# Canada has a "politicized military"



## Bograt (10 Sep 2004)

[  Article ]
Forces refused U.S. Request out of Iraq fears
Illustrates politicized military, defence analyst says
  
Chris Wattie 
National Post 

September 10, 2004

Canada rejected a U.S. request to send a squadron of CF-18 fighter-bombers to Afghanistan last year because of concerns that it might free more American forces for the invasion of Iraq, according to internal Defence Department documents.

In documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, the two top generals in the Canadian Forces agreed that a six-month deployment of as many as 18 aircraft to the air base in Manas, Kyrgyzstan, was "deemed feasible" but recommended against the proposal because of concerns over the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"With the political way ahead yet to be finalized for any CF participation in Iraq or the ISAF, it is recommended that CA [Canada] not deploy CF-18 aircraft," Vice-Admiral Greg Maddison, the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, wrote in a memo dated Sept. 24, 2002.

Although the documents do not name the nation requesting the CF-18s or the country in which they would be based, the United States was the lead nation in the coalition fighting in Afghanistan and the squadron the Canadians were asked to replace was based in the former Soviet republic, just north of Afghanistan.

The Americans had made an "informal request" for Canadian jets to fly bombing and air cover mission against Taliban and al-Qaeda holdouts beginning in April, 2003.

However, Vice-Adm. Maddison said that the deployment "would in essence be backfilling U.S. forces to allow them to force generate for other contingencies."

At the time, the U.S. was beginning preparations to invade Iraq, an invasion that Canada ultimately did not support politically.

The documents also questioned whether the hard-pressed Canadian air force could have kept its front-line jets in the field for more than a few weeks. Vice-Adm. Maddison raised a number of concerns with the proposed mission, including an estimated cost of $41.6-million, a possible shortage of precision-guided bombs and severe limits to the Canadian Forces' logistics and support elements.

General Ray Henault, the Chief of Defence Staff, agreed with his deputy's recommendation that Canada not provide the fighter jets to the Afghan campaign and signed off on the decision to reject the U.S. request on Sept. 30.

Bill Graham, the Defence Minister, was not available for comment.

However defence critics called the decision questionable and decried it as an example of the politicization of the Canadian military.

Gordon O'Connor, the Conservative defence critic, said the Canadian fighters would have been a valuable addition to the campaign to root out the last holdouts of the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

"Our guys are very good fighter pilots," he said. "They have an excellent reputation.... The U.S. wanted the Canadians there because they knew they'd do a good job."

Mr. O'Connor said that both the Liberal government and the Canadian Forces appear to put political considerations ahead of military ones. "It would seem they're more concerned about appearances than fighting the war on terrorism."

Lieutenant-General Lew Cuppens, a former air force general now working as an analyst for the Conference of Defence Associations, said the generals who recommended against the proposal were likely taking their marching orders from the federal Cabinet.

This is what you end up with when you have a defence headquarters that is representing the interests of a political party as well as the military," he said. "They obviously had guidance from the [Defence] Minister or the Department of Foreign Affairs that this [mission] wouldn't fly politically."

Major Mike Audette, a spokesman for the Canadian Forces, said the main reason that the request was turned down was for technical reasons. "It was technically feasible, but I'd emphasize the word 'technically,' " he said.

"It could have been done, but at significant cost to other areas of our operations.... It wasn't any one factor, [but] when they were all combined it made it non-viable."

Maj. Audette said the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was only one factor in the decision, but acknowledged that Vice-Adm. Maddison "was certainly aware of the political issues ... as a factor."

The documents, marked Secret -- Canadian Eyes Only and heavily edited before their release, indicate that military planners were asked to consider options for sending either six or 12 of the Canadian fighters on the mission, most likely from 3 Wing, based in Bagotville, Que.

Air force officers determined that the mission would be "feasible for a one-time deployment of six months duration," but said that sending the fighters, pilots and all the necessary maintenance and support troops "may stretch specialist resources and negatively impact on any future CF international deployments."

A possible shortage of laser- or GPS-guided bombs was another potential problem, but staff officers concluded that if Canada's supply of the high-tech precision weapons ran short, more could be acquired from the Americans or other allies.

The mission would have required at least one of the Canadian Forces' CC-150 Polaris transport jets to support it.

The Canadian fighters would likely have replaced a three-nation squadron of Dutch, Danish and Norwegian F-16s based in Kyrgyzstan, and Canadian planners noted the allied air base had its own air traffic control and firefighting equipment, as well as hangar, housing and dining facilities.

Lt.-Gen. Cuppens, who retired from the air force in 1998, said that the Canadian Forces is becoming so thin that it is falling behind even its much smaller NATO allies.

"It's an embarrassment," he said. "Even countries like the Netherlands or Denmark can field fighter aircraft ... and here we are, a G-8 country, and we can't even send six fighters anywhere."

An air force report earlier this year stated that even with 80 modernized CF-18 fighters available, Canada could only send a "six pack" of the jets on overseas operations.

Just five years ago, Canada contributed 18 CF-18s to the air campaign against Yugoslavia and then-president Slobodan Milosevic.

The Canadian aircraft, based in Aviano, Italy, flew 682 combat sorties over Yugoslavia in a 78-day air campaign and dropped a total of 530 bombs, of which 361 where laser-guided "smart" bombs.

In 1991, Canada sent a total of 26 CF-18s to join the Gulf War against Iraq.

The U.S. appeared eager to get Canadian fighters to provide air cover for coalition ground forces, which were at the time still conducting search-and-destroy missions in the mountains of eastern and southeastern Afghanistan.

The documents say that the Americans "indicated that there are limited options available to them for this mission and would appreciate that serious consideration be given to this request."

The U.S. military requested an "urgent preliminary assessment into the feasibility of deploying CF-18s" by early August, but the Canadian Forces was not able to answer until late September.

The U.S. also approached a second nation to contribute to the mission, but the name of that country was deleted in the documents released by the Defence Department.

The American request came on July 22, at the same time a battlegroup based on the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, was finishing a six-month tour in Kandahar with U.S. and coalition forces.


----------



## pbi (10 Sep 2004)

So, what's the point?

Deploying troops or aircraft to Afghanistan is a political decision, not a military one, so it really wouldn't matter what the senior leadership said, because they're not "deciding" anything. Troop committments, including US troop committments (ESPECIALLY US troop committments) are political decisions.

The statement:


> "...would in essence be backfilling U.S. forces to allow them to force generate for other contingencies."



isn't a judgement of right or wrong: it's a statement of why the US needed the help.

I agree fully that the Air Force should be here, either in OEF or in ISAF (especially now when ISAF is surging its CAS and hel capacity in preparation for the Presidential Election) but I also know that the airforce is just as strapped as the Army. If we don't give our forces a chance to recover and rebuild, we'll gut whatever is left and then we won't be able to do anything. Cheers.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (10 Sep 2004)

> I agree fully that the Air Force should be here, either in OEF or in ISAF (especially now when ISAF is surging its CAS and hel capacity in preparation for the Presidential Election) but I also know that the airforce is just as strapped as the Army. If we don't give our forces a chance to recover and rebuild, we'll gut whatever is left and then we won't be able to do anything. Cheers



I find this a curious statement.  Just what are the CF-18 squadrons recovering from?  They've had five years to recover.  They should be the freshest and most deployable force we own.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Sep 2004)

If by "politicized military" one means leadership that understands the political situation and limitations within which it must work, well, duh.


