Poll

Would Maj Gen MacKenzie have made a good CDS.

Yes
No
Lew Who?

Author Topic: Major-General Lewis MacKenzie CM, MSC, OOnt, CD  (Read 48802 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bossi

  • "vae soli, vae victus"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 2,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,764
  • The puck stops here ('War On Ice'!) Fight Smarter!
    • My pix (on MSN)
Major-General Lewis MacKenzie CM, MSC, OOnt, CD
« on: October 26, 2002, 21:29:00 »
It's well-documented in the media that most government decisions are not made in cabinet - instead, they're made in the PMO (and, the death knell of democracy, with far too much input from partisan political advisors instead of loyal Canadians - after all, those smug, smarmy twerps who analyse the polls don't have to swear an oath of allegiance to Canada - instead, they've got their noses so far up the PM's butt ... they can see the bottom of Sheila Copp's shoes ... but, I digress)

As I was saying, it's ironic that decisions made in the PMO's office are finally coming home to roost.

Specifically, the quislings have been neglecting defence spending in favour of "more important" priorities (i.e. musical fountains in the PM's riding, or Challenger jets for Papa Doc Crouton).

The irony of it all is that now they've slit their own throats.   Canada is (or already has) lost it's place on the world stage, since we can no longer contribute with meaningful military forces.

And so, those psycophantic weasels now face political oblivion - Canada is becoming a Third World nation (as far as international influence is concerned), and the quislings have nobody to blame except themselves.

Ah, the irony ... hoisted by their own policies ...
However, loyal Canadians (who actually have sworn oaths of allegiance) deserve better.

It's a shame that the Liberal party has manipulated the Freedom of Information Act to exclude "party" documents and discussions, since that's were the treason has actually taken place.

Only in Canada, eh?   Pity ...

Meanwhile, McCallum ... ?   Blah, blah, blah ...

Strapped military costs credibility
Ex-CO calls Chretien's anti-terrorism vow hollow

By BILL RODGERS, SUN OTTAWA BUREAU

 Canada has lost its credibility to speak out against terrorism because it's failing to put money where its mouth is, says retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie.

MacKenzie warns that in shortchanging security forces, Canada is putting a serious strain on our relations with the U.S.

"The attitude of Washington is no longer disappointment," says MacKenzie, the security adviser to the Ontario government. "They're pissed off and they're more than happy to say that behind closed doors."

MacKenzie gets an earful during tours of the U.S. on the military lecture circuit, and says the Chretien government's vow to stand shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. and its allies on the war against global terrorism rang hollow from the outset.

Meanwhile, Defence Minister John McCallum was calling on his own government yesterday to spend more on the military, saying Canada should be contributing more toward the defence of North America and the free world.

Reaction to McCallum's first address since taking the portfolio four months ago ranged from dismissive to hopeful.

At the Edmonton Garrison, troops aren't holding their breath waiting to see new cash. "It's nice that he's asking for more money," says one. "We've had promises like this before and they haven't amounted to a hill of beans. It's all part of the Ottawa tug-of-war and we don't dwell on the details - we just to have to live with the results."

The minister said the Canadian Forces are demoralized and financially wounded, and promised to appoint a panel of private-sector experts to streamline his department's administration.

"If you ask me if we should do more or less than we are currently doing in the defence of our country and our continent, I would say more," he told an audience of about 50 at the Toronto Board of Trade.

"If you ask me if we should do more or less in deploying our forces to the myriad trouble spots of the world, I would say more."

While the federal government cut about 25 per cent from the defence budget in the '90s, it's promised to restore more than $5 billion between this fiscal year and 2006, he noted.

"Notwithstanding these improvements, we should be spending more than is currently planned," said McCallum, in the opening salvo of a campaign to pressure his government for more money in February's budget.

+++

Yes, we have no military
   
The Ottawa Citizen
Friday, October 25, 2002
 
Among the qualifications required for promotion in Canada's modern military, we have concluded, is not only a clear enthusiasm to preside over the dissolution of Her Majesty's Armed Forces but a willingness to deny that it is happening, no matter how obvious the signs of its demise.

