An Army IS a war machine

[Hotspur]

Back to the original post, about the mother speaking out.

I agree Canada's army is and always should prepare for war, if we prepare for that purpose then we will of course be ready for the wide variety of other challenges that get thrown to the CF.  I also understand the frustration about overcoming the peacekeeper image with the general public.

What I don't really understand is people saying her comments were 'uncalled for' or 'not appropriate'.  I am new to the forces I'll admit, and perhaps not jaded by years of problems as a result, but when I joined it was because I wanted to defend Canadians and our values.  That woman has every right to her opinion, and a terrible confluence of events led to her opinion being on camera.  If she wants to lash out at the CF because they took her son from her, it may not be fair, but I for one would not criticise, I disagree but that woman is hurting more than I ever have and I'll just keep my lips shut on the matter.

One of the first things discussed in our BMQ was that in the case of death in the CF, we are bound to do as the family wishes, and respect them by giving them their distance if that is what they want.  I would also say that translates to personally honouring her sons sacrifice, and letting the frustrating comments that come from the bereaved roll off our collective shoulders. 

 

[geo]

It was uncalled for, especially since the Harper Government has already given it's notice to the Canadian public that the mission to Afghanistan (that the LIBERALS committed us to in the first place) will be coming to an end in it's present form of our combat troops fighting in Afghanistan. 

Umm.... WTF - yes, the Liberals, with the support of the Conservatives, committed Canada to Afghanistan...
If the Conservatives had had their druthers, Canada would've been in Iraq alone OR Iraq AND Afghanistan.

 

[pbi]

Well posted by Greymatters and PanaEng. IMHO twowoozy was very badly treated here, but responded in an adult and reasoned manner.  I for one hope he re-engages. The last time I looked, Army.ca was not a madrassa : it's a place where people can express their thoughts as long as they play by the rules. If we want to preach to the choir, and never test our ideas and beliefs against people who think differently, then we can just hang out in the Mess and talk sh*t.

We are the professional volunteer soldiers of a democracy. Period. We will be the kind of army, and do the kind of missions, that the govt wants. Period. If defence and the military are politically important, we will get the resources. If they're not, we won't. We can argue till the cows come home about how representative that govt actually is (especially given how many lazy people in this country would rather sit front of the TV and bitch about the govt than vote...) but let's accept that as far as we're concerned it represents "the country". That's how I prefer to see it: I sure as hell don't envision myself (or anybody else...) dying for the Liberals, the Tories or the NDP as political parties. That way lies Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. We serve at the pleasure of the elected representatives and the people who voted for them.

What that means to me is that as professionals we have to give those elected representatives the best possible advice we can give. If they take it, good. If they don't, we can serve and make the best of it, or get out. At the same time, I believe that we have a duty to ensure that our public understands as much about us as possible, so that the public opinion that (at least theoretically, anyway) informs the political sysretm through elections, polls and pressure can be well informed. The fact that many Canadians have silly or juvenile ideas about foreign affairs or security or the military doesn't mean we give up on trying to educate them. And it certainly doesn't mean that we crawl back into our little cocoon and cut ourselves off from society like we did for too many decades before Gen Jeffries and his Operation Connection (remember that; "Connect with Canadians'?).

Twowoozy was really only pointing this out. His thoughts on what an Army might be under different circumstances are valid: we've lived it, as have both the US Army and the Brits. If you want an example of an Army that was only ever built to be a "war machine" and nothing else, just look at the terrible performance of the Soviet Army in Afghanistan. It went to that war designed to do one thing and one thing only: fight a high intesity mechanized war in Europe, against NATO. It had no COIN doctrine, no useful concept of CIMIC, no tradition of low level initiative and leadership, very little flexibility and (worst of all...) little or no respect for the law of armed conflict. It was a sick, dysfunctional force raised by a sick, dysfunctional society. Its performance was brutal, frequently stupid, and grossly counterproductive. An Army can't just be a "war machine", any more than the main value of a police dept is its ability to put down a rioting mob.

I believe in training for war: it's a no-brainer. But I don't believe we can be a "war machine" and nothing else.

Cheers

DJB

 

[ltmaverick25]

I think its also important to remember one very important fact. 

Training for war, equiping for war, and becoming a war machine is what allowed Canada to become the great peacekeeping force in the first place.  By the late 1950's Canada had for the first time established a decently funded, decent sized and decent equiped professional peace time military.  Prior to this time, the only time Canada had any military to speak of was during the two world wars.

Training and equiping for war is what allows soldiers the ability to conduct anciliary duties effectively, peacekeeping being one of them.

Many of Canada's historians, Jack Granatstein in particular will tell you that Canada has fallen by the waste side as an effective peacekeeping force over the last 20 years specifically because of this "myth" that Canadians are passifist peacekeepers. 

Canadians cannot have it both ways.  If you want a good peacekeeping force you must first have an outstanding warfighting force.  You cannot have one without the other.

