails here. Working to change our values and society is in the realm of politics, and you are best able to do this by entering the political process as a member of a party or a candidate for office.

The CF is not in the business of changing Canadian society, and indeed the principle of civilian control is in place precisely to prevent the military from using its armed power against the State. (My personal opinion is people who serve are better citizens overall, but that is bias on my part).

Going on about military power in the pursuit of resources betrays a limited grasp of recent history (post 1945), since there are very few instances that I can recall where Western military power was deployed to control foreign resources in the post war period. Buying resources has proven far more effective in the long run, and the process of substitution had undercut the price of many commodity resources until the recent growth of China and India as industrial consumers (for example copper has been largely replaced by aluminum for electrical transmission and sand (silicon) for electronic equipment). On the other hand there are plenty of examples of illiberal nations and ideologies oppressing their people or trying to extend their power through conquest, so I can't see our job ending anytime soon.


----------



## Future Prodigy (19 Mar 2008)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Yeah, that "lifestyle change" didn't work in Russia, Cuba or most of the rest of the planet that tried the Communist experiment, which failed so spectacularly.  It will never happen.  Period.  I think I can speak for a vast number of regular citizens who are pretty much unwilling to make our lives more difficult for the sake of making someone elses easier.  We already pay unreasonable taxes, and I have no interest in paying more.



Awww, i love the irony here. Someone above mentions we are a Christian society, ethical - the good Samaritans - and then i read this lol. Oh how greed makes even the best meaning people into cold hearted creatures. I will not debate this topic here because it is digressing from the original topic, and from the 'tripe' comments it will just go in one ear and out the other. There is no point in debating conservative realists. Even the Pope has been vocal the need for a drastic systemic reordering of the way our capitalistic system is set up - this does not imply socialism, or communism though, just that it needs to change.

TCBF - your conscription point has no relevance whatsoever... every time conscription was implemented here it was a just war and i would have no problem fighting in them.

Can we get back to the original topic at hand, that being the CF's duty to the international community in protecting human rights and alleviating human suffering, and also forcefully intervening in failed states. How much of this 'duty' is implemented in our "Jus ad Bellum"? I do not know much about canadian military history (i have only studied the USA military history). 

thucydides- you are right i have gone a bit off the rails, but that is due to the various side topics that have emerged. Like i said originally i am discerning joining the forces - i have this internal vacuum of emtiness that is looking for a career with meaning - I just do not want to sign up and find out i am fighting for the wrong ethical world view and political agenda - i.e. only for the interests of canadians, etc (my religious world view could not accept that). I really do want to _fight_ for all the oppressed, not just canadians - a one world humanity type of deal.


----------



## Future Prodigy (19 Mar 2008)

Piper said:
			
		

> If you do not want to fight for the interests of Canada and Canadians...don't bother even opening the door to the recruiting centre. The CF exists...its entire raison d'etre...is to defend Canadians and their interests at home and overseas. Thats the only reason we exist! Take Afghanistan, for example. We are doing GREAT things there. Spreading democracy and our modern way of life, promoting education and respect etc. But in the end of the day, we are there because it is in CANADA'S BEST INTEREST that Afghanistan is secure. It's a strategic location, and was a breeding ground for terrorists who were sworn enemies of Canada. Yes, we are rebuilding the place. Which is good, and is the right thing for us to do. However, in the end of the day we went there because it was necessary for the security of the region (which is good for Canada) and the security of Canada itself. Thats the way it is, always has been, and always will be. Military forces exist to defend, promote and secure a nation's interest's through force. If you can't stomach that, well, then I'm sure CIDA, Foreign Affairs and a myrid of other NGO's and GO's would love to have you.



It's interesting you see afghan in this light as it is very rarely talked about in this manner. It is always in reference to the civilians living in the country, not serving our own self national interest. I can guarante you that our liberal society would never support the war if it was talked about in that kind of rhetoric. This is what interests me. This huge dichotomy between what is portrayed as the official reason, given to the masses, and then what is believed on the ground level (or in political office).

So where does the _transparent and neutral _UN fit into all of this in your view? One of the reasons we have not taken so much flack, from the public, is because of the mission being a UN sanctioned 'just' mission fighting for others who can not fight for themselves!!!!!

----------
The CF does not have a duty to the international community. It only has a duty to Canada. Canada may have a duty of sorts to the international community to honor its treaty commitments, for example, but in the end of the day there is no higher duty then that to your country. The CF answers only to Canada/Government at the time and Canadians.

Those were not my words but the words given by the official statement on the dnd website posted by another member in this thread! So, obviously... once again, there is a dichotomy created.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> Can we get back to the original topic at hand, that being the CF's duty to the international community in protecting human rights and alleviating human suffering, and also forcefully intervening in failed states. How much of this 'duty' is implemented in our "Jus ad Bellum"? I do not know much about canadian military history (i have only studied the USA military history).



Others have commented better than I have, but let's try this another way:  The CF's "duty to the international community" goes only as far as the Canadian Government decides - the CF works for CANADA, not the United Nations, or the world.  Canada may be seen to have a duty to the international community, but the CF is only one tool in Canada's tool belt in meeting the duty to the extent that the CANADIAN GOVERNMENT decides.

You join, you obey the orders coming down from the elected officials of the day - in that respect, it IS black and white.  If one gets to pick and choose which missions one agrees with, how would you feel in this scenario:  You're a Canadian in a country that's, for whatever reason, going through bad instability of the kind only force of arms can help.  What if none of the soldiers assigned to come and help you out agreed with this task?  Would you be comforted to know they got to vote with their consciences?  