----------



## Bartok5 (10 Sep 2004)

Yep - this is a big-time "non-story".  The CF marches to the political tune, regardless of how individuals serving within the institution may feel.  If you can't grasp that basic reality of military service within a democratic society, then you are aspiring to the wrong business.

Where I have a fundamental problem is when our Military "leadership" willingly subjugates what they KNOW to be imperative (eg.  continued operational viability and the physical/mental well-being of our soldiers) in favour of supplicating themselves to our political masters.  THAT is entirely unforgivable.  No names, no pack-drill, but it is happening big-time, and has been for approximately 10 years now.....

Personally, I have zero forgiveness for THAT particular behaviour.....


----------



## Michael Dorosh (10 Sep 2004)

I thought the reason we sent the Patricias to Afghanistan in the first place was to backfill US needs there - ??


----------



## Bartok5 (10 Sep 2004)

Michael,

3 PPCLI was sent to Afghanistan as an integral sub-unit of TF Rakassan 101st Airborne Division in January 2002.   In other words, 3.5 months after 9/11.   The U.S.-led "Op ENDURING FREEDOM" was just getting rolling.   There was nothing to "backfill", because conventional forces were just being committed in the form of 3rd Bde, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault).   Iraq was not on the radar at that point.   It was all about the post-9/11 war on terror, and Afghanistan was the sole battleground - at least as far as public perception was concerned.   TF Rakassan was the U.S. Army's premiere commitment to Operation Enduring Freedom, and 3 PPCLI was an integral part of that deployment from the outset.   The only time since Korea that the Canadian Government has actually had the balls to pony up and commit forces to declared combat operations.   One has to wonder if the politicos actually knew what they were doing at the time, since we haven't done it since....   

Here is where I think you may be confused with your time-line.   When Canada deployed the better part of an understrength brigade to Afghanistan in late 2003, we did so under the politically-purported guise of "freeing up" U.S. forces in Afghanistan.   2 CMBG coughed up a Brigade HQ, 3 RCR BG and numerous other substantive assets to provide the lead for the NATO-led "International Stability Assistance Force" in Afghanistan.   We called it Op ATHENA.   Unfortunately, the bald truth of the matter is that we Canadians freed up ABSOLUTELY ZERO in the way of U.S. combat forces.   Our deployment with ISAF playing "Palace Guard" in Kabul was NEVER intended to "backfill" US Forces, as there were zero U.S. forces involved in the NATO Peace Support Operation to begin with.   The U.S. forces have always been busy fighting the coalition WAR On Terrorism in Afghanistan, known as Op ENDURING FREEDOM (and in our short-lived case, Op APOLLO).   We simply committed to the NATO Peace-Support Operation in order to dodge the allied call for Op Iraqi Freedom....

Canada's post-2002 role in Afghanistan was one of NATO "Peace Support", confined to the capitol city of Kabul.   There is a big, big, frigging difference between what 3 PPCLI BG did as an integral battalion of TF Rakassan in 2002, and what our forces have been doing in Kabul since 2003...

Suffice it to say that our 2 successive rotations of a Bde (-) with ISAF in Kabul starting in 2003 did NOTHING to "free up" American forces for Iraq.   What they did (against all CF senior leadership advice to the contrary) was ensure that when the U.S. came asking about a commitment to Iraq, our political masters could say "So sorry - everyone we have available is currently serving in Afghanistan".   It was a political "bait and switch" of the highest and (unfortunately) most pathetically transparent order.   We as a nation simply didn't have the balls to say "sorry, we don't agree with your take on Iraq, and we're sitting this one out".   Instead, our political leadership committed everything that the Canadian Army had available (and then some) to the NATO-led ISAF peace-support mission in Kabul.   They did so in the full expectation that despite stretching our army beyond the breaking point, they would be able to look our key Allies in the eye and keep a straight face when telling them that we couldn't participate in Iraq because we were fully committed to the NATO peace-support mission in Afghanistan.   

Think about what we as a nation did to our Allies, and try to put it in purely inter-personal terms.   You and I go out together for a night on the town.   A member of some gang sucker-punches you without provocation.   So, I join in, and together we kick the snot out of those few members of the gang.   There are still many more unseen members of that gang to deal with, but after the first 10 minutes I decide that I am tapped-out and go home - leaving you hanging.   Then later on, you decide that some other bad guys who pose an equal threat to our shared lifestyles are presenting a legitimate danger to you and your friends.   They therefore need to be disarmed and removed from power.   In doing so, you would free an entire neighborhood.   You ask for   my help, and after weeks of waffling while those guys thumb their noses at you, I back down.   Instead, I elect to join a neighborhood watch in the place where you (with my very short-term assistance) have already sorted out the threat.   I choose to commit everthing I have to protecting the home of the neighborhood Crime-Watch leader and his particular block of the neighborhood, because I think that by doing so I can claim that I am doing "good works" while quite deliberately avoiding involvement in your sorting-out of the other bad guys....   And in so doing, just what kind of "friend am I"?   The answer to anyone who has ever had a true friend is.....you're no friend of mine.

And there you have it in a nut-shell.   Canada's position vis-a-vis our traditional allies.   We're not just talking the USA.   We're also includiing in the "Coalition of the Willing" (of which we are not a part), Britain, Australia, and countless lesser nations who understand the necessity to do what is right regardless of the consequence.   

So to answer your question Michael, our presence in Afghanistan has never had anything to do with backfilling a U.S. presence so that they could go off and fight the War on Terrorism on our behalf.   Our intial deployment to Kandahar had nothing to do with relieving the Americans because we actually did fight the war alongside them for a short time.   On the other hand, our subsequent deployments to Afghanistan were quite intentionally designed to avoid any such commitment.....      

If I were your purported friend and you did to me what we've done to the U.S over the past 2 years?   I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw you.   And that is just speaking to the international scene.....   We Canadians have the utter gall as a "3rd World Nation-In-Waiting" to expect economic dispensation from a nation at war with our own enemies that we have willfully ignored (if not openly accommodated).   Hello.....     

Just you  and the rest of us wait until the next "9/11" happens on Parliament Hill or Bay Street.   Don't think so?   Well, there would be a bet that I am more than willing to take.   Just name your stakes....

And when (NOT IF) that much-promised AQ terrorist strike against Canada happens, guess who will be the first nation to leap to our assistance?   Just guess who will be the first to accept at face-value our utterly hypocritical "re-evaluation" of the Global War on Terrorism?   You can bet your last loonie that it will be the good old U.S. of A.   And they won't be doing so out of any self-interest.   They will simply welcome us back aboard a fight that they have been waging on our pathetic waffling behalf for the better part of 5 or 6 years.   And they will do so with no strings attached, because they know that the best ally is a free and willful ally.   And we Canadians will be both shamed and hurting as a nation, while our politicians blather without meaning nor consequence.   

