# An Army IS a war machine



## reccecrewman (5 Dec 2008)

I didn't want to put this into a condolence page as it just isn't the right place. However, at the end of the CANWEST news story on our 3 more fallen in Afghanistan, they had Sgt. Leger's mother on the news as well. I'm sure ol Jack Layton was liking what she had to say, but that was NOT the time to have her comments on the news.  I understand she is a bereaved mother who has suffered a loss, but to put a mother on after announcing that we have 3 more dead in Afghanistan is just not the time to have a mother who believes we don't belong there and we should be off peacekeeping somewhere in the world. There are many soldier's who have given their lives in Afghanistan whose parents have stated in public that we do belong there and it is a worthwhile cause to help Afghanistan.

To ALL Canadians who have this preconceived notion that Canada's Army is only in existance to do everything BUT fight a war, step back, breathe, and read some books.  Yes, Canada has for many years been committed to peacekeeping missions in various areas of the world. We have helped our own Countrymen in time of national disasters such as the ice storm of '98, the Red River floods....... the FLQ crisis...... the list goes on and on with regards to the wide range of work our military does. Yes, we can do all these things and we do them very well when called upon.... hell, we set the standard for how these things are done.

However, at the end of the day, a Country's standing Army exists for ONE purpose, and ONE purpose only - TO TRAIN FOR, AND FIGHT WARS. We are not warmongers, we are professionals who accept the burden of defending the Country. This includes fighting in Country's that our elected Government decides we have a vested interest in. We do not, and never have, trained for peacekeeping, fighting fires, helping out in ice storms and floods...... we train for war. This is why a Country pays men and women to wear a uniform on a daily basis..... yes, even Canada. It's getting far overdue for people to get informed on what an Army is actually for.


----------



## GAP (5 Dec 2008)

Very well stated, but you are talking to the choir......it's the ones in the pews that need to hear it.


----------



## canadian_moose (5 Dec 2008)

I saw her when I was watching Global National and I thought it was uncalled for


----------



## reccecrewman (5 Dec 2008)

It was uncalled for, especially since the Harper Government has already given it's notice to the Canadian public that the mission to Afghanistan (that the LIBERALS committed us to in the first place) will be coming to an end in it's present form of our combat troops fighting in Afghanistan.  That simply wasn't the time for someone to jump up on the soapbox and use 3 brave men's deaths as an avenue to express your personal belief on the mission, and I'm certain Sgt. Leger wouldn't want his, or any other volunteer serviceman or servicewomen's death to be used as an argument for pulling us out before our job and commitment is done.

As well GAP, I know my original post is full of truths that most everyone on these boards is acutely aware of, but it made me feel a little better to put it in writing and post it on a public forum, where if by chance, ONE person gets some information out of it and goes "Huh, well I'll be ******...... I never looked at it that way" then I'm happy......

Yes, I know..... don't anyone bother saying it..... leave me to my little dream.


----------



## time expired (5 Dec 2008)

It seems to me that if this grieving mother is given a little more time
she would realise that pulling our troops out will mean we have been
defeated and her son will have died in vain,for nothing,nada.This is 
of course cuts no ice with the the left leaning politicos and the the
jackals of the media,their contempt for Canadas military has been
amply displayed in the past and a mothers anguished cry of grief is 
just grist for their mill.Please allow me to express my disgust.
                                         Regards


----------



## GAP (5 Dec 2008)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> As well GAP, I know my original post is full of truths that most everyone on these boards is acutely aware of, but it made me feel a little better to put it in writing and post it on a public forum, where if by chance, ONE person gets some information out of it and goes "Huh, well I'll be ******...... I never looked at it that way" then I'm happy......
> 
> Yes, I know..... don't anyone bother saying it..... leave me to my little dream.



I was trying to say I agreed totally with you, but the frustration sometimes leaks through about the general public....


----------



## toowoozy (5 Dec 2008)

The mother has paid a great price, she has paid her dues, she can say whatever she wants whenever she wants and it can have whatever relevance it deserves. She's lost a son, and she lost that son to a cause she questions - I take it at face value and her opinion should be heard.

The reality in regards to our military and it being a war machine is arguable in a free society. Our military is whatever its citizenry wishes for it to be; the members function at the behest of its nation, its citizens, its government (minority, majority, or coalition). If the citizens wish for us to be a peacekeeping force then so be it, or the populace may put emphasis on sovereignty or force projection (in the name of peace or sovereignty), then also so be it. For me personally I do not view the CF as a war machine; we are a mechanism of great value to our society and we perform many tasks that answer the needs of our great nation. But when the need arises for us to drop the gloves we have always been there - not a machine though, but a resounding force that deals with the great complexities in the world but able bring definitive force if it is required as a last result.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Dec 2008)

toowoozy said:
			
		

> The mother has paid a great price, she has paid her dues, she can say whatever she wants whenever she wants and it can have whatever relevance it deserves. She's lost a son, and she lost that son to a cause she questions - I take it at face value and her opinion should be heard.
> 
> The reality in regards to our military and it being a war machine is arguable in a free society. Our military is whatever its citizenry wishes for it to be; the members function at the behest of its nation, its citizens, its government (minority, majority, or coalition). If the citizens wish for us to be a peacekeeping force then so be it, or the populace may put emphasis on sovereignty or force projection (in the name of peace or sovereignty), then also so be it. For me personally I do not view the CF as a war machine; we are a mechanism of great value to our society and we perform many tasks that answer the needs of our great nation. But when the need arises for us to drop the gloves we have always been there - not a machine though, but a resounding force that deals with the great complexities in the world but able bring definitive force if it is required as a last result.



Sadly toowoozy, you have no idea of what an Army, or the CF is.  The description provided was rather accurate.  Peacekeeping is a minor function that a well disciplined and well trained "War fighting" military can do well.  Warfighting is not a thing that a peacekeeping organization can do.  The CF trains for the worse case scenarios.  Never kid yourself that they don't.


