# Using the Forces to fight terrorism  in Canada



## acheo (3 Jun 2006)

Why not using the Forces to fight terrorism *in *  Canada and improve security in our home land? 

We work very hard when we get deployed but let's be honest: back home we don't work too hard.  Go in the civilian industry for a while and you'll find out what working is all about. 

Here are a few things we could do:

1. Inspecting shipment/containers
    In Montreal only 10% of the containers get inspected. In Vancouver they're a little bit better with a 25%. 

2. Helping custom agents by patrolling the borders
    Spotchecking  small roads, lakeshores, beaches

A few good reasons:

1. Serving is country would then take a deep meaning. ;
2. In some cases this is better than training;
3. Tax payer money would be better used.

Of course this require vision by not only our political leaders but also by our military leaders.

salut!


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jun 2006)

acheo said:
			
		

> Why not using the Forces to fight terrorism *in *  Canada and improve security in our home land?



...because that is what the Police do.  We are authorized provide Aid to Civil Power if the civil authorities lose control (and if requested), but one has to be careful when employing military forces against one's own populace.



> We work very hard when we get deployed but let's be honest: back home we don't work too hard.  Go in the civilian industry for a while and you'll find out what working is all about.



A:  Are you in the Army?
B:  If so, what Army are you in?

My brothers-in-arms in the Infantry Corps appreciate your revelation that we don't know what working is all about.

<Ignore>...click.


----------



## paracowboy (3 Jun 2006)

acheo said:
			
		

> Why not using the Forces to fight terrorism *in *  Canada and improve security in our home land?


because that is not our role. There are other agencies that are designed specifically to do that sort of thing.



> We work very hard when we get deployed but let's be honest: back home we don't work too hard.


  I got troops haven't spent more than 1 week a month in Garrison in the last 3 months. I got troops with two or more trips to Afghanistan. Yeah, we don't work too hard at all. Go slap yourself.



> Go in the civilian industry for a while and you'll find out what working is all about.


 Been there, done that. Doesn't compare. Just because you're too lazy or unimaginative to keep yourself occupied, and gainfully so, don't assume the same thing is true of me or my unit.


----------



## acheo (3 Jun 2006)

> ...because that is what the Police do.  We are authorized provide Aid to Civil Power if the civil authorities lose control, but one has to be careful when employing military forces against one's own populace.



own populace??? I believe I wrote  _containers/shipment_

Police Corps are out of funds and cannot get the job done. I've got a few relatives in different corps and they're simply overwhelmed.




> A:  Are you in the Army?
> B:  If so, what Army are you in?
> 
> My brothers-in-arms in the Infantry Corps appreciate your revelation that we don't know what working is all about.


A. I'm in the Canadian forces

I didn't mean to insult your _brothers-in-arms _ and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I know we work hard when we get deployed. The problem is back home.

I worked 10 years in the aeronautical industry and there is no comparison. In the Forces we are spoiled and not too many people know it. When a typical day is like sitting at the desk telling war stories or spending your morning at the Petawawa Tim Horton or jogging and weight lifting I say: YES we don't work too much. In order to claim this however it requires a little bit experience in the REAL world.

Besides I wonder what you have against contributing a Little bit more to your homeland security?


----------



## geo (3 Jun 2006)

acheo said:
			
		

> When a typical day is like sitting at the desk telling war stories or spending your morning at the Petawawa Tim Horton or jogging and weight lifting I say: YES we don't work too much. In order to claim this however it requires a little bit experience in the REAL world.


telling war stories while sitting at my desk sippin a cup of java from Timmie's?
Is that what I'm supposed to be doing everyday?
Wow...... am gonna have to get my act together! (NOT!)


----------



## J.J (3 Jun 2006)

acheo said:
			
		

> 1. Inspecting shipment/containers
> In Montreal only 10% of the containers get inspected. In Vancouver they're a little bit better with a 25%.




Only 3% get inspected....both in Vancouver & Montreal


----------



## acheo (3 Jun 2006)

For those who cannot read I said the problem is *not *  when we get deployed.

Besides forums are used to debate ideas not to put them down. This illustrate this lack of vision I was talking about


----------



## geo (3 Jun 2006)

acheo said:
			
		

> Police Corps are out of funds and cannot get the job done. I've got a few relatives in different corps and they're simply overwhelmed.
> 
> Besides I wonder what you have against contributing a Little bit more to your homeland security?



