# The lack of leadership



## Edward Campbell (13 Aug 2005)

Here is an interesting article by Senator Colin Kenny, chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence, from today's _Ottawa Citizen_.  My emphasis added.

http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=769bdb68-c4eb-4c1e-9c08-69acf3c2e177 


> The lack of leadership
> *Canada's politicians have failed in their duty to tell Canadians and the military why we're in Afghanistan*
> 
> Colin Kenny
> ...


----------



## 54/102 CEF (13 Aug 2005)

What`s all this war talk?


----------



## Sf2 (13 Aug 2005)

*Putting Flame Suit on*

This is why we need a Commander in Chief who isn't, well, a journalist.


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL (13 Aug 2005)

If Canadians want to bitch and criticize how something should be done in Afghanistan and how they should adopt democratic values then we need a Military presence. But if they want us out of there, then they should shut their pie holes up, your either in the game or your out, money doesn't solve all problems. Anyways, just my thought!


----------



## silentbutdeadly (13 Aug 2005)

i don't think he is taking a swipe at the military, but i do agree with him on the fact that our leaders in Ottawa should prep the Canadian public on the fact that in Feb 06 we are sending roughly 1500 troops that are not going to be a PRT, instead of hiding the fact till the last min. I think our PM and his ass kissers think the Canadian public are to senstive and must be cuddled and yes some are, but if you come up with a intell reason for us being there, then i think they will understand.


----------



## pbi (14 Aug 2005)

silentbutdeadly said:
			
		

> i don't think he is taking a swipe at the military, but i do agree with him on the fact that our leaders in Ottawa should prep the Canadian public on the fact that in Feb 06 we are sending roughly 1500 troops that are not going to be a PRT, instead of hiding the fact till the last min. I think our PM and his ass kissers think the Canadian public are to senstive and must be cuddled and yes some are, but if you come up with a intell reason for us being there, then i think they will understand.



 I certainly agree with just about everything the Senator has said. A far as the Govt not talking about casualties, I disagree: in all the operations I can recall, I have never, ever, seen such a constant public emphasis on danger, risk and the high likelihood of losses such as we are seeing in connection with OP ARCHER. If you pay close attention to the media (including the much-maligned and suspected CBC...) I think you will see that everybody from the PM down has been making this point. Our senior officers, in particular, have been hammering on these topics to a degree almost unheard of ten years ago and unimaginable 20 years ago. I don't think the Canadian public is listening very closely. Or maybe, just maybe, they actually agree for a change.

Cheers.


----------



## silentbutdeadly (14 Aug 2005)

good point!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (14 Aug 2005)

short final said:
			
		

> *Putting Flame Suit on*
> 
> This is why we need a Commander in Chief who isn't, well, a journalist.



That's funny, I though journalists were exactly the people who we as a society and a nation have looked to for our daily news.

Care to elaborate?  Whom, then, would be suitable, in your eyes, for the post of commander-in-chief?  And what is it you think a commander-in-chief does?


----------



## Sf2 (15 Aug 2005)

You're right, journalists are the people we as a society look at for daily news, but not as the executive to our military (albiet more of a symbolic/traditional one).  The article cites lack of leadership.  Well, in my opinion, our new CDS is the epitome (pronounced EPP - EHH - TOME for you Jim Lahey fans) of leadership, so this lack has to be at higher echelons than that.  That's where my comment comes in.  How many people are in charge ABOVE the CDS?  MND?  PM? GG?  Its gotta come for the top and trickle down.  Even the PM needs inspiration once in a while, and that's where a patriotic, loyal, charismatic GG comes in.

I PERSONALLY would like to see something simliar to the US, where the head of gov't is the commander in chief (who so happens to also be the head of state).  Here, the so-called leadership is held accountable to the public to the highest degree.  But yes, yada yada yada commonwealth under the queen bla bla, and I have no problem with that.  I truly enjoy and cherish the monarchy, given that I have their commission.  However, someone who is appointed by the PM because of their national contributions doesn't necessarily make them a commander in chief for our military.  Yes I know that the GG rarely makes any decisions for the military, and that its a signature more than anything, but when you need someone to speak on behalf of all us, INClUDING the CDS, they'd better damn well know what they're talking about.

Now who should fill the position?  Damn good question.  Who knows, I barely know anyone outside Petawawa for god's sake.

FLAME SUIT REMAINS ON REINFORCED WITH DUCT TAPE.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (15 Aug 2005)

short final said:
			
		

> You're right, journalists are the people we as a society look at for daily news, but not as the executive to our military (albiet more of a symbolic/traditional one).   The article cites lack of leadership.   Well, in my opinion, our new CDS is the epitome (pronounced EPP - EHH - TOME for you Jim Lahey fans) of leadership, so this lack has to be at higher echelons than that.   That's where my comment comes in.   How many people are in charge ABOVE the CDS?   MND?   PM? GG?   Its gotta come for the top and trickle down.   Even the PM needs inspiration once in a while, and that's where a patriotic, loyal, charismatic GG comes in.
> 
> I PERSONALLY would like to see something simliar to the US, where the head of gov't is the commander in chief (who so happens to also be the head of state).   Here, the so-called leadership is held accountable to the public to the highest degree.   But yes, yada yada yada commonwealth under the queen bla bla, and I have no problem with that.   I truly enjoy and cherish the monarchy, given that I have their commission.   However, someone who is appointed by the PM because of their national contributions doesn't necessarily make them a commander in chief for our military.   Yes I know that the GG rarely makes any decisions for the military, and that its a signature more than anything, but when you need someone to speak on behalf of all us, INClUDING the CDS, they'd better damn well know what they're talking about.
> 
> ...