So we were not surprised when reports that a Canadian crew had refused to put to sea in one of those leaky, reconditioned British submarines were promptly and vigorously denied by Vice-Admiral R.D. Buck, chief of maritime staff. He wrote to this newspaper that "this recent case is an excellent example of how our very effective process to identify and ultimately resolve safety issues was used and worked well. As a result, no orders were given that could have put submariners at undue risk."

In other words, when they said they wouldn't sail that submarine, you avoided technically ordering them to.

Then the Citizen reported that on Sept. 11, 2001, Canada had to rely on American fighter planes to escort a suspicious Korean Airlines flight through Canadian airspace. (There were fears that it, too, had been hijacked by terrorists. Fortunately, this proved not to be the case.) We weren't short of planes, Chief of the Air Staff Lt.-Gen. Lloyd Campbell promptly wrote. Heavens, no. We have lots of planes. The Americans were just closer.

Uh-huh.

As the old saying goes, nothing is too good for the Canadian Forces, and that's what they usually get.

Next, Rear Admiral Glen Davidson, commander of Maritime Forces Atlantic, said he hopes to have one of those British submarines ready for service in Halifax by Christmas -- except for an absence of those pesky torpedo thingies. Or, in bureaucratese, "She won't be fully operational in the sense of a weapons-firing capability."

Some nations might consider this a major drawback in a warship, but not our brass hats.

Nowadays, we await with anticipation a smoothly plausible explanation from one of this nation's high-ranking officers of a recent report about Kosovo. The report says that during the April 1999 NATO bombing of parts of the former Yugoslavia, we Canadians had to beg the Americans in writing for bombs for all those sparkling, combat-ready planes.

So load those pens and fire away, all you top brass. We sleep better knowing that at least the public relations department of DND is always ready, aye, ready.

+++

McCallum seeking money for Forces, modern equipment

By DANIEL LEBLANC
Saturday, October 26, 2002 (Globe and Mail)

OTTAWA -- Defence Minister John McCallum says that he will cut administrative fat and outdated weapon systems out of the Canadian Forces, and acknowledged that he is looking for money for more troops and to buy modern equipment.

In a well-received speech in Toronto yesterday, Mr. McCallum acknowledged that convincing Canadians and the rest of the federal government to spend more on the military will be a massive task.

In making his case to the public, he stated that the country's sovereignty depends on a bigger and better-equipped military.

"Sovereignty . . . doesn't come cheap," Mr. McCallum told the Toronto Board of Trade.

He said that to remain sovereign, Canadians must be able to fight terrorism and participate in the protection of the continent while maintaining a presence in the Canadian North and promoting democracy around the world.

"Our government must be able to deploy forces overseas to reflect Canadian priorities and values, to help Canada achieve its foreign-policy objectives and to do our fair share in the struggle for democracy and freedom around the globe," Mr. McCallum said.

The troops cannot keep up with deployments in places such as Bosnia, East Timor, Afghanistan and, potentially, Iraq, he said.

Canada was involved with 79 military missions in the past decade, compared with 24 from 1948 to 1989.

Mr. McCallum said that in recent years, the government has had to funnel millions of dollars out of capital budgets just to make ends meet. Over all, "we should be spending more than is currently planned," he said, calling for more money as early as the next budget.

He did not say how much he needs, but most experts believe it must be at least $1-billion more a year.

In the meantime, Mr. McCallum is considering chopping old capabilities, which he called "remnants of an earlier era," and calling on private-sector input to streamline the military administration.

While Mr. McCallum did not state specific targets for cutbacks, experts say that the Forces are considering getting rid of armoured vehicles to become lighter and more mobile.

Retired Major-General Lewis Mackenzie said Mr. McCallum seemed to hit many of the right notes in his bid to win public support for the Forces. "I would agree with the sovereignty argument from a political point of view," he said, praising the attempt to chop the bloated bureaucracy.

Former Liberal foreign-affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy sided with Mr. McCallum, saying that Canada needs better logistics, airlift and intelligence capabilities to "make our own choices." The Conference of Defence Associations said Mr. McCallum is on the right track, showing rare transparence for a defence minister.

The Canadian Alliance said it is time for Mr. McCallum to deliver.