----------



## toowoozy (5 Dec 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sadly toowoozy, you have no idea of what an Army, or the CF is.  The description provided was rather accurate.  Peacekeeping is a minor function that a well disciplined and well trained "War fighting" military can do well.  Warfighting is not a thing that a peacekeeping organization can do.  The CF trains for the worse case scenarios.  Never kid yourself that they don't.


George Wallace. Yes I have a very good idea what an army is - but respectively you miss my point. An army is many things and has many different functions depending upon which nation that army belongs. But more importantly my point was (in a broad context) that it is not up those members of that particular force as to what their design or purpose may be, but it is up to the citizenry of that free nation to decide as such (through their elected members of course). Yes the Canadian Army of course trains for "war fighting" as they train for a multitude of different conflict scenarios, as well as many humanitarian and logistical tasks. The point is that a democratic nation decides what the emphasis of that force will be, and changes or adapts the role as it sees fit - or as to its social or political will.


----------



## xo31@711ret (5 Dec 2008)

The POINT isToowoozy, with all due respect, that a military trains (and always has) for the worst case scenerio: war - 'hope for the best, but prepare for the worst'.


----------



## toowoozy (5 Dec 2008)

xo31@711ret said:
			
		

> The POINT isToowoozy, with all due respect, that a military trains (and always has) for the worst case scenerio: war - 'hope for the best, but prepare for the worst'.



Uh yes I did point that out, we train for war, we train for many things, we train based upon our current doctrine, and we adapt if that doctrine changes. As I stated previously, if that is the will of a nation then so be it - we act upon the will of our nation.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Dec 2008)

toowoozy said:
			
		

> Uh yes I did point that out, *we* train for war, *we* train for many things, *we* train based upon our current doctrine, and we adapt if that doctrine changes. As I stated previously, if that is the will of a nation then so be it - *we* act upon the will of our nation.



I know, I know, don't feed.....

1)  When you say "we", does it mean you're a serving member?  Can't tell much from your profile....

2)  The military, like the police, have all sorts of tools at their beck and call, and all sorts of responses they can use in various situations.  That said, they MUST train in the use of lethal force not because it's the first tool used, but because it has to be there if it IS needed.  If you don't train to use the ultimate tool, it can't be used in the interests of (and under the control of) the state and its citizens.

Or am I out to lunch here?


----------



## FoverF (6 Dec 2008)

He does raise a perfectly valid point, though. The Army *is* indeed a 'war machine', but it's much more than that, and what exactly it is *is* defined by the citezenry. In fact, there are many countries who's armies are *not* war machines, because the government/people choose not to equip/train/fund them as such. Read as much history as you want, the Roman Legions were used as construction labour, there used to be conscript armies the world over who's main purpose was to keep the masses of unemployed 18-20 yo's occupied. There are also armies that exist mainly for the purpose of peace-keeping (Bangladesh et al). 

If the citizens of Canada unwisely decide that the CF will become one of the above, then that's what will happen. The CF is only a war machine so long as the gov't of Canada forks over the money for it to do so.


----------



## FastEddy (6 Dec 2008)

[quote 
[/quote]

"toowoozy"

On the Plus side, you express and write very well, also, it would appear that you are continuing a course of Higher Education and becoming a Adult.

On the down side, if you are a member of our Armed Services, we'd better get you the F... out. But I doubt that you are or ever will. I think that your rhetoric is founded on saving and keeping your own ass out of Harms Way.

If you had a Tour in either Sandbox, I would intently listen to why or if we should be there, but who or what we are and the main purpose for our being, you haven't got a clue and never will.


----------



## reccecrewman (6 Dec 2008)

toowoozy said:
			
		

> Yes the Canadian Army of course trains for "war fighting" as they train for a multitude of different conflict scenarios, as well as many humanitarian and logistical tasks. The point is that a democratic nation decides what the emphasis of that force will be, and changes or adapts the role as it sees fit - or as to its social or political will.



Not that I enjoy feeding the trolls, but this cat does seem to be a little more than an average troll and has been expressing himself in a calm and thoughtful way, so I counter with this..... We do NOT train for a wide multitude of tasks my friend..... In nearly 10 years in uniform I am yet to ever conduct an exercise or some sort of training on how to conduct peacekeeping missions, fight a forest fire, help out in an ice storm or how to hand out humanitarian aid for victim relief in a disaster area. I HAVE, however seen all of these things done by our Military, but only because we were asked to do so because a situation dictated that we should do so.

When we deploy to the field for training, it is to train for warfighting and or theatre specific training for a mission abroad. The people of a Country do not decide that their Army is to be used only for peacekeeping and humanitarian aid..... the Army has a DUTY and an OBLIGATION to those citizens of it's Country to train for war and prepare for it. If we decided to focus on only peacekeeping and humaritarian aid, we are doing a gross injustice to the people of Canada as our warfighting skills would deterioriate..... then what would happen IF we needed those skills quickly either by another power forcing it upon us or we need to help someone that cannot help themselves properly? Canada has been caught a few times with our pants down when it needed it's Army and it was a mad scramble to get troops into uniform and trained for war...... LEST WE FORGET


----------



## FastEddy (6 Dec 2008)

FoverF said:
			
		

> He does raise a perfectly valid point, though. The Army *is* indeed a 'war machine', but it's much more than that, and what exactly it is *is* defined by the citezenry. In fact, there are many countries who's armies are *not* war machines, because the government/people choose not to equip/train/fund them as such. Read as much history as you want, the Roman Legions were used as construction labour, there used to be conscript armies the world over who's main purpose was to keep the masses of unemployed 18-20 yo's occupied. There are also armies that exist mainly for the purpose of peace-keeping (Bangladesh et al).
> 
> If the citizens of Canada unwisely decide that the CF will become one of the above, then that's what will happen. The CF is only a war machine so long as the gov't of Canada forks over the money for it to do so.




Christ I hope you are doing better in Medical School than Roman History. 

First of all , Romes Legions were Raised and Financed for Conquest, Subjugation, Territory and Policing.