Good response.  Personally, I'd be leery of someone with a lack of acumen on the order of Jean Chretien having more power to use the military, so I disagree in part, at least with your envisioned C-i-C role.  The government decides what to do with the military, but the CDS, working with the MND, define how it will be done.  The G-G really has no role to play as it is.

Unless you can think of an instance when one of our "military" Governors-General actually intervened in a matter of policy?  I don't have a firm grasp at all on political history so there could be dozens for all I know.  I do know many of our G-Gs were selected due at least in part to their military achievements in the field, or if not selected because of, then at the least famous for.

Why does the CDS need someone to speak for them?  I think when we get a real general like Hillier in there, he does well at expressing himself, and if not, the MND can speak to the people of Canada.  The perceived weakness is when a CDS is appointed who is a politician or a bureaucrat rather than a general.  I can picture General Hillier in a toga waving a sword; General Baril completes that picture a little less fully.


----------



## Sf2 (15 Aug 2005)

True in some aspects.

However the original article was addressing why the public doesn't know what's up with Afganistan.  In my opinion, Gen Hillier has been VERY vocal about it, but the CDS isn't in a position to express it directly to the public....and that's where the politicians come in, because they have the ability to circumnavigate, or stomp on the CDS's views and express their own to the public.  That's why you need someone in the highest of echelons, higher than the CDS, in a position of direct public opinion/interaction who can "speak for the CDS"......


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Aug 2005)

In my opinion the 'spin' applied to defence, in general and military operations, in particular (by DND's _communications_ people and everyone else in government) is driven from the _centre_: the Prime Minister's Office which, according to the rumours I hear, is no less controlling of the _message_ under the _Martinis_ than it was under the _Chrétienistas_.  The first duty of ministers and senior officials is to _stay on message_ and the _message_ is: "Vote Liberal!  The Liberal party of Canada is doing what you want, whatever you want; and it's not doing what you don't want to hear about - like fighting wars."


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Aug 2005)

The above, about 'spinning' being said, I agree with short final; it is the CDS' duty to tell Canadian sailors, soldiers and aviators what to do, how to do it and so on and, equally important, why they are doing it.   It is not his job to tell that to the Canadian people.

It is Prime Minister Paul Martin's job to tell Canadians why it is important that they (the government) send our troops into harm's way.   (If it's not important then the government ought not to send them there in the first place.)

Edited to corect spelling


----------



## jmacleod (15 Aug 2005)

General Hillier obviously has the tacit approval of the Prime Minister. It appears that the PMO are
focused on generating an overall policy related to the Canadian Forces which has not appeared
in the public forum, but it is suspected will be debated at the next Government policy forum
in Regina, behind closed doors. My opinion is that Hillier and other senior officers, plus the DM
DND and other senior bureaucrats are having some effect on Federal defence policies - this
is a surprise, but more positive support for the Canadian Forces might be evident by the early
'fall. There are too many areas in the international sector, bordering on crises, which require a
a more effective demonstration of political will, coupled with military strength. The funeral of
the late Sgt. E.A (Smoky) Smith VC was a profound and striking example of the high quality of
the Canadian Forces, particularly the Canadian Army (both Regular and Reserve) which we understand
made a very significant impression on the PM and some of his more senior Ministers> MacLeod


----------



## sigtech (16 Aug 2005)

This mite sound strange, but I believe the public are told to much. It is my belief that the media pass back to much information and in most situations end up causing undo stress to the wife's and children left behind here in Canada. Let soldiers do what soldiers do, without a constant media light on them it will allow them to complete there job via the means that are necessary and return home to there loved ones. Why are we in the Afgan? The people that count are told what they need to know, "Honey I am going on tour and I love you and I will be coming back soon"


----------



## -rb (16 Aug 2005)

sigtech said:
			
		

> This mite sound strange, but I believe the public are told to much. It is my belief that the media pass back to much information and in most situations end up causing undo stress to the wife's and children left behind here in Canada. Let soldiers do what soldiers do, without a constant media light on them it will allow them to complete there job via the means that are necessary and return home to there loved ones. Why are we in the Afgan? The people that count are told what they need to know, "Honey I am going on tour and I love you and I will be coming back soon"



I agree with the fact that in today's world, instant access to information may cause unneeded stress on loved ones. This is a reality that IMHO isn't going to change any time soon, in fact it may be quite the opposite. One only has to look at the reporting coming out of Iraq, embedded journalists with combat units etc. 

I'm sure a deployed soldier does not want to cause undue stress on his family but in this day and age soldiering seems to be a family affair, whether they like it or not, something I've witnessed with an in-laws deployment to Sierra Leone. I know there wasn't a single day (if not hour) that went by that the family wasn't concerned about _their_ loved one on tour. It wasn't a fear of the known that worried them, it was the unknown...the uncontrollable factors that a soldier can't train for. I guess what I'm trying to say is if a wife/child or other loved one is left in the dark, the mind can wander pretty fast.

It's a fine line, i personally don't have the experience or judgement to say where that boundary should exist, between too much coverage(as in Iraq for some) and not enough time in the spotlight (as per the CF and Canadian media IMHO). I believe that as a member of the public I deserve to know the where and why of troop deployments (when possible), it is with this knowledge that one can make semi-informed decisions when it comes time to vote with respect to matters of DND, foreign policy etc. It can also help inform the public wrt things such as shortfalls in funding, training and kit needed for today's soldiers, things that may otherwise go unoticed by the populace.

Out of curiosity, what sort of arrangements are in place for the Canadian media to report on Op Archer? Can we expect to see any embedded journalists with Canadian troops and PRTs based out of Kandahar in the near future? Further to that, is this something that Canadian troops would even want to take on due to the added responsibilities and stresses of another civilian tagging along on patrols & operations?

cheers.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Aug 2005)

And the question remains: why Afghanistan?  Of all the candidates for nation-building assistance, why them?  It's not like we have a lot of cultural ties or a mutual history on which to build.