Gov't laws at they exist today requires the civil authorities at the Municipal level to ask for assistance. The Province must ask for assistance......

They don't ask... the CF can't act.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (3 Jun 2006)

I'll sum this up:  the idea (aside from being asinine) is _illegal_.

Edit:  Ok, it isn't _illegal_, and others - along with myself - have explained the process for calling out the Army on other threads... I just woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning...



> In the Forces we are spoiled and not too many people know it. When a typical day is like sitting at the desk telling war stories or spending your morning at the Petawawa Tim Horton or jogging and weight lifting I say: YES we don't work too much.



I don't know what Army you're in, buddy (although the "pilot" in your profile suggests you're not Army at all), but I'm sure we can find you a job instructing in Gagetown, Meaford, Wainwright or any of the other of the myriad of places that we can use "spare capacity" such as yourself.


----------



## GAP (3 Jun 2006)

Without trying to get into the work ethic issue, the idea of utilizing the forces in areas that would enhance their training might not be that far out.
One example I can think off the top of my head, is the night observation of connecting waterways to the states. It supplies the potential of giving excellent training in night reconnaissance and other aspects.

On the dock inspections, I think there might be problems. While existing agencies might be overwhelmed, I can visualize the groups of troops being shunted off into makework stuff or left to do distasteful stuff. That whole issue would have to be carefully crafted for it to be effective


----------



## acheo (3 Jun 2006)

I could not have said better (in English anyway). Night flying observation was exactly what I had in mind. Great training, usefull ops and strong marketing tool (for those who care).

Inspecting the dockyards is not conceivable at this time because the mighty unions would strongly oppose to it. It is an idea nothing more......


----------



## Franko (3 Jun 2006)

As it was already alluded to earlier...we can't act unless ask for and enabled by the gov't. They haven't therefore we won't.

Also it's the RCMP, Customs, CSIS, and local authorities responsibilities for "Homeland Security"....not ours unless the above is done first.

If we acted outside of the above...it's called martial law and could also be misconstrued as a coup. Never thought of that 'eh?

Also I don't know what unit you're with but the average unit is quite busy enough with deployments, training for said deployments, and assisting in TMST / exercises for said deployments.

On top of all that we still have to try and squeeze in regular trade specific training when there is a window.

If all you do is sit around Timms and down coffee after coffee listening to such "war stories as":

"Remember that time outside of Bihac...." or "Remember on SG 05 when we got gassed..." seems to me the problem doesn't lie in the system...

It lies in you and your unit's inability to keep your troops up to snuff in training and busy enough in taskings.

Must be some nice to have all that time to sip coffee and whine about all that wasted time....

Regards


----------



## acheo (3 Jun 2006)

Couldn't expect less from you _army guys_.

Next time I go in Gagetown or in Wainright I make sure I give you a hell of a ride Teddy Roxpin


----------



## paracowboy (3 Jun 2006)

acheo said:
			
		

> Couldn't expect less from you _army guys_.


welcome to ARMY.ca

You don't like dealing with army guys, leave. Have an airborne day.


----------



## Nicholas2004 (3 Jun 2006)

The following are a couple of suggestions on how the CF can help fight terrorism in Canada:

(1) The CF could provide EXTRA manpower at border crossings/security at ports.

(2) Joint training exercises with US military in the more remote areas of the Canadian/US border 

While these suggestions might be at best symbolic.  They may go along way in calming America fears over the porous nature of the border eventhough it will always remain that way.  More importantly, using the CF might help some sections of the Canadian public realize that we don't live in isolation from the rest of the world and that the threat of terrorism is ongoing and does not end with the arrest of one  terrorist cell in Toronto.

My final point is that it is not as difficult to employ the regular forces in a domestic role in Canada than it is in the US.  Unfortunately, in the past this has made a certain mayor of Toronto think that the regular army can be employed sholving snow.


----------



## Franko (3 Jun 2006)

acheo said:
			
		

> Couldn't expect less from you _army guys_.
> 
> Next time I go in Gagetown or in Wainright I make sure I give you a hell of a ride Teddy Roxpin



Well if you put that degree (I'm going with what you have in your profile) to use before you started to type there wouldn't be any backlash.

Think before you type your tripe.     :

Have a lovely Recce day.....


----------



## Franko (3 Jun 2006)

Nicholas2004 said:
			
		

> The following are a couple of suggestions on how the CF can help fight terrorism in Canada:
> 
> (1) The CF could provide EXTRA manpower at border crossings/security at ports.
> 
> ...