If this example sounds too remote, consider one where you call the police help, and they decide yours wasn't the cause they feel is worth putting their lives on the line for - sound fair?

As others have said, if you want to change how Canada wields its power, the CF isn't the way to do that.  If you want to help deliver humanitarian or human rights help regardless of what a specific government of the day might want, perhaps an NGO is a better choice.  If you are not willing to do the mission decided on by the elected government, you're better off staying out of the CF.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Mar 2008)

Looking at your questions and comments, Future Prodigy, all I can say is, à la Monty Python, *”Run away! Run away!”* The military is not for you.

Over a long (more than 35 years) career I had occasion, now and again, to give quick, urgent but completely lawful commands that sent soldiers to do things that, on reflection, some of us might have found distasteful. Because my commands were lawful I expected and got instant, complete and *instinctive* obedience – there was no time for anyone to parse my orders against their own, personal moral or political values. Had anyone even thought to have done so I would have locked them so deep in the piss-can that their mothers would have had to send fresh air and sunshine by FedEx. The essence of soldiering is discipline and part of discipline is instinctive obedience to lawful commands - not blind obedience because 99% of Canadian soldiers are smart enough to be able to tell the lawful from the unlawful command 99% of the time. Another part of discipline is a willingness to submerge one’s own feelings in order to accomplish the team’s, your team's mission – even at the cost of one’s life.

Let’s here no more of the “good war” rubbish. Her Majesty doesn’t send us to fight “bad” wars. She may not always pick the popular ones, but we are sent to defend her realm and her interests and that’s why we all signed on. If, as proves to be the case every few hundred years, the sovereign's interests, the national interests, are wrong then the people will change the sovereign. If, as happens more frequently, the people don't like HM's decisions they will change her government and a new government *may* change policy - or not. In any event, anyone who signed on for a “job” or for anything but to defend the county and its interests is taking his salary under false pretences and, when push comes to shove – as it inevitably will, will find themselves deeply troubled.

Stay away from the military, Future Prodigy; there’s no place for you there. Write the Foreign Affairs exam; take a job with Oxfam; go into politics; become a journalist – they all have the right, even the duty, to pick the moral pepper from the operational fly-shit. Soldiers, on the other hand, just do the right thing and try to do things right, too.


----------



## leroi (20 Mar 2008)

E. R. Campbell,

Wow! That was so well said!!!  It's a pleasure to hear someone speak from a place of both conviction and experience, E.R.

Once again, I'm astounded by the breadth and depth of wisdom contained within the Canadian military as demonstrated in this thread.

_You've all _ given *FP* superb commentary and feedback to help him with his career aspirations.

I've followed this thread all the way through; thank you for teaching me so much. I know I've learned because when I look back at my initial post it seems somewhat naive and simplistic--although true.

*FP*: I reccommend you go after an LLB--Human Rights or International Development. You have the tenacity of a bulldog, the ability to change venues quickly and ... you have a good grasp of Socratic interlocution. How do you feel about the wealth of information you've been give? 

 Thanks everyone ... God Bless And Keep You Safe ...


----------



## Yrys (20 Mar 2008)

leroi said:
			
		

> Once again, I'm astounded by the breadth and depth of wisdom contained within the Canadian military as demonstrated in this thread.



Hum, why ?

I "know"  (presume) you don't mean anything on the downside, but it seems to me a little condescending ... and I'm a civilian...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Mar 2008)

...I don't take it that way.


----------



## leroi (20 Mar 2008)

Yrys,

Maybe that's the difficulty when communication is written only--with no other communication cues like facial expressions, etc. My intent was not to condescend.
Personally, I came here because of a realization that my own knowledge of the Afghanistan mission is poor.  So perhaps my enthusiasm at what I've learned here is being transmitted ineffectually. The fact is, I've learned more that I expected to learn and I'm grateful for it ... Believe me when I tell you I 've a lot more learning (and reading to do) If I have offended anyone, it certainly was not my intention. (To be honest,  I'm actually embarrassed at how little I do know in comparison with most of the people on this thread.) :-[


----------



## 2 Cdo (20 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> . I will *not debate * this topic here because it is digressing from the original topic, and from the 'tripe' comments it will just go in one ear and out the other. There is *no point in debating * conservative realists.



And here's where I decide to put you on my permanent ignore list. You don't want healthy debate, you want someone to agree 100% with your pre-concieved notions. :


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (20 Mar 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> And here's where I decide to put you on my permanent ignore list. You don't want healthy debate, you want someone to agree 100% with your pre-concieved notions. :



I got there several pages ago. I think we have a troll here who is a bit more sophisticated than the usual run of the mill bottom feeder but never the less there are some pretty big indicators of "trolling" in the last few posts. Methinks we're wasting our time in this thread.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (20 Mar 2008)

Prodigy,

Please read the entire page of the military's mission on the link that I sent you http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/index_e.asp and you will find no dichotomy with what we are saying. 

For a look at Canadian military history, as a university student you should have access to fairly decent library (I used to go to mine just to have a smoke until I discovered that they also had books in there).  Desmond Morton's A Military History of Canada http://www.amazon.com/Military-History-Canada-Desmond-Morton/dp/0771065140 would be a good place to start.  Jack Granatstein and Sean Maloney (both noted Canadian academics with military backgrounds) have put out works in both book and article form with a focus on recent events (since the Second World War).  Again, your library should have the works of these authors.  I'm sorry if it looks like I am dumping work on you, but you did ask and you are in the liberal arts.  