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Aug 2005)

I don't know why Afghanistan, but in my opinion  it really has nothing to do with nation-building. If Canada really had a serious inkling to "nation build", we'd send SNC Lavalin over there to construct a giant toll hi-way and contract Canadian Tire and Rona to supply home building materials. [crappy tire money in the 'Ghan- how's that for capitalist democracy?] Karzai needs cash, and he needs a few thousand western troops hanging around, but the "new" Canadian army is needed elsewhere. [assuming that a nuclear armed, cruise missile equipped Pakistan can be counted on to continue to hunt, [and not aid] the enemy- big assumption over the long term.] 

If we want to use the armed forces to nation build by forcing  peace and democracy, how about Iraq, Sudan or perhaps parts of the emerging Palestinian state and the list goes on?   

There's no shortage of brave Canadians willing to undertake the tasks, we seem to have a shortgage of funds and leadership to take them where they could be of most value. 

You guys are right, we need an explanation.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Aug 2005)

Since the CDS is the chief military advisor to the government (and even entitled to a seat at the cabinet table); I am fairly certain he will have raised many of those questions as to "why Afghanistan" as well as discussing the very real limits to what the military can and cannot do. The "why" of course is out of our hands, the Government decides and we pack our barracks boxes and get ready to deploy. Once the decision is made, then the CDS needs to tell us and the public what we have been tasked to do. (Ms Parrish is obviously confused as to the sequence of events).

The "info glut" is actually a blessing. Not only do we have "embedded" media and a more aware (although not fully informed) media establishment watching our actions, but soldiers themselves are "blogging" and sending news over the Internet to friends and loved ones. Because it comes from the soldiers themselves, it seems to come from a totally different universe than the MSM (read the New York Times and then compare it to any number of blogs by soldiers and units deployed in Iraq, you'd think they were on a different planet). We no longer have news as propaganda, but can access ground truth for ourselves and make informed decisions. This is the ultimate basis for democratic societies to live and thrive.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Aug 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Since the CDS is the chief military advisor to the government (and even entitled to a seat at the cabinet table); I am fairly certain he will have raised many of those questions as to "why Afghanistan" as well as discussing the very real limits to what the military can and cannot do. The "why" of course is out of our hands, the Government decides and we pack our barracks boxes and get ready to deploy. Once the decision is made, then the CDS needs to tell us and the public what we have been tasked to do. (Ms Parrish is obviously confused as to the sequence of events).
> 
> The "info glut" is actually a blessing. Not only do we have "embedded" media and a more aware (although not fully informed) media establishment watching our actions, but soldiers themselves are "blogging" and sending news over the Internet to friends and loved ones. Because it comes from the soldiers themselves, it seems to come from a totally different universe than the MSM (read the New York Times and then compare it to any number of blogs by soldiers and units deployed in Iraq, you'd think they were on a different planet). We no longer have news as propaganda, but can access ground truth for ourselves and make informed decisions. This is the ultimate basis for democratic societies to live and thrive.



Ground "opinion" you mean - the soldiers may be closer to the action, but to call their views "truth" would be going too far - in my opinion.  But yes, we have much more access to information from a greater variety of sources - a good thing, as long as opsec is maintained.


----------



## sigtech (17 Aug 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I don't know why Afghanistan, but in my opinion  it really has nothing to do with nation-building. If Canada really had a serious inkling to "nation build", we'd send SNC Lavalin over there to construct a giant toll hi-way and contract Canadian Tire and Rona to supply home building materials. [crappy tire money in the 'Ghan- how's that for capitalist democracy?] Karzai needs cash, and he needs a few thousand western troops hanging around, but the "new" Canadian army is needed elsewhere. [assuming that a nuclear armed, cruise missile equipped Pakistan can be counted on to continue to hunt, [and not aid] the enemy- big assumption over the long term.]
> 
> If we want to use the armed forces to nation build by forcing  peace and democracy, how about Iraq, Sudan or perhaps parts of the emerging Palestinian state and the list goes on?
> 
> ...



Why Afghanistan ? As a member of Canada's ararmedorces we are told to go. Will a full explanation allow us to do our job better? I believe if you want explanations get into politics and discuss the whys in the House, as a soldier we just do like we are told to, as our fathers/mothers and there fathers and there fathers fathers did. Canada says go and we go.

Are more funds needed and better equipment need to allow Canada's solders to complete there task at hand , you know it.

It would be nice for the reasons of making war or intodays speak making peace to be as clear and clean as it was for my family members that served in WWI and WWII. The unfortunate fact is we go into areas to allow ececonomic growth of North American company's reasons are reasons what the bottom line is we do what we are told. We kiss our loved ones goodbye and we go.ccrappy for them but in most situations they know what they are getting into when they married someone that is a soldier.

As far as the leadership goes if you are talking the prime minister and other political postions that is up to all citizens of canada to vote in the correct people. Now the officer cadra well is there any way to breed good leadership there ?


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Aug 2005)

sigtech said:
			
		

> Why Afghanistan ? As a member of Canada's ararmedorces we are told to go. Will a full explanation allow us to do our job better? I believe if you want explanations get into politics and discuss the whys in the House, as a soldier we just do like we are told to, as our fathers/mothers and there fathers and there fathers fathers did. Canada says go and we go.
> 
> ...



In over 35 years of service I remained amazed at the *fact* â â€œ and I firmly believe it is a fact â â€œ that soldiers do better when they understand what and why.