The result of their success was partly due to the diversification of its Conscripted Soldiers, in that every male Roman Citizen of Military age had to serve in their Army's for a prescribed period.

What ever Engineering Feats were accomplished when the Troops were not killing or plundering were designed to keep the Troops busy and bring the Roman way of life. And might I note, they came at a very high price to the conquered populations.


----------



## xo31@711ret (6 Dec 2008)

Uh yes I did point that out, we train for war, we train for many things, we train based upon our current doctrine, and we adapt if that doctrine changes. As I stated previously, if that is the will of a nation then so be it - we act upon the will of our nation. 
  

Uh, yes, I see that you pointed that out. Maybe things have changed, but from 1982 to 2006 while I was reg, the main focus of my army training, from my humble experience anyway  has been training as per war related scenario. First as an infanteer (advance to contact for example) or then as a medic (casualty clearing station etc). But I'll settle back in the back 40 and recce only as this looks it has the possibility of goin' nowhere except into a dog-pile.


----------



## 1feral1 (6 Dec 2008)

xo31@711ret said:
			
		

> Uh yes I did point that out, we train for war, we train for many things, we train based upon our current doctrine, and we adapt if that doctrine changes. As I stated previously, if that is the will of a nation then so be it - we act upon the will of our nation.
> 
> 
> Uh, yes, I see that you pointed that out. Maybe things have changed, but from 1982 to 2006 while I was reg, the main focus of my army training, from my humble experience anyway  has been training as per war related scenario. First as an infanteer (advance to contact for example) or then as a medic (casualty clearing station etc). But I'll settle back in the back 40 and recce only as this looks it has the possibility of goin' nowhere except into a dog-pile.



In the two armies that I've been in, its always training for conventional warfare which takes precidence, we did specialise in what we were to experience in Iraq (OPSEC so won't discuss), but overall conventional warfare is the main key to all-round trg. We can specialise after that.  Before "Peace-Keeping" comes "Peace- Enforcing".

We'll see if Toowoozy comes back, but like I said, we'll see. We've all seen the shoot and scoot types on here, and they don't last long.

OWDU


----------



## FoverF (6 Dec 2008)

First off, this isn't about Roman history, or my academic qualifications (but just so you know, I am in fact among the top of my class, both in med school, and was also in my history classes). 

But the point is that I agree with the idea that armies are far more than simply war machines. Armies are, and have been throughout history, routinely tasked with everything from nation-building, to conventional war-fighting, to counter-insurgency, to settling disputes of govermnental succession, to civil engineering, to providing assistance during natural disasters, to providing employment, to putting on a show for the cameras, to providing a minimal cadre of warfighting skills in periods of prolonged peace, to fighting pirates, to counter-terrorism, to crowd-control, to monitoring natural resources, to search and rescue, to de-mining warzones, to providing logistical support to humanitarian efforts, to providing security for hockey games (2010 anyone?). 

An army is (among many other things) a war machine. Their job is (to do the bidding of their government and populace, and this includes being able) to fight wars. 

But the fact remains that if the populace doesn't want you to fight a war, then you don't. If the populace wants you to stand around in the middle of a firefight with blue hats on, or to dig them out of a snowstorm in Thunder Bay, or to deploy a DART to Pakistan, then that is what you will do instead. 

Warfighting is the job that ONLY armies do. But it is not the ONLY job that armies do, and it never has been.


----------



## The_Falcon (6 Dec 2008)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> Not that I enjoy feeding the trolls, but this cat does seem to be a little more than an average troll and has been expressing himself in a calm and thoughtful way, so I counter with this..... We do NOT train for a wide multitude of tasks my friend..... In nearly 10 years in uniform I am yet to ever conduct an exercise or some sort of training on how to conduct peacekeeping missions, fight a forest fire, *help out in an ice storm or how to hand out humanitarian aid for victim relief in a disaster area.* I HAVE, however seen all of these things done by our Military, but only because we were asked to do so because a situation dictated that we should do so.
> 
> When we deploy to the field for training, it is to train for warfighting and or theatre specific training for a mission abroad. The people of a Country do not decide that their Army is to be used only for peacekeeping and humanitarian aid..... the Army has a DUTY and an OBLIGATION to those citizens of it's Country to train for war and prepare for it. If we decided to focus on only peacekeeping and humaritarian aid, we are doing a gross injustice to the people of Canada as our warfighting skills would deterioriate..... then what would happen IF we needed those skills quickly either by another power forcing it upon us or we need to help someone that cannot help themselves properly? Canada has been caught a few times with our pants down when it needed it's Army and it was a mad scramble to get troops into uniform and trained for war...... LEST WE FORGET



Just a small reminder about the recent (and quite large) LFCA-JTF(C) Disaster Exercise that just occured a few weeks, ago was training specifically for the items I bolded.  And before I get jumped on, I will say that yes, these exercises are pretty rare and infrequent, and when they do occur, are usually within the reserves.


----------



## toowoozy (6 Dec 2008)

The point that I was trying to convey was more so this disconnect between the community and the members of the forces, those whom are dedicated to the mission at hand and wish to have the mission and themselves perceived in a certain context (the example given: "war machine") - But success of that mission is dependent upon one very important factor (as you well know), and that is the perception and support of the electorate at home. Often members cannot understand how individuals can view the mission unlike how they view the mission (hence Sgt. Leger's mother)

This is where you have the greater context, where a member views his cadre as a "war machine" as such, but the community/society has a different perception, or rather a different political/social will - and thats where the point lies because many different armies serve in varying capacities with varying capabilities largely based upon the will of that nation. The will of the people to morally, ethically, politically, and financially support such missions, or the military in general is entirely dependent upon the societies view of such missions or their view of the military in over-all. This is nothing new for you, I'm sure this has been a topic many times before.