I notice from your postings that you do want to debate with conservative realists and that you will not debate your close-mindedness.  This makes it tough to have a dialogue.  You are not on a pulpit and we are not in the pews.  If you are going to make pronouncements and do not want to listen then you may find yourself a little isolated unless the Communist Party needs another AGITPROP specialist.

Cheers


----------



## 2 Cdo (20 Mar 2008)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I got there several pages ago. I think we have a troll here who is a bit more sophisticated than the usual run of the mill bottom feeder but never the less there are some pretty big indicators of "trolling" in the last few posts. Methinks we're wasting our time in this thread.



He/she is definitely not your average moron troll.  I do think there is some smarts in their head, but very little real world experience to temper the university left-wing propaganda they have been spoon fed.


----------



## Future Prodigy (20 Mar 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> He/she is definitely not your average moron troll.  I do think there is some smarts in their head, but very little real world experience to temper the university left-wing propaganda they have been spoon fed.



At first I was quite offended by your initial post on page 5, and was about to fire back a quick hot-blooded response, but then i came to this post and it made me laugh... solely, because you hit the nail on the head. I can not argue with that!

And if you're putting me on your ignore list because you don't agree with what I'm saying then isn't that hypocrisy at its finest!? I think it rather prude to put someone on a 'ignore' list, whatever that may entail, from the messages i have posted... to each his own i guess, c'est la vie.

Thanks again everyone for your postings, it has been much enlightening. 

p.s. What is a troll?! That makes no sense, i come here with honest questions and I'm compared to a mythical character who lives under bridges and kidnaps children!? You guys got some weird sense of humor.


----------



## Future Prodigy (20 Mar 2008)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I notice from your postings that you do want to debate with conservative realists and that you will not debate your close-mindedness.  This makes it tough to have a dialogue.  You are not on a pulpit and we are not in the pews.  If you are going to make pronouncements and do not want to listen then you may find yourself a little isolated unless the Communist Party needs another AGITPROP specialist.



I did not mean to come across that way. It seemed that some of the posts here were almost geared personally at me, maybe that is because of the medium we are using for discussion, and i became very defensive. Some of the comments were just as close minded as my own, although that is no excuse, and i fired back with similar lines of reasoning. I am always open for _legitimate _debate though, for this is the only true route of learning - that is the reason why i came here after all, not to troll (whatever that may mean).


----------



## Yrys (20 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> p.s. What is a troll?! That makes no sense, i come here with honest questions and I'm compared to a mythical character who lives under bridges and kidnaps children!? You guys got some weird sense of humor.



A quick search here or elsewhere would have answer that...

Troll (disambiguation)

They're not refering to troll , but to troll


----------



## Future Prodigy (20 Mar 2008)

"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion"

THat is definitely not my intention, if I have come across that way i do apologize. Like i said earlier this entire debate was sparked from Mr. Dallaires talk he gave at my school a couple weeks ago, and the accompanying 1on1 talk in the parking lot. Since that presentation I have been in constant contact with recruiting centers and other reserve units trying to get answers, and then i came across this site... so , i asked my questions here. I am not trolling. 

I have been heavily influenced by chomsky, and some of peter singer's one world theories, and this is why i was asking these sorts of questions. I do not just want to jump into the water, to learn to swim, if i don't think swimming is a skill i will want to use.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (20 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> I have been heavily influenced by chomsky, and some of peter singer's one world theories, and this is why i was asking these sorts of questions. I do not just want to jump into the water, to learn to swim, if i don't think swimming is a skill i will want to use.



If you've been heavily influenced by Chomksy we will often find ourselves at odds.  I suffered through Chomsky at school.  I haven't studied Singer, but a quick look at his body of works tells me that we would not find much common ground there either.  Still, I enjoy these kinds of discussions and I respect critics of a society.

For myself I tend to agree with Hobbes.  I see the world as a rather mean place.  I see no underlying consensus for a world government and the nation-state remains the key unit.  Nation-states may get smaller, but I don't see them disappearing.  I still believe in the sovereignty of nation-states, and I will protect _mine_ first and foremost as is my sworn duty.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (20 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> Awww, i love the irony here. Someone above mentions we are a Christian society, ethical - the good Samaritans - and then i read this lol. Oh how greed makes even the best meaning people into cold hearted creatures.



FYI, it isn't greed that makes me cold hearted.  It's experience and realism.  
And as a realist I know there is no way in hell Canadians would support a roll back in their standard of living in order to make someone in another countries life easier.  I had to work my ass off my whole life to get to where I am (which is modest, but comfortable) and if making some third worlds persons life better means my family has to do without something, well...sucks to be in the third world I guess.  
However, your proletariat dreams may yet come true.  Look at how much radical Islam has done to redistribute Western wealth to impoverished nations in order to stem terrorism.  
Bin Laden did more for communist values that Marx ever did.


----------



## Blindspot (20 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> I have been heavily influenced by chomsky...



Oh hell, I was going to call you on this one after page 1. The "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" philosophy of internationalism (selective of course) is always used in arguments for why we shouldn't be in Afghanistan (at least those that I've been engaged in). Chomsky is certainly handed out like Credit Cards at University.

Hmm... I propose Chomsky Bingo.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (21 Mar 2008)

OK folks, a few previous posts in this thread have come too close to personal attacks as outlined in the forum conduct guidelines.

zipperhead_cop, 2 Cdo and TCBF, I respect your opinions, but no need for you to go where you've been going with some of your latest comments.  

I'm going to lock this thread up until Saturday 22 March for a cooling off period and clean up the posts.  The way it's going, nothing good will come of it as it spirals downward.   

