# After Afghanistan - What Will Canada Do With Its Army?



## Old Sweat

The following op-ed piece which appears in the 28 March edition of the Toronto Star is reproduced under the fair comment provisions of the Copyright Act.

What next for Canada's tough new army? Canadian foreign policy appears to have no role for battle-hardened force after it leaves Afghanistan 

Canadian soldiers deploy in Kandahar province March 19, 2009. Many troops are on their fifth or sixth rotations.

Eugene Lang

Eric Morse



Sometime in mid-2011, after nearly a decade during which the Canadian Forces have had several thousand boots planted firmly on Afghan firmament, our troops will come home. 

While last week witnessed some media speculation to the effect the Americans might ask Canada to remain in Afghanistan beyond that date in a training capacity, the government continues to maintain a steadfast public stance to withdraw the forces entirely on schedule.

There are valid reasons for this – mainly that after four-plus years of unexpected combat in Kandahar, Canada's army is burnt out. Neither the politicians nor the generals contemplated anything like a five-year mission in Kandahar at the beginning of this adventure. Many soldiers of this volunteer army are now on their fifth and sixth rotations. They need a break. 

Yet ironically the army will emerge from the Kandahar cauldron far stronger than when it went in. The ranks of the regular force have swelled to 24,000, up from 19,000. They have better and more equipment than they did at the beginning of the Afghan adventure. The soldiers have become highly proficient warriors, led by a battle-hardened corps of officers and NCOs.

They are particularly adept at counter-insurgency warfare, insurgencies being a central challenge to peace and security in the world today. And while the growth in defence spending will be reduced as Ottawa comes to grips with its deficit, the defence budget is on track to continue rising for years to come. There will be no "peace dividend," to borrow the phrase used to describe what many expected in the early 1990s at the end of the Cold War. That's because the world is far from a peaceful place. 

This new fighting machine Canada possesses, along with its warrior image, is foreign to Canadians. It makes a good chunk of our population and many of our politicians uncomfortable. But whether we like it or not, Canada has a finely honed army, forged and funded over nearly a decade of war in Afghanistan. 

Yet the big question remains. After the army pulls out of Kandahar, and once it has regenerated in a couple years' time, what do we do with it? This is the central unanswered – even unasked – question of Canadian foreign policy. 

It should come as no surprise that there are more than enough uses and demands for an army like ours around the world. Indeed, if the post 9/11 Canadian conceit – "the world needs more Canada" – is true, surely that means Canadian boots on the ground in the world's failed, fragile and dissolving states, of which there are a growing number. 

Yet while our army is envied and respected the world over, Canada lacks any semblance of a foreign policy framework that might suggest to Canadians and the world how, where and when we might employ that force in the future. Not to mention whether the army will even remain a central instrument of our foreign policy. 

This has happened before – the history of the Canadian military is one of emerging from World Wars I and II and Korea with world-class fighting machines, only to have the political leadership let them crumble due to neglect – both financial and intellectual.

The defence staff is well aware of this. Some now talk of re-engaging with the UN in peacekeeping, but this is little more than an attempt to grapple toward a military raison d'être that aligns with majority Canadian public opinion, which tends to mythologize any mission with the UN prefix.

The problem is that a generation of Canadian officers has been imbued with a distrust of the UN, its ineffectualness, its impossible rules of engagement, and its high-profile failures in Rwanda and Somalia. 

Moreover, the current government seems to have no use at all for the United Nations, which it seems to see as a liberal talk shop incapable of grasping the nettle of real world problems. There is some truth in that analysis.

But if not UN peacekeeping missions, and given the prospect of a humbled and shackled NATO as a result of its probable failure in Afghanistan, what is our framework for deploying force going to be? The reality is that Canada is incapable militarily, diplomatically and politically of acting outside a multilateral coalition of some description. 

At a minimum, our political leadership owes Canadians a conversation about the military as an instrument of Canada's foreign policy. An honest conversation about the nature of our military today, the realities of the dangerous world in which we live, the imperfections of our international organizations, and how a Canadian contribution to international peace and security can fit with these realities.

None of this is happening in Ottawa today. We are just getting ourselves out of a war in Kandahar that we stumbled into. Yet it seems we still lack the foresight and planning to ensure we do not throw away what our taxpayers, our soldiers and our war dead have paid such a price to build, so that next time we might know what we are doing and why. 

Eugene Lang, co-author of The Unexpected War: Canada in Kandahar, was chief of staff to two Liberal ministers of national defence.

Eric Morse, a former Canadian diplomat, is vice-chair of security studies at the Royal Canadian Military Institute in Toronto.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Bob Fowler, a former Deputy Minister of National Defence and, recently, a scholar in residence at The Centre for International Policy Studies, has some ideas about where Canada’s should (and should not) be in this article reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/robert-fowler-attacks-ottawas-inaction-in-africa/article1514913/


> *Thinkers' conference*
> Robert Fowler attacks Ottawa’s inaction in Africa
> *Diplomat who was kidnapped by al-Qaeda condemns the ‘squandering of Canada’s reputation,' criticizes Liberals for embracing special interests*
> 
> 
> John Ibbitson
> 
> Globe and Mail
> 
> Sunday, Mar. 28, 2010
> 
> In the most scathing condemnation of Canada’s growing silence before the world, Robert Fowler, the eminent diplomat who was kidnapped by Al Qaeda, excoriated Ottawa’s abandonment of Africa Sunday morning.
> 
> Before a hushed audience at the Liberal Party’s policy conference, Mr. Fowler relentlessly catalogued the “wanton squandering of Canada’s reputation,” as a respected voice within the dialogue of nations.
> 
> Domestic political posturing “by politicians of every stripe in Canada as they compete to corner the ‘ethnic vote’” coupled with he described as a relentless pandering to the superpower to the south has led to “a small-minded, mean-spirited, me-first, little-Canada, whatever-the-Americans-want foreign policy,” he berated.
> 
> *“I believe the Liberal Party has lost its way…indeed, is in danger of losing its soul.” — Robert Fowler*
> 
> Specifically, “the scramble to lock up the Jewish vote in Canada’ has caused this country to “sell out our widely admired and long-established reputation for fairness and justice in the Middle East, in particular, for the cause of just settlement for the Palestinian people.”
> 
> As a result the world’s failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mr. Fowler believes, Al Qaeda is successfully spreading its message of hate across the Sahel Belt, that part of Africa from Mauritanis on the Atlantic to Somalia on the Indian oceans.
> 
> “Unless our friends within this region receive a great deal of clear-eyes, generous, timely and focused assistance,” Mr. Fowler declared, “there is a good chance of Al Qaeda realizing their dream of turning the northern part of Africa into a combination of Afghanistan under the Taliban, Darfur and the current murderous anarchy in Somalia.”
> 
> Consider who is saying this. Mr. Fowler, who is 64, served as foreign policy advisor to Pierre Trudeau, John Turner and Brian Mulroney. He was deputy minister of Defence, and represented Canada on the United Nations Security Council.
> 
> He was serving as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s special envoy to Niger when he was kidnapped by Al Qaeda in December 2008. After five months in captivity, he was released in April 2009.
> 
> Mr. Fowler acknowledged the pain he felt at castigating the Conservative government of Stephen Harper, which successfully brought about his release.
> 
> But this was no partisan Liberal attack. Far from it.
> 
> “I believe the Liberal Party has lost its way…indeed, is in danger of losing its soul,” he told the gathering. “Liberals seem prepared to embrace an infinite array of special interests in order to shill for votes, rather than forging a broad-based, principled alliance, founded in deep Liberal traditions, one with a distinct social conscience and an independents, Canadian character.”
> 
> As Liberal Leader Michael listened impassively, Mr. Fowler urged the abandonment of the mission in Afghanistan, arguing “we will not prevail” because Canada its allies are “simply not prepared to foot the massive price in blood and treasure which it would take to effectively colonize Afghanistan…and replace their culture with ours, for that seems to be what we seek, and the Taliban share that view.”
> 
> And he urged the federal government to refocus and intensify its efforts to aid northern Africa, “to ensure that it does not become a 7,000-km-wide Darfur.”
> 
> As soon as he concluded, a television reporter rushed past with the videotape of the speech.
> 
> “The world needs to hear that,” he said.
> 
> Liberals, at least, just did.



I do not, particularly, agree with his stand on Canada’s Middle East policy, but I do accept that he is correct in asserting that it does play into _al Qaeda’s_ hand. In my opinion Canada has no friends amongst any of the Arab/Persian states and withdrawing our support from Israel would not change that, even supporting the Arabs more actively than the Liberals did would not help – as it did not help when Chrétien tried it. But, he’s right: _”Al Qaeda is successfully spreading its message of hate across the Sahel Belt, that part of Africa from Mauritanis on the Atlantic to Somalia on the Indian oceans.”_

I also agree with Fowler that, in Afghanistan, _“we will not prevail” because Canada its allies are “simply not prepared to foot the massive price in blood and treasure which it would take to effectively colonize Afghanistan…and replace their culture with ours, for that seems to be what we seek, and the Taliban share that view.”_ I think this is not, just, a Canadian failure. I believe the entire US led West, especially NATO, has failed to select and maintain the correct AIM in Afghanistan and _defeat_, in the form of stalemate and eventual withdrawal when our populations are all sick and tired of endless failures.

Is Africa, specifically the _Sahal Belt_, our next mission area? I wouldn’t bet against it.

(By the way, I doubt Mr. Fowler’s text said _”Liberals seem prepared to embrace an infinite array of special interests in order to shill for votes, rather than forging a broad-based, principled alliance, founded in deep Liberal traditions, one with a distinct social conscience and an independents, Canadian character.”_ My guess is it was typed in block capitals and he (Fowler) was really saying _”founded in deep *l*iberal traditions”_. His own family connections to powerful Liberals do not make him a Liberal partisan.)


----------



## Old Sweat

It is my impression that the foreign service officers as a group had a fixation on influencing or at least maintaining friendly relations (whatever that means) with the Arab/Islamic states. Given our unconsiderable influence elsewhere in the world, one wonders whatever could they have been thinking? We might be better to work on the principle that we don't necessarily have friends, we have interests. As an aside, too often we seem to have operated as if we desired neither.