I remember being admonished as a junior officer (as were many of my mates) for not explaining 'why' often enough or in enough detail.  The longer I served the more I came to understand.  I remember, more recently, admonishing junior officers and NCOs (many of them) for not explaining 'why' often enough or in enough detail.  I expect that those folks will have learned and I am confident that they, now, are admonishing junior officers.

We, the Western armies, have long believed that soldiers need to _reason why_ and the older I get the more I, too, understand why.


----------



## sigtech (17 Aug 2005)

My job is not to ask the question why my job is but to do and die


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Aug 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> In over 35 years of service I remained amazed at the *fact* â â€œ and I firmly believe it is a fact â â€œ that soldiers do better when they understand what and why.
> 
> I remember being admonished as a junior officer (as were many of my mates) for not explaining 'why' often enough or in enough detail.   The longer I served the more I came to understand.   I remember, more recently, admonishing junior officers and NCOs (many of them) for not explaining 'why' often enough or in enough detail.   I expect that those folks will have learned and I am confident that they, now, are admonishing junior officers.
> 
> We, the Western armies, have long believed that soldiers need to _reason why_ and the older I get the more I, too, understand why.



This is true; I think Arthur Currie started the trend in WW I, right?  Platoon commanders getting marked maps issued was probably unheard of before the Canadian Corps started doing it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Aug 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> This is true; I think Arthur Currie started the trend in WW I, right?   Platoon commanders getting marked maps issued was probably unheard of before the Canadian Corps started doing it.



That's certainly one aspect of the 'why' - in terms of 'why do it this way?'

There is another, going back, e.g. to about 218 BCE when Hannibal said, to his troops: _" Long enough, in pursuing cattle among the desert mountains of Lusitania and Celtiberia, you have seen no emolument from so many toils and dangers; it is time to make rich and profitable campaigns, and to gain the great reward of your labours, after having accomplished such a length of journey over so many mountains and rivers, and so many nations in arms. Here fortune has granted you the termination of your labours; here she will bestow a reward worthy of the service you have undergone. Nor, in proportion as the war is great in name, ought you to consider that the victory will be difficult. A despised enemy has often maintained a sanguinary contest, and renowned States and kings have been conquered by a very slight effort."_  This was a pretty mercenary 'why' but it appears to have had the desired effect.

Nelson did it, more than once: told his sailors that they fought for more than just a few meagre pennies and the lash.  Nelson's own comments about his own personal loyalty to king and country were intended to inspire his captains and to be passed through the fleet.

Even Wellingtons' famous remarks about the low _social_ quality of his troops (_" People talk of their enlisting from their fine military feeling - all stuff - no such thing. Some of our men enlist from having got bastard children -- some for minor offences -- many more for drink."_) was a backhanded compliment and an acknowledgement that his men did more than just _"do or die"_.


----------



## sigtech (17 Aug 2005)

wasn't vietnam a good example of asking the question why causeing issues with the troops. People drafted then started the question why am I here , why am i doing this? These questions led to deaths of troops due to the why askers failing to compleat the task given to them


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Aug 2005)

sigtech said:
			
		

> wasn't vietnam a good example of asking the question why causeing issues with the troops. People drafted then started the question why am I here , why am i doing this? These questions led to deaths of troops due to the why askers failing to compleat the task given to them



And your argument is that the US should have been in Vietnam in the first place?  If you have a clear imperative, then tell your troops about it.  If you don't, then get your troops the hell out of whereever you just sent them.


----------



## paracowboy (17 Aug 2005)

I have always made it a point to know "why". I have always made it a point to tell my troops "why". They are not robots or idiots. You get better results from informed troops.


----------



## Bartok5 (17 Aug 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> I have always made it a point to know "why". I have always made it a point to tell my troops "why". They are not robots or idiots. You get better results from informed troops.


`

Paracowboy...  Abosolutely true, and as a serving officer (and former NC*O*) I wouldn't want it any other way.  Why Afghanistan at this particular point in time?  Well, there are many theories regarding our original post-9/11 commitment, our subsequent national political desire to avoid the Iraq situation, etc, etc.  At the end of the day, right or wrong we have elected to commit our available combat power to the Afghan theatre.  So, in for a penny, in for a pound.  Let's make it frigging count for something.

I have no heart-ache with what we are currently doing.  Will "3-D" work?  Watch and shoot.  Is it any less a potentially valid prospect than a purely military approach?  In my humble view (having orchestrated the 6 km  K'har "bubble" of "carrot and stick" back in 2002), it is as good an approach as any.  We Canucks are pretty darned good at winning hearts and minds with positive incentives foremost - albeit with the "stick" lurking in the background.  The local Afghans living around K'har Airfield seemed to cotton on to that approach back in 2002.  Call me a fool, but I would tend to think that the same approach could/would work again.  

At the same time as we were winning over the local villages, there were "bad people" operating in limited terrorist cells who were launching rockets against KAF, planting fresh mines on our patrol tracks, laying IEDs and bridge demolitions on the main route into K'har city, etc.  So what?  Find them out, actively target them, kill them, and problem solved.  It ain't frigging rocket-science.   Those scum-bags need to die, and for every local that you bring on-side with a new well, school, etc - the chances of catching the undesirebles increases exponentially.  The locals know when an "outsider" comes to town.  And if you have earned their loyalty (the Afghan culture is huge on "quid pro quo"), you will know that there are "bad guys" floating around.  It is admittedly one thing to know that they are there and active, and quite another thing to catch them in the act and kill them.  But having won over the local populace?  Killing "bad guys" is not impossible.  Indeed, my experience was that the vast majority of villages were quite happy to have us close with and destroy - assuming that they got a new water well and/or a school out of the deal....