Happy Easter.

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (22 Mar 2008)

Cleaned up and unlocked.

If some of you can't find posts you made in this one previously, it's because I did a pruning and removed old posts that detracted from the debate, such as the "drinking tea with the elders" sidebar.  PM me if you can't live without them...

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## zipperhead_cop (22 Mar 2008)

All good


----------



## McG (24 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> mcg - I don't quite follow why you suggested those readings? I'm not against just wars fought for the betterment of universal humanity ...


My intent was to illustrate, as per your question, that quite often (and on increasing frequency) the Army's role in alleviation of humanitarian crisis of an international nature, is the application of combat power in order to halt atrocities & provide a security for the execution of relief or reconstruction efforts.  Where other agencies are unwilling or unable, the Army can also go farther by physically conducting tasks of delivering goods, fixing/building infrastructure, providing temp health services.  In the case of natural disasters, these services are often best under taken by the military (which has the logistical & operational capacity to do this on a large scale quickly).  However, in the aftermath of war this is best done through local agencies where possible (along the teach a man to fish analogy).

As was already discussed, the government decides where & when it will employ its military resources.  Once the government takes a decision, the military gets the job done.  Within the military, there is extensive ethical training that ensures soldiers are executing tasks in a manner that is acceptable to the ethical standards of Canadian society (in addition to the standards on international laws of armed conflict).


----------



## Future Prodigy (24 Mar 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> My intent was to illustrate, as per your question, that quite often (and on increasing frequency) the Army's role in alleviation of humanitarian crisis of an international nature, is the application of combat power in order to halt atrocities & provide a security for the execution of relief or reconstruction efforts.  Where other agencies are unwilling or unable, the Army can also go farther by physically conducting tasks of delivering goods, fixing/building infrastructure, providing temp health services.  In the case of natural disasters, these services are often best under taken by the military (which has the logistical & operational capacity to do this on a large scale quickly).  However, in the aftermath of war this is best done through local agencies where possible (along the teach a man to fish analogy).



Why is it that this sort of reasoning seems to be the minority? This i support wholeheartedly, but can not accept the above premises - the ones before it. How much does this sort of ideology influence current military affairs? 

Ironically, even though i have been heavily influenced by the left wing academia, i do not agree with their passive stance on systemic change, etc. I believe in a more 'abrupt' change. I see the military having an important role in this for the future, but it must not serve just its own Canadian national agenda... the plights of humanity must be met. 

I guess i can always hope for the future, maybe the status quo will demand change and force politicians to make policy changes  ;D


----------



## aesop081 (24 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> I see the military having an important role in this for the future, but it must not serve just its own national agenda... the plights of humanity must be met.



The military does not serve its OWN national agenda. The military serves the government's national agenda and thus serves Canadian's national agenda. We d not decide what missions we take on and what roles we play.

Where the heck did you get that idea in your head ?


----------



## George Wallace (24 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> ... the plights of humanity must be met.



Obviously you are mistaking the military for OXFAM, UNICEF, Doctors Sans Frontiers, CIDA, The Red Cross/Crescent, Habitate for Humanity, or some other humanitarian organization.


----------



## Future Prodigy (24 Mar 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Obviously you are mistaking the military for OXFAM, UNICEF, Doctors Sans Frontiers, CIDA, The Red Cross/Crescent, Habitate for Humanity, or some other humanitarian organization.



Obviously you are a selective reader. I clearly said in my post above the OXFAM, NGO's, CIDA - and the like - do not go far enough. In order to effect change a drastic force is needed to instigate such a action. Which is where i believe the military comes in. For example, i support military presence in Darfur and Congo (not ngos and CIDA), but it seems under the current self-interested set up it will never happen.

 This nit picking of my posts is really starting to bug me. Why do people post responses about point B in a post, when clearly the question at hand is point A!?


----------



## Future Prodigy (24 Mar 2008)

My intent was to illustrate, as per your question, that quite often (and on increasing frequency) the Army's role in alleviation of humanitarian crisis of an international nature, is the application of combat power in order to halt atrocities & provide a security for the execution of relief or reconstruction efforts.  Where other agencies are unwilling or unable, the Army can also go farther by physically conducting tasks of delivering goods, fixing/building infrastructure, providing temp health services.  In the case of natural disasters, these services are often best under taken by the military (which has the logistical & operational capacity to do this on a large scale quickly).  However, in the aftermath of war this is best done through local agencies where possible (along the teach a man to fish analogy).



			
				Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> Why is it that this sort of reasoning seems to be the minority? This i support wholeheartedly, but can not accept the above premises - the ones before it. How much does this sort of ideology influence current military affairs?
> 
> Ironically, even though i have been heavily influenced by the left wing academia, i do not agree with their passive stance on systemic change, etc. I believe in a more 'abrupt' change. I see the military having an important role in this for the future, but it must not serve just its own national agenda... the plights of humanity must be met.
> 
> I guess i can always hope for the future, maybe the status quo will demand change and force politicians to make policy changes  ;D



So, to reiterate [because my last post caused a new page number and i fear that point A, will not be answered unless i repost this]


----------



## Future Prodigy (24 Mar 2008)

Thank the Good Lord for someone who has engaged my QUESTION. "Military forces should be used to stabilize situations in a security sense and set the conditions for others to undertake humanitarian support operations." See this is what i have been trying to say as well. I believe this is how our forces should be used, but from the above stated mission/ethos it is not necessarily the case. It is only when our national needs are met, will we engage in such a scenario.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (25 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye (Matthew 7:5)!!! You chastise me but say nothing to your brothers in arms... convenient!