And at the end of the day, we will do the best that we can, with our woefully depleted military capacity.   The Canadian public will be outraged that a "Beslan" could happen in Burnaby.   The Canadian public will demand "answers" but because it takes a while for "sheep" to respond, it will be an inordinately long time before there is sufficient outrage to demand "action".   Eventually Canada will react appropriately, but it will be akin to awakening a slumbering midget doped up on morphine.     

When the current "me, me, me" Canadian public finally wakes up, just what is it that we think we will find?   Having been played for the content fools that they are, will Canadians suddenly come to realize that they have zero means of natiional retribution (let alone long-term representation) because they screwed the defence pooch?     Will they become truly angry and determined?   Well, I truly hope so, because that is the only response that holds a viable Canadian future for my children.   But based on my personal experience do I believe that our current and future "countrymen" have the will and moral fortitude to fight for what they currently take for granted?   I am no so sure.....         

This is our future, and in my humble view we are weak to the point of disgrace.   Can you say "Asking for it?"   I knew you could.....     So just wait for the headlines.   Heck - we're already #5 on the internationally published Al Quaida hit-list......and guess what?     The other 4 nations have already been hit.   An Australian embassy just bit the dust yesterday, if my news service was correct.   But let's not forget that above and beyond all of that, we Canadians are the softest target.   The only conceivable reason that Canada hasn't already been plastered with some form of terrorist hit is that we're simply  too valuable to the terrorists as a Western conduit into North America.   Hit us, and we might (might) just be forced to check your passport at the airport as you arrive.

Not that any newly-arriving terrorists are anything to be particularly worried about...   Heck - it is the terrs who have been living alongside you for 10 years that are ready to roll tomorrow.   Are we prepared to deal with that?   And if/when it happens, are we as a nation prepared to dispatch appropriate forces to eradicate the source both at home and abroad?     Hmmm - tough questions that nobody wants to face until it is too late.   Who's going to train that "national response force" when the poop inevitably hits the fan?   Too late to train up the tasked out/depleted "high readiness" battalion that nobody ever counted on sending anywhere.... So who is going to carry the Canadian ball?   I know who you're thinking about, but they're way too small.   We're talking full-strength units in response to a level of "national alert" the likes of which none of us have ever seen....

Just you wait all of my good Army friends....your time to ante-up is coming, and it ain't gonna be pretty when it happens.     Not to be an alarmist or anything, but if you joined looking for "action"?   Only a fool would be so naive as to think that we Canadians aren't going to get a whole lot of it over the next several years....

Again, not to be alarmist.   But let's make no politically-correct mistake in "hoping" that there is no crap-storm coming over the next several years.   It would take a naive optimist the likes of which I've never encountered to hope otherwise.   We as a nation are currently enjoying sunny skies with no expectation of rain.....   Now's the time to prepare, and we are missing the boat - big-time....

Just my tangential thoughts....


----------



## pbi (11 Sep 2004)

Thrashingly good post, Mark. Canada's national bum hurts!!

To support one of Mark's comments, some propaganda from the local AQ/TAL/HIG directed at ISAF recently stated words to the effect:

"...we do not care what nationality or religion you are-you are all slaves of the Americans and we will make you feel pain..."

The Germans here know only too well what this means: they lost a number of soldiers in an IED attack on a bus last year. And Germany could hardly be considered as a "slave of the US". But, they are still here, both in ISAF and in OEF. The point is that the enemy here (and they _are_ the enemy-make no mistake-) hate us all, and we are all legitimate targets. This is very difficult for the average Canadian to grasp given our sometimes Pollyannaish view of things. IMHO it is better to crush these people here, to the greatest extent we possibly can, than to tolerate the horrendous scenarios that Mark warns of. And, please, let us not be so historically forgetful as to think Canadians are immune from terrorism.

Cowering behind a "screen" of moral relativism, or cynically seeking the cheapest ride, gains us no credit where credit really matters. Botswana and Fiji may love us, but so what. Cravenly saying: "please don't bomb us-we really don't like those bad US guys-really, really we don't.." represents a position that is morally untenable. Cheers


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Sep 2004)

When the commitment to Afghanistan was first announced on the evening news, my first thought was "Deft move to give us an excuse to pass on Iraq".  If it was obvious to me I harbour no doubt the people in the stratospheric pay grades of our imagined allies were not fooled.  A cheap ploy looks all the worse when it's obvious.


----------



## Blindspot (11 Sep 2004)

Mark C said:
			
		

> When the current "me, me, me" Canadian public finally wakes up, just what is it that we think we will find?   Having been played for the content fools that they are, will Canadians suddenly come to realize that they have zero means of natiional retribution (let alone long-term representation) because they screwed the defence pooch?     Will they become truly angry and determined?   Well, I truly hope so, because that is the only response that holds a viable Canadian future for my children.   But based on my personal experience do I believe that our current and future "countrymen" have the will and moral fortitude to fight for what they currently take for granted?   I am no so sure.....



It is my firm belief that if anything on the scale of 9-11 were to happen on Canadian soil, the Canadian public will mourn for a couple of days and then blame the U.S. for its imperialistic ways. Finally, the transgressions of imperial America the hubris of western culture will have brought tragedy to us poor, peace-loving, diverse Canadians. We may even fault ourselves somewhat. Some token safety measures will be taken by our politicians so that we feel secure and even those will be fought tooth and nail by immigration lawyers and CBC-worshipping university students from Toronto.

The only way to raise the Canadian public's ire and seriously declare war on terror is to somehow prove a link between Muslim fundamentalism and the next stiff raise in cable TV rates.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (11 Sep 2004)

I think the fact we have a politicized military is self-evident.

I'm more worried that out of our fleet of F-18's that we only have the ability 
to deploy such as small percentage.   That says to me we have a broken
system and there doesn't appear to be any impetus to correct it....



Matthew.   :-\


----------



## Fusaki (11 Sep 2004)

Good post, Mark C!!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (11 Sep 2004)

Blindspot said:
			
		

> The only way to raise the Canadian public's ire and seriously declare war on terror is to somehow prove a link between Muslim fundamentalism and the next stiff raise in cable TV rates.



Nonsense - blame a stiff new beer tax on them; blood will flow like a river.


----------



## nULL (12 Sep 2004)

Just to play the uninformed devil's advocate here, but aside from WW2, when has Canada ever been under attack? I'm not naive enough to think that that is because of our "international reputation" or anything like that, but isn't our lack of international importance kind of a mixed blessing? I mean, Canadians have already proven to the world that when forced to fight, we can. An attack ON CANADA would do nothing but to rile up the populace and force Canada to become an active participant in a war that would certainly appear to already be stacked against the enemy. These guys aren't stupid, they were able to orchestrate the largest, most sophisticated terrorist attack in history; they must know that as long as they leave _Canadians_ alone they know we won't be a credible threat. . 