"Minister McCallum's rhetoric matches that of his predecessors in the portfolio. But that rhetoric has never translated into cash on the table for our Armed Forces during almost a decade of Liberal rule," Alliance MP Leon Benoit said.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2004, 21:38:20 by Bruce Monkhouse »
Junior officers and NCOs who neglect to guide the thinking of their men are shirking a command responsibility.
-Feb 1955 Cbt Forces Journal
Those who appreciate true valour should in their daily intercourse set gentleness first and aim to win the love and esteem of others. If you affect valour and act with violence, the world will in the end detest you and look upon you as wild beasts. Of this you should take heed.
-Emperor Meiji: Rescript to Soldiers and Sailors, 4 January 1883

Offline Gunnar

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 2,470
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 659
  • Civilian
    • http://www.ealdormere.sca.org
Major-General Lewis MacKenzie CM, MSC, OOnt, CD
« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2003, 09:10:00 »
Our forces need more money -- and a vision
   
Lewis MacKenzie   
National Post


Monday, February 24, 2003

   
What a shame that any and all attempts to have a serious discussion in this country regarding something as important as how our tax dollars will be spent immediately degenerates into duelling sound bites on the six o'clock news. Professional media consultants feed their government clients talking points and one-liner rebuttals and the quality of the debate goes downhill from there. Parliament's Question Period contributes to the dumbing down of policy discussions with its time constraints and restrictions.

Before commenting on some of the specifics regarding the military's share of Finance Minister John Manley's largesse, permit me to make a couple of points. First, any budget that does not require the Canadian Forces to give back dollars has come to be accepted as pretty good news. Depending on how you do the math, the defence budget has been reduced by somewhere between $20-billion and $29-billion since 1993. That oft-quoted calculation is based on the money the military would have had to carry out its directed tasks if it hadn't been required to make the largest contribution of any government department to help Paul Martin stare down the deficit dragon. Considering the fact that inflation for military equipment can, and usually does, run significantly more than that experienced by the civilian economy, the military's budget has pretty well been cut in half during the past 10 years.

Secondly, in light of the government's last eight budgets, the Defence Minister, John McCallum, deserves considerable credit for convincing an overly centralized and competitive budget decision-making process to commit $800-million additional dollars to defence during each of the next three years. Mr. McCallum is a quick study and, in spite of self-admitted indifference to things military before he took over the portfolio, he now realizes and appreciates the disproportional contribution our Forces make to our security and international reputation.

Unfortunately, when it was suggested by some that the additional funds were far less than adequate to resolve the Forces' current and future manning, rust-out and operational training challenges, the inevitable one-liner rebuttals were mobilized. Mr. Manley himself, when cross-examined on a national TV network, indicated it was only the "retired military" that were calling for more than the $800-million -- and amazingly, he got away with it! The fact is, the most outspoken "lobbyists" for additional funding beyond the $800-million per year were: the Liberal-chaired commons standing committee on national defence and veteran's affairs, the Liberal-appointed Auditor-General and the Senate of Canada's report on the same subject. The first two, after thorough analysis, recommended that $1.5-billion be added to the base line during each of the next three years, making a total of $9-billion versus the $2.4-billion promised in the budget. The Senate called for an immediate injection of $4-billion into defence in the first year alone. The "retired military" were merely a few forlorn voices in the choir.

Mr. McCallum, responding to criticism, tried to put the onus back on the military, indicating that it was the uniformed members who said "$800-million is what we need to do the job." Not really. What has not been readily revealed is the amount of money that has and will continue to be robbed from the capital equipment fund to pay for an operational tempo that deploys a higher percentage of our forces abroad than any other country in the world. Virtually all major purchases will have to be delayed at least seven years, thereby compounding the "rust-out" crisis. As a result, the percentage of the defence budget spent on equipment will tumble to 10% -- the lowest by far in NATO. A few scant years ago we were committed to move it from 15% to 23%. The long-term implication will be a bankrupt capital equipment (ships, plans, vehicles etc.) budget.

Compounding the budget issue is the absence of a government-conceived and -directed vision for the Forces. The 1994 defence white paper is history and could not be implemented under any circumstances considering current funding and the state of the Forces. In spite of multiple ministerial promises to the contrary during the past few years, it would appear that foreign and defence policy reviews will not commence until late 2004 at best.