We're having a hard enough time keeping up with the op tempo right now nevermind doing something like you're suggesting.

Even the MND understands this.

Regards


----------



## paracowboy (3 Jun 2006)

the entire Army is over-tasked, under-manned, under-equipped, and losing it's senior personnel at every turn. And you guys want to add tasks. Brilliant.


----------



## KevinB (3 Jun 2006)

cough - underfunded - cough


Teddy point about illegality is a MAJOR point.

Besides entities of the CF do have an inside Anti-terror mandate -- however IF they other servies do their thing it does not get to that point.

You, I or anyone else does not want the ARMY policing Canada -- that's a police state.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jun 2006)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44701/post-389671.html#msg389671

Niiiice.

Acheo, I hope for your own sake you are not a pilot at 427 (combo of your admission to being a pilot in your profile and talk about yakking at CYWA Timmies leads me to wonder.)  If you are, I think the we'll be having a chat once I get my rear-end out of a 10-12 hr/day desk job - a non-deployed (or to be more accurate, job after redeployment from AFG) that seems to bear absolutely no resemblance to the kind of BS you're spouting in your missives.

You know what, if your such an altruistic hardworker, leave the CF and go back to join your hardworking aerospace friends in industry.  I would rather operate my unit short by one more person...with the remaining "lazy folk".

Goodbye.


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Jun 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> cough - underfunded - cough
> 
> 
> Teddy point about illegality is a MAJOR point.
> ...


Very good points.  Also, most of the CF is trained to fight a different kind of battle.  For example, imagine 1 VP in Toronto doing those raids.  Could they do it?  Most likely.  Would it be the most efficient way to do things?  Certainly not.  After all, those police and SERT guys are trained for this kind of stuff with PLENTY of Canadian Citizens around.  Just as the police shouldn't be off fighting wars, the army shouldn't be doing police work.  The police forces involved just proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, just why they should keep at it.  Their INT was bang on (pun intended), they planned and executed with such effectiveness that I don't think a single shot was fired.  As I've said previously, Well done!  Bravo Zulu!


----------



## KevinB (3 Jun 2006)

I'm sure 3RCR could have done it -- but the DD's, breaching charges and expended pile of brass may have made the neighbours a bit cross  

Enjoy your new subordinate Duey  ;D


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jun 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I'm sure 3RCR could have done it -- but the DD's, breaching charges and expended pile of brass may have made the neighbours a bit cross
> 
> Enjoy your new subordinate Duey  ;D



I-6, if he/she turns out to be one of my charges, I will certainly keep that in the back of my mind.  I would like to think, however, that there is not a single tactical aviator that would think that way, especially working as aviators do so closely with the Army and other forces on a regular basis.  For my community's pride and professionalism, I hope _acheo_ is not one of us.  Anybody that I know who may take a pause from a hectic day in the office to joke a bit and build a little camaraderie does so responsibly and has likely been on operations and deserves a little breather.  As you know, there are only a few CF capabilities that provide regular/dedicated support to the fight against terrorism within our borders.  Everyone else would aid civil authorities when and where required as other posters have correctly pointed out.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Jun 2006)

I've posted in favour of the CF in general and the Militia in particular having a greater role in Domestic Operations: more reg/res training exercises in the bush and the arctic to assert sovereignty, exercises "on the economy" (I believe that phrase has been used to describe exercises in urban/rural areas), more training by reserves to handle crises etc.  However, I am not in favour of a regular "green" presence on the streets or at the borders.  The "Blues" and "Scarlets" have got the best handle on those tasks.

Also the public is used to their local police and the Mounties walking amongst them.  If they see "green" then they will start to think that there is something serious afoot.  One thing that seems to be priceless in maintaining order is maintaining a sense of normalcy.

Even though there was little to distinguish the Tactical Squad Police supplying security during this latest excitement and Canadian Infanteers in Afghanistan when it comes to weaponry, and I am guessing training and preparation may have much in common, those blue coveralls and baseball caps make all the difference in perception.

The CF needs to train for Aid to the Civil Power and Domestic Operations.  They need to be able to conduct those operations, and on occasion, they can be expected to be so utilized.  If the Police are responsible for the 90% of the security activities of the state, the planned 90%, the expected 90%, then the CF is there to cover the "unplanned", "unexpected" 10% on a temporary basis.  