But where I think the community loses its will to give the military the mandate it desires comes from that disconnect. In these times most don't want to view their military (it is theirs of course) as a "war machine." Yes we have this romanticized view of our forces as our protecters of sovereignty, our blue berets, our DART spreading humanitarian relief - not a perceived tool of destruction. In Sgt. Leger mothers eyes, her son probably wasn't a war machine, she was her kind, loving son now gone - Sgt. Legers mother is that disconnect and this is the reality at home.

As for the other assertions. I actually was a member of this forum quite some time ago, not an avid poster but a participant none the less; just recently returned so I guess some re-introduction would be cordial. First off I'm not 14 years old, continuing on with my education and becoming an adult as pointed out - but I like the thought. The proverbial "we" I speak of has long past some 20 years now and where as I've continued on as an engineer (home and abroad govt. services) and now I have a son in RMC.


----------



## FastEddy (6 Dec 2008)

FoverF said:
			
		

> First off, this isn't about Roman history, or my academic qualifications (but just so you know, I am in fact among the top of my class, both in med school, and was also in my history classes).
> 
> But the point is that I agree with the idea that armies are far more than simply war machines. Armies are, and have been throughout history, routinely tasked with everything from nation-building, to conventional war-fighting, to counter-insurgency, to settling disputes of govermnental succession, to civil engineering, to providing assistance during natural disasters, to providing employment, to putting on a show for the cameras, to providing a minimal cadre of warfighting skills in periods of prolonged peace, to fighting pirates, to counter-terrorism, to crowd-control, to monitoring natural resources, to search and rescue, to de-mining warzones, to providing logistical support to humanitarian efforts, to providing security for hockey games (2010 anyone?).
> 
> ...




Good for you, toot toot, that's the sound of you blowing your own horn.

No  one said the Roman Army's was the issue, YOU quoted them as a example, and IMO, your Roman History is still pretty poor.

The fact still remains that the primary reason for an Army's creation is DEFENCE and WAR. No one is disputing that their presence or services cannot be employed for any given number of Civilian circumstances. That comes under Emergencies & Disasters, where great numbers of additional Bodies are required to assist the Civilian Services. But that is not what we are Trained for.

If certain Logistic Branch's of the Military coninside with Civilian applications, they are not provided with that in mind, but support Primarily for the Military in their Primarily functions DEFENCE & WAR.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Dec 2008)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Christ I hope you are doing better in Medical School than Roman History.
> 
> First of all , Romes Legions were Raised and Financed for Conquest, Subjugation, Territory and Policing.
> 
> ...



Interesting thought there Fast Eddy.

I suppose that one way of looking at the Roman "Army" was that it was actually and Armed Constabulary that spent most of its life "Policing" an armed, and restive populace.  Its record when facing other "national armies", like the Carthaginians and in particular the Sassanids, was mixed.


----------



## FoverF (6 Dec 2008)

Their character was also far from uniform over their *very long* and very dynamic history, as they varied from the conscripts of the city of Rome, to the ethnically germanic mercenary armies of Christendom. 

They also fought each other for the purpose of installing their respective generals as emperors, and elements of the military played the role of 'king makers' on many an occasion over the centuries. 

This politcal role, which is often demanded of armies (and even enshrined constitutionally) still continues today in countries like Turkey, where one of the core duties of the army is to overthrow governments which they consider too 'Islamic' (or at least non-secular). 

Yet more key roles which armies are/have been expected to fill.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Dec 2008)

Folks, conduct by all concerned, in accordance with site policy, is what is expected here.  That means "all".

*Milnet.ca Staff  *


----------



## FoverF (6 Dec 2008)

Just to make sure it's not mis-interpereted, my last post was not meant to sound anti-military, or imply that the CF has any designs on overthrowing the government or anything. Just pointing out that the institution of the army also often plays a critical role in governing nations, even ones which are ostensibly democracies. We have our own non-democratic safe-guards for when the wheels of government slip, such as  the GG, but in many nations, and at many times, it has been responsibility of the army to protect a society from their own government. This is not just an ancilliary role they play, but one of their reasons for existing. 

Not in any way trying to tie the CF specifically into this, though.


----------



## tango22a (7 Dec 2008)

Toowoozy:

" Si Vis Pacem Bellum Parare "

Literally translated: If You Wish For Peace, Train For War.

That's what  the CF does!

Cheers,

tango22a


----------



## reccecrewman (7 Dec 2008)

Stating that your standing Army is a "peacekeeping" force and to be used in natural disasters is a nice easy out for keeping a standing Army in force on the cheap. Many centre left politicians love that concept because it justifies stripping the budget of the Military..... "They don't need all that money for equipment if they're only being used as peacekeepers"

I apologize, but I don't remember who stated it that during the Liberal reign of the 90's virtually EVERYONE saw their budgets go up at the expense of WHO??? The CF.


----------



## FastEddy (7 Dec 2008)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> Stating that your standing Army is a "peacekeeping" force and to be used in natural disasters is a nice easy out for keeping a standing Army in force on the cheap. Many centre left politicians love that concept because it justifies stripping the budget of the Military..... "They don't need all that money for equipment if they're only being used as peacekeepers"
> 
> I apologize, but I don't remember who stated it that during the Liberal reign of the 90's virtually EVERYONE saw their budgets go up at the expense of WHO??? The CF.




"reccecrewman" No need to, knowing who said it is unimportant,  knowing who did it is.  

Cheers.


----------



## Greymatters (9 Dec 2008)

If I was toowheezy, I wouldnt bother coming back either - only two people took his comments seriously.

He points out a very significant point, that the general public IS in control of our mandate.  Our missions are given to us not because we chose them, we are given them because the public wants us to perform them.  

We know that the primary purpose of an army is to conduct war, to defend home territory, to repel invaders, and (when requested) to conduct the will of the government outside of the country.  To use lethal force and inflict casualties if required.  These are concepts imbedded in most armies aroun the world.  

However, our general population has their own viewpoint of what an army is for.  Its different from ours.  Many of them would rather see not an army, but a 'Salvation Army', handing out free food and medicine, and being unarmed masters of diplomacy.  Unfortunately, they have more influence than we do because they get to voice their opinions, and complain to their local elected official, while most military members are muzzled.  