In the meantime, the Minister will probably be forced to remove or mothball a number of capabilities -- tanks, artillery, destroyers? -- without a clear vision of the future role of the Forces as determined by the public and their elected representatives. A defence review is absolutely critical, and the sooner the better. The $800-million per year will hopefully sustain the Forces until such a review is completed and the people of Canada have decided what they want their military to do and how much they are prepared to pay for it.

Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, now retired, commanded UN troops during the Bosnian civil war of 1992.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2004, 21:01:30 by Bruce Monkhouse »
If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism --Thomas Sowell

Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for the West as it commits suicide.

Offline PikaChe

  • I'm not a communist. I just work for them
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 40,555
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,689
  • Pika la Revolución!
Major-General Lewis MacKenzie CM, MSC, OOnt, CD
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2004, 10:59:00 »
http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/spotlight/2004/02/21/afghantime040221.html

Time to go on the offensive in Afghanistan

by Lewis MacKenzie

Last week in Kabul, the 3rd Battalion of the Royal 22nd Regiment took over from the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment and commenced six months of helping to secure the Afghanistan capital, thereby keeping the interim government of Hamed Karzi in control â “ at least in Kabul, if not in the rest of the country. Their tour of duty will end in August of this year, at which time Canada will have fulfilled Chrétien's promise to provide the bulk of ISAF's combat power in Kabul for a year.

Last year NATO was persuaded to take command of the ISAF mission when it was determined that Canada was unable to fulfil the previous PM's grandiose commitment that, â Å“Canada would take over and run the mission for a year!â ? Displaying an appalling naivety of things military, Chrétien failed to realize that â Å“runningâ ? the mission, meant providing the majority of the personnel and infrastructure, including the communications, for a large headquarters, including the operation of the airport and medical facilities. When he was so advised, he sent out feelers for help and, fortunately for our international reputation, NATO came to the rescue.

Afghanistan aspires to run its first democratic election in June of this year. Much international effort has been dedicated to making such an achievement possible. Unfortunately, things are not looking good. Karzi's interim government is pretty well confined to Kabul, and the war lords still rule the hinterland, some with the support of the Kandahar-based, US-led coalition still tracking down the remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaida throughout the country. The illegal drug trade has flourished since the removal of the Taliban regime, and Afghanistan's poppy fields have re-established themselves as the world's number one supplier of opium and heroin (ironically, with another â Å“liberatedâ ? part of the world, Kosovo, playing a major role in the drug's distribution). There are strong indications that the defeated elements of the Taliban and al-Qaida, along with some new indigenous resistance elements, are joining forces in an attempt to destabilize Afghanistan even more and to disrupt preparations for the proposed election. Recent suicide attacks on members of ISAF, including the one that took the life of Canadian Corporal Jamie Murphy give some credibility to this speculation.

NATO was keen to take on ISAF's leadership; however, its member nations have not been lining up to take over the job of patrolling Kabul's streets from the Canadians in six months‘ time. Enter the dreaded mission creep. What was announced to the Canadian electorate by Chrétien as a one-year commitment and not a day more is now morphing into a five- to ten-year Canadian military presence, if the collective opinions of those involved in the decision-making process are to be taken at their word. Major-General Andrew Leslie, the outgoing deputy commander of ISAF, has speculated that it will take up to ten years to create a safe and secure Afghanistan. Prime Minister Martin, in a surprisingly candid admission suggested we might well maintain a military strength of 500 in the post-August 2004 period.

Much to his credit, the Minister of National Defence, David Pratt, while visiting Afghanistan last week, indicated that it was too early to speculate on the role Canada would assume post-August. A wise statement, indeed, as all too often in the past, a cap on the number of troops to be deployed to a particular mission was determined long before their role was confirmed â “ a common shortcoming of the UN, I hasten to add.

There are a number of options.

We could continue to serve with the ISAF security force in Kabul, patrolling the streets and the immediate surrounding areas. A cap of 500 would only permit a couple of hundred-man companies, plus headquarters and administration support. NATO would probably be pleased and President Karzi would be somewhat satisfied.