If it is determined that the state needs helicopters flying the borders at night then it might make sense to have the CF fly the mission until it is determined if the need is of long or short duration. If it is short, if there is an end in sight to the emergency, then the CF can handle it.

If, however, the mission is determined to be a continuing one then the capability should be stood up within the Police so that a sense of normalcy can be generated as soon as possible.

The CF needs to be able to act domestically but I don't want to see that happen even as I expect that it will.


----------



## Strike (4 Jun 2006)

Duey,  I highly doubt that acheo is from Pet, and if he/she is, I am going to have to call BS on more than a few things -- and knowing anything about Petawawa is one of them.

Acheo, if you are from Pet, than this: 





> ...When a typical day is like sitting at the desk telling war stories or spending your morning at the Petawawa Tim Horton or jogging and weight lifting...


  certainly does not apply to you're normal day.  I would LOVE to find the time to do PT during work hours.  As for chatting over Timmies, sure, that happens sometimes -- when someone is nice enough to bring a few to work with them, and then it's (the chatting) usually while planning for the next flight.  And if you are not from there, then put your Sqn in your profile so people don't think you're from 427.  It's embarassing.


----------



## tamouh (4 Jun 2006)

While the basis of the idea is plausable, in practice, this can't be accomplished. There will be conflict of authorities, army rules are different from civilian rules and most importantly this will open the door for the army to go further and slowly take other duties like policing...etc. Which leaves the country eventually (after long time) in pretty much "Police State".

The work of the Canadian army is appreciated always, however, each component of the public service has to take care of its responsibilities. The Canadian army for example is in shortage for recruits, so why not grab police officers and train them as army recruits?

Again, I think the idea is good in perfect theory, but should not be used in real life just for the simple fact the Army should not be involved in civil life. This is the whole concept of separating civil and military lives.


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Jun 2006)

acheo said:
			
		

> Couldn't expect less from you _army guys_.
> 
> Next time I go in Gagetown or in Wainright I make sure I give you a hell of a ride Teddy Roxpin



Sniff, sniff, I smell poser and a dirty great big pile of fresh (with seeds), ripe, steaming BS. Your 'pilot' in your profile I see has been deleted.

Oh, gee, I wonder why.  :

Have a LAVly day.


Wes


----------



## Enzo (5 Jun 2006)

In regards to Canada's "porous" border into the US. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't US border security the domain of the US Homeland Security Forces?

Too many comments above have already said what needs to be said. Next topic.


----------



## HItorMiss (5 Jun 2006)

Is the concept of patrolling the St Lawrence seaway ( a haven for smuggling etc etc ) possible in term of kit available and training...I would say yes, Heck Recce Pl from any of the Inf Bn's could set up Ops along known routes and watch them as long as needed, and yes the NVG capability of said Recce Pl and the Helo's would indeed make it feasible. But I'm also sure that the Police could and have already done it, are doing it.

But I tell you what; in the time since I was married almost 5 yrs ago I still measure time spent with my wife and child and in months not years, what I don't need is another task taking me away from them I have enough thank you very much!

I know I don't spend my time sitting around telling war stories, and drinking Timmies (well ok I tell war stories but generally while we work)
Do I get time to do PT in the morning, sure do...do I spend my own time working out...yes to that to, have I on occasion gone to the gym during working hours to lift weights Yes I have, but guess what.... My job is to be fit at all times to carry out my assigned task so don't tell me working out is wasting tax payers money.

Duey, Strike please enjoy if this person is indeed a member of your unit, and don't worry about being embarrassed I know for a fact how busy you Pilots are and how much work the unit does just to get my butt from point A to Point B.

Acheo.... You have a Lovely Recce Day


----------



## Enzo (5 Jun 2006)

What the hell, I'm not doing anything productive right now anyway.

Acheo - Aside from the above mentioned factors of time & training for the CF, etc. Assuming that something like border recon was initiated. It would have to be at the behest of the police forces, etc. Even then, the mission parameters/goals would have to be precise.

I can see the headlines now, _*"CF personnel shoot native Mohawk smugglers on the St. Lawrence"*_. Who fired first? Who was in the wrong, etc. Would it matter to the press? It's fun enough for the police, let them handle their domain. If they want assistance, then they can ask for it.