Sorry to digress from the orignal point.  As an "officer" do I want informed soldiers?  You bet your ass I do.  Because those soldiers are the ones doing the face-to-face business.  And if they don't know what is going on and cannot directly contribute to the political/military effort?  Well, then those very same soldiers are an uninformed liability.  It behooves me as a leader to educate my subordinates and tell them in no uncertain terms what their role is, what they need to spread amongst the civilian populace in terms of info-ops messages, etc, etc.  That is just plain common sense.  The soldiers on the ground are our "coal-face".  If we pooch that direct interface through a lack of institutional communication, then we have abysmally failed.  I really hope that we are not currently making a series of newfound mistakes, because when it comes to the Afghan theatre such idiocy is not a viable option.  We already know better.  We learned those very same lessons 3 years ago, and if we make stupid mistakes this time around we will have nobody to blame but ourselves for not having learned from previous experience.  

I'm not the least bit convinced that our new-found and purpose-trained "HUMINT Operators" and "CIMIC Dets" are the end all and be all.  The cynic in me suggests that they will be largely counter-productive in the Afghan sense, as that society views only combat-capable soldiers as worthy of interaction and anyone else as a waste of rations.  But hey - what do I know?  Perhaps our purpose-trained CIMIC and HUMINT types will gain the trust of the locals.  Best of luck to them.  Let's hope that they don't simply end up as fodder for hostage negotiations....

As for the rest of the PBI (Poor Bloody Infantry) headed over to Kandahar?  Best of luck.  One would assume that the immediate leadership wouldl have the requisite training and respect to speak to their subordinate soldiers on a truthful basis.  That said, they ought to be able to discuss with their soldiers the very real risks and rewards of their daily duties.  If they can, then all is well.  If they seemingly can't, then by all means the troops ought to righfully demand that they do so.  Our soldiers are owed no less, full-stop.

As usual, just my thoughts/observations.  FWIW.


----------



## sigtech (18 Aug 2005)

Being informed on what the job is and why we are there is to different things. Ya I want to know what I am suppose to be doing and why that needs to be done. 
Now Why are we there, how does this help a Soldeir be more effective. In my experance this usally leads to well that isn't a good reason to be here so why am I here. I would rather be at home with my wife and kids etc etc. 
Is it really our place to question why we are somewhere? If you want to question why we are there mabey the army isn't the place for that person. We are sent all over the place for some good reasons and for some really crappy reasons. When you get down to it, no matter were we are sent a job needs to be done. Sitting around and going over and over why are we here helps not. 

I am not a robot but I did sign on the line to serve Canada and that I will do no matter where I am sent and the reasons behind it. The information I want is what needs to be done when we get there , hand out food , gaurd a camp etc etc. That is the information is needed.


----------



## paracowboy (18 Aug 2005)

sigtech said:
			
		

> Being informed on what the job is and why we are there is to different things. Ya I want to know what I am suppose to be doing and why that needs to be done.
> Now Why are we there, how does this help a Soldeir be more effective. In my experance this usally leads to well that isn't a good reason to be here so why am I here. I would rather be at home with my wife and kids etc etc.


knowing why we are there *is* knowing what the job is. Infantrymen respond much better knowing why they are in place. We need that information, or we can't patrol effectively. If we don't understand the socio-political background, and the Comd's Intent (all the way to the PM's Office), we can't dig for the Int needed, etc. We're just driving/walking around.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Aug 2005)

Somehow the original question sideslipped into how the mission is sold to the soldiers.  Again, and with feeling:

"Canada's politicians have failed in their duty to tell Canadians and the military why we're in Afghanistan"

Forget the CDS.  Think rather of Paul Martin.  What has he told the citizens of Canada that makes you coming home on a slab and a flag for your mother or wife worthwhile?


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Aug 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Somehow the original question sideslipped into how the mission is sold to the soldiers.   Again, and with feeling:
> 
> "Canada's politicians have failed in their duty to tell Canadians and the military why we're in Afghanistan"
> 
> Forget the CDS.   Think rather of Paul Martin.   What has he told the citizens of Canada that makes you coming home on a slab and a flag for your mother or wife worthwhile?



Absolutley.

That is Senator Kenny's message and I endorse it.

The CDS and most commanders, I am sure, are doing their part but they need the government's rationale and so do _ordinary_ Canadains.  That's Paul Martin's part.


----------



## Pikache (18 Aug 2005)

sigtech said:
			
		

> Being informed on what the job is and why we are there is to different things. Ya I want to know what I am suppose to be doing and why that needs to be done.
> Now Why are we there, how does this help a Soldeir be more effective. In my experance this usally leads to well that isn't a good reason to be here so why am I here. I would rather be at home with my wife and kids etc etc.
> Is it really our place to question why we are somewhere? If you want to question why we are there mabey the army isn't the place for that person. We are sent all over the place for some good reasons and for some really crappy reasons. When you get down to it, no matter were we are sent a job needs to be done. Sitting around and going over and over why are we here helps not.
> 
> I am not a robot but I did sign on the line to serve Canada and that I will do no matter where I am sent and the reasons behind it. The information I want is what needs to be done when we get there , hand out food , gaurd a camp etc etc. That is the information is needed.


Blind loyalty can be a tool used by bad leaders to commit bad acts. Is Canada free of such people? Almost. There are always few bad apples in every barrel.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Aug 2005)

A reader replied to David Frum's Canada Day collumn with this:



> AUG. 12, 2005: A READER WRITES
> 
> ... about my Canada Day post on Canada's national military record. As edited:
> 
> ...


----------



## sigtech (19 Aug 2005)

RoyalHighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> Blind loyalty can be a tool used by bad leaders to commit bad acts. Is Canada free of such people? Almost. There are always few bad apples in every barrel.



