# Mohawk Warriors to get military apology- CBC



## Container (21 Dec 2010)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/12/20/mohawk-military-apology.html



> The Canadian Forces is preparing an official apology for listing the Mohawk Warrior Society as a potentially violent insurgent in a draft manual in 2006.
> 
> Military officials are still finalizing the wording of the apology to the society, which was included in the draft counter-insurgency manual.
> 
> ...



Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/12/20/mohawk-military-apology.html#ixzz18my3ViIu



Does anyone know any more about this? I would think it would be prudent to have plans in place for a similar situation as the Oka Crisis. Since it is viewed as a "success" to certain members of the Mohawk Warriors. Perhaps failing to differentiate between the people and radical element is the issue.

But contingency plans are good practice- especially when they are based on real world events.

I simply must assume that the real story is much more.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (21 Dec 2010)

This is not at all related to contingency plans - as it says in the first sentence of the article, the reference was made in a draft of the Counter-Insurgency manual.


----------



## GAP (21 Dec 2010)

History repeats itself, and those who don't pay attention, are doomed to repeat history. 

I don't care whether it's natives,  aliens (Roswell type), or pink panthers,.....if you've had incidents which the CF may have to deal with, it should be looked at. 

There has been much talk over the years about the potential for violence from various native groups, usually in the context of bravado/positions on issues/ or prior to/during some sort of negotiations of something. 

The potential for insurgency of some kind is there, why would we hide from it?


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Dec 2010)

Jesus wept


----------



## Container (21 Dec 2010)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> This is not at all related to contingency plans - as it says in the first sentence of the article, the reference was made in a draft of the Counter-Insurgency manual.



Excuse my ignorance. Wouldnt somebody reference the Counter Insurgency Manual when making a contingency plan for a low tempo insurgency? I suppose I worded my idea incorrectly.  

I mean the ability to prepare effectively may be reduced because of a fear of offending someone. Something in that area anyways. Contingency planning may have been the wrong idea to present.


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Dec 2010)

Leaving the apology issue for a minute, this extract from the CBC story is, to coin a phrase, crap:

"She told CBC News earlier this month that it "brought up old feelings" related to the Oka crisis in 1990, in which Mohawks, Quebec provincial police (Sûreté du Québec) and the Canadian military clashed violently over native land rights west of Montreal."

The only violent clash was the incident very early on between the SQ and the Mohawks in which a police officer was killed. Posturing aside, both the Mohawks and the CF were very careful to avoid escalating the situation into armed conflict. Moreover, it is my opinion, based on being a player at the national level at the time, that there was a more of less constant channel of communications between the CF and the Mohawks.

I may not like everything that goes on on Six Nations reserves in the area of trafficing in illegal cigarettes and smuggling as well as other issues, but in this case whoever wrote the phrase for inclusion in a manual erred.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Dec 2010)

What a fracking load of horse hooey.

Fact:  The Canadian Forces are constantly drafting contingency plans for worse case scenarios, so that they can be somewhat prepared should one of those worse case scenarios come to happen.

Fact:  Armed insurgents using the name of the Mohawk Warrior Society faced down QPP and Canadian Forces members in the Past.  Could they do it again?  The possibility is there.  

Fact:  An insurgent is an insurgent.  Often violent.  There are no GOOD insurgents, to be separated from BAD insurgents.  The fact that they carry arms and threaten violence makes them all the same.  


Fact:  Cheryl Jacobs is making an issue out of a non-issue.  It was a draft document, not a final 'official' product.  She is doing nothing but muckraking and looking for pity from the masses.  

Time for the Government to grow some kahonies.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Dec 2010)

*Everyone think real hard for a moment. Re-read what you write, twice or three times if you have to, before hitting post for this thread.

We don't need anyone outside repeating something they read here, either in print or electronic media.

The old adage of 'If you don't have something good to say........'

We hold ourselves up to be a reflection of the CF. The CF has seen fit to reach an understanding.

They don't need any extra grief brought on by someone here saying something stupid and then being quoted, (as we've seen happen more than once before)

and neither does Mike

Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Dec 2010)

I don't know if things have changed since the Flood dried but waay back in those days we planned our scenarios around an entity called the "Fantasians".