When I posted the piece, I had considered mentioning Africa, but thought the better of attempting to lead the discussion down one track. In my opinion Mr Fowler is fixated on Africa to such an extent that he may be loosing his usual impressively cool and levelheaded approach to issues. (This is based on seeing him in action during a few crises.) However, if I was a betting man, I would keep my stock of Lonely Planet guides to Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa up to date.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I agree Mr. Fowler is fixated on Africa but I sense (I guess that's the right word) that he thinks' that about the only place that's:

a. in crisis; and

b. _practically_ redeemable through Western action.

I think even he (but not Gerry Caplan _et al_!) appreciates that Sub-Saharan Africa is beyond outside help.

Despite his well entrenched view that there is a 'solution' to the Middle East I think he recognizes that it will happen only when hell freezes over/Leafs win the Cup/Santa is proved to exist/etc.

My other worry is Thailand/Malaysia/Indonesia. Poverty, corruption, mismanagement and _bad friends_ (who supply arms but not trade and jobs) lead to _hostile takeovers_ by _al Qaeda_ like factions.


----------



## Journeyman

While it was painfully obvious that Fowler, as Deputy-Minister, could out-think pretty much all of the Daily Executive Meeting participants attendees, I find baffling his assertion that "Afghanistan is too tough....so we should sort out Africa and the Middle-East."

You may be right though about Africa being our next ground zero, especially if we market our participation as a UN operation (without self-hobbling ourselves through UN "leadership.") As such, in addition to updating Lonely Planet's African guides, folks may want to read Jeffery Gettleman, "Africa's Forever Wars: Why the continent's conflicts never end." _Foreign Policy_, March/April 2010, available here. 





> There is a very simple reason why some of Africa's bloodiest, most brutal wars never seem to end: They are not really wars. Not in the traditional sense, at least. The combatants don't have much of an ideology; they don't have clear goals. They couldn't care less about taking over capitals or major cities -- in fact, they prefer the deep bush, where it is far easier to commit crimes. Today's rebels seem especially uninterested in winning converts, content instead to steal other people's children, stick Kalashnikovs or axes in their hands, and make them do the killing.


----------



## leroi

Am I the only one who finds it disingenuously offensive of Mr. Fowler to describe our relations with the US as "whatever-the-Americans-want-foreign-policy"?
I don't find this a truthful descriptor.  Maybe I'm not keeping up with Foreign policy enough!?


----------



## Old Sweat

Thanks for the link to the article, JM.

Is not much of Africa in a state paralleling pre-colonial tribalism by another name and under another organizational framework? We are not talking about failed states; we are looking at a failed continent. 

Let's not get into the blame game. There are plenty of possible culprits and I don't really care whodunnit. Is it capable of being fixed? Does the west have the cajones to sort it out? Should we? Most important perhaps, who stands to benefit most from the current chaotic state, and do they pose a legitimate threat to our vital national interests? If we did intervene, as Jean Chretien planned to circa 1995, would we be able to impose some sort of order? If so or perhaps not, what would be the result? It may be that western intervention (I almost wrote massive western intervention, but I suspect we would penny packet the whole thing into a too small slurry of national caveats and competing ideals.) would just exacerbate the situation, and the only faction to see any benefit might be the militant Islamists.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Bob Fowler, a former Deputy Minister of National Defence and, recently, a scholar in residence at The Centre for International Policy Studies, has some ideas about where Canada’s should (and should not) be in this article reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/robert-fowler-attacks-ottawas-inaction-in-africa/article1514913/
> 
> I do not, particularly, agree with his stand on Canada’s Middle East policy, but I do accept that he is correct in asserting that it does play into _al Qaeda’s_ hand. In my opinion Canada has no friends amongst any of the Arab/Persian states and withdrawing our support from Israel would not change that, even supporting the Arabs more actively than the Liberals did would not help – as it did not help when Chrétien tried it. But, he’s right: _”Al Qaeda is successfully spreading its message of hate across the Sahel Belt, that part of Africa from Mauritanis on the Atlantic to Somalia on the Indian oceans.”_



I agree its unlikely that we have much goodwill/influence in the area, even with Chrétien refusing to send troops to Iraq and I wonder if its just daydreaming on our part. I think most Arab governments consider us to close to the Americans and truthfully I can't think of any governments actions (either Liberal or Conservative) to really push Canada's interests in the area. However, having said that, I was on holidays in Tunisia a few years ago and the local people were very friendly when they found out I was a Canadian because "_*we're not capitalists like Americans!*"_  Go figure.

While I agree that the lack of a resolution to the Palestinian problem is playing in Al Qaida's hand (see quotation below), I disagree with Fowler that Al Qaida is spreading its influence across North Africa. The largest and most active terrorist organization is the  Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb  (the group that kidnapped Fowler and his co-worker) is the former Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat that tried overthrow the Algeria government in the '90's. The group is still pretty activeand is active not only in Alergia, but also neighbouring states. The group is shadow its former self having, however, its still poses a serious threat in the region. There are other groups active in the region, but the other North African governments (Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Morocco) have been pretty successful in suppressing them. Here is the U.S. State Department's 2008 country report on  Middle Eastern and North African terrorist groups. Of some importance is this nugget from the the write-up on Morocco: *"The perceived injustice faced by the Palestinian people was cited by Moroccan officials as the single greatest radicalizing element among Moroccan extremists." *



> Is Africa, specifically the _Sahal Belt_, our next mission area? I wouldn’t bet against it.



Personally, I don't think we should be involved in Africa at all. The place is a mess and the only way to sort the place out is to go in and re-colonize the place and we all know what the lefties think of that idea. Secondly, it was the Europeans who colonized the place and screwed the place up; let them sort it out. Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. Ever since the Conservatives "abandoned" Africa there has been an outcry from the left about how we are failing the continent and need to start getting involved and start spending our tax dollars over there. So once we pull out of Afghanistan, start to see the clamour for us get involved in Darfur or some other hellhole.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Journeyman said:
			
		

> While it was painfully obvious that Fowler, as Deputy-Minister, could out-think pretty much all of the Daily Executive Meeting participants attendees, I find baffling his assertion that "Afghanistan is too tough....so we should sort out Africa and the Middle-East."
> 
> ...




My _sense_ (I wish I had a better word) of his views, from a few brief discussions a couple of years ago, is that Afghanistan need not have been to tough IF we had a sensible (comprehensible), achievable and agreed _strategic_ AIM. I think we (Beijing, Berlin, Canberra, London, Paris, Ottawa, Tokyo and (above all) Washington) never got around to selecting, much less maintaining such an aim. It is, probably, too late now, for anything but footing _"the massive price in blood and treasure which it would take to effectively colonize Afghanistan…and replace their culture with ours"_ which, I agree with Fowler, we are not prepared to do.

I think the American led West *is failing in Iraq*, despite military success, and will fail in Afghanistan. I think, in both cases we will declare victory and come home, but the victories will be short-lived and both Iraq and Afghanistan will be, in 2021, as bad off and as problematical as they were in 2001.

I doubt that Bush/Rumsfeld, Obama/Gates or Petraeus/McCrystal had or have the _strategic_ vision necessary to tackle the _Islamic Crescent_ which includes the _Sahal Belt_, the Middle East, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia. We, the American led West, do not have _coherent_ interests throughout the _Crescent_ - in fact we have policy conflicts amongst ourselves in some regions and differing interests among others. A _coherent strategy_ is too much for which to hope about which to dream.


----------



## Edward Campbell

leroi said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who finds it disingenuously offensive of Mr. Fowler to describe our relations with the US as "whatever-the-Americans-want-foreign-policy"?
> I don't find this a truthful descriptor.  Maybe I'm not keeping up with Foreign policy enough!?




I think that's been a quite accurate descriptor of Conservative and Liberal foreign policy since, oh, about 1984. Our goal has been to do just enough to not annoy the Americans in most areas and, where it would not be expensive or painful, to do whatever they asked elsewhere.

We have not had a foreign policy that AIMED to *serve Canada's best interests* since 1947-67. While the greatest foreign policy failure is Trudeau's, none of his successors, Conservative of Liberal did much better. Kudos to Mulroney for putting us on the right side of history on South Africa and for free trade; as for everyone else: a yawn, at best.


----------



## leroi

leroi said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who finds it disingenuously offensive of Mr. Fowler to describe our relations with the US as "whatever-the-Americans-want-foreign-policy"?
> I don't find this a truthful descriptor.  Maybe I'm not keeping up with Foreign policy enough!?



Thank you Mr. Campbell. One of these days I'll get myself turned around.
With some things I can't separate their interests from ours.


----------



## Edward Campbell

As I read the media reaction to Flowler's _bombs_ (there were more than one tossed about) the Conservative government and the Liberal opposition are being told to "find out what Canadians want and make policy accordingly."

Only blithering idiots would follow that advice.

With all due (but very limited) respect for my fellow citizens, no one should listen to such nonsense. Policy makers should not give a sh!t for what "Canadians want;" they need to focus on what "Canada needs" and the devil take the slobbering masses and their _wants_.

My sense is that Harper doesn't much care about Canadians' wants or Canada's needs - he is running a _tactical_ vote getting operation and he will give some thought to policy after he gets a majority - maybe. Equally, my sense is that Ignatieff is uncomfortable with the _realities_ of foreign policy. My guess is that under a Conservative government the army will get used if Harper thinks that use will produce temporary, political advantage; but, under a Liberal government, the army will stay in barracks because Ignatieff will be afraid to commit troops to anything.


----------



## SeanNewman

It is certainly interesting debate and discussion, but at the end of the day it's impossible to know.

You work on Bosnia, the Kosovo flares up.  Then you start winding down Bosnia and 9/11 happens what was the catalyst for all of this.

History will show that just about every major war is started by some bad guy somewhere doing something really drastic that wasn't planned by the rest of the world (Hitler, Hussein, Bin Laden, etc).


----------



## Edward Campbell

Petamocto said:
			
		

> ...
> History will show that just about every major war is started by some bad guy somewhere doing something really drastic that wasn't planned by the rest of the world (Hitler, Hussein, Bin Laden, etc).




That's a very _particularist_ view of history (and, therefore, muddled, in my opinion) because, in part, it depends on your definition of "bad guy."

Vercingetorix? Julius Caesar? Parliament in 1645? Napoleon? Jefferson Davis? Bismark? And _what_ they did wasn't always unexpected. Churchill and others saw, pretty clearly, what Hitler was doing and several respectable people warned that Bin Laden was going to do something outrageous - in fact, Bil Laden warned that Bin Laden was about to do something spectacular.