Bad apples in every barrel huh, so here is the question for you, your told you are to go overseas and don't agree with the why do you go?
I see both sides of the story and can deffently see why people are saying they want to know. now being called a bad apple because I chose to serve without question that is compleatly uncalled for. I have found to many in todays forces that treat this as a 9-5 job. while working in recruting I was told to tell people that wanted to join the reserves that they wouldn't have to go if there was ever a need and it would be there choice. You make your choice when you sign on the line. That isn't blind I sign with my eyes wide open.like it or not we are Canada's tool to enforce there will.That is all members of the forces from the techs that keep the machine running to the grunts that have to do the hard stuff the front line patroling and dieing if need be.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Aug 2005)

sigtech said:
			
		

> ... your told you are to go overseas and don't agree with the why do you go?



Although _ethics_ ought not to be situational, one's ethical response can be.

Consider:

"¢	You are a professional regular soldier;

"¢	You are ordered overseas - into operations; and

"¢	You believe, quite firmly, that the government-of-the-day has made a blunder.  The operation to which you are assigned is bad foreign policy, bad defence policy, ill considered and, possibly, poorly planned, at the political level.

Q:  What to do?
A:  Suck it up; pack your bags; b!tch to your friends, relatives, comrades-in-arms, etc; vote for some other rascals, next time.  Come home safely, we all hope.

But, consider:

"¢	You are a professional regular soldier;

"¢	You are ordered overseas - into operations; and

"¢	You believe, quite firmly, that the government-of-the-day has made a serious moral error.  The war aims are unjust.  Participating in the operation may well put you at odds with international law and will, without fail, conflict with your own high ethical standards.

Q:  What to do?
A:  March to the CO's office.  Tell him, loudly and clearly: "Sir, I cannot and will not go."  After a period during which you are invited to reflect and reconsider and then during which you are summarily tried and convicted, you serve your sentence, accept your involuntary release and go on about your life.

You always have options.  No soldier should be forced to violate his own ethical standards; (s)he may have to spend the _'duration of hostilities'_ doing some combination of penal servitude and good works.  If, on the other hand, the soldier's objections are, for example, to poor equipment, lack of training, a lousy team of leaders, etc, etc _ad infinitum_ then (s)he needs to fall in at the end of e very, very long queue (going back 2,500 years or more) and soldier on.


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Aug 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> But, consider:
> 
> "¢	You are a professional regular soldier;
> 
> ...



I agree, but I would would hope that a CO would respond to such a soldier by pointing out that 
the war aims must not merely be unjust, but they must be so obviously unjust that no other explanation is possible, failing already having been found to be unjust by a competent authority over the soldier [i.e.Parliament];
 Even then, I don't think a finding of 'unjust war aims' is enough to refuse to go to war when ordered- I think the war or the operation itself must be illegal in international law, or an open, gross defiance of Parliament or both;
the operation must go beyond being at odds with international law, there must be an actual, demonstrable breach or intended breach of recognized   international law, and such a breach must also be one that Canada recognizes [perhaps we recognize all of them, I really don't know];

Both circumstances must be so firmly established by facts that even the least morally challenged soldier could refuse to deploy, rather than actually deploying and then refusing to commit or participate in the commission of the illegal act at the site of the operations.

Anything else leaves too much room for subjectivity-which weakens the power of the state over the soldier.

My 0.02. 
[/list]


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Aug 2005)

I puzzled, a wee bit, over: _"No soldier should be forced to violate his own ethical standards ..."_  I was tempted to write that _"no soldier can be forced ..."_ because I believe each of us has the right to refuse an order so long as we are ready and willing to accept the consequences - which might be prison.  On reflection I decided that some people can be forced, or coerced or persuaded - perhaps their ethical standards were not, after all, fixed and firm and reasonable or, perhaps, they have high standards but weak constitutions.

I agree that men and women who refuse an order should be able to demonstrate the righteousness of their position but I also believe that there is room for honest men to disagree on moral issues - witness e.g. abortion and capital punishment.  I believe that few things are absolute and the list of those which _might_ be gets shorter as I get older.


----------



## pbi (20 Aug 2005)

sigtech said:
			
		

> wasn't vietnam a good example of asking the question why causeing issues with the troops. People drafted then started the question why am I here , why am i doing this? These questions led to deaths of troops due to the why askers failing to compleat the task given to them



Really? After 30-plus years in (and having read a b it of military history into the bargain...) I'd say that IMHO almost all troops (and certainly their leaders) at some time have doubts, uncertainties, or just need to know "why". This is probably much more prominent today, but I don't think it's new. If you agree with that premise, then I don't see how you could agree with the statement that "why askers" caused people to get killed in Vietnam or any other war. Perhaps those who fail to do their duty may have caused this (although you offer absolutely no proof, not even anecdotal...) but more likely soldiers died in Vietnam from the causes that have killed us since Julius Caesar's day: the enemy's actions, disease and accidents.

I might even go so far as to say that a few more "why askers" in the right places might have avoided ineffectual bloodbaths such as the Somme, Hong Kong and Dieppe.

Cheers.


----------



## Bartok5 (20 Aug 2005)

Hmmm, call me intellectually stunted, but there were surprisingly few "why askers" when 3 PPCLI BG deployed to Afghanistan on combat operations 3 years ago.   Yes, we had our share of the "sick, lame and lazy".   Having said that, for the first time in my 25 years of military service we had a huge number of soldiers at all rank levels going to the MO and saying "screw my category - I want to go".   And go they did.   I know, because I was one of them who deployed with a fairly painful hip/groin injury following a bad para-landing that put me on crutches.   But if you thought for a second that I was going to miss out on that deployment?   Yeah, right. 

Apparently many 3 PPCLI soldiers (of all MOCs) thought like I did.   The troops quite literally flocked to the deployment, including those who were on legitimate medical categories.   The handful who balked were far (far) outweighed by those who sought the challenge, and the nay-sayers were quickly side-lined.   