The elected officials, at all levels of government, have their own agendas as well.  They would like to score brownie points like previous governments did, getting good news bites and having a safe place to travel to overseas where they can pose with the troops and pretend they are accomplishing world peace and get their names in the history books.  Who better to send than the CF?  Thats what they are there for right?

And there are very voices to protest aganst these viewpoints.  This is why Gen. Hillier was so popular (or unpopular depending on who you were) - he reminded Canadians that the army isnt a training depot for society washouts (as it is often described by our opponents), or an expendable source of peackeepers, it was a lethal weapon that you aimed and fired, and if you want to use it dont expect flowers to come out of the end of the gunbarrel.       

In summary, the type of arguing being done over the past few pages should have been in reply to the statement, not attempts at character assasination just because someone has a different opinion or viewpoint.  If you think the person is just trolling, ignore them.


----------



## Armymedic (9 Dec 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> He points out a very significant point, that the general public IS in control of our mandate.  Our missions are given to us not because we chose them, we are given them because the public wants us to perform them.



More so, it is the Government in power that tell us what our military will be. WE train for the worst case scenario, full high intensity warfare. But we are sent on missions from armed peacemaking to unarmed humanitarian assistance. And yes we do train for more than full out war. Do you really think DART just comes together..or do they exercise their people and equipment?

We are trained to adapt and overcome, to think and problem solve to fight wars. Adapting those same skills for other roles is what makes us the best individual soldiers in the world.

Do not blame the uneducated if they think otherwise.


----------



## reccecrewman (10 Dec 2008)

Touche..... I overlooked DART, that was my mistake. Yes, they certainly do conduct some tough training to prepare them for their tasks of the humanitarian nature..... however, my point was that the Mechanized Brigades of the CF do not conduct these sort of exercises on a regular basis..... apparently there have been the odd few, but they are the exception, not the rule.  The typical training cycle of a Canadian combat arms unit is warfighting...... not peacekeeping or humanitarian aid.

As for who chooses our mandate.... I do not agree that it is the Canadian public who picks and chooses what we are and where we go...... considering the overwhelming number of people I personally have encountered who believe we are fighting for George Bush and oil is the motivating factor in Afghanistan. ( : For all the oil reserves Afghanistan has)  There are many Canadians who simply don't understand why we are there and what we are doing. How can the uninformed be the ones determining where we go and for what purpose? I am not implying that my fellow Countrymen are morons either, but many Canadians live in a little happy bubble (That having the mighty U.S as a protector and being on the continent of North America, far from the problems of the world provides) and choose NOT to get informed of external affairs.  Key word I used was MANY, not ALL.

It is the Governments responsibility to decide where we go and why...... just as it is their decision on the size of our budget. Now, if the Government chooses to listen to the public on where we go and why.... well.....   But why should they listen to that and not all the OTHER things Canadians are perpetually screaming about to be changed?


----------



## GAP (10 Dec 2008)

Do not the members of DART and other groups like it not initially train as a grunts.....they are all given the basic skillset, then tasked to other things....


----------



## aesop081 (10 Dec 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Do not the members of DART and other groups like it not initially train as a grunts.....they are all given the basic skillset, then tasked to other things....



They are a member of a multitude of trades that are tasked to DART for a specific period of time.


----------



## GAP (10 Dec 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> They are a member of a multitude of trades that are tasked to DART for a specific period of time.



My point was that they ALL have basic military training to enable them to defend themselves if needed....


----------



## Armymedic (10 Dec 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Do not the members of DART and other groups like it not initially train as a grunts.....they are all given the basic skillset, then tasked to other things....



If you mean the officers and troops of the purple trades, other than their BOTC or BMQ, where they learn the basic military skills, no.

Not every trade in the CF trains exclusively for high intensity warfare. For instance, on my Med Tech QL6A, our small team project was to plan for a battalion+ size UN deployment into a tropical country. 

Diversity of training and experience is not a bad attribute to instil upon a military.


----------



## Greymatters (10 Dec 2008)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> As for who chooses our mandate.... I do not agree that it is the Canadian public who picks and chooses what we are and where we go...



We can agree to disagree, and it is a perception based on an extended interpretation - if the leaders making the decisions are elected by the population base (those willing to vote anyway), then the population is effectively picking and supporting the policy upon which our leaders base their decisions (ideally anyway, public opinion on individual issues can go counter to platforms).   



			
				reccecrewman said:
			
		

> ... considering the overwhelming number of people I personally have encountered who believe we are fighting for George Bush and oil is the motivating factor in Afghanistan. ( : For all the oil reserves Afghanistan has)



If an opinion is voiced often enough and loud enough, even lies can eventally be regarded as the truth.  The Bush/Oil factor has been spread widely with very few dissenting voices, so the public believes its true.  Ive heard in the past that even teachers at high schools and universities expressed this same opinion in their classrooms, which is a pretty hard nut to crak in terms of credibility - Id like to know what 'official paper' they got their facts from.  

If credible reasons for the mission were just as widely voiced and distributed, it would counter the Bush/Oil myth.  When I have had to debate the issue in the past, the other person is unable to provide any actual facts that this is occuring, only that they read about it in a blog (someone's opinion), an editorial (someone's opinion), or a special interest group site (someone's cherry-picked facts and opinion).  No one I know can recall seeing a credible site countering the myth with facts, including myself - we know its not true, but Ive never seen an official document addressing the issue.  



			
				reccecrewman said:
			
		

> There are many Canadians who simply don't understand why we are there and what we are doing. How can the uninformed be the ones determining where we go and for what purpose? I am not implying that my fellow Countrymen are morons either, but many Canadians live in a little happy bubble (That having the mighty U.S as a protector and being on the continent of North America, far from the problems of the world provides) and choose NOT to get informed of external affairs.  Key word I used was MANY, not ALL.