----------



## Jed

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Vercingetorix? Julius Caesar? Parliament in 1645? Napoleon? Jefferson Davis? Bismark? And _what_ they did wasn't always unexpected. Churchill and others saw, pretty clearly, what Hitler was doing and several respectable people warned that Bin Laden was going to do something outrageous - in fact, Bil Laden warned that Bin Laden was about to do something spectacular.



The "so what " is that it is logical and important for Canada to keep its Army prepared for what may happen in this uncertain world.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My other worry is Thailand/Malaysia/Indonesia. Poverty, corruption, mismanagement and _bad friends_ (who supply arms but not trade and jobs) lead to _hostile takeovers_ by _al Qaeda_ like factions.



Its not just Al Qaida like terrorist groups that we have to worry about, but also criminal groups. The present situation in Mexico is a perfect example. Then there's wackos like Hugo Chavez who like nothing better than to stir-up the pot. Plus, the fact that he is buying weapons from the Russians and cuddling-up to Iran, just so he can thumb his nose at the U.S. 



> As I read the media reaction to Flowler's bombs (there were more than one tossed about) the Conservative government and the Liberal opposition are being told to "find out what Canadians want and make policy accordingly."
> 
> Only blithering idiots would follow that advice.
> 
> With all due (but very limited) respect for my fellow citizens, no one should listen to such nonsense. Policy makers should not give a sh!t for what "Canadians want;" they need to focus on what "Canada needs" and the devil take the slobbering masses and their wants.



Talk to the average Canadian and you quickly realize that they have *no idea * what is happening regarding Canadian foreign policy. If they do know something its filtered through the CBC or CTV which gives you an idea about how reliable their views are.


----------



## SeanNewman

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That's a very _particularist_ view of history (and, therefore, muddled, in my opinion) because, in part, it depends on your definition of "bad guy."



You are right and wrong at the same time.  Right if your definition rests solely on how you are aligned politically with the guy who started the war, but also wrong because anyone who starts a war is bad.

I'm no tree hugger and I am all for killing the enemy when required, but to flat-out start a war (the three names I mentioned) is evil and thus "bad", regardless of your motive being political, religious, or financial.


----------



## Greymatters

Back in 1990, nobody saw Bosnia on the radar as a future deployment.

In 2000, nobody saw Afghanistan as a future deployment.

Its 2010, and we have no idea where we'll be next.  Im pretty sure something will come up.  At least we'll be better equipped when we go in...




			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> ...but to flat-out start a war (the three names I mentioned) is evil and thus "bad", regardless of your motive being political, religious, or financial.



Caution should be used when stating 'starting the war' = 'evil/bad' - by definition it is usually the invader who is seen as the agressor, regardless of the reason or justification, which is why the US has caught a lot of flack internationally...


----------



## SeanNewman

Grey,

Your first three lines are exactly the core what I am saying.  The "bad guys will start something else" was just a quip, not a policy.  The point that I was trying to make is that typically other people have a say in a country's foreign policy decisions and rarely do you know it's going to happen.


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell and others saying Africa could be next appear to be bang on.

*Forces angle to lead Congo mission*
After Afghanistan, Canadian troops may tackle nation where 'rights are abused with impunity'
Matthew Fisher, CanWest, 29 Mar 10
Article link

Canadian soldiers may trade fighting the war in Afghanistan for a more traditional UN peacekeeping mission in Africa when the Kandahar mission ends next year.

The military has quietly begun angling to take command of the UN's largest peacekeeping mission, which is in Congo, according to sources at the Defence Department and in Afghanistan.

In a related development, Britain's Telegraph newspaper reported Sunday that if the Pentagon has its way, British forces now in Afghanistan's Helmand Province would replace Canadian troops when they leave Kandahar next year. Helmand, which the British now share with the U.S. marines, would then become entirely the responsibility of the marines. _(More on that here)_

The Congo mission, which already involves 20,000 "blue helmets" from 50 countries, including a dozen Canadians, could be headed by Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, an Afghanistan veteran who is about to leave his current job as head of the army to complete a doctoral thesis.

Gen. Walter Natynczyk, who commands the armed forces, has already begun talking up an African mission at the "town halls" he regularly holds with troops in Canada and overseas. In recent months, troops of all ranks in Afghanistan have mentioned Africa as the place where Canada's army and air force are most likely to deploy to next.

As part of its exit strategy from Afghanistan, the military also wants to send several hundred trainers to an army academy in Kabul, a possibility that was first reported by Canwest News Service several weeks ago. That deployment, behind the walls of a school on the outskirts of the capital, would not involve combat and would cost a tiny fraction of the current mission in Kandahar.

While it is unlikely that Congo would be nearly as dangerous for Canadian troops as Afghanistan has been, a deployment of several thousand troops to the jungles of Central Africa would be challenging militarily and logistically. The UN estimates that four million people were killed in Congo between 1998 and 2003 and fighting continues, particularly in the East of the vast country, which has a population of 68 million ....



*Robert Fowler attacks Ottawa’s inaction in Africa*
Diplomat who was kidnapped by al-Qaeda condemns the ‘squandering of Canada’s reputation,' criticizes Liberals for embracing special interests
John Ibbitson, Globe & Mail, 29 Mar 10
Article link

In the most scathing condemnation of Canada’s growing silence before the world, Robert Fowler, the eminent diplomat who was kidnapped by Al Qaeda, excoriated Ottawa’s abandonment of Africa Sunday morning.

Before a hushed audience at the Liberal Party’s policy conference, Mr. Fowler relentlessly catalogued the “wanton squandering of Canada’s reputation,” as a respected voice within the dialogue of nations. 

Domestic political posturing “by politicians of every stripe in Canada as they compete to corner the ‘ethnic vote’” coupled with he described as a relentless pandering to the superpower to the south has led to “a small-minded, mean-spirited, me-first, little-Canada, whatever-the-Americans-want foreign policy,” he berated.

Specifically, “the scramble to lock up the Jewish vote in Canada’ has caused this country to “sell out our widely admired and long-established reputation for fairness and justice in the Middle East, in particular, for the cause of just settlement for the Palestinian people.”

As a result the world’s failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mr. Fowler believes, Al Qaeda is successfully spreading its message of hate across the Sahel Belt, that part of Africa from Mauritanis on the Atlantic to Somalia on the Indian oceans ....

_More on links_


----------



## SeanNewman

There are already a couple threads about this  ;D

Anyway, yet again more blue beret UN fantasies, just like those great success stories such as Rwanda.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Matthew Fisher is well connected in Ottawa, including in 101 Colonel By Drive, so I would not discount his story about new _ambitions_ in Congo. It actually makes good _army_ sense - if the inter-service politics haven't changed since I retired many, many years ago.

I agree that this should be merged with the "After Afghanistan ~" thread.


Edit: typo


----------



## captloadie

Logistically speaking, Lines of Communication for the Congo would be at least as difficult, if not more difficult than Afghanistan. Someone should speak with the French to find out how difficult it is to operate out of there. Or some of our UNMOs for that matter.

However, if money is no object . . ..   :


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Grey,
> 
> Your first three lines are exactly the core what I am saying.  The "bad guys will start something else" was just a quip, not a policy.  The point that I was trying to make is that typically other people have a say in a country's foreign policy decisions and rarely do you know it's going to happen.



Having said that, a foreign policy strategy should clearly identify one's interests, develop the relationship between ends, ways, and means, and then establish foreign policy priorities.  Canada's current stated priorities are trade, US relations, and Afghanistan.  Aid is tied to these priorities, with 20 countries receiving 80% of available funds.

This is too narrow a focus, is overly NATO-centric, and cedes our voice at a number of important fora.  Doing the heavy lifting in a NATO mission doesn't buy you a seat at the UN Security Council......


----------



## SeanNewman

I agree with that, too.

Just because "bad guys" (tm) have often started something in the past by no means that one shouldn't have a policy to do something in case nothing happens.

Still, I would rather see a policy consisting of staying at a high state of readiness_ in case_ something bad happens than a policy of expecting that the bad stuff is over and now we can hand in our guns at the armoury.


----------



## SupersonicMax

captloadie said:
			
		

> Logistically speaking, Lines of Communication for the Congo would be at least as difficult, if not more difficult than Afghanistan. Someone should speak with the French to find out how difficult it is to operate out of there. Or some of our UNMOs for that matter.
> 
> However, if money is no object . . ..   :



My wife works for a UN contractor on the MONUC mission (Based in Kinshasa, often deployed to other locations in and out of DRC) and we are able to talk every day for less than I pay for long distances between Canadian cities.


----------



## SeanNewman

captloadie said:
			
		

> ... Or some of our UNMOs for that matter.



I did my PsyOps course with a guy who had just returned from a year-long UNMO stint there.  He lived a couple hundred metres from the *Ebola River*.  

I'll take IEDs and bullets before the kinds of things in Africa that can kill me, thanks.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> My wife works for a UN contractor on the MONUC mission (Based in Kinshasa, often deployed to other locations in and out of DRC) and we are able to talk every day for less than I pay for long distances between Canadian cities.



Max,

"Lines of communications" has very little to do with phone calls - and the ability to make personal calls has even less to do with military communications.

Try this link:

http://armyapp.forces.gc.ca/ael/index.aspx


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Still, I would rather see a policy consisting of staying at a high state of readiness_ in case_ something bad happens than a policy of expecting that the bad stuff is over and now we can hand in our guns at the armoury.



Ah - the "keep your powder dry" approach to foreign policy.  This cedes the initiative to both events and the enemy - and is neither an effective national security policy nor a efficient strategic approach.  It is however a very useful military strategic / operational posture.


----------



## Edward Campbell

As I have said, in other threads, I think guess that Africa, somewhere in Africa, is our, Canada's, next stop. I suspect it will be less of a well thought out policy choice than it will be one of those _opportunities_ that arrive when a crisis attracts public attention - UN and Congo have 'cheering sections' in Ottawa, including in the media - and provides some perceived immediate, partisan political advantage to the government of the day.

I am not as sure that we have *any vital* interests at all in Congo, or anywhere else in Africa for that matter. I am sure that Congo will be worse, in every aspect, than Afghanistan and that the media and the public will, quickly, turn against almost anything useful that might get done there because the costs in Canadian treasure, lives and, above all, in Canadian mythology will be too high.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I am not as sure that we have *any vital* interests at all in Congo, or anywhere else in Africa for that matter.



Vital interests are surprisingly easy to serve in a  country like Canada - especially if the government has failed to clearly articulate any interests at all.  However, if one accepts that the key vital interests are security, prosperity, and "values" which is, I seem to remember, in line with the last (2004) National security Policy, then I could make a weak case for the prosperity interest and a stronger case for the "values" interest.

