# CAN DefMin Doesn't Consider Us At War?



## The Bread Guy (30 May 2006)

Just read this, and am wondering what might be missing re:  context (whyever would I be suspicious of media?   )- still, thought it was worth sharing.

 Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=aee0bf75-e7c9-4d64-b233-06379104c3d7&k=27048

*Despite combat deaths, Canada not at war in Kandahar: defence minister*
  
Jim Bronskill, Canadian Press, May 30, 2006

OTTAWA (CP) - Canada is not at war in Afghanistan, says Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor. 

Fighting violent insurgents is just one task among many for Canadian soldiers trying to bring stability to the troubled country, O'Connor told a Commons committee Tuesday. 

"The military has to conduct a range of activities," he said under questioning from MPs. 

"I don't consider this war." 

Since 2002, 16 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan. 

Liberal committee member Ujjal Dosanjh suggested the Conservative government is avoiding use of the term war because it too closely mirrors American terminology, as in the war on terrorism. 

"I think they're trying to downplay it," Dosanjh said after the committee meeting. 

(...)

O'Connor insisted it's not accurate to say Canada is at war. 

"We're engaged in helping people move products around, we're helping them build houses, we're helping advise the police. And when we're attacked, we attack back." 

The Commons narrowly voted recently to extend Canada's mission in Afghanistan an additional two years, until February 2009.  O'Connor told MPs it was the "right and responsible thing" to make the renewed commitment. 

A day earlier, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said progress has been made on a variety of social, economic and judicial fronts under the auspices of Canada's 2,300-member military force. 

O'Connor said Tuesday the job is not yet done. 

"Our military mission in Afghanistan will be successful when the country and its government are stabilized," he said. "When the terrorists and their local support networks are defeated and denied sanctuary. And when the Afghan security forces are well-established and under the firm and legitimate control of the government of Afghanistan." 

*O'Connor disclosed Tuesday that most of the military's jeep-like G-Wagons will be confined to the Canadian base in Kandahar and, in general, soldiers will venture out in armoured vehicles. 

But he denied that will make Canada's military less visible and therefore less able to win the hearts and minds of Afghans. Instead, he suggested, it's a question of safety. * 
"You have to travel between towns. When you get to the town, you get out of your vehicles and you talk to the people." 

(...)


----------



## m410 (30 May 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Liberal committee member Ujjal Dosanjh suggested the Conservative government is avoiding use of the term war because it too closely mirrors American terminology, as in the war on terrorism.
> 
> "I think they're trying to downplay it," Dosanjh said after the committee meeting.


Wait a sec Ujjal... so are the Conservatives "too American", or "not American enough"?  What term would a Liberal government use, and would it avoid the word "war"?  If so, why?  Because it too closely mirrors American terminology?

I, for one, strongly believe we are at war, but the war is much bigger than Afghanistan, and its not just about terrorism.  And so far "winning" is not the word for how we are faring.


----------



## Trinity (30 May 2006)

Its odd..

we have no declaration for war, which, seems to be logical to have if we were at war.

But... we're handing out campaign stars?  


 : ???


----------



## 3rd Horseman (30 May 2006)

I don't under stand why these guys still insist on playing this War no War game, just call it the way it is....I would like to hear the MND say "we cant call it War because War is Illegal, we have not been at War since the end of the big one in 45, the reality is that we have been fighting wars but calling it something else to keep the world warm and comfy feeling. Next question please"

Ahhh it would be so nice to hear clarity.

The Campaign star is kinda strange, should have been a bar to the SSM or NATO SSM. But then we have trashed the SSM thing now anyway it almost becomes useless. Maybe the star was a good choice that should have been made back in Somolia (Africa Star) and Bosnia, Croatia (European Star) A Stan( Eastern Star).


----------



## Trinity (31 May 2006)

Isn't there a danger in calling this a war.

If Canada is at war, don't we have legal obligations in the war act
such as massive financing to the military, huge recruiting, un mothball
some stuff???

Anyone...


----------



## m410 (31 May 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Isn't there a danger in calling this a war.
> 
> If Canada is at war, don't we have legal obligations in the war act
> such as massive financing to the military, huge recruiting, un mothball
> ...


You mean like treating this whole thing seriously and not just a sideshow from American Idol?   :


----------



## Trinity (31 May 2006)

m410 said:
			
		

> You mean like treating this whole thing seriously and not just a sideshow from American Idol?   :



 I love American Idol.   Do you think we can get Paula Abdul in Combats and sing
while we are over seas?  She'd be great in recruiting....