And on another note, why would Canadian politicians actually join the fight? The United States is doing what it is doing to protect itself, as its leaders have an obligation to do - _they_ struck first (however arguably). The Canadian leaders have determined that the best way to protect Canadians and Canadian interests is to do nothing, or comparatively very little. It's worked so far, so who are we to rock the boat?


----------



## excoelis (12 Sep 2004)

> Again, not to be alarmist.  But let's make no politically-correct mistake in "hoping" that there is no crap-storm coming over the next several years.  It would take a naive optimist the likes of which I've never encountered to hope otherwise.  We as a nation are currently enjoying sunny skies with no expectation of rain.....  Now's the time to prepare, and we are missing the boat - big-time....



You make one hell of a weatherman, Sir 

My parents dragged me out of the 'troubles' in Belfast at a young age with the hope that I could be raised, and eventually raise my children, in a land of peace and opportunity.

My ante is in - for what it's worth.

There may not be enough of us to stave off disaster, but at least there will be a few of us in Valhalla with a clear conscience.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (12 Sep 2004)

Someone is going to have to correct some of the specifics on this, but here goes:

1)   Since 1812, I think there has been very little immediate direct threat to Canadian Territory
2)   Regardless during the Second World War, Korea and the Cold War I believe our leadership
recognized that a threat although at that point was isolated to another geographical region if 
left unaddressed, would eventually become a much greater direct threat to Canada.   It was 
therefore policy to be participants on the side of the allies at an early stage.
3)   During both of those conflicts, there was a significant ramping up time frame as training
took place and manufacturing assets were brought online.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure if the historical model even applies any more.

In terms of terrorism, for the most part it's an assymetric threat where we are forced to play
defence.   That being said, modifying our other foreign policy decisions to try to stay off the
terrorist hitlist is absurd.   They are evil.   They are trying to accomplish evil things.   As a nation
I think we have a responsibility to the rest of the world to do what we can to make the planet
a better and safer place for everyone.

Ergo, if we had the ability (and we should) to intervene in Darfur to stop a genocide, regardless
of whether it offends Al-Qaeda sensibilities is moot.   The same philosophy applies to Afghanistan.
When their elections come due, I'm expecting large number of well-trained Al-Qaeda, Taliban
and Al Qaeda-supporters to arrive from the tribal regions of Pakistan, Kashmir, etc. and attempt
to bully and interupt that election process. To cut-and-run abandoning the fledgling Afghanis 
would be a national embarrassment.

_"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing'' _ - Edmund Burke"

Secondly, with today's systems and logistics requirements if you decide you want to add any
significant capability to our national security structures, I would argue it would take you upwards 
of 7-10 years to get up to speed depending on the complexity of the objective.   

Bottom Line:   Whether it's a response to dirty bomb in Toronto, or intervention of a genocide
in southern Africa, you always have to be ready for the contingencies now and not assume you 
can procure and train to deal with an emergency on short notice.

JMHO,



Matthew.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 Sep 2004)

The Japanese occupied parts of the (US) Aleutian Islands in 1942, and managed to drop explosive devices in British Columbia. German U-Boats also appeared in Canadian waters during the Second World War.


----------



## nULL (12 Sep 2004)

The balloon bombs only succeeded in killing people after the war was over though, didn't they?


----------



## Blindspot (12 Sep 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> The Japanese occupied parts of the (US) Aleutian Islands in 1942, and managed to drop explosive devices in British Columbia. German U-Boats also appeared in Canadian waters during the Second World War.



Also, there was the offshore shelling of a BC lighthouse by an alleged Japanese submarine. This event, IIRC, helped expedite conscription in this country. There is even a theory that the U.S. conspired with the Canadian government to attack the lighthouse in order to prove to the public that a home-threat was very real.


----------



## Bartok5 (12 Sep 2004)

nULL said:
			
		

> Just to play the uninformed devil's advocate here, but aside from WW2, when has Canada ever been under attack? I'm not naive enough to think that that is because of our "international reputation" or anything like that, but isn't our lack of international importance kind of a mixed blessing? I



Null, 

You have very decidedly "missed the boat".  First off, Canada was never directly "attacked" during WW II.  We simply responded to acts of aggression occuring an ocean away on the European continent because our closest ally at the time (England) was under seige as the last bastion of the Democratic Commonwealth.  Perhaps you slept through your high-school history classes?  Or perhaps they don't bother to teach such things any longer?

The "Devil's Advocate" role is all fine and good, until it is played in an inane context which has zero current value.  To whit, your perception of Canada's current "no harm, no foul" international policy.  Wrong, wrong, wrong, and then some more wrong, wrong, wrong.  Your view encapsulizes the naive presumption that by sitting on the international sidelines (and assumedly by playing a major role as a terrorist facilitator in terms of immigration discipline), Canada will be "unmolested" by said international terrorist organizations.  And yet we already know this hypothesis to be totally without substance.  

Just ask Germany, Spain, or (most recently and most prominently) France what their current "take" on "abstinence" from the global war against terrorism has achieved.  Germany - no (attributable) role in Op Enduring Freedom, but lost 20-some soldiers who were killed enroute home after trying to bring peace and stability to Kabul as part of ISAF.  Spain deployed a modest force in Iraq, and then when a train was bombed they backed out.  BIG MISTAKE, because Spain as a nation surrendered its ability to influence world events when it pulled its troops out of OIF.  You want to talk about "surrender monkeys?"  Spain fits the bill, big-time.   As for France?  Well, they refused to participate in any form or substance in Iraqi operations.  And now, there are 2 French citizens being held at threat of having their heads cut off simply because France balks at having schoolchildren cover their heads in scarves.  Hmmm..... France, you now face a conundrum.  Either you join in the international fight to completely eradicate these terrorist scum, or you continue to play the "neutral" party and accept the death of your countrymen as the "price of peace".  But I ask you, "what peace"?!?!?  The Philippines gambled and won with the return of their 2 truck-drivers, but at what cost?  They rolled over and said "dick me up the butt".....

At the end of the day, the terrorist scum need to be killed - fulll stop.  I am not talking about rehabilitation or any such thing.  I am talking about the $.35 solution of a bullet to the back of the head.  The exact same way that anyone with a shred of common sense and the character to do so, would put down a lame dog.  Call me "cold", call me a murderer, but if I had a line of these duly-proven and convicted terrorist scum-bags sitting in front of me?  I would be quite happy to put a bullet into the back of each of their skulls.  I kid you not.  And why?  Not because I would take any personal pleasure in doing so.  Quite the opposite is true.  But at the end of the day, I know that the death of those particular radical fundamentalists would represent one less viable threat to my children.  That was entirely the reason why I went to Afghanistan in 2002, and did my utmost best to hunt those scum-bags down.  And that is why I would do the same again tomorrow if the powers that be were to tell me that I had the opportunity to do so.....  The terrorists who pose a threat to your family and mine are the very same individuals who exist solely to kill innocent Canadians (or Germans, or French, or Philippinos) going about their daily lives.  Give me half a chance, and I am only too happy to shoot them dead before they have the opportunity to kill my children our yours...