If we move from vital to important interests, then it would appear that one could make the case for expanded engagement in Africa - and moreover, within the rubric of the UN.  And if you look at it through a lens of realpolitik, then if commitment to MONUC is a quid pro quo for a seat on the UNSC, then it would definitely be in our interest to do so.


----------



## captloadie

I can remember several weeks ago, in the media, and here, the big discussion was that Haiti would be our next AOO. How quickly that poor little country is forgotten. Why aren't we pushing to go there? Conditions are similar to Africa, but as a bonus we might actually get something accomplished, in our own backyard. Shorter LOCs, a language we can operate in (sort of), and an opportunity to do a real joint operation among the services.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> in fact, Bil Laden warned that Bin Laden was about to do something spectacular.



Bil.  Osama's tattle tale little brother  ;D



			
				captloadie said:
			
		

> I can remember several weeks ago, in the media, and here, the big discussion was that Haiti would be our next AOO. How quickly that poor little country is forgotten. Why aren't we pushing to go there? Conditions are similar to Africa, but as a bonus we might actually get something accomplished, in our own backyard. Shorter LOCs, a language we can operate in (sort of), and an opportunity to do a real joint operation among the services.



Umm, did you miss the whole Canada-in-Haiti thing before the earthquake hit? 

As Africa goes, while I was at the PRT one of the USAID guys was saying that China is spending billions of "aid and development" dollars in that continent.  And clearly, that is out of the goodness of their big, red hearts  :  So since it appears that "Why Plan When We Can React" is the order of the day (and has been for quite some time) why not pursue a foreign policy that mitigates negative foreign powers/influence?  Or are we already too in bed with China and have to worry about stepping on their toes wherever they have chosen to operate?


----------



## Edward Campbell

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Vital interests are surprisingly easy to serve in a  country like Canada - especially if the government has failed to clearly articulate any interests at all ... [then] if commitment to MONUC is a quid pro quo for a seat on the UNSC, then it would definitely be in our interest to do so.




First prize for a realistic appraisal of our interests. (Or is that _opportunities_?)


----------



## Old Sweat

Is it really in our national interest to tie down a considerable amount of our modest military capability in a part of the world that makes your usual failed state look utopian? While command of the UN force in itself may not call up a large national contingent, I would not rule it out if our foreign service cabal decides it would be useful to go in pursuit of a seat on the Security Council. Has anyone ever asked what in fact does a seat on the august body really do for us, except make people like Bob Fowler feel good?

Bottom line - is the diplomatic prestige (and not necessarily a status that may not be in the national interest) of a seat on the security council worth the life of a Canadian soldier?


----------



## observor 69

Which raises the question, what would we do with a nice little military, post Afghanistan?
Say we had the military scaled up to what most of us would consider appropriate sized and equipped now what ?
Jets for continental defence, C-17's to do what?,  better equipped SAR yes, a navy to patrol our borders and do what, a properly equipped army to do what?
Easy to see the thinking that goes on in hard financial budget balancing times.
And yes I have read some books and stuff, Defence white papers how we doing historically in following those, but the answer doesn't spring to mind.


----------



## Jed

Fire fighters do a lot of training for the big event ( or hurry up and wait) and not much actually hands on fire fighting and saving lives. For our CF in peacetime it is essentially the same thing on a much larger and more complex scale.

I guess the big question is how much do we invest, treasure wise, to maintain our fire insurance or security of the nation insurance?


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I did my PsyOps course with a guy who had just returned from a year-long UNMO stint there.  He lived a couple hundred metres from the *Ebola River*.
> 
> I'll take IEDs and bullets before the kinds of things in Africa that can kill me, thanks.



So true, there are more things in Africa that can bite you, sting you, infect you and eat you than any other continent on earth.  Another reason to stay away from the place.


----------



## SeanNewman

Arguably Australia could challenge it for the most dangerous place (granted, not a continent before the Literal Police chime in).

On all the Discovery Channel-types of shows you'd always see 9 of the 10 most deadly everything in Australia, be it spiders, snakes, sharks, etc.  Of course those are just the things you can see, too.  Malaria, AIDS, and Ebola are all just a bonus.

That being said, after watching "The Pacific" last night I'd happily take Australia over Africa, anyway.


----------



## Jammer

The Congo is sooo going to suck!


----------



## SeanNewman

Jammer said:
			
		

> The Congo is sooo going to suck!



You could stand beside me as a Conscientious Objector is you want.


----------



## Rifleman62

What is i.e. The RCR going to do when, unexpectedly or suddenly, 25 or so crazed (on something), or threatened (by something) child soldiers, firing AK 47's, attack an outpost/patrol/convoy with the intent of death to the invaders? Do we stand and fight, try to get out of there, get overrun while thinking about it/waiting for order clarification, surrender?

What are the rules of engagement when attacked by child soldiers, cause you will end up engaging them in Africa, sometime, someplace for absolute sure? If anything, the "enemy" will make sure it happens. They know Canadian *politics*.

What is the result of Canadian soldiers killing child soldiers? More PTSD cases? War criminal charges led by the Liberals/NDP/CBC/ Jane Taber/Jim Travers et al?

What happens when some of these child soldiers capture one or so of our female soldiers who then becomes a toy? Or one of the guys being gutted, his heart eaten, body thrown into the bush?

Stay out of Africa.


----------



## Jammer

Petamocto said:
			
		

> You could stand beside me as a Conscientious Objector is you want.


Done! You bring the coffee though.


----------



## The Bread Guy

...from 2008
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/76957.0/all.html

and 2003
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/2710.0.html


----------



## SeanNewman

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> What happens when some of these child soldiers capture one or so of our female soldiers who then becomes a toy? Or one of the guys being gutted, his heart eaten, body thrown into the bush?



If I and soldiers under my command were being attacked by anyone (children included) I would give a GRIT just like I would for anyone else attacking us.

All ROE supports using lethal force if your life is in imminent danger.

Plus, I would rather have soldiers with PTSD on my conscience than dead soldiers who could have been saved but weren't because of my fear of the NDP's reaction.

I'm not trying to sound cold, and rest assured I would probably be the first guy crying and puking when I had nightmares about a kid's head being split open by a C6 round, but I would never regret firing on someone who was trying to kill me whether they were 5, 25, or 85.


----------



## Rifleman62

I have no doubt that you and many others will execute the mission. My questions are to the Canadian *and Quebec * public, the LPC/NDP/Bloc. the media, the pot stirers, new Canadians from Africa?

Soldiers will carry out lawful orders, but do you trust the LPC/NDP/Bloc, the media, the pot stirers to cover your back. Not friggen likely.

The soldiers will be wounded within, in more ways than the engagement of child soldiers.


----------



## George Wallace

Just out of curiosity, why have you fixated on child soldiers?  There are a multitude of other threats out there.


----------



## Jungle

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Arguably Australia could challenge it for the most dangerous place (granted, not a continent before the Literal Police chime in).
> 
> On all the Discovery Channel-types of shows you'd always see 9 of the 10 most deadly everything in Australia, be it spiders, snakes, sharks, etc.  Of course those are just the things you can see, too.  Malaria, AIDS, and Ebola are all just a bonus.
> 
> That being said, after watching "The Pacific" last night I'd happily take Australia over Africa, anyway.



I've been to Australia, in the bush, and Indonesia, also in the bush, but deadly-critter-wise, none of these places beats the amazon forest. I spent a month in the French-Guyana jungle, and that was the worse place I've been to.
Australia and Indonesia do not have nerve-toxic frogs and butterflies...


----------



## 40below

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the British raid on Rokel Creek in Sierra Leone in 2000, when one para was killed by AK-firing child soldiers and a number of others wounded after the child soldiers kidnapped and threatened to kill 11 members of the Royal Irish Regiment (who didn't fire on their abductors) lead to training and indoctrination of western troops to consider child soldiers legitimate targets during combat operations?


----------



## Jammer

Petamocto said:
			
		

> If I and soldiers under my command were being attacked by anyone (children included) I would give a GRIT just like I would for anyone else attacking us.
> 
> All ROE supports using lethal force if your life is in imminent danger.
> 
> Plus, I would rather have soldiers with PTSD on my conscience than dead soldiers who could have been saved but weren't because of my fear of the NDP's reaction.
> 
> I'm not trying to sound cold, and rest assured I would probably be the first guy crying and puking when I had nightmares about a kid's head being split open by a C6 round, but I would never regret firing on someone who was trying to kill me whether they were 5, 25, or 85.


It's not cold at all, it's fact. If it's in the ROEs then you are duty bound to act in your defence or that of your comrades. PTSD be damned, at least you're alive.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> What is i.e. The RCR going to do when, unexpectedly or suddenly, 25 or so crazed (on something), or threatened (by something) child soldiers, firing AK 47's, attack an outpost/patrol/convoy with the intent of death to the invaders? Do we stand and fight, try to get out of there, get overrun while thinking about it/waiting for order clarification, surrender?



I hope they would do the same thing that my next door neighbour did when he was attacked by a 15-year old member of the Hitler Jugend - he shot him dead!


----------



## Kat Stevens

Aim for the centre of visible mass?


----------



## Edward Campbell

So called 'child soldiers' were a problem in Congo 40 50 years ago, too.

At that time, and I suspect now, 'children' as young as 13 were _ready_ for manhood, of a sort.

It is, I think a fairly common phenomenon in poor, rural societies. Our (Euro-American) 'prolonged adolescence' is relatively new. In the 16th century boys went to sea and to work at 13, by the 18th century 'manhood' had been deferred to about age 16, and in our time it is sometime after 18. In the 1960s many parts of Africa were _socially_ similar to 16th century Europe; that may still be the case.



Edit: oops, senior's moment - how time flies, and all that - 1960 was 50 years ago, wasn't it?


----------



## GAP

In Viet Nam during firefights there were what would be classified as "child soldiers"....that and the diminutive nature of the Vietnamese people themselves, you had neither the time nor the inclination to stand there sorting it out......as the saying goes "shoot them all and let god sort it out" mindset did apply.  If they had a weapon, they were a combatant.


----------



## SeanNewman

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that it would fail the Globe and Mail test of the general public's opinion, but that's our problem to deal with.  

It wouldn't matter that the life expectancy may be 30 so a 10 year old is the equivalent of a 25 year old in Canada...the optics would be bad.