Hmmm... what's my point?   Well, I guess it is this.   Those of us who deployed on Op APOLLO all had our personal doubts.   Those doubts certainly came home to roost the first time that we were ordered to air-assault into a situation that had henceforth been a total shite-hole for elements of the 101st Airborne Div and 10th Mountain Div.   The fact that we launched the first battalion-level air-assault in Canadian Army history with a minimum of planning and based on fundamentally bad intelligence certainly didn't help matters.   Nor did the fact that battle procedure went out the window.   Our soldiers flew from Kandahar on the military version of "planes, trains and automobiles" in a big hurry using everything within the U.S. inventory.   The troops exited C-130s and C-17s from Kandahar, walked across the tarmac at Bagram, picked up two 81mm Mortar bombs (2 per man), got a two-minute briefing on the situation, and then boarded Chinooks in-bound for the Shah-i-Kot.   And they did so fully expecting 80 to 100 dug-in enemy awaiting them.

Regardless of what came to pass, the fact is that everyone of all ranks who got on those helicopters in-bound to the Shah-i-Kot expected a contested LZ, followed by a knock-down, drag-out fight for every metre along the 5km length of that mountain.   The "hindsight" fact that there was minimal contact is utterly irrelevant in my humble view.   3 PPCLI troops were told that it would be a shite-storm.   Yet they got on those helicopters without flinching.   To a person (yes, both men and women), they did their duty - most never having thought in their wildest dreams that it would actually come to that.   Some of the unit officers (myself included) had the dubious benefit of having viewed the horrific fate of U.S. Navy SEAL Neil Roberts via Predator footage.   We knew that capture was not an option, and let me tell you that such knowledge has some pretty profound implications.

Doubts?   We all have doubts.   But when we join, train, and then don the cap-badge?   Be it Infantry, Armour, Artillery, Engineer, Logistics, Administration, or whatever?   We all have a job to do.   Every single one of us in uniform will always harbour doubts about what we are doing and whether or not our personal/family risks are worth the long-term benefit.   Such doubts are basic human nature.   The fundamental question is whether or not we allow our personal doubts/uncertainty to supercede our commitment to serve.   That is an entirely individual question, and it is one which the military system seeks to render moot through group psychology (bonding, esprit, etc).   Does it work?   Well, all I can say is that it worked in spades for 3 PPCLI three years ago.   The members of that battlegroup were collectively "good to go", and they proved it repeatedly.   Op HARPOON in the Shah-i-Kot was not the most risky mission conducted by 3 PPCLI BG.     Not by a long-shot....

All of that to say that doubts are healthy.   They inspire personal introspection and renewed dedication to the cause/the unit/the company/the section/one's fireteam partner.   And once you are forced to come face to face   with your personal doubts?   You overcome them as a result of personal pride combined with the loyalty and credibility-based indebtedness that you owe to your fellow soldiers.   That is what allows us to overcome personal fear. It is a combination of personal pride and the obligation to do our part.   Combine those attributes with the pure sort of friendship that can only come from shared extreme hardship?   Then you have a winning combination.   

Soldiering sucks from time to time.   It is quite safe to say that soldiering occasionally really sucks - really badly.   But at the end of the day?   I've yet to experience any other occupation where the personal rewards and sacrifices reach such extremes.   

Uncertainty?   It is an occupational "given" for soldiers.   Either deal with it and move on, or remove the uniform and take your place within society at large.   You can be a provider of security or merely a recipient.   By the same token, you either adopt the mentality of a "sheep dog" or merely a "sheep among the flock".   The choice is entirely yours.   There is no shame in either, but there is a certain subtle pride in being and pursuing the former....  

Do I always want to know "why"?   Absolutely.   And as a commissioned officer, (time and circumstances permitting) it is my duty to explain the "why" to my subordinates.     But..... But there are times when even I don't know "why".   And it is at those rare (but inevitable) moments that the demands of military duty truly come home to roost.  At those times I must simply solidier on and ask my subordinates to do the same - without being able to say precisely "why".   That is the fundamental essence of service to one's country.   Those "ask not why" situations are admittedly rare, but they do occur.   There are times where we simply need to "do or die / suck it up, butter-cup".     If you can't/won't handle that fundamental reality?   Well, then don't bother applying.  Adherence to lawful orders is a fundamental fact of military life.   Your concurrence is neither required nor solicited.

Make your informed choice, then live (or die) with it.   We're not talking rocket-science here....


----------



## KevinB (20 Aug 2005)

Outstanding post.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Aug 2005)

+1 - Mark has encapsulated why most of us do our job and thrive off the people we work with.


----------



## the 48th regulator (20 Aug 2005)

Mark,

Phenomenal account and brilliant Post.

thank you,

dileas

tess


----------



## Andyboy (21 Aug 2005)

Sir,

Thank you for your post. 

For the last few months I have been thinking about the world situation and wondering what our position is and whether it is the right one. I think that I have become somewhat fixated on the US and Iraq so much that I haven't been paying enough attention to what my own Army is up to. Until recently, that is, after reading a few different articles and threads, like this one. I never really believed we were a nation at war, I'm  now convinced we might be but I don't think I will be convinced that we actually are until I see and hear the reaction of the Gov't and the people of Canada once the Army starts killing people. I believe Canadians are ready for casualties but I'm not sure they're ready for the killing part, not to be glib.

From what I've seen there is a strong anti-military sentiment here in the nations's capital, Toronto, and I'm not sure they're going to react well once they figure out that that their Army is at war against the very same enemy the US is. The way the historic "first shooting" was covered in the press doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling nor does the Senator's comments, nor Martin's underwhelming leadership (passed through Scott Reid of course) so far. I might be making more out of it than there really is, I'm just hoping we're not getting into something that will hurt the Army in the way it has been hurt in the past.