----------



## Hot Lips (5 Jun 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Is the concept of patrolling the St Lawrence seaway ( a haven for smuggling etc etc ) possible in term of kit available and training...I would say yes, Heck Recce Pl from any of the Inf Bn's could set up Ops along known routes and watch them as long as needed, and yes the NVG capability of said Recce Pl and the Helo's would indeed make it feasible. But I'm also sure that the Police could and have already done it, are doing it.
> 
> But I tell you what; in the time since I was married almost 5 yrs ago I still measure time spent with my wife and child and in months not years, what I don't need is another task taking me away from them I have enough thank you very much!
> 
> ...


 Dang it all HoM...and I thought that I was going to go in the CF for a Jammie go, lmao rotfl and you say it's not a country club...but I get to work out during working hours  
I certainly believe that the CF and it's members have the capability and knowhow to do the anti-terrorism here at home...but do believe as it has been stated that that is in the hands of others at this time and until called upon...the CF will standby

HL

HL


----------



## HItorMiss (5 Jun 2006)

Enzo said:
			
		

> I can see the headlines now, _*"CF personnel shoot native Mohawk smugglers on the St. Lawrence"*_. Who fired first? Who was in the wrong, etc. Would it matter to the press? It's fun enough for the police, let them handle their domain. If they want assistance, then they can ask for it.



Enzo raises a very good point, one that I thought about after posting my little diatribe, what would happen if my aforementioned Op took fire, you can't have those guy's sitting there unarmed, and they would shoot back but what about the legality? what about the public outcry even if it was a "state" sponsored activity? heck we shoot people overseas and look at the out come over here when it comes out in the press.

So again is possible, yes.

Should we... No


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Jun 2006)

There is a HUGE issue when it comes to surveillance domestically.  Government sensitivities to personal privacy precludes us from just going out and rather "indiscrininately" surveilling over the citizenry.  That's going to be the deal-breaker on whether such activitiy would be a regular part of internal surveillance.  I would think that any kind of domestic surveillance would be in support of civilian LE authorities and their prosecution activities, not a sweeping "keep an eye on all the things that you can see" kind of a thing.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## _TheSaint_ (6 Jun 2006)

God what a stupid idea. 

If there were Army personnel roaming Yonge Street the civilian populace would think they're living in Communist China.....where the army is a more common sight than the police. You even used the term "Homeland"......pleeease refrain from calling Canada by one of GWB's Orwellian phrases. There are RCMP, CSIS and regular City Police that get paid to do this stuff. They also have the experience as proved recently. No Martial Law here thanks. 

Definition of Martial Law: "the system of rules that takes effect (usually after a formal declaration) when a military authority takes control of the normal administration of justice. Martial law is instituted most often when it becomes necessary to favor the activity of military authorities and organizations, usually for urgent unforeseen needs, and when the normal institutions of justice either cannot function or could be deemed too slow or too weak for the new situation; e.g., due to war, major natural disaster, civil disorder, in occupied territory, or after a coup d'état. The need to preserve the public order during an emergency is the essential goal of martial law. However, declaration of martial law is also sometimes used by DICTATORSHIPS, especially MILITARY DICTATORSHIPS, to enforce their rule"

Unless some completely unforeseen tragedy occurs there is no reason, not ever, for troops in the streets.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Jun 2006)

Quote from Saint,
_No Marshal Law here thanks. 
Definition of Marshal Law:_

Marshal??? Who the crap is Marshal.....and why does he get his own law?? :


----------



## _TheSaint_ (6 Jun 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote from Saint,
> _No Marshal Law here thanks.
> Definition of Marshal Law:_
> 
> Marshal??? Who the crap is Marshal.....and why does he get his own law?? :



Apparently there's no escaping the spelling police.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Jun 2006)

Well now that I corrected your spelling, I think its time to call you on this....

_Quote,
Unless some completely unforeseen tragedy occurs there is no reason, not ever, for troops in the streets._

You mean some tragedy like the Olympics, visiting dignitaries, Remembrance Day ceremonies, etc?

Wow, your hatred makes you thick....


----------



## _TheSaint_ (6 Jun 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well now that I corrected your spelling, I think its time to call you on this....
> 
> _Quote,
> Unless some completely unforeseen tragedy occurs there is no reason, not ever, for troops in the streets._
> ...



My hatred of what? 
OBVIOUSLY there are events where soldiers should be allowed to briefly appear in the streets. If this didn't occur from time to time the general populace wouldn't know you existed. That's all for show. I'm not talking about parading. I mean when soldiers are doing the jobs of regular Law Enforcement with rifles and field kit. I don't care too much about a bunch of guys wearing kilts and what have you. It's the ones wearing CADPAT carrying C-7s and doing the work of the Police.


compare....

1) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





and

2)


----------



## Enzo (6 Jun 2006)

Which one are you again?  :


----------



## _TheSaint_ (6 Jun 2006)

Enzo said:
			
		

> Which one are you again?  :



The one on the left?


----------



## Bograt (6 Jun 2006)

_TheSaint_ said:
			
		

> The one on the left?



By left, do you mean left field...


----------



## George Wallace (6 Jun 2006)

Obviously  _TheSaint_  has no idea of what he is talking about and should be down in his University Library researching the use of the Military in Canada, in matters of Aid to the Civil Power.  Somehow, he is of the impression that all militaries are like those of some Military Despot or Junta.  Where he gets this from, probably Hollywood films and TV shows, or perhaps from the experiences of Immigrants and Refugees from said States; Heaven forbid he listened to the lunatic ravings of the Left, is a sign that he has to do some more unbiased research and look at it with a neutral point of view.  

Let's point him in the right direction by stating that the Canadian Military, although out gunned and out numbered by many Third World militaries, is not one.  The Canadian Military has strict rules on how and when it can be called out in Aid to the Civil Power, and in all cases it is subordinate to the "Civil Power".  In all, but the highest case, soldiers do not have any authority to conduct themselves as "Law Enforcement Officers".  They usually are along to protect LEO's in their duties, not to actually do the job of LEO.  

I suppose  _TheSaint_  also feels that the military should hid in the woods in the farthest, most remote regions of Canada, and not come out at all to scare the civilian population.  Never come to the aid of Canadians in times of Floods, Fires, or even to save Toronto from too much snow.  

 _TheSaint_ , you really are outside of your lanes on this site, aren't you?  I would suggest a bit more research into the matter, before you start commenting on it.


----------



## Haggis (6 Jun 2006)

Enzo said:
			
		

> I can see the headlines now, _*"CF personnel shoot native Mohawk smugglers on the St. Lawrence"*_. Who fired first? Who was in the wrong, etc. Would it matter to the press? It's fun enough for the police, let them handle their domain. If they want assistance, then they can ask for it.



Trust me:  The potential for an all out firefight there is quite high, particularly at night.  How many troops do we commit (in 1990 it was around 500)?  For how long?  With what ROE?

The cops do an admirable job on that stretch of water. Some days it seems you can walk from St. Regis to Cornwall by stepping from police boat to police boat.  Leave 'em to it.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Jun 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Trust me:  The potential for an all out firefight there is quite high, particularly at night.  How many troops do we commit (in 1990 it was around 500)?  For how long?  With what ROE?


At Oka, it was MUCH MORE than 500.  Akwasasne (spelling) was fewer, no?


----------



## Haggis (6 Jun 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> At Oka, it was MUCH MORE than 500.  Akwasasne (spelling) was fewer, no?



You're quite right.  Op SALON at Oka (Kahnesatake and Kahnawake) was about 3,000.  Most, if not all, of 5 CMBG was there with a substantial number of SQFT/LFCA Reservists.  Op FEATHER at Akwesasne was around 500, mostly from 1 RCR, 2 CER, 2 Fd Amb, SD&G Highrs, 400 Sqn and (the then) LFCA HQ.  I believe the number of police committed at Akwesasne was higher than Oka since it spanned several jurisdictions (OPP/SQ/NY SP/RCMP/AMPS/US and Canadian Customs and US BP to name but a few).


----------



## geo (6 Jun 2006)

yup - not much happening at Valcartier while Oka and Khanawake issues were being resolved.


----------



## Haggis (6 Jun 2006)

The CF response at Oka was not quite what the Québec government expected, but you have to remember that when Québec called out "the army", *The Army*  responded; guns, armour and all that jazz. Taking this a step further, had things gone pear shaped at either site, The Army was prepared to, and quite capable of turning the barricades into nothing more than a semi-rural smoking hole in the earth. 

The CF is and should remain a force of last resort for armed intervention on Canadian soil.  To do otherwise, you are killing a fly with a sledgehammer.  That being said, we do train for it.  "How?" you ask?  Put it this way:  the methodolgy of launching a platoon attack in Kandahar differs little from launching one at Kahnesatake.  There's simply less trees in Kandahar.  Remember the sledgehammer.


----------



## geo (6 Jun 2006)

Military are trained in the controlled use of force..... released on command, as required, when required.