At the end of the day, if you can live with what you did, then that's all you can ask.  We signed the dotted line and all that came with it.


----------



## Petard

To me this"Congo" deployment idea has all the potential of just retelling an old story, like this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jadotville
My favorite line from this was the Irish OC's comment during the height of the siege:"We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey".

While today's belligerents in the Congo have changed certainly in their country of origin, if not age as well, there's every possibility our outcome would not be much different than it was for those hapless Irish; perhaps we should have on hand some whiskey in case the need arises.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_ is an *editorial* that, I think, pretty much sums up a lot of the reaction to the *some* of the _bombs_ Robert Fowler tossed about at last weekend’s Liberal _’thinkers’ conference’_ in Montreal:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorials/Lament+elite/2742029/story.html


> Lament of an ex-elite
> 
> THE OTTAWA CITIZEN
> 
> MARCH 30, 2010
> 
> Robert Fowler is angry, frustrated and bitter -- and really, who can blame him?
> 
> For decades, urbane liberals like him had a monopoly over Canadian foreign policy, and they shaped that policy in the image of European elites whose respect they coveted.
> 
> But now Canada's foreign policy has fallen into the hands of outsiders like the Harper conservatives, who eschew custom-made suits, don't know the bread plate is on the left and who might even prefer the company of vulgar Americans to cosmopolitan Eurocrats.
> 
> How mortified poor Fowler must be whenever he runs into associates from his days on the international diplomatic circuit.
> 
> A former Canadian ambassador to the United Nations, Fowler didn't actually use the word "vulgar" Sunday in his anguished lament that today's Canada is not the one he knew back when he wielded influence in the foreign ministry. But he did refer to "Little Canada" and made clear that in his view, small minds -- smaller than his, that is -- are running the country.
> 
> Fowler offered this display of arrogance during a speech to the Liberal party policy conference in Montreal. Fowler is old-school anglo-establishment. His Wikipedia entry notes that at McGill University he was a member of Kappa Alpha Society, the oldest Greek-letter social fraternity in North America. He presumably knew from an early age that the bread was on the left, and that he was destined to use that skill in the diplomatic corps.
> 
> Alas, today Canadian foreign policy, Fowler seems to suggest, is in the hands of what the establishment might describe as not our sort. Fowler denounced the influence of "ethnic" communities, reserving particular scorn for the Jews, who have somehow persuaded Canadian politicians to adopt positions against Canada's interests.
> 
> Now in fairness to Fowler, he said a number of sensible things in his speech. His main theme was that Canada has abandoned Africa, a continent Fowler knows well and which he believes holds strategic value for Canada.
> 
> It's true the Canada today does not seem particularly interested in Africans, even though they are the poorest people in the world and had come to believe, over the years, that they had a relationship with Canada. Fowler is right to chastise the Harper government for not leading the way on foreign aid. We are a rich country and can afford to do more in the world.
> 
> Unfortunately, whatever reasonable points Fowler wants to make about the benefits of an internationalist mindset are obscured by his retrograde rhetoric. He is determined to play the caricature of a Canadian foreign policy aristocrat from yesteryear, contemptuous of Americans and, in keeping with the Arabist tradition inherited from the Europeans with whom he identifies, peculiarly hostile toward Israel.
> 
> Fowler singled out Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, as the primary source of instability in the region. Meanwhile, a country like Iran -- a totalitarian theocracy bent on obtaining nuclear weapons, which it has already threatened to use -- didn't get a mention. Is that Fowler's idea of an "even-handed" approach to the Middle East?
> 
> By externalizing blame for Arab-Muslim dysfunction -- pinning it on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and on Israeli intransigence in particular -- Fowler is playing into the hands of all the Muslim dictators, autocrats and mullahs who use the "Zionist" threat to win popular legitimacy and to justify their refusal to embrace modernization, democratization and economic reform.
> 
> As eminent Middle East scholar Barry Rubin has put it, attributing the Arab world's problems, including the rise of Islamic extremism, to Israel serves only to prevent "the kind of reappraisal necessary to fix the internal factors at the root of the problems and catastrophes" that have crippled virtually every single Arab country.
> 
> Fowler and his ilk at Foreign Affairs feel they have been usurped. If they have, maybe it's not such a bad thing.
> 
> © Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen




Let me, please, dissect it from my point of view:

_Lament of an ex-elite_ – wrong; Mr. Fowler is still part of the Ottawa _elite_. He is, still, usually the smartest guy in whatever room he enters and his _opinions_ are still sought, heard and considered. There was a reason Jason Kenny was so muted in “respectfully disagreeing” with Fowler – he (Fowler) is *respected* and, even, feared a little;


_For decades, urbane liberals like him had a monopoly over Canadian foreign policy … Fowler is old-school anglo-establishment_ – very true. Mr. Fowler is, almost, the last of O.D. Skelton’s foreign service which was populated with the likes of Vincent Massey, Hume Wrong and Lester B Pearson – all so different but, in so many ways, all alike;

_Fowler didn't actually use the word "vulgar" Sunday in his anguished lament that today's Canada is not the one he knew back when he wielded influence in the foreign ministry. But he did refer to "Little Canada" and made clear that in his view, small minds -- smaller than his, that is -- are running the country_ – and that IS part of the problem. The foreign service, once the _playground_ of an intellectual _elite_ dedicated to _public service_ (often because they could afford to be), is now just another department while the “brains” and the “elite” of government have migrated to the _centre_ – to PCO and Finance;

_His main theme was that Canada has abandoned Africa, a continent Fowler knows well and which he believes holds strategic value for Canada_ – that was, indeed, his main theme and I, for one, believe that Mr. Fowler has let is _humanity_ overrule his big brain. Or, maybe, I am just so dim that I cannot see the “strategic value for Canada” in Africa;

_Fowler is right to chastise the Harper government for not leading the way on foreign aid. We are a rich country and can afford to do more in the world_ – agreed, but there is a messy little thing called practical politics. Canadians, in the aggregate, do not like sending money off to feed or house ungrateful foreigners – ALL Canadian politicians know this;

_He is determined to play the caricature of a Canadian foreign policy aristocrat from yesteryear, contemptuous of Americans and, in keeping with the Arabist tradition inherited from the Europeans with whom he identifies, peculiarly hostile toward Israel_ – ony partially correct. Canadian diplomacy does have a European, _Arabist_ (and, consequently, anti-Zionist) tradition but the “contemptuous of America” feature is recent, dating from the early 1970s;

_Fowler and his ilk at Foreign Affairs feel they have been usurped_ – very true, Fowler’s _ilk_ have been replaced by a more _representative_ group; and

_maybe it's not such a bad thing_ – I disagree, the ‘anglo-elite’ had many faults, it was Euro-centric and _Arabist_ but it was, also, clear headed and realistic where Canada’s interests were really involved, and it was, above all, *l*iberal and democratic in its outlook – always aware that most of the world, including Europe and Arabia, was is illiberal or totalitarian or both.

As for the topic of this thread: as far as I know, Mr. Fowler is a pretty strong supporter of an efficient and effective (combat ready and (rapidly) deployable) military but he does not see the military as the be-all and end-all for the world's many problems.


----------



## Rifleman62

> Just out of curiosity, why have you fixated on child soldiers?  There are a multitude of other threats out there.



To answer your query: Child soldiers are the biggest problem. Bigger than weather, insects, disease, snakes. All this is out weighed by Canadian politics. I personally do not think the Canadian public will accept, under any circumstances, Canadian soldiers shooting/killing/wounding/opening fire on child soldiers. Canadian politics will not allow it. The CF has a track record of war crimes in Somalia and Afghanistan. I did not say that, but the G & M/CBC/CTV/etc, the Liberals/NDP has constantly bombarded the Canadian Public with this.

Right now, if :

- 2 PPCLI was somewhere in Africa, and following all the rules (anyones: Canada/NATO/UN);
- fourteen boys, aged approximately 12 to 14 were wounded, with three mortally wounded after an armed attack on a element of Canadians delivering food aid;
-  two Canadian soldiers were wounded (none killed);
- the entire episode, from start to finish, was video taped by CBC, and witnessed by a G & M repeater; and
- the video clearly shows, beyond doubt, that the Canadians held their fire to the last instant, attempted,by whatever means to stop the attack, took two wounded, then fourteen individual  soldiers each took one shot only at their target (no sounds of "rapid" fire).

So where do you think the focus of the story would be? How would that video be edited? What part of the video would be repeated, and repeated (guess:the dead "boys", focusing on the youngest). The outrage of Iggy and Jack (and Quebec) would be bouncing off the rocky mountains.

Stay out of Africa. Let China do it. China is already in Africa building influence. They will be the next world power, like it or not.


----------



## dapaterson

Edward:  I admire your naivete, calling Mr Fowler liberal, and ignoring that he was addressing a Liberal gathering.  He may have undermined much of the senior public service in Ottawa with his little stunt, as he clearly revealed himself to be a Liberal ("30 of 39 years..."), feeding the longstanding suspicions of the current government that the senior bureaucrats are in fact closet Liberals.

That being said, may I paraphrase Mr Fowler's speech?  Though I am certain many liberals (and Liberals) would object to the characterization below, our dear friend Mr Kipling put it best.



> *The White Man's Burden*
> Rudyad Kipling
> 
> Take up the White Man's burden--
> Send forth the best ye breed--
> Go, bind your sons to exile
> To serve your captives' need;
> To wait, in heavy harness,
> On fluttered folk and wild--
> Your new-caught sullen peoples,
> Half devil and half child.
> 
> Take up the White Man's burden--
> In patience to abide,
> To veil the threat of terror
> And check the show of pride;
> By open speech and simple,
> An hundred times made plain,
> To seek another's profit
> And work another's gain.
> 
> Take up the White Man's burden--
> The savage wars of peace--
> Fill full the mouth of Famine,
> And bid the sickness cease;
> And when your goal is nearest
> (The end for others sought)
> Watch sloth and heathen folly
> Bring all your hope to nought.
> 
> Take up the White Man's burden--
> No iron rule of kings,
> But toil of serf and sweeper--
> The tale of common things.
> The ports ye shall not enter,
> The roads ye shall not tread,
> Go, make them with your living
> And mark them with your dead.
> 
> Take up the White Man's burden,
> And reap his old reward--
> The blame of those ye better
> The hate of those ye guard--
> The cry of hosts ye humour
> (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
> "Why brought ye us from bondage,
> Our loved Egyptian night?"
> 
> Take up the White Man's burden--
> Ye dare not stoop to less--
> Nor call too loud on Freedom
> To cloak your weariness.
> By all ye will or whisper,
> By all ye leave or do,
> The silent sullen peoples
> Shall weigh your God and you.
> 
> Take up the White Man's burden!
> Have done with childish days--
> The lightly-proffered laurel,
> The easy ungrudged praise:
> Comes now, to search your manhood
> Through all the thankless years,
> Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
> The judgment of your peers.