OK Prodigy, this little remark will earn you an introduction to the warning system.  I've answered your questions, IHS gave you a bit of a hint from a peer member standpoint, but in continuing on this argumentative path, you've left me no choice.  I've locked the thread once, cleaned it, passed advice as applicable.  Some was taken into account, some was not.

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (25 Mar 2008)

Prodigy,

My replies to you do not put you "in the right".

You will recall that I *have *followed this thread from its beginning - I did lock and clean it in and around Page 5 - only 2 days ago - with a warning to all involved, *including you *to keep things civil.

I have gone over the thread.  Objectively.  And, as you will know from reading the moderator guidelines and the warning system guidelines that the moderators do consult with other moderators not involved in a thread discussion before taking any action.  It's also a bit of finger work to warn people, so we'd rather not have to do it.  

You are a smart guy.  You have potential.  But you also have the proclivity to lash out and make inappropriate posts in this and other threads (which I've also gone through).  Enough tarring with the brush of "others are deralining this thread" - you've done a bit of that yourself, after being warned off.

I suggest you take a break tonight from this thread.  Any more posts along the same line as your "ironic/funny" post above and I will lock the thread and may escalate you up the warning system.  Others involved, time to back down - no need for dogpile.

Fair warning given.   

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## a_majoor (25 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> Thank the Good Lord for someone who has engaged my QUESTION. "Military forces should be used to stabilize situations in a security sense and set the conditions for others to undertake humanitarian support operations." See this is what i have been trying to say as well. I believe this is how our forces should be used, but from the above stated mission/ethos it is not necessarily the case. It is only when our national needs are met, will we engage in such a scenario.



So you evidently understand what we are saying at some level (i.e. we engage to meet Canada's needs), but you simply will not accept that this should be the case. This is a bit like discussions about economics where one or more parties insists that people produce, buy or sell things for altruistic reasons rather than for their own self betterment. To attribute the results of the market to altruism or government regulation rather than accept the "Invisible Hand" is the result of individual self interest is to ignore history, econometrics and human nature.  

Similarly, to suggest that national interest does not or should not drive the use of State resources (of which we are one) is to ignore the true state of international relations. "International Law" and the United Nations are convenient fig leafs for actions, but the cold and terrible reality is sovereign nations exist in a state of nature and will take actions to support their perceived national interests. China's activities in the Sudan, Tibet and surrounding the 2008 Summer Olympics are perfect examples; should the UN agree with what they do, so much the better, but should the UN disagree; well Turtle Bay can go pound salt, China will do what China needs to do. Canada does not and cannot act differently or we will cease to exist as a State.

So I say again; the actions we take are first and always in support of Canada and our national interests. We undertake humanitarian tasks to support the broader mission, and know that the overarching goals of Canada (peace and security for Canadians) also translates to peace and security for others as a pleasant side effect.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Mar 2008)

Jason I'm one of the first members here to say 'hey relax on the new guys'. I've posted my share of threads in the admin section talking about fairness between members and staff.
I also often PM guys who took a verbal beating and say hey relax, don't take it to heart etc..

_You're_ coming across as a know it all university punk. One need not even read your user name to get the feeling that YOU believe you have all the answers.  Arguing and debating with fellow students in class is quite different than arguing and debating with people whom not only have real world experience but are also by nature of their job quite experienced in the field your arguing about.
You're on a military message forum talking to people who have served overseas *IN* humanitarian roles.   How many humanitarian missions have you been involved in?

If you feel that people are jumping down your throat and not giving you room to breathe it's because they've seen and dealt with posters who behaved in the exact same way as you. More often than not the end result is the same too.  If you're stressed out and upset over the topic why don't you just take a break for a week?  Not posting your .02 cents isn't going to be the end of the world.

Give it a break.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (25 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> Why is it that this sort of reasoning seems to be the minority? This i support wholeheartedly, but can not accept the above premises - the ones before it. How much does this sort of ideology influence current military affairs?
> 
> Ironically, even though i have been heavily influenced by the left wing academia, i do not agree with their passive stance on systemic change, etc. I believe in a more 'abrupt' change. I see the military having an important role in this for the future, but it must not serve just its own Canadian national agenda... the plights of humanity must be met.
> 
> I guess i can always hope for the future, maybe the status quo will demand change and force politicians to make policy changes  ;D



Which ideology?

The military serves Canada first and foremost.  The military does engage, however, in activities for the benefit of people living abroad.  All that we are saying is that our first priority lies with the defence of Canada and Canadian interests.  If I understand your position, you are OK with helping others but not with defending Canadian interests?

Your comment about the military having an important role in 'abrupt change' alarms me.  The military is an obedient servant of the government of Canada.  The military is an instrument of policy, not a policy-maker (in the big picture, the military has internal policies to be sure).  The military, along with public servants, can advise, of course, but at the end of the day it is the elected government that makes the call on what missions get conducted.

What abrupt changes do you envision, and how would the military play a role?

Cheers

T2B


----------



## Future Prodigy (25 Mar 2008)

tnago - by abrupt change, i am referring to the contrast between ngos approach to things and a forceful, with arms (abrupt), imposing of will done by the military. Thats what i meant. Where an NGO might go into a conflict and try to build infrastructure, empower locals, dish out medical supplies, food, etc... the military would forcefully overthrow the armed rebel groups or oppressive regime. I have a low view of humanity at times and i do not see a lot of things changing without this abrupt imposition (one reason i have shied a bit away from the teaching profession). I am glad to clarify anything else!