----------



## pbi (31 May 2006)

I find this whole debate about “whether or not we are at war” to be an utter red herring. We have not, AFAIK, declared war on anybody since 1939. But, in the 61 years since WWII ended, our soldiers and aircrew have been in combat engagements ranging from Kapyong through Medak to the air campaigns in the Gulf and Kosovo and now the operation in Afghanistan. Throughout those engagements we have dropped bombs, fired artillery barrages, fought hand to hand and taken hundreds if not thousands of casualties. And, to the best of my knowledge, all without a declaration of war. Did the absence of such a declaration in any way lessen the courage and honourable service of our soldiers? Did it lessen the importance of what we were doing, or trying to do, by engaging in those operations? I don’t think so. Combat is combat. IMHO, we need to realize that in the modern world there is little or no meaningful connection between how much force we use on international operations and the presence or  absence of any “declaration of war”. Despite the well-meant intentions of the US declaration of a “War on Terror”, I have to ask how meaningful a declaration of war would be in, (say), Afghanistan. Who would it be against? And, even if we could find a political entity to make it to, what difference would it really make to anything? Would such a declaration enable the government to devote more resources to Afghanistan, or take extraordinary measures at home? Perhaps, but the government is already capable of spending more on Afghanistan, and the implementing of the Emergency Act (which does not require a declaration of war, AFAIK…) could allow the govt to do almost whatever it wished in terms of “extraordinary measures”. And, anyway, what are we talking about? Conscription? Rounding up people we don’t like? Rationing?

To me, this squabbling about whether or not we are “at war” is utterly meaningless and is in fact nothing more than a political tool to embarrass the Tories by watching them go through contortions trying to come up with a politically palatable answer. And that, unfortunately, is exactly what they seem to be doing. What is really sickening and infuriating (but, I suppose, not very surprising...) is that the same political party who got us into the GWOT, and into Afghanistan as part of OEF (both the first time and the second time) is now shamelessly baiting the government with this nonsense.

Cheers


----------



## cobbler (31 May 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Its odd..
> 
> we have no declaration for war, which, seems to be logical to have if we were at war.
> 
> ...



Well there was no formal declaration of war in Vietnam, the Falklands, the Gulf War (I believe), or the Iraq War either, yet they were certainly wars.

IIRC the last war to be formally declared was Korea, and that has never been officially resolved.

The formal act of declaring war is no longer practised as it brings about too much red tape and would probably cripple most economies.


----------



## rick7475 (31 May 2006)

The country is not at war.  I talked to my granpa today who is in his 80's who remembers what it is like to be at war. 2300 troops in Afghanistan was the number of Canadian casualties for a few weeks in Caen, Ortona, or the Gustav Line. While everyone appreciates the sacrifice and role our soldiers are playing, the average Canadian civilian is almost totally unaffected except for a few headlines here and there and a couple of ignored dire warnings from CSIS.


----------



## George Wallace (31 May 2006)

rick7475 said:
			
		

> The country is not at war.  I talked to my granpa today who is in his 80's who remembers what it is like to be at war. 2300 troops in Afghanistan was the number of Canadian casualties for a few weeks in Caen, Ortona, or the Gustav Line. While everyone appreciates the sacrifice and role our soldiers are playing, the average Canadian civilian is almost totally unaffected except for a few headlines here and there and a couple of ignored dire warnings from CSIS.



Perhaps you can ask if we were at war in the 1960's, '70's, and '80's.  We were you know.   It was called the "Cold War".


----------



## Peacenik (31 May 2006)

I would tend to agree with the MND, although it is a technicality. 

Would an average canadian believe that the terminology used would somehow
change what is happening on the ground? 

Would "Combat Operations" suffice?


----------



## Journeyman (31 May 2006)

The Canadian Forces, particularly the Army, is at war. Sadly, Canada is not.

The obviousness of this situation, and the political depths it allows our government to sink could be seen on Monday


> Mike Blanchfield (CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen: Tuesday, May 30, 2006)
> Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay stands in the House Commons during Question Period on Monday.
> 
> OTTAWA - Insults, both deliberate and unintended, along with partisan sniping and skepticism marred Senate hearings on Afghanistan on Monday...when Liberal Senator Peter Stollery hurled an insult at Karzai, Afghanistan's interim president, who MacKay said would soon be visiting Canada.
> ''You know Karzai, he's a stooge. He was put there by Americans. Everybody knows that,'' Stollery said.


For Liberal Senator Peter Stollery insulting an elected foreign leader (and military ally for that part of society that _is_ at war) before his scheduled visit to Canada is just *embarrassing*

...without even considering the farce of a Liberal political _appointee_ mocking an _elected_ leader for being anyone's "stooge"  :


----------



## Haggis (31 May 2006)

Peacenik said:
			
		

> I would tend to agree with the MND, although it is a technicality.
> 
> Would an average canadian believe that the terminology used would somehow
> change what is happening on the ground?
> ...