----------



## observor 69

I had a dream .....

Canada has an appropriately sized and adequately equipped  military ready to respond to a Foreign/Defence policy rationally developed in a bipartisan parliamentary debate. 

Then I woke up


----------



## vonGarvin

Jungle said:
			
		

> I've been to Australia, in the bush, and Indonesia, also in the bush, but deadly-critter-wise, none of these places beats the amazon forest. I spent a month in the French-Guyana jungle, and that was the worse place I've been to.
> Australia and Indonesia do not have nerve-toxic frogs and butterflies...


Did they have this fellow:


----------



## HItorMiss

All HAIL Hypno TOAD!!!


----------



## Maj BS

The same as post WW1 and the 80's and 90's, rust out.


----------



## Jammer

The Hypnotoad does not jump to the lilypad!


----------



## Jungle

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Did they have this fellow:



Yes, they did... and that was the cute one !!


----------



## The Bread Guy

2008 - "Hard to find an LGEN these days - sorry"

2010 - "Funny you should ask...."


> A Canadian general could soon be headed to Congo to lead the United Nations peacekeeping effort in the strife-torn African nation.
> 
> Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, who was replaced as head of the army last week while being given no new duties, is a leading candidate to head the 22,000-person United Nations Mission in Congo (MONUC), if the UN and Canada agree that a Canadian officer should take overall command of the deployment.
> 
> But that command would not involve a major shift in military emphasis from Afghanistan to Congo. The total Canadian contingent would consist of only a few dozen, few of whom may be military.
> 
> “Canada is among the nations that have been asked by the UN secretariat to consider offering a candidate for the position of force commander for MONUC,” said Lisa Monette, a spokeswoman at the Department of Foreign Affairs.
> 
> “We are currently analyzing this request, taking into account Canadian capacities.”
> 
> A decision is expected within one or two weeks ....


----------



## LineJumper

Frypan into fire...

 :2c:


----------



## SeanNewman

LineJumper said:
			
		

> Frypan into fire...



I joked above about the "objector" status, but if this were to happen and we went to Congo I honestly think that a whole lot of people would get out.

There is no question that there has been a cultural shift in the CF in the last decade at the lower ranks, not because of Afghan experience, *but because people went to the recruiting centres because they saw what was happening in Afghanistan and wanted to be warriors*.

Right or wrong, reflecting Canadian values or not, there is now a massive demographic bubble of Privates who joined specifically because of the events in 06-07 when there was massive media coverage not just on the news but on Hockey Night in Canada, etc.  I'm not glorifying war, but in a military you want people who are hard chargers and willing to fight if called upon, and that's now what we have (thankfully).

What we are going to do now is potentially say "That's great that you joined up to be a warrior, and you did your three years and got your tour to Afghanistan, but now we're going to do peacekeeping...", and I predict a very significant amount of soldiers with Afhgan experience getting out because they joined for that type of operation but aren't willing to do UN-types of tours.

Sadly, when the pendulum swings the other way and in 10 years or so we're involved in heavy fighting again, a lot of soldiers who would be Sgts and had done an Afghan tour as a Pte and UN tour as a Cpl/MCpl won't be around anymore.

In no way am I saying that nobody will stay in, just that I predict a huge chunk of people will say "Three years is enough, thanks...I joined for apples and I got one; I don't want your orange".


----------



## bdave

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I joked above about the "objector" status, but if this were to happen and we went to Congo I honestly think that a whole lot of people would get out.
> 
> There is no question that there has been a cultural shift in the CF in the last decade at the lower ranks, not because of Afghan experience, *but because people went to the recruiting centres because they saw what was happening in Afghanistan and wanted to be warriors*.
> 
> Right or wrong, reflecting Canadian values or not, there is now a massive demographic bubble of Privates who joined specifically because of the events in 06-07 when there was massive media coverage not just on the news but on Hockey Night in Canada, etc.  I'm not glorifying war, but in a military you want people who are hard chargers and willing to fight if called upon, and that's now what we have (thankfully).
> 
> What we are going to do now is potentially say "That's great that you joined up to be a warrior, and you did your three years and got your tour to Afghanistan, but now we're going to do peacekeeping...", and I predict a very significant amount of soldiers with Afhgan experience getting out because they joined for that type of operation but aren't willing to do UN-types of tours.
> 
> Sadly, when the pendulum swings the other way and in 10 years or so we're involved in heavy fighting again, a lot of soldiers who would be Sgts and had done an Afghan tour as a Pte and UN tour as a Cpl/MCpl won't be around anymore.
> 
> In no way am I saying that nobody will stay in, just that I predict a huge chunk of people will say "Three years is enough, thanks...I joined for apples and I got one; I don't want your orange".



Agreed 100 percent.
One of the reasons I joined but decided I had others things to take care of first.
I do know someone who joined specifically for this reason, though.


----------



## Greymatters

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I joked above about the "objector" status, but if this were to happen and we went to Congo I honestly think that a whole lot of people would get out.



A lot of airmen thought the same thing in Gulf War - Round 1: they put in their release papers, got sent to the gulf anyway and then their release papers were processed when they got back.




			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> There is no question that there has been a cultural shift in the CF in the last decade at the lower ranks, not because of Afghan experience, *but because people went to the recruiting centres because they saw what was happening in Afghanistan and wanted to be warriors*.
> 
> Right or wrong, reflecting Canadian values or not, there is now a massive demographic bubble of Privates who joined specifically because of the events in 06-07 when there was massive media coverage not just on the news but on Hockey Night in Canada, etc.  I'm not glorifying war, but in a military you want people who are hard chargers and willing to fight if called upon, and that's now what we have (thankfully).
> 
> What we are going to do now is potentially say "That's great that you joined up to be a warrior, and you did your three years and got your tour to Afghanistan, but now we're going to do peacekeeping...", and I predict a very significant amount of soldiers with Afhgan experience getting out because they joined for that type of operation but aren't willing to do UN-types of tours.
> 
> Sadly, when the pendulum swings the other way and in 10 years or so we're involved in heavy fighting again, a lot of soldiers who would be Sgts and had done an Afghan tour as a Pte and UN tour as a Cpl/MCpl won't be around anymore.
> 
> In no way am I saying that nobody will stay in, just that I predict a huge chunk of people will say "Three years is enough, thanks...I joined for apples and I got one; I don't want your orange".



IMO, those who join just for 'the action' arent worth keeping on after the action is over.

Otherwise, their getting out will depend on just how much action there is somewhere else.  Those who do seek high-tension tours arent going to get out if there is no one out there hiring them for similar work.


----------



## SeanNewman

Greymatters said:
			
		

> IMO, those who join just for 'the action' arent worth keeping on after the action is over.



I fully agree with you if you can 100% guarantee me that we will never conduct a combat operation again


----------



## helpup

I dont think it will play out that excessive.  ( at the Pte Level ) You would have alot of those same young soldiers ( including a % of officers and NCO's ) Who would be getting out after the initial contract anyhow.  Since I have joined I have noticed that out of every Crse of new troops we get after 3 years ( or what ever the initial contract is for at the time.  A large percentage of them get out.  after 10 years that number is well over 50%. ( to the point I can count on one hand how many people I joined up with are still in the Regular Force ) That is just the demographics of it.  Especially this day and age with the mindset of this generation being less job for life and more what can you do for me. 

Yes they would state that they did not join for this. ( fully agree) But even while Afghan was going hot and heavey the numbers of people getting out after the initial contract is from my view close to what it was before we started it up.  

A big point now though is we have a whole slew of Sgt's whose whole career pretty well is now tied into Afghanistan.  How will they take to a rolling back of the role.  It is going to be interesting finding out.


----------



## Journeyman

I suspect that even those people who supposedly joined _only_ for combat operations in Afghanistan would rather patrol Kinshasa than the Lawfield corridor.


----------



## OldSolduer

We could always be environmental cops, like the esteemed Mr. Chretien wanted to do with us, Trade rifles for sticks with nails to pick up garbage! ;D


----------



## SeanNewman

I know you said that tongue-in-cheek, but I am all for the country using the Army for mundane tasks when there is no fighting required for national security.

Things like peacekeeping, snow removal, etc are all in the realm of "Things a soldier can not do when at war or training for war".

Pretty much exactly like a firefighter responding to a motor vehicle collision or a cat stuck in a tree...it's not their primary job and rest-assured if there was a fire they would be there, but they can still be of use if they have tools and skills that others don't.

Same with the Army...there's no reason Canada can't say "We see the value in you, but we don't have any urgent use for you right now so you can do _________ for us because we'd like it and you're getting paid anyway".


----------



## MarkOttawa

Conclusion of post at _The Torch_ (lots of links in original):

"Out of Afghanistan, Into the Heart of Darkness?"/Agitprop 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/out-of-afghanistan-into-heart-of.html



> ...
> Besides my cavils about a Congo mission at the post noted near the start of this one, I would simply add: what would be the point of taking on command in terms of any real Canadian national interest? I cannot see one and I can see a lot of pitfalls (read Mr Ibbitson's piece above again). But maybe such a mission would impress a fair number of our greatest and goodest--see just past the middle here--and maybe the government might hope to win votes in Québec by having the CF, with a non-combat role themselves, lead a UN mission in a francophone country.
> 
> Moreover, you can bet that our media would not spend much time in downtown equatorial Africa trying to dig up any dirt they can concerning any possible CF association with malfeasance on the part of foreign troops directly under them, or local forces with which they work. You can also bet that those oh-so-concerned and pure of heart Canadians such as Messrs Attaran, Staples, Byers, Neve and the NDP won't make the slightest effort to look deep into a Canadian UN Congo mission.
> 
> THE ONLY REASON THEY HOWLED ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN AFSTAN IS BECAUSE THEY OPPOSED THE KANDAHAR MISSION FROM THE START AND WANTED TO DO IT IN. On the other hand they love all things run by the UN (the fact that the NATO mission in Afstan has the full authorization of the UN Security Council isn't good enough for such types) and will give anything done by or linked to MONUC a free pass.
> 
> More from Mr Staples (at end of this link):
> 
> "...
> *Canada’s defence: Give priority to the United Nations*..."
> 
> St. Steve's baby, _Ceasefire.ca_, is also hard at UN-mongering:
> 
> "Make Canada a Proud Peacekeeper Once Again
> 
> Once the world's top contributor of troops for UN Peacekeeping, Canada has fallen far down the list as the military has turned away from the UN.
> 
> Urge Prime Minister Harper, the political party leaders and your Member of Parliament to end Canada's war in Afghanistan, and to make Canada a proud UN Peacekeeeper once again.
> 25 March 2010
> 
> 842 letters have been sent so far
> 
> You can edit this letter. Your personal comments, especially in the first few paragraphs, will give the message much greater impact..."