In the final analysis, you NULL, have entirely "missed the boat".  You think that by "playing appeasement" as a nation, Canada will somehow evade the wrath of international terrorism.  And yet we KNOW that Canada is already #5 on the international hit-list as a result of our participation in Op Enduring Freedom.  We KNOW that international targets 1 through 4 have already been hit.  And despite all of that irrefutable evidence, syccophants like you insist  believing that we couldn't possibly be next - just so long as we avoid confronting the evil of international terrorism.  Well, you and your ilk are enabling "patsies" of the highest order.

The people who have already stated that they are targeting our country are the worst form of Jackal.  They are not interested in YOUR appeasement.  They don't care whether or not you personally want to roll over like a bitch. They simply want you DEAD, your family DEAD, your friends DEAD, your pet DEAD, etc, etc.  

And you would hope to reason with such scum-bags by virtue of "staying home"?   Pathetic.

Have a nice life dodging your fundamental responsibilities as a man....


----------



## KevinB (12 Sep 2004)

Mark - excellent posts 



			
				Mark C said:
			
		

> The people who have already stated that they are targeting our country are the worst form of Jackal.   They are not interested in YOUR appeasement.   They don't care whether or not you personally want to roll over like a *****. They simply want you DEAD, your family DEAD, your friends DEAD, your pet DEAD, etc, etc.



This is the KEY.
They don't want us uninvolved (they really don't give a rat fuck) they want us DEAD.

Walking around downtown Kabul - I have had a chance to talk to some locals - Al Q wants us dead - not gone - just dead.


----------



## Acorn (12 Sep 2004)

I don't think Null deserved that. The opinion voiced (which I have a feeling Null doesn't subscribe to - hence "devil's advocate") is not that uncommon, however wrong-headed.

There's a woeful lack of understanding of the threat - either understated ("they won't come after us if we don't do anything") or overstated ("they simply want to kill us all").

Maybe I can find the time to write a Mark C-length article on the subject sometime. At the moment I don't have the time.

In the interim, let's keep it civil, shall we?

Acorn


----------



## nULL (12 Sep 2004)

Mark C said:
			
		

> You have very decidedly "missed the boat".  First off, Canada was never directly "attacked" during WW II.  We simply responded to acts of aggression occuring an ocean away on the European continent because our closest ally at the time (England) was under seige as the last bastion of the Democratic Commonwealth.  Perhaps you slept through your high-school history classes?  Or perhaps they don't bother to teach such things any longer?



Well, at least we know who _didn't_ sleep during drama class; you posses a rather tiresome flair for the dramatic. 

http://www.chez.com/dralloc/uboat.htm

Here's a question; if a Canadian warship is attacked and sunk in Canadian waters by a foreign aggressor, doesn't that qualify as a "direct attack"? Should the Germans have shot up the beach some to meet your standards? Also, I would disagree with your assessment that Canada joined WW2 merely to help Britain. Adolph Hitler publically stated pre-war "Today we rule Germany, tomorrow, the world!" (with or without '!') Joining the war was the only way to halt an advance that would have gone beyond our shores. 

Oh yes, as mentioned above, Japanese balloon bombs were used against Canada and the United States with some success. 

http://collections.ic.gc.ca/balloons/canadian.htm

But that war is over.




> The "Devil's Advocate" role is all fine and good, until it is played in an inane context which has zero current value.  To whit, your perception of Canada's current "no harm, no foul" international policy.  Wrong, wrong, wrong, and then some more wrong, wrong, wrong.  Your view encapsulizes the naive presumption that by sitting on the international sidelines (and assumedly by playing a major role as a terrorist facilitator in terms of immigration discipline), Canada will be "unmolested" by said international terrorist organizations.  And yet we already know this hypothesis to be totally without substance.   Just ask Germany, Spain, or (most recently and most prominently) France what their current "take" on "abstinence" from the global war against terrorism has achieved.  Germany - no (attributable) role in Op Enduring Freedom, but lost 20-some soldiers who were killed enroute home after trying to bring peace and stability to Kabul as part of ISAF.  Spain deployed a modest force in Iraq, and then when a train was bombed they backed out.  BIG MISTAKE, because Spain as a nation surrendered its ability to influence world events when it pulled its troops out of OIF.  You want to talk about "surrender monkeys?"  Spain fits the bill, big-time.   As for France?  Well, they refused to participate in any form or substance in Iraqi operations.  And now, there are 2 French citizens being held at threat of having their heads cut off simply because France balks at having schoolchildren cover their heads in scarves.  Hmmm..... France, you now face a conundrum.  Either you join in the international fight to completely eradicate these terrorist scum, or you continue to play the "neutral" party and accept the death of your countrymen as the "price of peace".  But I ask you, "what peace"?!?!?  The Philippines gambled and won with the return of their 2 truck-drivers, but at what cost?  They rolled over and said "dick me up the butt".....



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3622984.stm

Or to quote:

_The BBC's Paul Wood reports from Baghdad that the French campaign to save the two men has won unprecedented support throughout the Arab and Muslim world, largely because France is not part of the military coalition in Iraq._

It's hard to respond to your post without honouring your *belief* that the war in Iraq is directly linked to the war on terror, something that's already been debated upon by people alot smarter than you or I. Of course, with the recent influx of religously motivated foreign fighters, it might very well be. 

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EI09Ak01.html





> At the end of the day, the terrorist scum need to be killed - fulll stop.  I am not talking about rehabilitation or any such thing.  I am talking about the $.35 solution of a bullet to the back of the head.  The exact same way that anyone with a shred of common sense and the character to do so, would put down a lame dog.  Call me "cold", call me a murderer, but if I had a line of these duly-proven and convicted terrorist scum-bags sitting in front of me?  I would be quite happy to put a bullet into the back of each of their skulls.  I kid you not.  And why?  Not because I would take any personal pleasure in doing so.  Quite the opposite is true.  But at the end of the day, I know that the death of those particular radical fundamentalists would represent one less viable threat to my children.  That was entirely the reason why I went to Afghanistan in 2002, and did my utmost best to hunt those scum-bags down.  And that is why I would do the same again tomorrow if the powers that be were to tell me that I had the opportunity to do so.....  The terrorists who pose a threat to your family and mine are the very same individuals who exist solely to kill innocent Canadians (or Germans, or French, or Philippinos) going about their daily lives.  Give me half a chance, and I am only too happy to shoot them dead before they have the opportunity to kill my children our yours...



I agree - but when did I say any differently? 



> In the final analysis, you NULL, have entirely ["missed the boat".  You think that by "playing appeasement" as a nation, Canada will somehow evade the wrath of international terrorism.  And yet we KNOW that Canada is already #5 on the international hit-list as a result of our participation in Op Enduring Freedom.  We KNOW that international targets 1 through 4 have already been hit.  And despite all of that irrefutable evidence, syccophants like you insist  believing that we couldn't possibly be next - just so long as we avoid confronting the evil of international terrorism.  Well, you and your ilk are enabling "patsies" of the highest order.



And closet experts in international terrorism like you will keep telling everybody how unsafe we are. If you're suggesting that I place my trust in the hands of CSIS over hand-wringers, yes, that is correct. 