I'm really curious as to what public opinion really is on the issue, and frankly I think there should be a referendum on the matter. If the public aren't going to support you guys there is no point in going and losing one life to it. When I was in Croatia the popluar and semi-official theme was " forget the mandate, lets just try to go home with everyone in one piece".  In that case we had the publics support because they didn't know what was going on on the ground vs. what they were being told by the media. As usual they were beign told what they wanted to hear. I don't think today anything is any different in that regard, but I fear what the Canadian public wants to hear.    
  
I hope that I am being clear enough in my support for the Army though. There is no doubt that, as always, the Army will perform each and every task with the same professionalism and dedication that Canadian soldiers have for generations. I have been somewhat cynical of Army leadership and the organisation in general having dealt with it from a slightly different aspect than most but it gives me great confidence when I read some of the posts from our senior Reg Force soldiers and warriors who are actually going in harms way.   

Regards,

Andrew


----------



## sigtech (22 Aug 2005)

Great post Mark like I said my eyes were open when I signed on the line. 
i do what I have to, I mite not always agree with it but I still do what has to get done.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Aug 2005)

A soldier shouldn't have to worry about violating his own ethical standards, because his soldiering ethical standards are dictated to him.  Unless there has been a complete breakdown of principle in the government and the military chain of command, there won't be an ethical issue.

If a soldier is worrying about his own ethical standards, that's the civilian part of him eclipsing the professional (hence disciplined, ethical, etc) soldier part.


----------



## Gunnar (24 Aug 2005)

I don't agree.

If a soldier has to worry about violating his ethical standards than one of two things have occurred:

1.  He doesn't share the same ethical standards as a soldier should, and thus should not be a soldier.

2.  The state no longer supports the ethical standards which supply to a soldier from a civilized country, and the soldier should refuse the unlawful order.

Probably along the lines of what you wanted to say anyway, but I think it's important to articulate the difference.  Our ability to recognize #2 is what makes us the "good guys", and is what has differentiated troops of the Commonwealth tradition from other nations.


----------



## sigtech (24 Aug 2005)

Gunnar said:
			
		

> I don't agree.
> 
> If a soldier has to worry about violating his ethical standards than one of two things have occurred:
> 
> 1.   He doesn't share the same ethical standards as a soldier should, and thus should not be a soldier.



I notice more and more the newer people coming into the forces don't share the ethical standards a soldier should have. They are civies in green uniforms looking for a job they are not here to serve there contry


----------



## pbi (26 Aug 2005)

sigtech said:
			
		

> I notice more and more the newer people coming into the forces don't share the ethical standards a soldier should have. They are civies in green uniforms looking for a job they are not here to serve there contry



Interesting observation you make. In 1997-98 I had the opportunity to visit all the US service academies: West Point, Annapolis, etc. During the briefings that we were given (as well as at the USMC Recruit Depots at Lejeune and San Diego..) the point was made that there was a serious need to teach ethics to officer candidates, because so many people coming into the US forces lacked any useful grounding in the ethical standards needed to be an effective leader. I was somewhat surprised (and a bit smug...) but I have since come to agree with you. Our history over the past decade or so has revealed to us (and unfortunately to the world at large...) that we had a bunch of people, at all rank levels, who didn't care much for an ethical way of doing things. Fortunately, we have now begun to entrench the business of teaching (and more importantly, practicing...) ethics in our training system and in our leadership doctrine. At the Canadian Forces College where I work, it is an important part of studies in both the junior and the senior courses.

Of course, I am not so naive as to think that those steps will be "silver bullets" by themselves. You have to "live" a code of behaviour, not just talk about it, or put it in books, or make wall posters or catchy slogans about it. And, you are right: we are drawing our recruits from a   society in which good examples of ethical and moral leadership are sadly few and far between, while egregious examples of grossly unethical behaviour are numerous, in your face every day, and apparently rewarded by fame and sometimes by fortune. We are not out of the woods yet, by a long shot, but if there is any organization that must have its ethical and moral head screwed on tight, IMHO  it's us.   Cheers.


----------



## Haggis (26 Aug 2005)

sigtech said:
			
		

> I notice more and more the newer people coming into the forces don't share the ethical standards a soldier should have. They are civies in green uniforms looking for a job they are not here to serve there contry



That is unfortunately painfully obvious at some (but not all) HQs.   It seems the higher the HQ, the more prevalent the attitude that this is "just a 9 to 5 job". 



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> Fortunately, we have now begun to entrench the business of teaching (and more importantly, practicing...) ethics in our training system and in our leadership doctrine. At the Canadian Forces College where I work, it is an important part of studies in both the junior and the senior courses.
> .....You have to "live" a code of behaviour, not just talk about it, or put it in books, or make wall posters or catchy slogans about it.



I remember a great film, entitled "A Scotch Christmas", which I showed during CFJLC/CFJNCO courses back about 5 years ago.   It was an Aussie Army production (almost needed subtitles ;D) which showed an ethical dilemma.   This sparked a very heated discusssion on every course I showed it to.   

Unethical behaviour must not only be dealt with, it must be SEEN being dealt with.   Concealing unethical behaviour and it's consequences (either administrative or disciplinary) will be seen as condining such behaviour from others.


----------



## sigtech (29 Aug 2005)

Ethical standards of soldier these have changed as the Army has addopted a new method of thinking and getting the job done. Like I said in a preivious post I find the ethics now becomeing more and more lacks and I have found that some of the newer don't have the healthy fear that we had even a few years back.

Mabey it is time to bring back some of the old Army 

just a thought


----------