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## daftandbarmy

Geez Mom, can't we just take our new Leo IIs and MICVs and go back to preparing for a war on the Central Front, against the Fantasians, in the Canadian Prairies?  :crybaby:


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I know you said that tongue-in-cheek, but I am all for the country using the Army for mundane tasks when there is no fighting required for national security.



Wow.  Your "manage change" section of your PER is going to be far right.  



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> Pretty much exactly like a firefighter responding to a motor vehicle collision or a cat stuck in a tree...it's not their primary job and rest-assured if there was a fire they would be there, but they can still be of use if they have tools and skills that others don't.



The jaws of life in the back of our cruisers are notoriously dull and the paramedics keep losing theirs.  The bucket boys get the best ones.  Kinda handy for extractions on those MVC's they aren't supposed to go to.  And cat-out-of-tree is classic PR stuff.  They love doing those.  



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> Same with the Army...there's no reason Canada can't say "We see the value in you, but we don't have any urgent use for you right now so you can do _________ for us because we'd like it and you're getting paid anyway".



If you start beasting the troops with idiotic things, people will come to depend on them for idiotic things and squall when we aren't available to do them for free.  

Petamocto is well on his way towards making the argument for a Reserve-oriented CF, with a small Reg force quick reaction team and the rest providing support to a vibrant Reserve that can shake out and roll in short time (much like our American friends).  It's the cost effective solution too! 

Thanks buds!  Never figured a Reg officer would sell out his own good go, but there it is.  You got some moxy, bro!!   ;D


----------



## SeanNewman

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> ...Never figured a Reg officer would sell out his own good go...



Interesting that you feel that way about it.

I said what I said because in a hypothetical situation when there was no combat that our soldiers are required for overseas, and we have already conducted individual and collective training to build on our war skills, there is no reason that we can't be used for something (and I intentionally lump in secondary tasks like peacekeeping with snow removal, and in fact I even put snow removal at a higher priority because it directly improves the lives of Canadians).

If the government for whatever reason couldn't find anything for us to do outside of Canada, the Opposition is going to start asking questions.  When that happens, would you rather our answer be:

1. "We will cut our strength in half"; or

2. "We're still ready to fight if required, but in the mean time we can contribute by __________".

Nothing to do with selling out, I would just rather see soldiers (to mean all ranks) being put to good use for Canadians as opposed to coming to work twice a day to get sent home because there's nothing going on.


----------



## OldSolduer

We're soldiers. Plain and simple. We are not garbage pickers, nor snow removal specialists. The cities and towns of Canada are the experts in that area.
Peacekeeping, at least the one I'm familar with, is something we are good at because we are soldiers and damn good ones at that. To be used willy nilly because we aren't at war or training for one will see our troops leave the military in droves.
Trust me on that one.


----------



## bdave

Mid Aged Silverback said:
			
		

> We're soldiers. Plain and simple. We are not garbage pickers, nor snow removal specialists. The cities and towns of Canada are the experts in that area.
> Peacekeeping, at least the one I'm familar with, is something we are good at because we are soldiers and damn good ones at that. To be used willy nilly because we aren't at war or training for one will see our troops leave the military in droves.
> Trust me on that one.



I would agree with this. If I had wanted to pick up trash I would have gone a different route.


----------



## SeanNewman

You are agreeing with me on my main point that our job is to be soldiers first.  Nowhere has anyone suggested that is not the case.

However, my point is that it's possible there won't always be a war to fight.  So if you're not at war, is an Army realistically going to be able to afford training for war around the clock all year?  Absolutely not.  You might think it's the best thing, but to give the reg force and reserves a SOF type budget of unlimited ammo and fuel is not going to happen.

Your counterpoint may be "There's all sorts of fieldcraft training like occupying a patrol base and map and compass you can do for free" and I would 100% agree with that, but the point is that you can not do that every day forever.

At some point the time would come when we are 100% high readiness trained for war but not fighting a war, and the government would either say "We're putting you to work" or "We're cutting you in half because this is too expensive".

I go back to my firefighter example.  If there's a fire, that's their job.  If there's no fire, they can train to fight fires but not around the clock; at some point they will be required to do other things.


----------



## George Wallace

Sweep out the firehall.  Wash the firetruck.  Perform maint on their equipment.  Polish the brass.  Take courses to upgrade their skills.  Do PT to stay in shape.  Sounds familiar.


----------



## MarkOttawa

More at _The Torch_:

Canadians and the CF: The Boy Scout syndrome
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/canadians-and-cf-boy-scout-syndrome.html

The CF and the Congo  [several links]
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/cf-and-congo.html



> ...
> *Update*eacekeepingnik Prof. Walter Dorn gives the Congo case here (more here and here on the professor and UN-mongering).
> 
> *Upperdate*: Now who'd a thunk it? Prof. Dorn is a senior advisor at St. Steve Staples' Rideau Institute. 'Nuff said.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Petamocto said:
			
		

> However, my point is that it's possible there won't always be a war to fight.  So if you're not at war, is an Army realistically going to be able to afford training for war around the clock all year?  Absolutely not.  .



I realise that you are relatively new at this - please remember that the Army spent from 1953 to 2002 "not at war" (with apologies to Cyprus 74 and Medak vets).  

It is *THAT* Army, and *THOSE* NCOs who did so well from 2002-2010.  We know how to do this in between wars thing.

A little historical perspective might help shape this debate somewhat.

My 2 cents, that was worth 5 when I joined the Reserves as a private in 1980, and 3 cents when I transferred to the Regs in 1988.


----------



## SevenSixTwo

I believe people just doubt the ISAF's capabilities without the U.S. and Canada. Who is going to step up and replace those troops?

What also sucks is the amount of money we are going to lose to funding etc. Maybe, we won't have to have cut funding if enough tour monkeys quit.

Let's just hope it isn't the 1980's again.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Same with the Army...there's no reason Canada can't say "We see the value in you, but we don't have any urgent use for you right now so you can do _________ for us because we'd like it and you're getting paid anyway".


So I'm guessing you're perfectly okay going down to the wash rack on base and mucking out the mud pits when you've got no highly important desk work to do?  I'd like to see my tax dollars go to that.


----------



## The Bread Guy

FYI, Rex Murphy's "Cross Country Checkup" on CBC Radio 1 just starting is all about this question:


> Canada plans to pull its combat troops out of Afghanistan in 2011. US secretary of state Hillary Clinton ...and many Afghans want them to stay.
> 
> What do you think should Canada reconsider its role?



checkup@cbc.ca
1-888-416-8333


----------



## SeanNewman

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I realise that you are relatively new at this - please remember that the Army spent from 1953 to 2002 "not at war" (with apologies to Cyprus 74 and Medak vets).
> 
> It is *THAT* Army, and *THOSE* NCOs who did so well from 2002-2010.  We know how to do this in between wars thing.
> 
> A little historical perspective might help shape this debate somewhat.



No, my friend, it would appear _you_ may be relatively new at this.

Perhaps you will remember a country called Germany where for decades, far more soldiers were at high notice to move for all-out-war against the Russians than ever served on peace keeping tours.

Not officially a war, but make no mistake that was the CF's main effort during the time frame you stated.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Petamocto said:
			
		

> However, my point is that it's possible there won't always be a war to fight.  So if you're not at war, is an Army realistically going to be able to afford training for war around the clock all year?  Absolutely not.  You might think it's the best thing, but to give the reg force and reserves a SOF type budget of unlimited ammo and fuel is not going to happen.



Isn't that the point of having a full time military? ???  To train for the eventuality that conflict MAY occur?  Rest assured, the planet isn't going to stop sucking any time soon.  Something will pop up.  How about let guys rest, re-cock, get some leadership courses, trade quals out of the way before you sign your men up to stuff fliers into news papers?  I think the CF's demonstrated record of quality stands on its own.  I think (hope) the citizenry would be a bit dismayed to see people being pressed into duties way outside their arcs.  



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> At some point the time would come when we are 100% high readiness trained for war but not fighting a war, and the government would either say "We're putting you to work" or "We're cutting you in half because this is too expensive".



Again, I'm _hoping_ that with hind sight and experience, all governments (the ones that matter anyway) will recognize that allowing another Liberal Decade of Darkness to occur is short sighted in the extreme and ultimately more expensive when you are scrambling to put together a multi-year mission.  



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> I go back to my firefighter example.  If there's a fire, that's their job.  If there's no fire, they can train to fight fires but not around the clock; at some point they will be required to do other things.



At the risk of seeming untoward with respects to my fire brethren, you should actually take a look at what a typical firefighters day consists of.  Once you get the station duties squared away and deal with lots of idiotic false alarms, it can be a pretty cushy go.  You sort of need a better example, since the fire guys are kind of legendary for being paid to sleep, cook and make nudey calendars  ;D



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> No, my friend, it would appear _you_ may be relatively new at this.



Awesome.  Just awesome.   op:

Ya, guy!  What, have you been in the Army for, like, a week or something?   :clown:


----------



## GAP

You really don't have 2 clues.......do you.... :rofl:


----------



## SeanNewman

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Ya, guy!  What, have you been in the Army for, like, a week or something?   :clown:



A bit longer than that, I just got done BMOQ-L.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Valid observation wrt the Cold War.  

Perhaps I will narrow the time-frame somewhat to the period from the late 80s through to 2001 - the Pl WOs and Sect Comds of 2006-2010 were forged during that period - a period during which, despite a war, hot or cold, declared or undeclared, valuable individual and collective training occurred, along with operations both domestic and international.

My point is that we did not throw up our hands, in the absence of a war, cold or hot, down tools, and become a general labour pool for the government.  Rather we laboured at our craft, and hence were able to respond to the call when it came.  That is what professionals do.