----------



## TCBF (25 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> ... the military would forcefully overthrow the armed rebel groups or oppressive regime. ...



- Like the USA did in Iraq?  I agree.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (25 Mar 2008)

I understand now.  Thanks.

While I ascibe to the view that man is fallen and can be trusted only to look to himself, I am also OK with that as the alternative can be much much worse.  One man's forceful humanitarian intervention can be another's neo-colonialism.  The doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was developed during a period of time when thinkers thought that history was dead and national sovereignty was at its end.  I do see some merit to going to help others in desperate need, but we also have to be clear-headed and understand the second and third order effects of our actions.   

It is terrible to watch anarchy in a country on the news, but going in with military force means a long-term commitment of blood and treasure.  To be effective we will probably have to take sides and there is often little to choose between the sides.  In our haste to do good we may do more harm.  Means and resources are limited and choices have to be made.  If national interests are not at stake it may be hard to maintain a long-term commitment to do what has to be done.  That being said, I recognize that there are times when action should be taken even if the interests at stake are hard to pin down.    

Humanitarian assistance to natural disasters is another matter, as we are looking at providing relatively short-term assistance to an assumably stable state (ante-disaster).  The military is fairly effective at picking up and moving great distances and doing pretty much what was asked of it in austere locations with a dodgy security situation.  We have field hospitals and our people are pretty good at setting up little towns in the middle of nowhere and supporting said towns.


----------



## Future Prodigy (25 Mar 2008)

I was speaking to one of my friends last night about this issue, and he mentioned to me: "The CF, like all military services of every nation in this world, serves its country, its people, and its interests. Along the way, they perform humanitarian interventions when it is in their interest (but they still do it, so that appeals to you). They can't help everyone in the world because it is simply unrealistic. Maybe one day, there will be a one world government and one military, but that won't happen in our lifetimes. But every mission that Canada has participated in over the last 100 years you would agree with, since they've done good."

Could anyone elaborate on this point here? 

I have been in contact with some professors at RMC and they have suggested i study in their graduate war studies program, solely because of the questions i raise with them... and i find this rather strange as there has been a lot of people on this board that have either directly in the forum or through PM's told me to get lost and leave the CF all together; yet, the other spectrum says i am asking good questions and to continue my pursuit of knowledge. Which voice is representative of the CF i haven't been able to tell yet.


----------



## Future Prodigy (25 Mar 2008)

p.s. i know its not your point, and i should ask him to elaborate on it but he went to bed last night before he could and i thought id ask on here for clarification as well.


----------



## TCBF (25 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> ... Maybe one day, there will be a one world government and one military,...



- If there was only one world government, why would it need a military?


----------



## Welshy (25 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> Which voice is representative of the CF i haven't been able to tell yet.



No one voice here is the representation of the CF. People have posted what the CF aims are. This forum is not the military, but simply a place were military orientated people can discuss thing pertaining to the CF.


----------



## helpup (25 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> i am referring to the contrast between ngos approach to things and a forceful, with arms (abrupt), imposing of will done by the military. Thats what i meant. Where an NGO might go into a conflict and try to build infrastructure, empower locals, dish out medical supplies, food, etc... the military would forcefully overthrow the armed rebel groups or oppressive regime. I have a low view of humanity at times and i do not see a lot of things changing without this abrupt imposition (one reason i have shied a bit away from the teaching profession). I am glad to clarify anything else!



Interesting thread,  FP, if it were only that Simple as what I highlighted in your quote.  There is enough troubles going on in Iraq and Afghanistan after their "regime" change.  

If I am following your thoughts correctly your looking at the use of the CF to go to the despots or trouble areas of the world and impose a "regime" change in order to help those living there.  The goal itself, if that is your line of thought, is laudable but impracticable and dealing with Canada and the CF not what we are here to do.  

It is laudable as on the face of it righting the wrongs of the world and making the downtrodden on paper and morally should be a no brainer.  But in the current state of the world it is impractical on sooooo many levels.  To cover some of those reasons 

Canada by our very history is not an "aggressor" nation.  We have ( I hope will continue) to go to war as part of a "coalition" or to support another country goals.  In the beginning it was under Great Britons umbrella as a colony.  But with WWI / II it became more important that we declare war on our own for a cause we believed in.  Mind you it was in both cases to assist GB.  Time went on and we switched from strictly following GB to using the UN.  Where it was and in some cases is perceived as a forum where our "middle power" abilities would be able to be utilized to a better extent.  In the beginning it seemed to be a perfect fit.  Our small well trained military went ( with others ) into conflicts to deescalate them and allow a form of normalicy to reign.  Korea took it a step further and turned it into a full born military action that ended in a stalemate.  Back to "peace keeping" ( I still hate that term but it is what it is ).  Through out all of this a realization was emerging that the UN is not able to in its current formula to provide the bias free club of altruistic leaders looking to better the world.  (But I will leave the details to that for other threads. )

Therein lies the problem, the UN has too many differant caveats built into its make up that more often then not prevents them from just sending a UN mandated military into any country let alone to force a regime change.  Most of those regimes that need to be changed are members of the UN and have the not so subtle backing of other larger countries that would prevent such actions.    

Then there is the who are we to judge aspect.  If we are going to say that Afghanistan is a place to be then logically why not Darfur, Gen Mugabie, or hey lets have a look at Israel.  Where would it stop? What would your conditions be and how would you get the rest of the world to go along with it.  