We could create a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) â “ get used to the acronym as you will be hearing it a lot over the next few months. The plan is that PRTs, consisting of around 300 personnel and made up of engineers, medical personnel, logisticians, etc., along with a modest security element, would venture into some of the more stable outlying areas, with the support or at least the tolerance of the local war lord and help with the reconstruction of the country. There is much talk about the need for such teams, and the government will be tempted to volunteer us for such a role, as it matches the false image of ourselves as â Å“peacekeepersâ ? â “ surely the most abused and misunderstood term in the Canadian lexicon this past decade.

We should do neither. The Rules of Engagement for both roles would lock us into a relatively passive and defensive posture. With the first option, we would continue to actively patrol in and around Kabul, and with the second, defend the folks doing the reconstruction, but in both cases, the enemy will have the initiative and come to us.

There is a third option that I much prefer. Leave the ISAF force and move South to rejoin, yes rejoin, the US-led multinational force that we were an important part of in the period following Sept. 11, 2001. This force is conducting the war against terror in the rugged areas of Afghanistan and tracking down the cowards on their own terms. There is little risk of becoming a victim to suicide bombers out there. If someone suspiciously runs towards you in the mountains of Afghanistan, you don't have to hesitate killing him, as you would on security patrol in downtown Kabul, thinking that perhaps he is just a young urban kid wanting some food or to say hello.

Canada became involved with ISAF in Kabul to ease the friction with the US regarding the PM's decision to not support their liberation of Iraq. Thanks to the quality of our leaders and our soldiers, we have done good work there. Now we have an opportunity to put our soldiers where they should be and where they like to be â “ on the offensive. Lets take it!

This article appears here with the kind permission of Maj-Gen Lewis MacKenzie (Ret‘d). It also appears in the 21 February 2004 issue of the National Post.

***

Hmmm... It‘s on DND site. Interesting.

Offline bobthebui|der

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -75
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,070
  • I got a axe
Re: New Lewis Mackenzie article
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2004, 11:19:00 »
I agree with him entirely. Nothing will be gained if we sit on the defensive all the time. Push the enemy back, and give the people of Afghanistan some breathing room.
The true measure of a man is how well he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good

Munit Haec et Altera Vincit

"2..4..6..8..tiptoe, sneak, and infiltrate, yaaaaaay, recce!" - Kat Stevens

logau

  • Guest
Re: New Lewis Mackenzie article
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2004, 12:08:00 »
Lets go on the offensive - Hoo boy!

Great idea - only thing is its coming from Gen Mackenzie who is not currently in any capacity to commit troops.

He does embody the aim though - raise awareness of what should be done.

I think the reserves could be lined up to commit 54 platoons of Infantry - indefinitely = good for a five year program at least. Lets stand the thing on its head - and get ourselves into a nice quiet little war - commit 2 regular bns and simultaneously activate a trg pipeline to flesh out all the regulars on their expiry of their 6 months term in Afghan - of course the regulars could all be tasked for a year but without a reserve component - it won`t amount to much because the full time forces are being employed against a short term plan.

Now you may think I`m blowing smoke - the Brits were in the region at the turn of the last century and the forces committed to pacifying the various valley kingdoms was on the order of 8-35,000 at a time.

The gound hasn`t changed nor have the independant minded inhabitants who - by the way - don‘t have any conception of Gen Leslie‘s safe and secure Afghanistan.

Background reading on (non-heliborne) operations in that area

From Winston Chruchill‘s view  http://216.123.50.100/p94russell.htm

The Tirah campaign of 1897 on India‘s notorious North-West frontier was part of what was known at the time as the "Great Game" between Britain and Russia. Throughout the last half the 19th century Russia‘s territorial and colonial ambitions rivaled those of Britain and nearly brought the two Empires to war. (In the 1880s the "Russian threat" was even taken seriously as far away as New Zealand where coastal batteries such as Fort Kelburn in Wellington were established).

Afghanistan was the crucible of this strategic conflict... more  http://www.cabarfeidh.com/dargai.htm

Typical climate conditions  http://64.1911encyclopedia.org/T/TI/TIRAH.htm

So - where are those volunteer forms? You‘re still behind this aren`t you?