Its a general opinion, true, except I dont believe a lot of people really see the US as our 'protector' these days (not in BC anyway).  

Regarding our missions, its rather surprising how forgetful people are.  Many of the missons we got sent on over the past twenty years were initiated by the will of the people.  Agreed, not ALL of the people, but by some small vocal segments of the people and the special interest groups who had the ears of the higher elements and whose voices were loud enough that these requests and opinions were printed in newspapers (which after a few years, most of the general public forget they have read these articles calling for action).  Examples are Kosovo, East Timor, and several humanitarian aid missions.  

Others were a direct request for aid by specific countries or organiztions.  Prior to the last deployment to Haiti for example, there were numerous protests and demonstrations demanding Canadian action.  The representatives of the Haitian coalition government requested Canadian assistance through the OAS.  Not just for food and economic aid, but for troops who could help stabilize the situation.  Demonstration groups afterwards conveniently forgot that information, calling us 'occupiers' and 'invaders', some of them the same groups that asked for Canadian action in the first place.   



			
				reccecrewman said:
			
		

> It is the Governments responsibility to decide where we go and why...... just as it is their decision on the size of our budget. Now, if the Government chooses to listen to the public on where we go and why.... well.....   But why should they listen to that and not all the OTHER things Canadians are perpetually screaming about to be changed?



No answer for you - "they listen when they feel it's in their best interests"?


----------



## PanaEng (10 Dec 2008)

Just as I was going to jump in the fray Graymatters posts this great reply. I don't think there is anything else to say.

But let me add my summary and call to action:
- the public elects our politicians and government. in order to stay in power, the government does (mostly) what the people want;
- therefore, if the people want to take away our guns, give us daisies and pink dresses and still call us an army, that's what would happen (I would resign of course) ;D
- to prevent this we must ensure the people know that we need an army with teeth.
- How: each one of us is a PR person; go forth and spread the good word (but don't beat the lefties with a stick as much as they may deserve it, start gently and with patience)

 Anyway, it's late, I'm still at work and I'm starting to see bugs crawling across my screen... time to go...


----------



## Greymatters (10 Dec 2008)

Prairie Dog makes a pretty valid point, though - politicians can be pretty selective about when and whom they choose to listen to when they make decisions...


----------



## len173 (12 Dec 2008)

I don't think anyone can deny that the military serves many purposes other than war fighting. However it's main goal is training to win a war. Other tasks are performed because the need and expertise is there. Most of the jobs that aren't about fighting/killing are there to support those that are tasked with combat. Canada has a *military*, just because we have a history of peace keeping doesn't mean we are peace keepers. That is a function the military *can* perform in certain situations. Frankly Canadians need to get over the blue beret fetish and take a strong look at our peace keeping record. We didn't have peace keepers, we had an excuse not to purchase good equipment and the Canadian people bought it. People that argue the CF is not a war machine are wrong, because if it deteriorates into a mumaitarian aid/ peace keeping force we no longer have a military, we have something different all together.


----------



## Hotspur (19 Dec 2008)

Back to the original post, about the mother speaking out.

I agree Canada's army is and always should prepare for war, if we prepare for that purpose then we will of course be ready for the wide variety of other challenges that get thrown to the CF.  I also understand the frustration about overcoming the peacekeeper image with the general public.

What I don't really understand is people saying her comments were 'uncalled for' or 'not appropriate'.  I am new to the forces I'll admit, and perhaps not jaded by years of problems as a result, but when I joined it was because I wanted to defend Canadians and our values.  That woman has every right to her opinion, and a terrible confluence of events led to her opinion being on camera.  If she wants to lash out at the CF because they took her son from her, it may not be fair, but I for one would not criticise, I disagree but that woman is hurting more than I ever have and I'll just keep my lips shut on the matter.

One of the first things discussed in our BMQ was that in the case of death in the CF, we are bound to do as the family wishes, and respect them by giving them their distance if that is what they want.  I would also say that translates to personally honouring her sons sacrifice, and letting the frustrating comments that come from the bereaved roll off our collective shoulders.


----------



## geo (19 Dec 2008)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> It was uncalled for, especially since the Harper Government has already given it's notice to the Canadian public that the mission to Afghanistan (that the LIBERALS committed us to in the first place) will be coming to an end in it's present form of our combat troops fighting in Afghanistan.



Umm.... WTF - yes, the Liberals, with the support of the Conservatives, committed Canada to Afghanistan... 
If the Conservatives had had their druthers, Canada would've been in Iraq alone OR Iraq AND Afghanistan.


----------



## pbi (20 Dec 2008)

Well posted by Greymatters and PanaEng. IMHO twowoozy was very badly treated here, but responded in an adult and reasoned manner.  I for one hope he re-engages. The last time I looked, Army.ca was not a madrassa : it's a place where people can express their thoughts as long as they play by the rules. If we want to preach to the choir, and never test our ideas and beliefs against people who think differently, then we can just hang out in the Mess and talk sh*t.

We are the professional volunteer soldiers of a democracy. Period. We will be the kind of army, and do the kind of missions, that the govt wants. Period. If defence and the military are politically important, we will get the resources. If they're not, we won't. We can argue till the cows come home about how representative that govt actually is (especially given how many lazy people in this country would rather sit front of the TV and bitch about the govt than vote...) but let's accept that as far as we're concerned it represents "the country". That's how I prefer to see it: I sure as hell don't envision myself (or anybody else...) dying for the Liberals, the Tories or the NDP as political parties. That way lies Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. We serve at the pleasure of the elected representatives and the people who voted for them.

What that means to me is that as professionals we have to give those elected representatives the best possible advice we can give. If they take it, good. If they don't, we can serve and make the best of it, or get out. At the same time, I believe that we have a duty to ensure that our public understands as much about us as possible, so that the public opinion that (at least theoretically, anyway) informs the political sysretm through elections, polls and pressure can be well informed. The fact that many Canadians have silly or juvenile ideas about foreign affairs or security or the military doesn't mean we give up on trying to educate them. And it certainly doesn't mean that we crawl back into our little cocoon and cut ourselves off from society like we did for too many decades before Gen Jeffries and his Operation Connection (remember that; "Connect with Canadians'?).