Personally I do believe that we should be doing more and if we cant get to all the places we should at least start somewhere.  However since I am a soldier I take my orders and in the 7 tours that I have had know from experience that on each and every one I left that place a bit better off then when we got there.  It may have been small things or very very slow things but the improvement was there.  ( mind you in one case at least it has backslid but I would argue we didn't stay to finish the job).

That job by the way is being done by a fully trained soldier who is taught to obey orders and to carry them out to the best of his ability.  With out, mind you, becoming a mindless automaton.  With our trained for war system we can and have stepped it back to provide relief where needed or as demonstrated in Afghanistan stand toe to toe with Timmy and still get the school fixed, wells dug.  

But we don't get to pick where we should be. And honestly as a soldier in the CF we should not be allowed to.  That is what the Government of Canada is there for.  We don't get to choose what we go over there to do.  That is decided for us.  We don't even get a choice on what our ROE's are those are made up for each and every mission we go on.  We have an input in what we can do at the local level but that is through our CoC and in the end it will be directed what if any major civilian aid will be done in a given area.  The higher your rank in the chain of command the more input you have for those working under you as to in what way will you attack and defend an area to the ways you help the civilians.  But your overriding concern is accomplishing your mission, looking after your troops and if your competent putting your own " stamp" on things.  That stamp is a reflections of your own beliefs but it cannot interfere with the first two priorities.  

My own advice to you is to take the plunge join.  You will quickly find out if the job is for your or not.  In either way you will learn a bit more about yourself in the process.  If at some point your don't like your job get out.  Really the timeline is not that long and the life skills you will learn are immense.  

OK I have rambled enough.  This non university person has some paperwork to do.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (25 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> I was speaking to one of my friends last night about this issue, and he mentioned to me: "The CF, like all military services of every nation in this world, serves its country, its people, and its interests. Along the way, they perform humanitarian interventions when it is in their interest (but they still do it, so that appeals to you). They can't help everyone in the world because it is simply unrealistic. Maybe one day, there will be a one world government and one military, but that won't happen in our lifetimes. But every mission that Canada has participated in over the last 100 years you would agree with, since they've done good."
> 
> Could anyone elaborate on this point here?
> 
> I have been in contact with some professors at RMC and they have suggested i study in their graduate war studies program, solely because of the questions i raise with them... and i find this rather strange as there has been a lot of people on this board that have either directly in the forum or through PM's told me to get lost and leave the CF all together; yet, the other spectrum says i am asking good questions and to continue my pursuit of knowledge. Which voice is representative of the CF i haven't been able to tell yet.



I don't see much in that quote that has not already been said, with the exception of the world government bit.  TCBF has already addressed that part quite well.  I will refer you back to Mr Campbell's outstanding post a few pages back with regards to the last part about "since they've done good."  Now, I am proud of what the Canadian military has done at home and abroad and I think that history will judge the intentions behind our battles kindly.  That being said, it is not all touchy-feely either and you don't get to pick from the menu.

You will hear nothing official here with the exception of links to broad government policy.  I do not speak for the CF, and I ramble here based on my studies from fifteen years ago.  I encourage you to pursue what interests you, be it further academics, service with the CF or some other career. You will not know until you try.


----------



## TCBF (28 Mar 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> TCBF,
> 
> What about the Kandahar PRT? Isn't what you said above pretty much what the mandate of the PRT is? Please correct me if I'm wrong...



- I am not saying we don't or won't do a lot of those things, only that we should provide the secure framework for doing so and other better suited agencies should do the nation building.

- The fact that we are, in many cases, better nation builders than the designated agencies are is more of an indication of the corruption and ossification of our public service than it is and indication of our suitability to do so.


----------



## CougarKing (28 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - I am not saying we don't or won't do a lot of those things, only that we should provide the secure framework for doing so and other better suited agencies should do the nation building.
> 
> - The fact that we are, in many cases, better nation builders than the designated agencies are is more of an indication of the corruption and ossification of our public service than it is and indication of our suitability to do so.



Thanks for the long-awaited reply.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Mar 2008)

Rereading some of FP's posts indicates he hasn't thought this proposition through very well. If it is given that armed force can be deployed to "rescue" people who's rights are being offended against, who does the deciding and what "rights" are being upheld?

Perhaps FP would like to see Canada occupied by the PLA and Cuban troops who would occupy the Jane-Finch corridor, aboriginal reservations and the province of Quebec, based on the need to "protect" the rights of the people living there. The occupiers would expect payment of course......

The conceit behind R2P is to deny national sovereignty and local governance. Unfortunately, the people who brought us this idea haven't thought it through either, since there is nothing in the construct which suggests that radical Islamic Jihadis *don't* have the right to subjugate us to impose Sharia law, or the former USSR *wasn't* duty bound to impose Marxism on everyone and so on. Historical experience should also demonstrate this is a flawed idea; the 30 years war in Europe was fought for precisely the reasons we are supposed to engage in R2P as expressed in 15th century thought (to the point of reducing the populations of German principalities by 30%), and in the 20th century various Socialist blocs fought each other with unrestrained savagery in order to ensure the "correct" version of Socialism was practiced and observed by the people. The current unrest through the Islamic arc can be seen as a struggle to "save" the various populations from apostate forms of Islam (and to a lesser extent to free the people from Islam altogether, i.e Ba'athist ideology).


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Apr 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Rereading some of FP's posts indicates he hasn't thought this proposition through very well.



IMO it's because he is getting us to write some sort of term paper for him with our responses.  Is no one else feeling manipulated?


----------



## PMedMoe (7 Apr 2008)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> IMO it's because he is getting us to write some sort of term paper for him with our responses.  Is no one else feeling manipulated?