Offline Spr.Earl

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 235
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,719
  • Grizzled Old Veteran
Re: New Lewis Mackenzie article
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2004, 17:54:00 »
Logau,I did volunteer for this last tour when asked!

But alas they only took two guy‘s from my present trade with in our trade.

If given a second chance I would do it again.
THE PRECEDING POST AND OTHERS MADE BY MYSELF ARE MY PERSONAL VIEWS, NOT FOR REPRODUCTION, NOT FOR CUT AND PASTE OF ANY PORTION THEREOF, NO QUOTES ARE PERMITTED ELSEWHERE,ANYWHERE OTHER THAN EXCLUSIVELY IN THIS WEB FORUM.




UBIQUE
Be Safe

Offline bobthebui|der

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -75
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,070
  • I got a axe
Re: New Lewis Mackenzie article
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2004, 18:36:00 »
I would go to Afghanistan in a second.
The true measure of a man is how well he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good

Munit Haec et Altera Vincit

"2..4..6..8..tiptoe, sneak, and infiltrate, yaaaaaay, recce!" - Kat Stevens

Duotone81

  • Guest
Re: New Lewis Mackenzie article
« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2004, 18:42:00 »
I don‘t know how M.Gen MacKenzie aligns himself poilitcally but regardless of party if he did run for PM I‘d vote for em. He‘s a no bs kind of guy that tells it like it is and offers clear logical solutions. He seems like a good honest man to me. Too bad for the CF he‘s retired eh.

Offline Sheep Dog AT

  • The Fly in Someone's Ointment - Giggity
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 58,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,219
Re: New Lewis Mackenzie article
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2004, 19:01:00 »
I believe he ran in politics under the PC banner.
Apparently infamous for his one liners.
Oh Giggity Well...........Giggity

Offline Spr.Earl

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 235
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,719
  • Grizzled Old Veteran
Re: New Lewis Mackenzie article
« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2004, 20:01:00 »
The only reason our Lew is not C.D.S. is because he became to vocal in regard‘s to the U.N. and our own Gov. in regard‘s to Yugo. and became very vocal on our own failing‘s toward‘s our own Military and the Gov. of the day did not like his forthrightness.
Ergo,he retired to the loss of us and the Nation!
Forced out in my opinion

I would serve under him any day as in my own opinion he‘s a Soldier‘s Soldier and our Goverment does not like that.

Ever read his auto-biography?
A another Sapper does good!
Yup he was a Sapper also.
He grew up in the Wack.
His father was a Sgt/Maj. in the Engineer‘s.
THE PRECEDING POST AND OTHERS MADE BY MYSELF ARE MY PERSONAL VIEWS, NOT FOR REPRODUCTION, NOT FOR CUT AND PASTE OF ANY PORTION THEREOF, NO QUOTES ARE PERMITTED ELSEWHERE,ANYWHERE OTHER THAN EXCLUSIVELY IN THIS WEB FORUM.




UBIQUE
Be Safe

Offline Spr.Earl

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 235
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,719
  • Grizzled Old Veteran
Re: New Lewis Mackenzie article
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2004, 20:08:00 »
Quote
Originally posted by Spr.Earl:
[qb] The only reason our Lew is not C.D.S. is because he became to vocal in regard‘s to the U.N. and our own Gov. in regard‘s to Yugo. and became very vocal on our own failing‘s toward‘s our own Military and the Gov. of the day did not like his forthrightness.
Ergo,he retired to the loss of us and the Nation!
Forced out in my opinion

I would serve under him any day as in my own opinion he‘s a Soldier‘s Soldier and our Goverment does not like that.

Ever read his auto-biography?
A another Sapper does good!
Yup he was a Sapper also.
He grew up in the Wack.
His father was a Sgt/Maj. in the Engineer‘s. [/qb]
THE PRECEDING POST AND OTHERS MADE BY MYSELF ARE MY PERSONAL VIEWS, NOT FOR REPRODUCTION, NOT FOR CUT AND PASTE OF ANY PORTION THEREOF, NO QUOTES ARE PERMITTED ELSEWHERE,ANYWHERE OTHER THAN EXCLUSIVELY IN THIS WEB FORUM.