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/06/01/482046-cp.html





> The people who have already stated that they are targeting our country are the worst form of Jackal.  They are not interested in YOUR appeasement.  They don't care whether or not you personally want to roll over like a *****. They simply want you DEAD, your family DEAD, your friends DEAD, your pet DEAD, etc, etc.
> 
> And you would hope to reason with such scum-bags by virtue of "staying home"?   Pathetic.
> 
> Have a nice life dodging your fundamental responsibilities as a man....



...and to summarize, nobody has attacked Canada, the Canadian hostages in Iraq have always been freed alive, blah blah blah you know the rest. I support the Canadian government, of which you are a part of, to keep me safe. So far, it has worked. I trust the Australian government, of which I am a citizen, to keep my family down there safe, as it has done, despite it's different approach. The fact that one is more "manly" than the other is irrelevant to me. History may not remember our two nations equally in this war, but as long as we come out as winners, that's all that really matters.

And yes, that is _my_ opinion.


----------



## tabernac (12 Sep 2004)

After reading all these posts, one question pops up in my head. If the top brass at NDHQ/Parliament Hill, decided not to send THE most combat ready and capable force in Canada to Afghanistan, why are we buying the MGS and scraping the armoured regiments? I'm sure it would take much less money and time to set a CF-18 squadron up in Kyrgyzstan, then to put the MGS and all the other required equipment on a chartered vessel and move the equipment inland, having the CF-18 squadron set up in Kyrgyzstan would still be less expensive.


----------



## Dogboy (15 Sep 2004)

no matter what. the army answers to the people. (hopefully i don't want to live where it dose not )
now the people are still against the war in Iraq so eney support, be it direct, or freeing up US. units for it will be frowned upon by the publick.

and strategically how usefully is a bunch of hi tec. fighters in a mountain guerrilla war?
we need to get Afghanistan to become a open safe place where the tribes quit fighting with eatch other and you cant do that with carpit booming.


----------



## Gayson (15 Sep 2004)

I would just like to put a point in on Canada staying out of the terrorist scene from a Youth Prospective.

Like many of you, I have often been asked as a CF member, my view on Afghanistan, Iraq and such.   I try to stay out of Iraq totally because the CF has had no involvement and frankly I am in no position to speak for the CF.   I will usually answer some of my opinions on Afghanistan.   I believe that it was good that we went, removing the taliban.   A great majority of the time I get the same responce when talking to people from Canada's younger age group.

Many youth today (to me anyways) Oppose anything war, violence or militant related.   I could say that going into the country and removing the Taliban was good because now the countries inhabitants have a chance at a Democratic election.   Immediately the other person would retort saying that it was still wrong because of the "thousands" of civilians killed by bombings (almost every argument I hear comes back to bombings).   

I have come to a conclusion that many of the youth who oppose Bush, Iraq, Afghanistan and other ops are so opposed to killing of anysort, that risking the lives of small numbers of civilians due to collateral damage totally removes any moral reason for entering these countries in the first place.

The taliban was at least a formed political body of a sort, but I have noticed that this reasoning applies to terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda as well.

If I were asked if I thought it was morally justifyable for the CF to enter a foreign country to kill members of the Al-Qaeda and I answered yes I will almost always receive the same responce.   That responce:   It is not morally justifyable because we would be killing people (which seems to some to ALWAYS be the wrong thing to do).   Not every person I have spoken to believes that we should not fight because of a little collateral damage (which is almost always unavoidable, but always can be reasonably reduced), some believe we shouldn't fight because killing the actual terrorists is wrong.   It comes down to the fact that there are people who believe the only way to avoid the wrath of the terrorist is to totally ignore them despite what history has taught us.

The youth group I speak of are individuals I know around town aged 16 to their early twenties.   

These youth don't run the country, but they do hold a significant say because they voice their opinions freely through protests, the use of the media and other means.

Now when speaking to these people and If I were to ask them how many people had their heads sawed off by terrorists, or some of the types of Jobs in peace keeping Canada has done in Afghanistan, or anything about the PPCLI in Afghanistan (besides the sniper getting that record, every young person seems to know about that.) almost none of them could answer any of the questions.

Which leads me to a critical point.   I think one of the main reasons why Canada stays out is because the average Canadian doesn't know what is going on, what kind of a threat these people pose, or even the fact Al-Qaeda has openly targeted us!   If we want to fight these people we must first win the fight on the home front, educating our fellow Canadians about the dangers these people pose.


----------



## nULL (15 Sep 2004)

Education might not be the answer though...two days ago, I was in a class with third year university students many of whom were saying that _they_ could see why the Chechen militants murdered over 300 people and that the "terrorists" (yes, they used the dit-dit fingers - as if there was any _doubt!_) were merely giving Russia what it deserved for bombing Chechnya.  

These people weren't stupid, they just chose to commit themselves to one end of the spectrum exclusively. Education will do nothing as long as those such as the Beslan militants are given legitimacy by youth.


----------



## Bartok5 (15 Sep 2004)

Acorn, 

Having re-read my post today after a 3 day absence from this board, I can see where my earlier comments directed specifically towards nNUL were of an inappropriately personal nature.   In that regard, I am quite prepared to offer him a public apology.   Aside from that however, I stand behind the essence of my earlier post.

nULL, 

I don't really care whether you were truly playing â Å“Devil's advocateâ ?, or were simply â Å“fishingâ ? for views in the absence of a personal stand on the subject.   That is entirely your business.   You asked for opinions regarding the viability of pacifism as a means of avoiding the attack that our nation's enemy has repeatedly promised, so I gave you my experience-based views.   Where I made a fundamental mistake was in directing my comments specifically towards you, rather than speaking in general terms to the forum audience at large.   In that regard, I apologize for the inflammatory nature of my personal comments at the beginning and end of my earlier post.   

With one notable exception, I stand fully behind the remainder of my comments.   The exception would be my mis-worded contention that â Å“Canada was never attacked during the Second World Warâ ?.   I was well aware (as others before you had pointed out in this very thread) that Canada experienced direct hostile action during the Battle of the Atlantic, as well as along the Pacific Coast.   Nothwithsanding my â Å“brain-to-keyboard disconnectâ ?, what I intended to emphasize in my earlier post is the fact that Canada was not directly attacked (nor threatened) PRIOR to declaring war on Germany.   We declared war in 1939.   The seaborne threats to Canada's coast did not materialize until 1942.   

My point in raising this observation was to illustrate that throughout the 20th Century, Canada never once waited for a direct attack (nor even an imminent threat) to materialize against our nation prior to mobilizing and taking proactive military action abroad.   We didn't wait in 1914, and we didn't wait in 1939.   We can debate the reasons for Canada's commitment to either World War, but the fundamental point remains that throughout the 20th Century Canadians and their Government have never waited for a fight to come to us.   Instead, we have consistently carried the fight to our perceived enemies in concert with our Allies.   Post WW II, we proactively deployed substantive forces into hostile situations around the globe as part of our international obligations (Korea), or simply to fulfill our perceived â Å“dutyâ ? to assist less fortunate nations.   Even our stationing of credible NATO forces in Germany from the 1950's to the late 1980s constituted a â Å“pre-emptiveâ ? deployment to deter potential Soviet aggression.   