Let's play *Jeopardy*!

Alex Trebek (a Canadian) says "Combat Operations are conducted during this type of activity."

And you, Peacenik, reply........?


----------



## MasterStryker (31 May 2006)

I understand where this is coming from but if you ask me and any other Canadian soldier, this is war.


----------



## Peacenik (31 May 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Let's play *Jeopardy*!
> 
> Alex Trebek (a Canadian) says "Combat Operations are conducted during this type of activity."
> 
> And you, Peacenik, reply........?



Combat operations are activities themselves... they can take place outside a declared war.
Again I still think its a technicality but the MND doesn't deserve sniping from those who got us
into Afghanistan in the first place.  Especially since its politically motivated.


----------



## MasterStryker (31 May 2006)

they're shooting at us, we are shooting at them, this is no UN mission so what else could you call it besides war? combat operations? that sounds like war to me!


----------



## GAP (31 May 2006)

Viet Nam, Korea, and many others were never declared wars either. As long as the job gets done, why sweat the semantics?


----------



## Peacenik (31 May 2006)

From a legal standpoint the formally definiing a given conflict as a war introduces a lot of red tape.
O'Connor has to be careful and the Liberals are trying to make hay out of that.  As far as I'm concerned it is 
a matter of semantics as GAP has said, but IMO the implications of calling it a war are greater then satiating
our desire for straight talk from the cabinet.


----------



## Journeyman (31 May 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Viet Nam, Korea, and many others were never declared wars either. As long as the job gets done, why sweat the semantics?


I think the answer is here...


			
				Peacenik said:
			
		

> ... the MND doesn't deserve sniping from those who got us into Afghanistan in the first place.  Especially since its politically motivated.



It may merely be "semantics," but I personally find it sickening that the Liberals would play such blatant political games when we have soldiers in harm's way. It forms doubt in the minds of our allies and adversaries alike that Canada has the staying power to be an effective player in this, and other, international arenas....and leaves the troops feeling that they are not supported on the home front. 

Truly sad.


----------



## GAP (31 May 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I think the answer is here...
> It may merely be "semantics," but I personally find it sickening that the Liberals would play such blatant political games when we have soldiers in harm's way. It forms doubt in the minds of our allies and adversaries alike that Canada has the staying power to be an effective player in this, and other, international arenas....and leaves the troops feeling that they are not supported on the home front.
> 
> Truly sad.



I don't think the troops care one way or the other. If you talk to troops who served in other conflicts and from this one, you will find it doesn't  really matter. What matters is bean & bullets, not political rhetoric. Give them the means to pursue the mission and backing it and them politically is far more important.


----------



## vangemeren (31 May 2006)

I don't think anyone bothers with formal declarations of war anymore. When a formal declaration of war come to my mind, it conjures up the the image of empires in the Great War and a "Gentleman's war"

I know it's semantics, but it's always been the "War on Terror", but now the MND insists that we aren't. I'm wondering why he just doesn't call it a war, I don't see why he has to call it something different. I know it doesn't matter in the end, but my question is why he has to make the difference.



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> I don't think the troops care one way or the other. If you talk to troops who served in other conflicts and from this one, you will find it doesn't  really matter. What matters is bean & bullets, not political rhetoric. Give them the means to pursue the mission and backing it and them politically is far more important.



+1


----------



## rifleman (31 May 2006)

The war on terrorism is the same aggressive term as "the war on illiteracy" <--- is this a war? 
Being that we are there so they can stabilize and form a civil society. I would perhaps use the term Support to civil authority. Why is it so important to be called a war? I'd say in order to be considered war, the CF would be mobilized, not just spending a tour in Afganistan. There would be war production, not just utilizing what we had in peacetime.

Its like there is a "War on words" here


----------



## Journeyman (31 May 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> I don't think the troops care one way or the other. If you talk to troops who served in other conflicts and from this one, you will find it doesn't  really matter.



That's true enough for the the troops currently on the ground. And I don't deny that having the beans & bullets is a critical concern - - hey, I was so focused on day-to-day ops during my three deployments that I had little concern for activities on the homefront...including my ex-wife wandering off somewhere in there, but that's not my point.

From the larger perspective, I think this politicking is going to come back to bite Canada internationally, and the troops locally, years after their return.

We'll have to see how the history is written; how Canada is seen on the international stage; how our troops feel about how they were treated/discussed regardless of the completely-justified pride _they_ will feel in accomplishing their mission - - a mission they were sent on by a government that is now out of power, and so feels no shame in using these troops as political pawns for their own grandstanding.

