After Afghanistan - What Will Canada Do With Its Army?

[vonGarvin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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. 

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. 

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]

...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.