Based on that historical precedent, I contend that our current lack of a credible military response to international terrorism constitutes nothing less than a complete reversal of long-standing national policy.   A policy characterized by decisive and proactive military action in concert with our allies, to counter collective enemy threats.   For the past 2.5 years Canada has been faced with what is arguably the most horrifying and â Å“directâ ? threat that have ever encountered â â€œ an impending attack directed specifically against our non-combatant civilian population, our economy, and our way of life.   And despite the irrefutable nature of the revolutionary Islamist   threat, we as a nation are largely passive, unwilling, and ill-prepared to take military action in our own defence.   Aside from Canada's initial (and very modest) contribution to Operation Enduring Freedom, we have done remarkably little to preemptively deter, disrupt, or destroy a terrorist organization that has specifically stated its intention to attack us.   Hello?   What has become of our nation?   How can any informed and responsible Canadian citizen even CONTEMPLATE   adopting a â Å“strategyâ ? of weak-kneed passivity and appeasement when the past actions of our enemy confirm that he will simply exploit such weakness?     It boggles my (admittedly simple) mind.....

The bottom line is that Canada's current â Å“cop-outâ ? in the face of our most significant collective threat in a generation is entirely inconsistent with our national history.   That is the point I was attempting to make with my WW II â Å“directly attackedâ ? comment.   Clearly, I did a less than adequate job of that the first time around....   

Moving on to your next point nULL, I won't dwell on our disagreement regarding Canada's primary reason for declaring war against Germany on 10 September 1939.   I will simply reiterate that most of the historical accounts I have read suggest that our residual loyalty to Britain as a Dominion within the Commonwealth was the driving force behind Canada's â Å“near-reflexiveâ ? declaration of war.   A declaration which followed a mere 7 days behind Britain's, and which was announced by the British Monarch.   At that point, Germany had commenced its invasion of Poland 9 days prior.   The German conquest of Denmark and Norway would not occur for another seven months (April 1940).     

Based on the above timeline and what I have read elsewhere, I find it difficult to agree with your contention that Canada's declaration of war against Germany was motivated primarily by  a concern that German aggression would (eventually) pose a physically threat to our nation.   Indeed, at that point Germany had demonstrated aggression against a single European neighbor (Poland).   Notwithstanding Hitler's pre-war rantings, there was no immediate threat to justify Canada's rapid declaration of war.   Hence the widespread contention that Canada's swift entry into the war was little more than a â Å“reflexiveâ ? action based on residual deference and loyalty to the head of the Commonwealth.

To further illustrate my point, I offer you a brief quote from the Veterans Affairs Canada web-site which supports my understanding of Canada's reasons for declaring war:

 â Å“The Second World War began at dawn on September 1, 1939 as the German armies swept into Polandâ ?....   â Å“Britain and France, honouring their pledge to Poland, declared war on Germany on September 3. Although not automatically committed by Britain's declaration of war as in 1914, there was little doubt that Canada would quickly follow.  On September 7 Parliament met in special session; on September 9 it approved support to Britain and France; on September 10 King George VI announced that Canada had declared war.â ?

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=history/secondwar/Canada2

Seems pretty straight-forward to me....no mention of Canadian concerns over German global domination, nor physical threats to Canada.   But historical accounts vary, and you can choose to believe whatever you like.   All I ask is that you not automatically discount substantiated views which differ from your own.



> It's hard to respond to your post without honouring your belief that the war in Iraq is directly linked to the war on terror, something that's already been debated upon by people alot smarter than you or I. Of course, with the recent influx of religously motivated foreign fighters, it might very well be.



I fail to see where I inferred within my earlier post that the U.S.-led Coalition invasion of Iraq was directly related to the international war on terrorism.   In fact, I believe that any linkages between Iraq and revolutionary Islamist terrorism were tenuous at best before the invasion, and have been largely debunked since.   There is no direct evidence of collusion between the former Iraqi leadership and Al Qaida.   However, as you pointed out there can be no doubt that there we now see the direct involvement of AQ and its supporters in the anti-coalition insurgency campaign.   Whether the U.S. and its Coalition allies were right to invade a sovereign nation whose leadership flaunted international sanctions for 12 years and systematically tortured and subjugated large portions of its population is not the issue here.   Whether the U.S.-led invasion was responsible for attracting an influx of Islamist terrorists to fan the flames of the current insurgency in Iraq, is also largely moot.   However, the fact that Islamist terrorists are now striking civilian targets within Iraq as well as Coalition nations abroad is VERY relevant.   If you fail to see the distinction between a military insurgency and terrorist attacks conducted against Iraqi and Coalition civilians, then there is little point in my attempting to convince you otherwise.



> The BBC's Paul Wood reports from Baghdad that the French campaign to save the two men has won unprecedented support throughout the Arab and Muslim world, largely because France is not part of the military coalition in Iraq.



I am not the least bit surprised that the ongoing French efforts to have their citizens released has garnered support throughout the Arab and Muslim world.   A great many mainstream Arabs and Muslims do not agree with the Coalition invasion of Iraq, and therefore bear no particular ill-will towards France.   However, to presume that this â Å“unprecedentedâ ? mainstream support will have any impact whatsoever on the terrorist faction holding the hostages, is a dubious proposition at best.   The mainstream Arabs and Muslims supporting the French hostage release campaign do not speak for, nor do they represent radical Islamist terrorists.   Indeed, â Å“true Muslimsâ ? will be the first to tell you that they abhor terrorism in general and the terror campaign based on beheading of foreign hostages in particular.   Unfortunately, the beliefs of mainstream Arabs and Muslims hold little influence over the actions of radical Islamist terrorist factions.     All of that to say, the â Å“unprecedented support of the Arab and Muslim worldâ ? doesn't amount to much in the way of meaningful influence where the fates of the French hostages are concerned......



> And closet experts in international terrorism like you will keep telling everybody how unsafe we are. If you're suggesting that I place my trust in the hands of CSIS over hand-wringers, yes, that is correct.



Hmmm â â€œ a tad dismissive and insulting aren't we?     No worries â â€œ you owed me at least one â Å“cheap shotâ ? for the personal comments in my earlier post.   Nowithstanding my "tiresome flair for drama" (earlier cheap shot), I don't consider myself to be a â ?closet expertâ ? on any subject, let alone international terrorism.   Indeed, I view the term â Å“expertâ ? with a great deal of suspicion.   I am simply a serving soldier who has undertaken considerable study on the subject of terrorism over the past 23 years.   My studies have significantly intensified over the past 3 years in direct relation to my military duties, and my service has given me access to a broad range of open and classified information sources.   The latter are by far the most disconcerting when it comes to evaluating the immediacy of the threat to Canada, but we won't go there for OPSEC reasons.     Backing up my academic study is 6 months of practical experience planning and participating in combat operations to disrupt and destroy Al Quida and Taliban terrorists as a senior member of 3 PPCLI Battlegroup in Afghanistan.   All things considered, I would humbly suggest that I have sufficient knowledge and first-hand experience with the subject matter to offer some informed opinions.   And at the end of the day, that is all I provide on this forum â â€œ opinions, which you are free to agree or disagree with.   Now, having â Å“called me outâ ? with your â Å“Closet expertâ ? jibe, turn-around is fair play.   Please share with us YOUR personal credentials for speaking with any degree of authority on the subject of revolutionary Islamist terrorism.....   

