# The National War Memorial and the Afghan Mission (and Boer War too)



## The Bread Guy (13 Sep 2011)

I hope they mean it when they say the bits I've highlighted in yellow....


> The Defence Department has shelved an elaborate proposal to revamp the National War Memorial to honour Canadians who fought in Afghanistan.
> 
> The plan, a copy of which was seen by The Canadian Press, involved etching the dates 2001-2011 into the granite sides of the downtown monument that was first erected to honour the sacrifices of troops during the First World War.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press, 13 Sept 11


----------



## Pusser (13 Sep 2011)

This makes sense when you consider that the National War Memorial itself wasn't even started until 1926 (i.e. eight years after the end of WWI), wasn't finished until 1938 and wasn't officially unveiled until 1939.


----------



## Journeyman (14 Sep 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> ...the National War Memorial....wasn't officially unveiled until 1939.


_~whew~_   Just in time.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (14 Sep 2011)

And the WWII and Korean War Dates didn't go on until the 1980s. 1982 to be precise ... so 37 and 29 years after.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2011)

More on this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/defence-department-scraps-plans-to-honour-afghanistan-veterans/article2165366/


> Defence Department scraps plans to honour Afghanistan veterans
> 
> MURRAY BREWSTER
> OTTAWA— The Canadian Press
> ...




This leads to a painful discussion, one I am reluctant to even mention, but ...

The sacrifices of Afghanistan are the same as those made by past generations - neither more nor less worthy of commemoration. They are small in number for three reasons:

1. We have equipped our soldiers much, much better than was ever the case in the past;

2. We have better support, especially medical support, systems than ever in any past war; and

3. It is, after all, a "low intensity" operation. Yes, over 150 Canadians have been killed in action, died accidentally in the combat zone, died of wounds or died of other causes while in the combat zone or on leave from it - all over a 10 year time frame. The last time we deployed so few troops into a "shooting war" was in South Africa 110 years ago. About 7,500 soldiers were there - over a three year period - about 90 were killed in action, 135 died of disease. The numbers are, in a way, comparable.  I wonder if we will also add 1899-1902 to the National War Memorial?

Prof. Bland raises an important point. Despite the extensive publicity, the war is Afghanistan is not 'special,' except, perhaps in that it is being fought, in the main, by professional soldiers rather than boys fresh off the farm or factory floor (or unemployment line). We have a tendency to make heroes out of men and women who were just doing what they were trained and (comparatively) well paid to be doing. There has been more than one thread here bemoaning the (relative) lack gallantry awards but I would suggest that the reverse is true - my guess is that, based on the number of direct engagements with the enemy, more Canadians are being decorated than ever.

I certainly do not want to ignore this war, nor do I denigrate the sacrifices made by those who served and, especially, those who died, but I think  we need to keep it in perspective - it is more like South Africa than, say, Korea, and it is quite unlike the First and Second World Wars. It needs to be remembered, ideally on the national War Memorial - but so does South Africa.


----------



## Zoomie (14 Sep 2011)

Excellent post Mr Campbell.


----------



## GAP (14 Sep 2011)

I agree....while it's closer to home re: time.....it needs to be put in prespective....


----------



## Pusser (14 Sep 2011)

There are a few other things to keep in mind:

1)  There are many memorials around for the South African War - Cartier Square in Ottawa and the grounds of the Legislature in Halifax are two that immediately come to mind, but I know there are others.  Most of these seem to have been paid for through private subscription (i.e. donations) vice public funds.  It's worth noting that the Canadian government of the day was not overly keen on participating in South Africa and so adopted the approach of allowing those who wanted to volunteer to go, but actual Canadian support was minimal.  There was no conscription and the British government paid most of the bill.  In contrast, although WWI may have started out as a British Imperial conflict, by the end, Canada had come into its own as a nation.  Perhaps this is reflected in the government's interest in monuments?

2)  The idea of having only one memorial in an area that honours all conflicts is relatively new.  Prior to WWI, most memorials seem to be conflict-specific.  If you look at most of the newer (i.e. starting with WWI) memorials and cenotaphs, they generally seem to have been originally designed for the Great War, but have since been added to.  I can't help but think that this was often done out of expediency and with cost savings in mind.  Remember that the generation that fought WWI was largely still (and in positions of authority) around during WWII and Korea.  Perhaps they thought, "Shucks, we only just built one.  Do we really need to build another?  Why don't we just add the latest war to the existing memorial?"  Anyone with a birthday close to Christmas understands this all too well.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Sep 2011)

More grist for the mill to provide further context:


> .... It took almost 20 years after the devastation of the Second World War for the federal government to design and erect the national war monument in Ottawa. The inclusion of that war as part of the monument didn't take place until 37 years after it ended.
> 
> The 26,971 Canadian soldiers who fought in the Korean War were ignored by both Canadian media and government until 1982 as well.
> 
> ...


Andy Radia, Yahoo Political Points blog, 14 Sept 11


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Feb 2014)

This motion was passed by the House yesterday:


> Pursuant to Standing Order 93(1), the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mr. Boughen (Palliser), seconded by Mr. Payne (Medicine Hat), — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should commit to honouring our Afghan veterans through a permanent memorial either at an existing or a new site in the National Capital Region, once all Canadian Armed Forces personnel return to Canada in 2014, and that the memorial remember (i) those who lost their lives and who were injured in the Afghanistan War, (ii) the contribution of our Canadian Armed Forces, diplomatic and aid personnel who defended Canada and its allies from the threat of terrorism, (iii) the contributions made by Canada to improving the lives of the Afghan people, and (iv) the hundreds of Canadian Armed Forces personnel who remain in a non-combat role in Afghanistan today, helping to train Afghan forces.


Here's the vote results from Hansard.


----------



## McG (27 Feb 2014)

I would be more than happy to see something as simple as "Afghanistan" being added to the base of the National War Memorial.


----------



## McG (11 Nov 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> I would be more than happy to see something as simple as "Afghanistan" being added to the base of the National War Memorial.


... and today this is exactly what happened.  The National War Memorial was rededicated with both the Afghan and Bore wars added.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/remembrance-day-draws-huge-crowds-as-national-war-memorial-rededicated-1.2831009


----------



## Infanteer (11 Nov 2014)

I think it fits well.


----------