Yep, if you look here, I said that as well, partly in jest, but mostly not.


----------



## McG (7 Apr 2008)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> ... he is getting us to write some sort of term paper for him with our responses.


We are giving ourselves too much credit if we think the quality of this thread could be turned into anything better than a high school report ... and even there it wouldn't be an A.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (11 Apr 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> We are giving ourselves too much credit if we think the quality of this thread could be turned into anything better than a high school report ... and even there it wouldn't be an A.



Clearly my knuckledragging isn't proving a thesis somewhere, but this feels like rough notes being put together towards something.  Anyone can insert the UFI required to make it into an intellectual submission once the outline is done.  Reminds me of the blind testing techniques that are used in psychology.


----------



## Leonard (12 Apr 2008)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> IMO it's because he is getting us to write some sort of term paper for him with our responses.  Is no one else feeling manipulated?



Hi there, I’ve been following this thread for a while, so let me analyze what has transpired.

FP is not trying to get you fellas to write a paper for him. He was inspired by Romeo Dallaire’s inspiring speech about the positive role the CF plays in international conflicts. As a result, FP was genuinely interested in hearing your invaluable observations and advice whether the CF can expect to participate in more international development and humanitarian-type missions in the near future. 

Some of the responses he got were helpful (especially by the eloquent CSA 105), while others jumped on him for trying to bait a flame war or accusing him of having some secret agenda. Have you not looked at his assortment of other topics? He’s graduating in one week, and seriously confused and unsure of where he wants to go in life. Be nice. 

What ensued was an unnecessary nit picking at each other’s posts, cursing him for following Chomsky, followed by some flaming, which eventually led to FP quoting the bible and declaring that modern society is all wrong (and for god’s sake, do you have to post in red font?).

Like FP said, he wants to be involved with activities such as protecting human rights and alleviating human suffering, and also forcefully intervening in failed states, as opposed to fighting for strategic resources. He is willing to die for these kinds of goals, but not die protecting Canadians or accomplishing Canada’s national interests. Obviously, he is an idealist, being spoon-fed left-wing rhetoric all throughout university, with little real world experience (like 2 CDO stated, and FP has admitted). 

So, with half of the thread deleted, there is a ripe collection of informative responses remaining that FP should consider:

The actions we take are first and always in support of Canada and our national interests. We undertake humanitarian tasks to support the broader mission, and know that the overarching goals of Canada (peace and security for Canadians) also translates to peace and security for others as a pleasant side effect. - Thucydides

If you can’t fight for Canada’s national interests, then you should not even walk through the door at the recruiting centre (good advice Piper, milnewstbay, E.R. Campbell). 

Write the Foreign Affairs exam; take a job with Oxfam; go into politics; become a journalist – E.R. Campbell

You are a smart guy. You have potential. As for your future, only you can answer that one. Take a look at what you know, what you've experienced, what you think you can do.
My 2 cents - you can probably make more of a difference serving, even for a brief time, in the military, not just in terms of external changes you create in the world, but also in terms of what you will learn and bring back into Canadian society - a return on investment, if you will, than you will in occupying some stale corporate office or tapping out Emails in some obscure government agency after going cross-eyed analyzing long-dead policy statements. – CSA 105

To finish off with some of my personal thoughts., FP, you definitely have potential. I think you just need to find the right trade. It seems that you are only considering serving as infantry, in which you won’t have the option to refuse orders just because you disagree with them for personal reasons. If you’ve got what it takes, I suggest that you try looking at jobs such as a fire fighter, medic or SAR Tech. You will undoubtedly find yourself making a real difference in these trades by saving people’s lives, and not being forced into personal and moral conflicts about fighting overseas on a mission that you don’t agree with. 

If you do choose the CF, I can guarantee that you won’t regret it. It will be a positive experience. You’ll meet some amazing people and learn things about yourself that you’ve never considered before. I believe that when you reflect on your times in the CF, they will be some of the best days of your life and you will feel that you made a difference. But you’ll never know, unless you try. Whatever you choose, just don’t let your life slip through your fingers when you still have the chance to do something with real meaning. Before you know it, you’ll be old, and left wondering if you really did make a difference at all in this world.


----------



## medaid (13 Apr 2008)

Onew thing that many of us have come to understand is this. Soldiers exist to fix the failings of politicians and diplomats. We are a tool, and that is just it, a sharp tool. The pointy end of the stick.


----------



## CougarKing (13 Apr 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - If there was only one world government, why would it need a military?



To defend against the alien invasion of.................the MEDTECH CLONES!!!!!  ;D


----------



## zipperhead_cop (15 Apr 2008)

Leonard said:
			
		

> Hi there, I’ve been following this thread for a while, so let me analyze what has transpired.



Hmmmm.  You wouldn't happen to be his "room mate" would you?


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Apr 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Onew thing that many of us have come to understand is this. Soldiers exist to fix *the failings of politicians and diplomats*. We are a tool, and that is just it, a sharp tool. The pointy end of the stick.



The failure of *diplomacy *does not necessarily imply the failing of the politicians and diplomats involved.


----------



## CougarKing (24 Apr 2008)

An article which examines the reluctant role the US has taken in using its military for nation-building in the aftermath of recent military campaigns in both Iraq and Afghanistan, presumably.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0423/p02s02-usmi.html



> *A new U.S. focus on nation-building
> Critics say the Bush administration is relying too heavily on the military.*
> By Gordon Lubold | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
> from the April 23, 2008 edition
> ...


----------