As for me being a â Å“hand-wringerâ ?, I will refer you back to the above paragraph.   What I have studied and what I have seen first-hand has been sufficient for me as a serving soldier to be extremely concerned about Canada's grossly inadequate response to a direct terrorist threat against our nation.   The threat is very real â â€œ Islamist Terrorists have a proven capacity for wreaking massive death and destruction, and they have promised to specifically strike Canada.   They have followed through on their threats to other â Å“targetedâ ? nations, and will not be appeased by a pacifist/non-confrontational posture on our part.   If anything, our efforts to avoid confrontation will simply embolden the enemy.   

And if you are relying on the efforts of CSIS alone to preempt a terrorist attack?   You may wish to check your premise.   CSIS does the best that they can with what they have.   Unfortunately, what they currently have in terms of capability and resources is extremely limited.   Al Qaida have managed to repeatedly thwart the combined intelligence assets of the most sophisticated military and civilian agencies in the world.   And you honestly think that CSIS (no doubt working hand-in-glove with that paragon of Canadian efficiency, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration) is going to single-handedly prevent a determined terrorist attack against Canada?   Okey Dokey.....

nULL, If what I have to say about Canada's deplorable lack of commitment to our military allies or our pathetic state of domestic preparedness strikes you as impotent â Å“hand-wringingâ ? or "dramatic flair", I could honestly care less.   I write in the hope that my reasonably-informed comments will give some members of this board useful food for thought.   If so, then I will have achieved my intent.   At the end of the day, the world doesn't revolve around you or I.   In that context, it is irrelevant whether you have any personal regard for what I have to say.   Indeed, you are most cordially invited to completely ignore anything that I post on this discussion board in the future.

At the end of the day, it is my personal view as a serving soldier that those of us who understand the persistent and ever-increasing threat of global terrorism have a duty to challenge the fundamentally flawed   â Å“pacifistâ ? view at every opportunity.   If we fail to do so, then by virtue of our individual inaction we will share a portion of blame for the inevitable attack on Canada.   I realize that I am â Å“preaching to the convertedâ ? to those on this board who possess a modicum of military experience and a basic understanding of the current threat.   I nonetheless feel compelled to challenge any suggestion that â Å“terrorist appeasementâ ? or â Å“benign irrelevanceâ ? will somehow prevent the promised attack(s).   Even if those suggestions are couched in the form of â Å“Devil's advocacyâ ?.   

nULL, I will leave you with a direct quote from a National Post article printed earlier this week.   The article concerns an excellent Global Television documentary which aired last night:

â Å“For the global war on terror to be won, peace-loving people the world over will need to be both more self-aware and more vigilant of their everyday surroundings -- and that includes those of us who live here in Canada, according to a new Global News documentary, Know Your Enemy: al-Qaida's Third Wave. 

It's a simple message. And when the film's producer, George Browne, decided to make his film -- with Global National anchor Kevin Newman, freelance journalist Jane Kokan, Global's Troy Reeb and National Post Mideast correspondent Stewart Bell -- they chose to convey their message in simple terms, using words and images everyone can understand, without being simple-minded about what is ultimately a complex and thorny subject. 

I do feel Canadians are a little complacent," Browne said. "That's why we wanted to put it all together into one large document. Because I don't see that people really understand what is going on. Talking to a lot of friends, showing [the film] to people who are not in the news business, a lot of them say, 'I didn't know that. I had no concept of how widespread this has become'.   Canadians are complacent, and they don't know enough about what is going on outside our borders with respect to al-Qaida."   

Browne doesn't care to leave it there. Know Your Enemy is part plea, part historical text. Open your eyes, it says, be alert and don't for a moment think it can't or won't happen here.â ?

I must say that it is extremely encouraging to see those with the means to do so, finally spreading word of the immenent threat to Canada through the mass media.   I hope to see much more of this type of thing in the near future, although I have my cynical doubts that it will occur.   

J Gayson,

To para-phrase George Brown (above), I suspect that the youth perspective you find so prevalent today is largely a function of our young generation not truly understanding what is happening in regards to global terrorism.   Indeed, if Brown's observations are valid (and I certainly believe that they are), then this phenomenon is not confined to Canada's youth.   The typical Canadian lives in an insulated, molly-coddled society and is spoon-fed a life-time of â Å“cuddlyâ ? socialist and liberal pap.   

Unfortunately, the â Å“realâ ? world beyond our borders is a much harsher and unforgiving place that most of our countrymen can fathom.   Just ask any Canadian soldier who has experienced a dose of reality first-hand while serving under arms in any of the dozen global crap-holes we've soldiered through over the past 10 years.   

What I truly fear, is that Canadian society has reached a point of misguided complacency and apathy so profound that only the biggest of "wake-up calls" will be sufficient to arouse our slumbering nation.   And at that point, it will likely be too late to prevent a large-scale loss of Canadian lives.   


And on that happy note, I will sign-off on this subject for now.   The members of this board who are likely to â Å“get itâ ?, will have already done so.   Those who believe that there is hope for a pacifist and non-confrontational solution to the imminent threat of Islamist terrorism are equally free to think whatever they like.     Only time will tell us who was ultimately correct.   

Have a nice evening,


----------



## pbi (16 Sep 2004)

Dogboy:



> and strategically how usefully is a bunch of hi tec. fighters in a mountain guerrilla war?
> we need to get Afghanistan to become a open safe place where the tribes quit fighting with eatch other and you cant do that with carpit booming.




If you're talking about Afghanistan, the answer is "very useful and "much appreciated". Here at Bagram I see the twice-daily ops briefs that give considerable detail on the missions being flown on a 24/7 basis by US air elements, and not just by AHs and A-10s. There are fast-movers here too: a couple of days ago they tossed a few laser-guided bombs down an ACF cave complex, just as a "for example". As well, NATO is beefing up ISAF's air capabilty with CAS (Harriers, F16s) from a couple of nations, in order to support ISAF ground troops during the upcoming elections. There is still considerable threat from ACF forces using various indirect fire or rocket systems, as well as the possibility that some of the still quite heavily armed warlords such as Ismail Khan in Herat, or others, could take their toys out and start going at each other again (as they were recently doing in Herat until the US separated them.) There is nothing like a fully-loaded CAS fighter treetopping over your company of T62s to make you review your estimate.

I am   very sure that a squadron of CF18s, configured for CAS ops, would be most welcome here, as would SF or a light infantry battalion group, or a light gun   bty to assist with fire suport down along the Pak frontier, where the US forces are regularly firing arty and mors. The Us is big, and powerful, and they will go it alone if they have to, but they are feeling the pinch. Cheers.


----------