It seemed it wasn't considered appropriate to refer to a fellow UN member as an enemy or even a threat.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Dec 2010)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I don't know if things have changed since the Flood dried but waay back in those days we planned our scenarios around an entity called the "Fantasians".
> 
> It seemed it wasn't considered appropriate to refer to a fellow UN member as an enemy or even a threat.



We had to become PC on that as well.  It came down that our scenarios of the Fantasians coming across the river to invade Blueland was an insult to the Quebecers, as Fantasians were "Infantry" in Quebecois.  I wonder if Walt Disney is rolling in his grave?


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Dec 2010)

APTN did the story about two weeks ago, shared in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the _Copyright  Act_:


> The Canadian military is expected to officially apologize early next year for including the Mohawk Warrior Society in a draft version of the military’s counter-insurgency manual, APTN National News has learned.
> 
> The text of the apology has been approved by the upper echelons of the military command, but details still need to be worked out on how to deliver the statement and on how big of an event should be staged.
> 
> ...



More from QMI/Sun Media here.

Also, just a thought:  while CBC's headline writer and QMI says the apology will be delivered to the Mohawk Warrior Society, other references (esp. the first story on this) are vaguer, suggesting it _might_ be made to the First Nation (note the quotes from former band leadership), not the Society in particular.

Also, what recceguy wisely said...


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Dec 2010)

With regards to "opposing forces" in training, when I first joined, back when Dresden, Berlin and Hamburg were still cooling, the enemy forces consisted of the 1st Guards Tank Division of the Soviet Army.   :warstory:

By the way "fantassin" (sp?) is "infantryman" in french, but yeah, it's close to "Fantasian".


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Dec 2010)

Come on.  
What would their reaction have been if the report came out and it said "The Mohawk Warrior Soceity poses no threat what so ever and should NOT be considered a candidate for insurgency"?

Yup....


----------



## PanaEng (22 Dec 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What a fracking load of horse hooey.
> 
> 
> Fact:  An insurgent is an insurgent.  Often violent.  There are no GOOD insurgents, to be separated from BAD insurgents.  The fact that they carry arms and threaten violence makes them all the same.



George Washington was an insurgent... a despicable-no-good insurgent according to you.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Dec 2010)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> George Washington was an insurgent... a despicable-no-good insurgent according to you.



You haven't read any History have you?  George Washington and gang were all considered insurgents by the British.  So was Louis Riel.  Now we are seeing revisionist history, of course by the winners and/or loudest protesters, making them heroes.  Do you want any more technicalities?


----------



## PanaEng (22 Dec 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You haven't read any History have you?  George Washington and gang were all considered insurgents by the British.  So was Louis Riel.  Now we are seeing revisionist history, of course by the winners and/or loudest protesters, making them heroes.  Do you want any more technicalities?


you obviously didn't get my point.  (and I'm in no way saying that  Washington and gang were  saints)

anyway, lets continue with the big brush strokes...


----------



## George Wallace (22 Dec 2010)

It doesn't matter that I may have missed your point.  Point is that we have become so Politically Correct that we will apologise to any loud vocal minority or group that comes along, be it the correct thing to do or not.  Why don't we have the compunction to say it as it is?  A potentially subversive/insurgent group was included in a long list of like groups by a person/persons drawing up a contingency plan.   I am absolutely sure that the CF is not the only organization to do so.  If anything, a complaint may be construed by some as an admission of guilt.  They know what it is that drives their group, and would prefer that no one knew about it.  Now for the Black Helicopters to take over the watch........ >


----------



## Franko (22 Dec 2010)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> George Washington was an insurgent... a despicable-no-good insurgent according to you.



Apparently the FLQ were misunderstood, according to your analogy.

Regards


----------



## Infanteer (22 Dec 2010)

I think there was a little miscommunication on this one - George appears to be saying that there are no "good" or "bad" insurgents - just insurgents.  If you "insurge", then you are one.

And yes, Washington was an insurgent.


----------



## PanaEng (22 Dec 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I think there was a little miscommunication on this one - George appears to be saying that there are no "good" or "bad" insurgents - just insurgents.  If you "insurge", then you are one.
> 
> And yes, Washington was an insurgent.


Thank you - maybe that was the case, that Mr Wallace did not convey his thoughts clearly enough. 



			
				Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> Apparently the FLQ were misunderstood, according to your analogy.