UBIQUE
Be Safe

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 178,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,352
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: New Lewis Mackenzie article
« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2004, 23:20:00 »
Quote
I think the reserves could be lined up to commit 54 platoons of Infantry - indefinitely = good for a five year program at least. Lets stand the thing on its head - and get ourselves into a nice quiet little war - commit 2 regular bns and simultaneously activate a trg pipeline to flesh out all the regulars on their expiry of their 6 months term in Afghan - of course the regulars could all be tasked for a year but without a reserve component - it won`t amount to much because the full time forces are being employed against a short term plan.
I honestly think this is "do-able".  With the last of the reservists coming home from Bosnia, everybody in the Mo will be chomping at the bit.

As well, a clear mission like the one you presented above would eliminate the "what the **** are we trying to do here?"  additude so present with mission creep.

I like the idea, speaks bounds politically and gives us something to focus on.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,010
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: New Lewis Mackenzie article
« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2004, 03:42:00 »
I though Lewis MacKenzie started out as infantry and not as a sapper?
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Offline bubba

  • Member
  • ****
  • 70
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 169
Re: New Lewis Mackenzie article
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2004, 08:17:00 »
didnt russia send in close to a million men into afghanistan a few years back,and got the **** kicked out of them.somebody want to tell me what 500 canadians are gona do if those tribes,warlords start uniting..if big lou wants to put the troops on the offence,i would rather see a full brigade at least, tanks, guns and all the toys.if the balloon goes up 500 men might become combat ineffective real quick.(hey sarge bye,you got the number for 911....)
attitude it ain't on the kit list,but ya better have one!!

Offline PikaChe

  • I'm not a communist. I just work for them
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 40,555
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,689
  • Pika la Revolución!
Re: New Lewis Mackenzie article
« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2004, 08:19:00 »
I believe Gen Mackenzie was QOR then PPCLI.

Offline Michael Dorosh

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -1,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,770
  • Verloren ist nur, wer sich selbst aufgibt!
    • CANUCK
Re: New Lewis Mackenzie article
« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2004, 09:26:00 »
Soldiers have never fared well in Canadian politics unfortunately.  Andy McNaughton was at least as popular as Mackenzie, at least among the troops he commanded, but he got nowhere in the federal elections (despite being Minister of Defence for a brief period).
"So, how's your sister?" -Brigadeführer Hermann Fegelein
 
http://www.canadiansoldiers.com
 http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com

Engineer Corporal

  • Guest
Re: New Lewis Mackenzie article
« Reply #16 on: February 23, 2004, 09:50:00 »
Reserves committ 54 platoons of infantry>? That‘s pretty impractical. Most of the reserve soldiers are in school either university or high school. Also reservist civilian jobs are not federally insured like the americans.But lewis mac kenzie is a good man and it is too bad that a soldiers soldier is looked down apon by our government.

logau

  • Guest
Re: New Lewis Mackenzie article
« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2004, 10:18:00 »
I don‘t think its impractical - every unit can raise 1 platoon and fit into a deployment. Its a goal that any unit should be able to work to.

As for the "tired old?" argument of reserves are all in school. It seems to me a collossal and possibly a system problem that reserve‘s can‘t spell off regulars on a deployment for at least 8-10 weeks in the summer.

The caterpiller will eat this leaf a bit at a time!

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 178,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,352
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: New Lewis Mackenzie article
« Reply #18 on: February 23, 2004, 10:49:00 »
Quote
didnt russia send in close to a million men into afghanistan a few years back,and got the **** kicked out of them.
The Russians never had more than 100,000  men in theater.

 
Quote
somebody want to tell me what 500 canadians are gona do if those tribes,warlords start uniting..
Why don‘t you go research the differences between the Soviet and Coalition campaigns in Afghanistan and come back and tell us the answer....

 
Quote
if big lou wants to put the troops on the offence,i would rather see a full brigade at least, tanks, guns and all the toys.if the balloon goes up 500 men might become combat ineffective real quick.(hey sarge bye,you got the number for 911....)
How would tanks help us in the Tora Bora mountains hunting terrorists in caves?
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline bossi

  • "vae soli, vae victus"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 2,530
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,764
  • The puck stops here ('War On Ice'!) Fight Smarter!
    • My pix (on MSN)
Re: New Lewis Mackenzie article
« Reply #19 on: February 23, 2004, 10:58:00 »
MGen MacKenzie‘s point re: shoot/don‘t shoot is bang on target
(i.e. our guys who got hit by the suicide bomber probably only had a split second, at best ... whereas the decision to use deadly force is made slightly more simple in the hills ...)