With that said, I will afford myself the luxury of a rant...

Something else the public would do well to understand...
Nobody joined the Canadian Forces so that they could be deployed overseas into a war zone only to sit around and watch innocent people die and do nothing about it.  I for one joined so I could fight for people who could not fight for themselves.

If the Canadian public wants to send Canadian Forces members overseas, thus seperating them from their families for long periods of time, and subjecting them to risk of life and limb then there had better be a good reason for it.  Political tokenism and "feel good" gestures does not cut it.  In my opinion no member of the CF should ever be ordered into a war zone if their mandate is to sit there and watch.  An extremely weak mandate and lack of understanding from the public destroyed Romeo Dallaire and countless other soldiers who had to watch, lets not make the same mistakes again.

LEST WE FORGET.

 

[pbi]

ltmaverick: well said, and I couldn't agree more, especially your last point about pointless PK missions with weak or stupid mandates. I've lived that (as have many on this board...) and I never want to see it again.

Maybe the disagreement here about the term "war machine" is really just one of semantics. It depends (IMHO) on what we mean by "war machine".

If we mean a military force whose sole purpose is to carry out kinetic, combat-only operations consisting of killing people and blowing things up, without the mental, cultural or organizational flexibility to do anything else (no matter what the situation really requires) then I don't think our Army has ever been that, nor do I see much purpose in being that.

If, on the other hand, we mean an Army that has the training, equipment, organization, culture and doctrine to be able to fight hard when needed, but which retains the flexibility and intelligence to vary its responses depending on the situation, then I'm OK with. I believe our Army (as long as I've been in it) has at least tried to be that, if not always successfully. And, I would say, that was an inheritance from the British Army which has probably been the finest historical example of this.

Depends what we mean.

Cheers

DJB

 

[geo]

The biggest problem the Canadian military has had to face over the last +/-35 yars (since I have been in) has been the political masters who have saddled us with unrealistic expectations, unclear missions - and poorly thought out terms of engagement.  it is only since our recent involvement in Afghanistan that "robust" terms of engagement have been handed out - befitting the situation we have been asked to deal with.

It must be remembered that, for it to be possible to do Peacekeeping, both sides have to want it.  The moment one side isn't ready to play nice, the peacekeepers are being stuck between a rock & a hard place... and then we are talking about a Peacemaking mission - which is where we are right now.

 

[Greymatters]

The biggest problem the Canadian military has had to face over the last +/-35 yars (since I have been in) has been the political masters who have saddled us with unrealistic expectations, unclear missions - and poorly thought out terms of engagement.  it is only since our recent involvement in Afghanistan that "robust" terms of engagement have been handed out - befitting the situation we have been asked to deal with.

Since Afghanistan? Not since Bosnia circa 1994? People seem to have already forgotten what Mackenzie did for us then....

 

[geo]

Not arguing with what the General did while in Bosnia but ya gotta admit that he certainly stretched the parameters of our terms of engagement considerably AND, it would vary considerably from one Gen to the next.....

Our troops witnessed an awful lot of dreadful things in the FRY -  without doing all that much to oppose it

 

[ltmaverick25]

I could not agree more.  I am extremely critical of our major peacekeeping deployments of the 1990s.  I think were extremely innefective.  One could argue that Bosnia was a success because nobody is fighting anymore but they had already killed 500,000 of themselves before that happened.  Hardly a success, and it was only when NATO started flexing its muscle that things came to an end.

Peacekeeping was a brilliant political ideal in the 1950s in cases like the Suez Canal crisis.  But we were dealing with Nation States not fractured factions within one state.  When each State agrees to end hostilities and "allow" peacekeepers to stand between them you have something viable there.  But its mostly just a face saving initiative and a token gesture, though in this case one that has some meaning.

When you look at Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia and places like that, it simply is not possible for a traditional peacekeeping mission to take place.  The fact that there is no peace to keep makes it pretty obvious, but beyond that you are no longer dealing with Nation States that can enfore terms on their respective armies.  You are dealing with independent groups who do not have to recognize any form of cease fire if they do not want to, unless of course you make them...

Ultimately peacekeeping was Canada's way of fighting the cold war by other means and it worked well for us.  Once the cold war was over though, that entire concept become somewhat obsolete.  In this new world order you need to be able to roll your sleaves up and get dirty.

 

[George Wallace]

Just thinking.  Has any of the many Peacekeeping missions embarked upon by the UN actually brought peace to the extent that would allow for the total removal of all UN Observers?

Korea is still divided by armed troops.  Cyprus still has UN Troops.  The Middle East has numerous UN postings in nations surrounding Israel.  Bosnia and Kosovo still have UN troops in country.  What about Haiti?  India and Pakistan.  Peacekeeping really hasn't worked.