Twowoozy was really only pointing this out. His thoughts on what an Army might be under different circumstances are valid: we've lived it, as have both the US Army and the Brits. If you want an example of an Army that was only ever built to be a "war machine" and nothing else, just look at the terrible performance of the Soviet Army in Afghanistan. It went to that war designed to do one thing and one thing only: fight a high intesity mechanized war in Europe, against NATO. It had no COIN doctrine, no useful concept of CIMIC, no tradition of low level initiative and leadership, very little flexibility and (worst of all...) little or no respect for the law of armed conflict. It was a sick, dysfunctional force raised by a sick, dysfunctional society. Its performance was brutal, frequently stupid, and grossly counterproductive. An Army can't just be a "war machine", any more than the main value of a police dept is its ability to put down a rioting mob.

I believe in training for war: it's a no-brainer. But I don't believe we can be a "war machine" and nothing else.

Cheers

DJB


----------



## ltmaverick25 (22 Dec 2008)

I think its also important to remember one very important fact.  

Training for war, equiping for war, and becoming a war machine is what allowed Canada to become the great peacekeeping force in the first place.  By the late 1950's Canada had for the first time established a decently funded, decent sized and decent equiped professional peace time military.  Prior to this time, the only time Canada had any military to speak of was during the two world wars.

Training and equiping for war is what allows soldiers the ability to conduct anciliary duties effectively, peacekeeping being one of them.

Many of Canada's historians, Jack Granatstein in particular will tell you that Canada has fallen by the waste side as an effective peacekeeping force over the last 20 years specifically because of this "myth" that Canadians are passifist peacekeepers.  

Canadians cannot have it both ways.  If you want a good peacekeeping force you must first have an outstanding warfighting force.  You cannot have one without the other.

With that said, I will afford myself the luxury of a rant...

Something else the public would do well to understand...
Nobody joined the Canadian Forces so that they could be deployed overseas into a war zone only to sit around and watch innocent people die and do nothing about it.  I for one joined so I could fight for people who could not fight for themselves.

If the Canadian public wants to send Canadian Forces members overseas, thus seperating them from their families for long periods of time, and subjecting them to risk of life and limb then there had better be a good reason for it.  Political tokenism and "feel good" gestures does not cut it.  In my opinion no member of the CF should ever be ordered into a war zone if their mandate is to sit there and watch.  An extremely weak mandate and lack of understanding from the public destroyed Romeo Dallaire and countless other soldiers who had to watch, lets not make the same mistakes again.

LEST WE FORGET.


----------



## pbi (22 Dec 2008)

ltmaverick: well said, and I couldn't agree more, especially your last point about pointless PK missions with weak or stupid mandates. I've lived that (as have many on this board...) and I never want to see it again.

Maybe the disagreement here about the term "war machine" is really just one of semantics. It depends (IMHO) on what we mean by "war machine". 

If we mean a military force whose sole purpose is to carry out kinetic, combat-only operations consisting of killing people and blowing things up, without the mental, cultural or organizational flexibility to do anything else (no matter what the situation really requires) then I don't think our Army has ever been that, nor do I see much purpose in being that.

If, on the other hand, we mean an Army that has the training, equipment, organization, culture and doctrine to be able to fight hard when needed, but which retains the flexibility and intelligence to vary its responses depending on the situation, then I'm OK with. I believe our Army (as long as I've been in it) has at least tried to be that, if not always successfully. And, I would say, that was an inheritance from the British Army which has probably been the finest historical example of this.

Depends what we mean.

Cheers

DJB


----------



## geo (23 Dec 2008)

The biggest problem the Canadian military has had to face over the last +/-35 yars (since I have been in) has been the political masters who have saddled us with unrealistic expectations, unclear missions - and poorly thought out terms of engagement.  it is only since our recent involvement in Afghanistan that "robust" terms of engagement have been handed out - befitting the situation we have been asked to deal with.

It must be remembered that, for it to be possible to do Peacekeeping, both sides have to want it.  The moment one side isn't ready to play nice, the peacekeepers are being stuck between a rock & a hard place... and then we are talking about a Peacemaking mission - which is where we are right now.


----------



## Greymatters (23 Dec 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> The biggest problem the Canadian military has had to face over the last +/-35 yars (since I have been in) has been the political masters who have saddled us with unrealistic expectations, unclear missions - and poorly thought out terms of engagement.  it is only since our recent involvement in Afghanistan that "robust" terms of engagement have been handed out - befitting the situation we have been asked to deal with.



Since Afghanistan? Not since Bosnia circa 1994? People seem to have already forgotten what Mackenzie did for us then....


----------



## geo (23 Dec 2008)

Not arguing with what the General did while in Bosnia but ya gotta admit that he certainly stretched the parameters of our terms of engagement considerably AND, it would vary considerably from one Gen to the next.....

Our troops witnessed an awful lot of dreadful things in the FRY -  without doing all that much to oppose it


----------



## ltmaverick25 (23 Dec 2008)

I could not agree more.  I am extremely critical of our major peacekeeping deployments of the 1990s.  I think were extremely innefective.  One could argue that Bosnia was a success because nobody is fighting anymore but they had already killed 500,000 of themselves before that happened.  Hardly a success, and it was only when NATO started flexing its muscle that things came to an end.

Peacekeeping was a brilliant political ideal in the 1950s in cases like the Suez Canal crisis.  But we were dealing with Nation States not fractured factions within one state.  When each State agrees to end hostilities and "allow" peacekeepers to stand between them you have something viable there.  But its mostly just a face saving initiative and a token gesture, though in this case one that has some meaning.

When you look at Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia and places like that, it simply is not possible for a traditional peacekeeping mission to take place.  The fact that there is no peace to keep makes it pretty obvious, but beyond that you are no longer dealing with Nation States that can enfore terms on their respective armies.  You are dealing with independent groups who do not have to recognize any form of cease fire if they do not want to, unless of course you make them...