However, all the other points about Afghanistan are valid, too - similar to good old Yugoslavia, which ate up ... how many German Divisions ... (nine)?  And, let‘s not forget - satellite imagery and close air support can only achieve so much - the last chapter must be written by "point of bayonet".

Nope - we‘ve got to fight smarter.  The whole point of the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) is to help the reconstruction effort, while at the same time taking some of the pressure off of Kabul (presently over-populated by as many as two million ...).

The smart way to win this war is to cut the legs out from under the bad guys
(i.e. denying them any support from the locals, similar to Malaya).

And, although some squirm at the phrase, "winning hearts and minds" causes less collateral damage.

Killing is easy.  Both sides can do it.

Only one side can win hearts and minds.  Think about it.

"Bello et pax consensius"    :warstory:    ;)
Junior officers and NCOs who neglect to guide the thinking of their men are shirking a command responsibility.
-Feb 1955 Cbt Forces Journal
Those who appreciate true valour should in their daily intercourse set gentleness first and aim to win the love and esteem of others. If you affect valour and act with violence, the world will in the end detest you and look upon you as wild beasts. Of this you should take heed.
-Emperor Meiji: Rescript to Soldiers and Sailors, 4 January 1883

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 178,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,352
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: New Lewis Mackenzie article
« Reply #20 on: February 23, 2004, 11:13:00 »
Quote
The smart way to win this war is to cut the legs out from under the bad guys
(i.e. denying them any support from the locals, similar to Malaya).
Just curious sir, from your experience in the region, how would you say the best way of going about this would be.

I have a hard time drawing parallels to Malaya because it seems easier to sell democracy over communism rather than democracy over tribalism.  As well, what do you do when the biggest threat to stability is a feudal warlord embedded within the local populace rather than ethnic Chinese recieving help from outside.

Am I correct, or am I out to lunch?
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline PikaChe

  • I'm not a communist. I just work for them
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 40,555
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,689
  • Pika la Revolución!
Re: New Lewis Mackenzie article
« Reply #21 on: February 23, 2004, 11:41:00 »
Well, it‘ll be democracy vs. Islamic fundamentalism and religion has very strong hold on a population, especially in third world countries.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 178,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,352
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: New Lewis Mackenzie article
« Reply #22 on: February 23, 2004, 12:06:00 »
I‘m not sure about that.  There was alot of opposition to the Taliban.  Religion meant a rats *** to all the warlords when the ruling Islamic tribe happened to be Pushtuns from the south.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Engineer Corporal

  • Guest
Re: New Lewis Mackenzie article
« Reply #23 on: February 23, 2004, 13:36:00 »
Tired old arguement? Maybe so, because it‘s the truth. Ok most reserve units work say a thursday night and 1-2 weekends per month. The rest of the time those ppl are in school or at a civilian job or collecting EI. I only speak the truth, as far as the summer goes ppl are away on courses and taskings to train new ppl.In the reserves ppl come and go so often that the summers are really busy to fill the gaps. I think that a platoon from every reserve unit would need at least 6 months of work up training. Especially if it‘s gonna have to be fighting in a real war.

Offline gate_guard

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 800
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 256
  • I'm your huckleberry
Re: New Lewis Mackenzie article
« Reply #24 on: February 23, 2004, 14:10:00 »
Whether the reserves have a current deployable status or not shouldn‘t be the question. What are the reserves for if they can‘t deploy to a combat zone? If the militia is just a domestic help line for national/provincial emergencies, we may as well turn in all our weapons. This speaks to reservists as well who haven‘t considered the fact that some day they may have to deploy. For the scenario mentioned of deploying a reserve contingent, obviously a period of group training and qualification would be necessary but this by no means a foreign concept. As reservists, we already have a 5 month workup for Bosnia, so cut out the bs of that workup and add more grunt work.