I would venture to bet that we will both serve overseas a number of times between now and retirement, and that little if any of that time will be spent in a Chapter 6 peacekeeping role.  More likely, we will be involved in all manner of operations that will tend to the right hand side of the spectrum of conflict.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Petamocto said:
			
		

> A bit longer than that, I just got done BMOQ-L.



Not you.  It was a facetious comment made to the very senior member you are trying to belittle  (and I'm not being an ageist either)


----------



## SeanNewman

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Not you.  It was a facetious comment made to the very senior member you are trying to belittle  (and I'm not being an ageist either)



Ahhh.  Personally I don't care how much experience someone has if they are wrong (I'm not saying that's what happened here).  If I say "1+1=3" someone in basic training is more than right to come on here and say "You are wrong".

Tours and time in is context and experience, not automatically being correct.

So that being said, I still don't see what you guys are so upset about in terms of defending our role.

I have said numerous times that our primary role is to fight wars.  I have said numerous times that when not fighting wars, our primary focus should be preparing to fight wars.

The only thing you guys are getting ruffled over is the "_then what_" part.  You can not convince me that during peace time an Army will have the budget to do 365-day combat training, so what then?  If we are still conducting war refresher training in order to stay topped up, the taxpayer has a 100% right to expect us to earn our our money being more useful than coming in twice a day to do PT and get sent home for months.


----------



## regulator12

Petamocto You can bet that once Afghanistan will be over WE WILL be gearing up for another hot spot in the world.  As part of the UN and Nato we have a mandate to contribute to sanctioned missions.  So the short down time we will have can be utilized to rest refit and train up our soldiers.  And of course during peace time an army doesn't have the budget that is around during war time.  But were do you see peace? When is this "peace time" coming. Last time i checked the world is still pretty hostile and in need of assistance.  Rest assured Canada will contribute something somewhere.  Rest and refit doesn't have to mean we stop all operations it means we can utilize the resources we have more efficiently.


----------



## tango22a

Gentlemen:

At the risk of being accused (probably correctly) of being an old dinosaur, disconnected from what is happening TODAY, let me tell you that when the draw down from A'Stan occurs the first thing you will see is a massive slashing of the CF's budget.

As you should know the CF budget is the first place cuts will be made. The Canadian public has no BELIEF  in Peacemaking and only will support Peacekeeping under the aegis of the UN. Joe Taxpayer would rather see the CF run on a shoe string and the money diverted to other purposes.

This shortsightedness will lead to the loss of a large percentage of the best and brightest in the CF due to not being willing to operate like this as we did in the past. If one looks back over the years, one can see that once a conflict is ended there is a prevalent demand to harvest the mythical "Peace Dividend" and cut /slash the "bloated" CF Budget.

I could be wrong (and hope I am!), BUT, after watching the CF Roller Coaster for over fifty years, and riding along for twenty-three years, this is all I can foresee for us in the future. You just watch.... the boys in the Treasury Board already have their machetes sharpened to slash and burn our budget.



tango22a


Edited for clarity


----------



## SeanNewman

Regulator,

My arguments have not been about where I think we are going, only based on a hypothetical "if nothing else is going on..." scenario.

I have full confidence that our government will send us elsewhere in a peace support-type operation, but that's not what I'm debating here.

Some people are insisting that the military is above doing mundane tasks* if *there was nothing else going on.


----------



## Loachman

Petamocto said:
			
		

> No, my friend, it would appear _you_ may be relatively new at this.



Now that is the funniest thing that I've read since....


Hmmmm....


Well, a very long time anyway.


----------



## SeanNewman

It was intentionally silly, sort of like a high school basketball player asking Michael Jordan who he is.

It doesn't change the fact that someone can be wrong though, and I'll be the first to admit when I am wrong to a junior.


----------



## Pil

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I know you said that tongue-in-cheek, but I am all for the country using the Army for mundane tasks when there is no fighting required for national security.
> 
> Things like peacekeeping, snow removal, etc are all in the realm of "Things a soldier can not do when at war or training for war".
> 
> Pretty much exactly like a firefighter responding to a motor vehicle collision or a cat stuck in a tree...it's not their primary job and rest-assured if there was a fire they would be there, but they can still be of use if they have tools and skills that others don't.
> 
> Same with the Army...there's no reason Canada can't say "We see the value in you, but we don't have any urgent use for you right now so you can do _________ for us because we'd like it and you're getting paid anyway".




Cats stuck in trees and responding to MVC's is a fire fighter related duty. Garbage sweeps and routine snow removal in Canadian cities isn't something the army is mandated to do. We've already established we're going to have a reduced training budget after we pull the pin in Afghanistan. Now you're advocating that we eat up a larger portion of the budget by transporting our troops and equipment to help with snow removal? Our vehicle pool is already dying, what are we going to do when there is a new war to fight and all are vehicles are grounded because we used them to plow roads? I suppose you could argue that the Government would expand our budget, but I would see that being cut in fairly short order. "We need a hundred million? Just take it out of the army, they're just plowing roads." 



What do you propose when Calgary starts bitching that Edmonton is getting federal help for snow removal? Or when Victoria complains that Winnipeg gets free garabe pickers? All three levels of Government would come to expect the army to help with routine things and when we weren't there, they'd have a fit.

Have you ever been involved in a union? Have you ever seen what happens when you try and convince a union to let non-union people do their job? I would bet that almost every municipal and Provincial employee is unionized and that's exactly who'd we would be supplementing wether we plow snow, pick garabage, patrol parks, build dams or almost any other job I can think of. 

At least we'd have a cool new recruiting add "Fight...Litter"


----------



## SeanNewman

You guys are funny.

It's actually humourous to watch some of you pick obscure points out of an argument and then go off on a tangent like unions, etc.

Pil, the point is not peacekeeping or garbage or snow.  The point is that we belong to Canada and our primary job is the defence of Canada (still on the same page), but if we are trained up to do that but not getting used the country can tell us to do whatever the hell it wants.

I'm not saying that I want it to happen or that it will happen.  But guess what, if the Canadian public demands we fill sandbags or demands we fill balloons, you might not like it but that's what we're doing.  A candidate on a course may not like it that you make him sew his name tags in all his clothes, and a trained warrior may not like it that he's shoveling snow, but we belong to Canada and are duty bound to do what we're told to do.


----------



## aesop081

Petamocto said:
			
		

> You guys are funny.



As are you. Dont think for a second that you are above the noise.


----------



## Loachman

But then again, _*you*_ may be "relatively new at this too".


----------



## SeanNewman

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> As are you. Dont think for a second that you are above the noise.



Absolutely!  Never claimed to be anything but a silly pongo.


----------



## Pil

Petamocto said:
			
		

> You guys are funny.
> 
> It's actually humourous to watch some of you pick obscure points out of an argument and then go off on a tangent like unions, etc.
> 
> Pil, the point is not peacekeeping or garbage or snow.  The point is that we belong to Canada and our primary job is the defence of Canada (still on the same page), but if we are trained up to do that but not getting used the country can tell us to do whatever the hell it wants.
> 
> I'm not saying that I want it to happen or that it will happen.  But guess what, if the Canadian public demands we fill sandbags or demands we fill balloons, you might not like it but that's what we're doing.  A candidate on a course may not like it that you make him sew his name tags in all his clothes, and a trained warrior may not like it that he's shoveling snow, but we belong to Canada and are duty bound to do what we're told to do.



Well thought out reply. 

As indicated, I'm not talking about emergency operations or peacekeeping, it's our realm. I'm talking about being GD for the Country, as you said we should be if we're not doing soldier stuff. I'm asking how you would like us to go about it. Your lack of any logical reply to anyones rebuttals other than "You so crazy." leads me to beleive you haven't thought about it, or wouldn't mind if your troops had to wear orange vests on the side of the road so long as you don't. 

I think most of the members on here are well aware of what our duties are and understand that we will be called on to do what the Government requests of us. Thanks though, tips.

Anyways, have a good night.


----------



## SeanNewman

I have nothing else to add at this time


----------



## Franko

Wow...just wow. 

From petty insults and bitch slapping to one liners.       :

Never thought I'd see this level of BS go on. You really have no idea who you're talking to Petamocto, nor his experience. Perhaps get a wee bit of background before you hit the "fire" button.



Locking this waste of bandwidth up. 

*The Army.ca Staff *


----------



## Arcset

Ignorant civy here.  My question is, given that the combat mission is over, what is expected of the members in Combat Arms trades?  Do they just sit around in garrison and continue training while waiting for the next conflict?  Are there no more opportunities for deployment?

The reason why I'm asking is because I've applied to become an infanteer, and while I want to be a member of the Canadian Forces and contribute, I can't help but feel that if I were to be accepted I wouldn't be able to contribute much given how things are currently progressing.  The very thought of potentially not getting deployed while being in the Forces is making me reconsider my application (which sucks given that I applied over a year ago), so I suppose I'm looking for an excuse to stay the course and continue with my application.  I'm not saying that I'm eager to get into combat and hurt people, but the idea that I might not be able to ever put my training to use is heartbreaking.

Thank you everyone for taking the time to respond to this.  It means a great deal to me.


----------



## LightFighter

Yes, until deployed we continue training, etc in garrison and in the field. Combat Arms are deployed on more than just combat missions(the last few years of Afghanistan weren't combat). In addition to international deployments, there are also domestic ops; examples being the 2010 Olympics, G8, and Manitoba floods.

Right now, there is no large scale ground deployment, but that doesn't mean another mission won't come along. There is a possibility that you could never deploy, but there is also a chance you will. All dependent on how long you stay in, what's going on internationally, and what the Government of Canada wants.


----------



## OldSolduer

LightFighter said:
			
		

> Yes, until deployed we continue training, etc in garrison and in the field. Combat Arms are not deployed on more than just combat missions(the last few years of Afghanistan weren't combat). In addition to international deployments, there are also domestic ops, examples being the 2010 Olympics, G8, Manitoba flooding, etc.
> 
> Right now, there is no current large scale deployment, but that doesn't mean another mission won't come along. There is a possibility that you could never deploy, but there is also a chance you will. All dependent on how long you stay in, what's going on internationally, and what the Government of Canada wants.



As a reservist, we train our soldiers to work alongside our Reg Force counterparts. We may not be as advanced as the Reg Force, but our troops do have a baseline of experience to draw from. Several of our NCOs and officers have deployed on missions with the CAF.


----------