Ultimately peacekeeping was Canada's way of fighting the cold war by other means and it worked well for us.  Once the cold war was over though, that entire concept become somewhat obsolete.  In this new world order you need to be able to roll your sleaves up and get dirty.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Dec 2008)

Just thinking.  Has any of the many Peacekeeping missions embarked upon by the UN actually brought peace to the extent that would allow for the total removal of all UN Observers?

Korea is still divided by armed troops.  Cyprus still has UN Troops.  The Middle East has numerous UN postings in nations surrounding Israel.  Bosnia and Kosovo still have UN troops in country.  What about Haiti?  India and Pakistan.  Peacekeeping really hasn't worked.


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Dec 2008)

ltmaverick25: Even the Suez force, UNEF, ended up a complete failure.  It was withdrawn upon Egyptian president Nasser's demand in 1967 and the Six Day War followed shortly thereafter.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## ltmaverick25 (23 Dec 2008)

That is a very good point.  Im going to have to use that the next time im arguing the ineffectiveness of peacekeeping with someone


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Dec 2008)

From the UN itself:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unef1backgr1.html



> ...UNEF, stationed entirely on Egyptian territory with the consent of the Government, patrolled the Egypt-Israel armistice demarcation line and the international frontier to the south of the Gaza Strip and brought relative quiet to a long-troubled area. The Canal, blocked as a result of the conflict, was cleared by the United Nations. UNEF I was withdrawn in May-June 1967 at the request of the Egyptian Government, which informed the Secretary-General that it would no longer consent to the stationing of the Force on Egyptian territory and in Gaza.



More from Veterans Affairs Canada:
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group05/unef



> In October 1956, Israel, Britain and France moved military forces into the Suez Canal zone to secure the canal. Through the efforts of Canada's External Affairs Minister, Lester B. Pearson, the UN General Assembly agreed to its first peacekeeping force to secure peace in the region (previous operations had been only observer forces). Under the command of a Canadian, MGen Eedson Louis Millard BURNS, (OC) DSO OBE MC, the UNEF, on 07 November 1956, was given a mandate to secure the removal of Israeli, British and French troops from the canal zone and the Gaza Strip and to maintain peace in the area. The first Canadian troops arrived in Egypt on 24 November 1956, and Egypt abruptly asked them to leave in May 1967, leading to the six-day war between Israel and Egypt. *Thirty-two Canadians lost their lives serving with this force* [emphasis added].



Lots of detail here, note Candian view:
http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2005/issue2/jv9no2a5.html


> ...
> It was not until 12 noon, on May 18, 1967, that the permanent representative of the UAR formally conveyed a note to U Thant indicating the desire of his government to have UNEF removed from UAR territory.[21]  U Thant expressed his misgivings regarding the UAR request, yet gave no indication that the decision would be opposed. Somewhat surprisingly, however, Stavropoulos changed his tune from the previous day and warned the secretary-general against the unilateral withdrawal of UNEF:
> 
> "I therefore have serious doubts whether the secretary-general should take the radical action of withdrawing UNEF without first affording the General Assembly (or possibly the Security Council, in view of the prevailing situation in the Middle East) the opportunity of considering the matter."[22]
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo (23 Dec 2008)

heh... Ignatieff and Martin Srs... plus ça change.....

Had a chief clerk many years ago who was with the UN force in the Sinai when the Egyptians gave out the order to "get out".  Little or no time was provided for Canadian troops to remove the equipment we were using there.  Based on his stories, Canadians were being shot at by the Egyptians while they (canadians) went about their business of smashing all the airfield equipment - so as not to let ANYTHING fall into Egyptian hands.

Yeah - the withdrawal went real smooth


----------



## Greymatters (24 Dec 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Not arguing with what the General did while in Bosnia but ya gotta admit that he certainly stretched the parameters of our terms of engagement considerably AND, it would vary considerably from one Gen to the next.....
> 
> Our troops witnessed an awful lot of dreadful things in the FRY -  without doing all that much to oppose it



I agree it wasnt a complete sucess but it was the first big step and got the ball rolling...


----------



## ltmaverick25 (24 Dec 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I agree it wasnt a complete sucess but it was the first big step and got the ball rolling...



For those of us unfamilier, what exactly was it that he did?


----------



## pbi (27 Dec 2008)

> Has any of the many Peacekeeping missions embarked upon by the UN actually brought peace to the extent that would allow for the total removal of all UN Observers?



Cambodia? Mozambique? Nicaragua? I think there have been a few examples of such success. I think though, that while the UN force in each case probably deserves credit for "greasing the wheels" for a final political solution, the issues were usually decided by bigger forces in the background. In the case of Mozambique (which I'm familiar with) those forces seem to have been mutual exhaustion after over a decade of civil war, and the collapse of the patron regimes of the two belligerents (Soviet Union on one side, apartheid South Africa on the other). I'm not aware of any missions in which the UN can claim sole or even major credit, except possibly Cambodia.

Cheers

pbi


_*edit* - fixed quote, G2G_


----------



## geo (27 Dec 2008)

You have to remember that, for there to be Peacekeeping BOTH sides have to want peace.
If either side isn't "on-side" for peace, it isn't going to happen.  Even if both sides ARE willing, there is often a 3rd side that is prepared to throw in a monkey wrench into the broth & ruin everything... +/- Ex: Israrel, Fatah & Hamas....
Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots & Greece + Turkey...  and there, the jury isn't out - the green line is slowly coming down.

In a certain manner, I believe that the UN can provide a safe haven / establish a perimeter beyond which the warring parties cannot leave.... last one out - turn the lights out please :warstory:


----------



## Greymatters (30 Dec 2008)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> For those of us unfamilier, what exactly was it that he did?



He was instrumental in getting the ROE changed so that Canadian troops could actually legally defend themselves during the deployment when they came under enemy fire...


----------