I suspect the troops may not be as blissfully unconcerned or forgiving of domestic politics and media, as they are right now. For obvious reasons, however, they currently have other things on their minds.

Of course, perhaps I'm just ranting too.  :-\


----------



## Thompson_JM (31 May 2006)

MasterStryker said:
			
		

> they're shooting at us, we are shooting at them, this is no UN mission so what else could you call it besides war? combat operations? that sounds like war to me!



Last I checked it was a UN Mandate that Brought us into Afghanistan in the first place.... If someone could confirm for me.

from ISAF Homepage: http://www.afnorth.nato.int/ISAF/about/about_history.htm

_____________________________________________________
History of the 
International Security Assistance Force

The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is mandated under Chapter VII of the United Nations (UN) Charter (Peace Enforcing) by UN Security Resolutions 1386, 1413, and 1444. ISAF exists to help the Afghan people, not to govern them.

Additionally, under the UN mandate, the role of ISAF is to assist in the maintenance of security to help the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the UN in Kabul and its environs.

ISAF exists in accordance with the Bonn Agreement of Dec. 6, 2001. A detailed Military Technical Agreement between the ISAF Commander and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan provides additional guidance on ISAF operations. Following these provisions, ISAF will be in existence at least until the successful closure of the Bonn process, that is, the general elections.

ISAF's mission is to assist the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in creating a stable and secure environment in Kabul and its vicinity......

_______________________________________________________________

So, it is UN in a sense.... its Nato Run under the UN Mandate. meaning the UN either told them or asked them to go. (correct me if im wrong)

lets look at the definition of war now:

war    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (wôr)
n. 

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. 
The period of such conflict. 
The techniques and procedures of war; military science. 

A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war. 
A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain. 

intr.v. warred, war·ring, wars 
To wage or carry on warfare. 
To be in a state of hostility or rivalry; contend. 

Idiom:
at war
In an active state of conflict or contention.

________________________________________________

This is the main definition I want to focus on. *"A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties."*

I would say we are not fighting a traditional war per-say, but I wouldnt be afraid of calling it a war.  though It just seems to me that we are arguing semantics on here. as to whose definition of war/not war fits best....

all i know is that god willing Im going to be deploying to whatever we're calling it in feb 07.... I'll come up with a name for it myself im sure, after a few days/weeks there....

cheers


----------



## Michael Dorosh (31 May 2006)

van Gemeren said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone bothers with formal declarations of war anymore. When a formal declaration of war come to my mind, it conjures up the the image of empires in the Great War and a "Gentleman's war"



Who would we declare war on in Afghanistan? We're not fighting the government there, we're helping them. We're fighting individual bands of terrorists. No one to declare war on.  Besides, with the advent of Total War, declaring war means you don't go out and fight the other guy's army (like in the Falklands, say) but you bomb their civilians and destroy their cities as well. So much for Gentleman's War.

As for who it matters to, well, veteran's benefits have been known to apply unevenly in the past depending on the level of conflict that is declared.


----------



## Enzo (31 May 2006)

I liked how Cpl Thompson summed things up, so agreement there.

The obvious issue here resides in the politics of the situation. The Liberals started this, what exactly are they missing? Oh right; it's the politics, not the people. Sorry, I was confused.

I just wish Dosangh and Graham would find some personal honour and accountability... but I'm naive that way.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (31 May 2006)

Well it all depends on how you want to word it.  The Afghan mission is not a war per-say, but it is a proxy conflict for the over all war on Terrorism, much like Viet Nam was a proxy conflict for the Cold War.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (31 May 2006)

MasterStryker said:
			
		

> they're shooting at us, we are shooting at them, *this is no UN mission so what else could you call it besides war? combat operations?* that sounds like war to me!




Read your history, as a vet of the Bosnian war, I would consider the combat team attacks and BN size assaults that occurred to be combat ops, UN does not always mean unarmed observer....many a UN soldier fought to hold or take ground from an EN and paid for it with his life in combat.


----------



## pbi (1 Jun 2006)

> I just wish Dosangh and Graham would find some personal honour and accountability... but I'm naive that way.



This is the part that I find really disgusting and shameless. They are cynically trading on the common amnesia of the Canadian public where military and foreign affairs issues are concerned. Like Hitler's Nazis, they apparenly believe that if you repeat a big lie often enough, it will gradually become accepted as truth. Thy are busily trying to distance themselves from their previous decisons. If I was a hopeless optimist I would believe that the Canadian public will remember this immoral trickery at the next election.

Cheers


----------