The Mohawks recognized in the CF a bunch of professionals with their act together and the situation was allowed to follow it's course, under control....

can't ask for a better outcome if you ask me.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (7 Jun 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The CF response at Oka was not quite what the Québec government expected, but you have to remember that when Québec called out "the army", *The Army*  responded; guns, armour and all that jazz. Taking this a step further, had things gone pear shaped at either site, The Army was prepared to, and quite capable of turning the barricades into nothing more than a semi-rural smoking hole in the earth.
> 
> The CF is and should remain a force of last resort for armed intervention on Canadian soil.  To do otherwise, you are killing a fly with a sledgehammer.  That being said, we do train for it.  "How?" you ask?  Put it this way:  the methodolgy of launching a platoon attack in Kandahar differs little from launching one at Kahnesatake.  There's simply less trees in Kandahar.  Remember the sledgehammer.



I don't think using the forces to tighten up border security and port security is the same thing as a CF response to Oka, we are a still a far cry from firing up the old war measures act.

Is it possible yes, is it likely no.  Could you imagine the tension at a port with union workers and soldiers doing the same job? One making union wages and overtime and the other making his set pay no matter how many hours they work.  Not only that but then you start hearing the whining about the troops taking jobs away from those who need them.  Plus you can see the rhetoric starting on well how come the CF is only inspecting the cargo coming out of Middle Eastern nations or Europe or Asia or insert country name here.  Be it rue or not.

I get that this would make George Bush's fortress America dream come true but surely we are not that far down the slippery slope yet.

Besides taking away personal freedoms to life in a policed state would be no different then letting the extremist win.  They want us to have less liberties.

MOO


----------



## Haggis (7 Jun 2006)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> I don't think using the forces to tighten up border security and port security is the same thing as a CF response to Oka, we are a still a far cry from firing up the old war measures act.



The War Measures Act (now the Emergencies Act) wasn't invoked for Oka.  Notwithstanding that, CF member REPLACED the civilian police at the barricades, the same as CF member could REPLACE CBSA agents at the ports, along the borders, etc. 



			
				Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> Is it possible yes, is it likely no.  Could you imagine the tension at a port with union workers and soldiers doing the same job? One making union wages and overtime and the other making his set pay no matter how many hours they work.



Just like the Ice Storm.  Hydro workers making $90/hour working sid-by-side with CF members making $90/day.



			
				geo said:
			
		

> The Mohawks recognized in the CF a bunch of professionals with their act together and the situation was allowed to follow it's course, under control....



This time. What if CF members are forced to face off against stevedores at the ports? Or immigrant communities in Vancouver? 



			
				geo said:
			
		

> can't ask for a better outcome if you ask me.



+1, Geo, +1!


----------



## childs56 (7 Jun 2006)

Well we use the Airforce and the Navy for off shore patrols as it is.  The will intercept illegal ships and send them home or allow them to dock in Canada and then let Immigration Customs or the Police carry on with their end. 
They also perform fisheries patrols etc along side with RCMP and Fisheries Wild Life. So why not work along side Customs at the borders? 


The only reason I have heard so far that even comes close to justifying not doing this is the fact that so many are over tasked right now.  

The argument can be said that others are undertasked. 

What is the verdict? there really isn't one. We can or we can't. Right now we can't. Will we in the near future is the question to be asked?


----------



## Wizard of OZ (7 Jun 2006)

"The War Measures Act (now the Emergencies Act) wasn't invoked for Oka.  Notwithstanding that, CF member REPLACED the civilian police at the barricades, the same as CF member could REPLACE CBSA agents at the ports, along the borders, etc. "

 With what powers to act ?  And under what authority?  What powers of search would they have?  Where would they get this power?  Its not as easy as saying ok today we are all going to play border guard as CF members.  At Oka the CF was called out, this has not happened today, to help secure anyting.  

Just like the Ice Storm.  Hydro workers making $90/hour working sid-by-side with CF members making $90/day.

And how did that make the guys feel, was there not a bunch of bitching and complaining going on then, imagine it in a non-emergency setting, for a longer period. And what would happen when the port authorities started to cut the overtimes of the guys because the army guys can work 18 hr days and not be paid more.  Unions are a powerful force in this day and age you would see mass strikes and walkouts.  HMMM does this help or hinder the situation. 