Excuse-me!  I did not make any analogies, just made a statement to contradict Mr Wallace broad assertion, which I read to mean that there are no good insurgents - that they are all "bad"
of course there are good and bad insurgent movements (the ones we agree/sympathize with = good, the others = bad)



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> You haven't read any History have you?  ...  Do you want any more technicalities?


I am very confident in my knowledge of history, thank you professor!
and also of critical thinking and understanding - which seems to be lacking around here today...  >

Alright, I feel better...  ;D

The actual point here is that the writer of the draft document should not have included the named organization. Which, btw, Mr Wallace, and this is historical fact for you, the Mohawk Warrior society is not a homogeneous organization and in those days it just happens that a more militant faction gained control of their agenda ( and a few yahoos wanted their mugshot on the news). Sure, any good planner would take note of the fact that there are elements within it that are extreme and consider that in their estimate. Just as we can't label all right wing conservatives terrorist just because of Timothy McVeigh and a few others.

However, one of the many things that we can agree on is that, yes, we have become too politically correct and this "incident" is, I would say, a good example.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Dec 2010)

If the responses on CBC are any guide, and they're usually not, then the public is not particularly enthused with this plan.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Dec 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> If the responses on CBC are any guide, and they're usually not, then the public is not particularly enthused with this plan.


Neither is the _National Post_ - shared in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the _Copyright  Act_:


> The Department of National Defence (DND) reportedly is preparing an apology to the Mohawk Warrior Society for listing it as a potentially violent insurgent group in a 2006 version of a counterinsurgency manual. According to Defence department spokesman Major Martell Thompson, all that remains is “to make sure that it is delivered in a proper format with a proper amount of respect and from the proper level.”
> 
> We have a better idea: How about DND issues no apology at all?
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Dec 2010)

In a way this is correct; groups like that are not insurgents but criminal gangs. Of course the distinction is becoming more blurred as time goes on, FARC and subsets of the Taliban are heavily into the drug trade to fund their insurgencies, and the PIRA spent a great deal of time destroying busses to force people to take taxis (which were shaken down to provide income to the PIRA). The Tamil Tigers also indulged in extortion in Canada, and the Black Bock anarchists are also arsonists (although I don't know if they also indulge in robbery, drug dealing or extortion to finance their "cause". It seems pretty expensive to go around the world to protest; where do they get their funds?)


----------



## Michael OLeary (28 Dec 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> If the responses on CBC are any guide, and they're usually not, then the public is not particularly enthused with this plan.



I find that to be an amusing perception, we've [i.e., the collective membership at milnet.ca, army.ca, _et al_.] certainly never accepted the comments on any CBC article on the military as a rational barometer of public opinion.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Dec 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I find that to be an amusing perception, we've [i.e., the collective membership at milnet.ca, army.ca, _et al_.] certainly never accepted the comments on any CBC article on the military as a rational barometer of public opinion.



Which is why I included the caveat. I was unable to find a balanced MSM publication that served as a better barometer.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Dec 2010)

Too many of the people seeking and supporting the apology have conflated "terrorist" and "insurgent".  Neither is a complete subset of the other.

A bunch of guys smuggling whiskey while resisting arrest and occasionally shooting it out with the lawfully constituted police and army of a country are merely criminals.

A bunch of guys with political aims to set themselves apart from the nation in their own political structure ]with their own political aims] while resisting arrest etc are insurgents.

A bunch of guys seeking to make their point by blowing up busloads of schoolchildren are terrorists.

The Warrior Society - at least parts of it - occasionally crosses the line into insurgency.  It is not a broad-brush smear of aboriginals to describe a specifically constituted and recognized organization for what it is and what it does.

[poor grammar]


----------



## a_majoor (31 Dec 2010)

Douglas Bland weighs in:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Merely+stating+obvious/4039429/story.html



> *Merely stating the obvious*
> 
> It is quite proper for a military counter-insurgency manual to identify native Warrior Societies as a potential threat to Canadian sovereignty
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Dec 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Douglas Bland weighs in:
> 
> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Merely+stating+obvious/4039429/story.html




For the benefit of newcomers to the CF and to the Army.ca community, here is a bit about Professor (and LCol (RCAC) (Ret'd)) Douglas Bland, who is often cited here as an expert source.


----------