Everything is situation, Yes we are trained for it, we are trained to kill people but we don't go around doing that because we think we should.  Do you not see that but locking the barn door after the horse has escaped we are playing into their hand.  Besides the larger threat now seems to be coming from home grown problems.  How would locking down the border now solve this problem.  I have no qualms against letting the Air Force and Navy do surveillance and assist the legal authorities secure our airspace and water ways but I am not going to agree with troops at border crossings and ports.  Bad Bad move and that is a sure way down the slippery slope to policed state, weather you see it or not.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Jun 2006)

Reading some of these comments I get the sense that many of the posters feel that the military should not train for unpleasant duties because they are unpleasant and might cause friction, especially with the civilian population.

I would argue the contrary.

The military is the government's last available resource in maintaining the state.  It is available to it to defend the state from outsiders.  Equally though it is available to the government to support the government in its other task: controlling its own population and protecting its neighbours from its own population.  That is the nature of a government.  It is a middle man that convinces its population that it can get a good deal from the neighbours and convinces the neighbours that it can get a good deal from its people.  In both instances it needs to be able to influence events.

The Army is the biggest hammer in the toolkit and it can be wielded against both foreign and domestic threats.  The Army has to be able to deal with both situations effectively and professionally.

In addition to training for war it also needs to train for the unpleasant duties associated with managing domestic threats with the least unpleasantness possible.  In one sense the current operations in Afghanistan are supplying lessons that may one day be applied here at home.

As I said earlier, the Army should not be doing border patrols as a matter of course.  In the interests of maintaining a sense of normalcy the Police should be conducting those operations.  The corollary is that the more operations the Police can handle, the less often the government will be required to revert to the Army, and the more the sense of "business as usual" will prevail.

However the Army needs to be able to do many of the things that the Police do.  It either adds depth by taking on tasks that the police can't do because of lack of numbers, preferably in areas that are out of view of the majority of the public (remote border patrols vs urban border patrols as an example), or because of lack of necessary capabilities  (helicopters and APCs etc).  If capabilities such as helicopters and APCs are deemed to be useful to Police on a regular basis then it is better if they are painted blue and manned by police officers, again to maintain the sense that this situation is normal and life continues.

The Army also is available as a counterweight to the Police force: a truly unpleasant thought for all honourable members of both professions that support their governments.  However, in the event of a Police strike, the Army can be called in to take their place.  Or in the event of a strike by Prison guards or by other Emergency Services.  Equally, as difficult as it might be to imagine in Canada, it bears considering that in other places and times soldiers have been arrested in their barracks by police forces for anti-government activities.

I don't propose this as a likely use of either the Police or the Army in Canada.  I just point out that there has historically been a reason for keeping the Police and the Army separate even though many of their duties and capabilities may overlap from time to time.

The point is though: their duties overlap from time to time - and the Army needs to be willing and able to perform those duties as circumstances and the government dictate.  And it needs to be able to perform those duties the way it does everything else: with quiet professionalism.  That level of professionalism comes from preparing doctrine and training so as to reduce the number of surprises likely to be encountered if/when situations arise.

Events like the BC and Cape Breton Miner strikes, the Winnipeg General Strike and Ipperwash, or the initial SQ intervention into Oka, not to mention Kent State, Peterloo and too many others to mention, are all remembered because of how badly authorities both military and civil handled the situations.  Others, like the later stages of Oka, the military involvement in the October crisis, the Montreal Olympics and Kananaskis seem to be fading from the public consciousness ( if the evidence of some of the younger posters is anything to go by), precisely because they were handled so well.  

We can't rely on successful ad hoc solutions to those types of problems every time.  Those operations, like any other require coordination, planning and training.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (7 Jun 2006)

There is a huge difference between have some Coyotes set up in a remote are of the border watching for smugglers and having the 3 RCR deploy a couple of platoons at Bridge crossing in Ontario.

I agree we should be able to do the job if asked to do it.  The key is the government must ask us to step to the plate before we can get into the game.   Would you not agree?

I have no problem with the training that is going on.  It is necessary and vital to both operations abroad and possible domestic.  I have a problem with jumping the gun and rushing to be something the CF is not.  The police are more the scalpel for more precise extractions with in the everyday life of the publice without to much in the way of change.  The CF would be like bringout the Broad Sword to cut the body in half.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Jun 2006)

Wizard, I agree with everything you said in your last post.  No reservations.

Youir position wasn't as clear to me in your earlier posts. 

I also agree with those saying that there are enough jobs for the bodies available without looking for employment opportunities.

Cheers.


----------