 

[MarkOttawa]

ltmaverick25: Even the Suez force, UNEF, ended up a complete failure.  It was withdrawn upon Egyptian president Nasser's demand in 1967 and the Six Day War followed shortly thereafter.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[ltmaverick25]

That is a very good point.  Im going to have to use that the next time im arguing the ineffectiveness of peacekeeping with someone

 

[MarkOttawa]

From the UN itself:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unef1backgr1.html

...UNEF, stationed entirely on Egyptian territory with the consent of the Government, patrolled the Egypt-Israel armistice demarcation line and the international frontier to the south of the Gaza Strip and brought relative quiet to a long-troubled area. The Canal, blocked as a result of the conflict, was cleared by the United Nations. UNEF I was withdrawn in May-June 1967 at the request of the Egyptian Government, which informed the Secretary-General that it would no longer consent to the stationing of the Force on Egyptian territory and in Gaza.

More from Veterans Affairs Canada:
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group05/unef

In October 1956, Israel, Britain and France moved military forces into the Suez Canal zone to secure the canal. Through the efforts of Canada's External Affairs Minister, Lester B. Pearson, the UN General Assembly agreed to its first peacekeeping force to secure peace in the region (previous operations had been only observer forces). Under the command of a Canadian, MGen Eedson Louis Millard BURNS, (OC) DSO OBE MC, the UNEF, on 07 November 1956, was given a mandate to secure the removal of Israeli, British and French troops from the canal zone and the Gaza Strip and to maintain peace in the area. The first Canadian troops arrived in Egypt on 24 November 1956, and Egypt abruptly asked them to leave in May 1967, leading to the six-day war between Israel and Egypt. Thirty-two Canadians lost their lives serving with this force [emphasis added].

Lots of detail here, note Candian view:
http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2005/issue2/jv9no2a5.html

...
It was not until 12 noon, on May 18, 1967, that the permanent representative of the UAR formally conveyed a note to U Thant indicating the desire of his government to have UNEF removed from UAR territory.[21]  U Thant expressed his misgivings regarding the UAR request, yet gave no indication that the decision would be opposed. Somewhat surprisingly, however, Stavropoulos changed his tune from the previous day and warned the secretary-general against the unilateral withdrawal of UNEF:

    "I therefore have serious doubts whether the secretary-general should take the radical action of withdrawing UNEF without first affording the General Assembly (or possibly the Security Council, in view of the prevailing situation in the Middle East) the opportunity of considering the matter."[22]

Instead of withdrawing, Stavropoulos suggested that it might be more prudent to order UNEF forces into base camps for a period of ten days, providing time for the General Assembly or Security Council to deal with the issue.[23] Stavropoulos's advice, however, was not readily accepted.

Having already met with the troop-contributing nations the previous day in an unofficial capacity, the secretary-general called a meeting of the UNEF Advisory Committee on May 18, 1967 to apprise them formally of the situation in the Middle East.[24] The fact that the committee had not met since December 1959 was a testament, according to U Thant, of UNEF's efficacy in maintaining peace in the Middle East.[25] The events of the preceding forty-eight hours hinted more at naïve complacency. 

The secretary-general left no room for debate at the Advisory Committee meeting stating unequivocally in his opening remarks that UNEF would be withdrawn from the Middle East. Without the consent of the UAR government, U Thant believed UNEF lacked legitimacy, and it was undesirable for the force to maintain its presence in a situation that could become hostile. Not all of the representatives, however, agreed with the secretary-general's assessment. Canadian Ambassador George Ignatieff was the most vocal in his opposition to the unilateral withdrawal of UNEF. While not directly contesting the UAR's sovereign right to request UNEF's withdrawal, Ignatieff contended that the secretary-general should be negotiating the question with the UAR while also consulting the General Assembly. Canada's view was supported by Brazil and Denmark [emphasis added]; India, Pakistan, and Yugoslavia were opposed to further consultations on the issue by the General Assembly or Security Council. Had the Advisory Committee been unanimous against the withdrawal of UNEF, it could have compelled the secretary-general to bring the issue before the General Assembly. However, with opinion in the Advisory Committee divided, there was no impetus for U Thant to act, nor second-guess his own decision to withdraw UNEF. 

Immediately after meeting with the Advisory Committee, U Thant informed al-Kony of his intention to "issue instructions for the necessary arrangements to be put in train without delay for the orderly withdrawal of the Force." U Thant did, however, ask al-Kony to convey to his government the secretary-general's concern that UNEF's departure "may have grave implications for peace."[26] Yet despite having "serious misgivings" about UNEF's removal, the secretary-general cabled General Rikhye that UNEF should cease its activities and commence its withdrawal on May 19, 1967.[27] As of 5 p.m. local time, all UN troops were withdrawn from their observation posts and according to General Rikhye, "That night the peace of the previous ten and a half years was shattered by exchanges of fire between Egyptian and Israeli troops."[28]

...Britain and Canada, while privately disagreeing with U Thant's decision to remove UNEF, realized that it would be counterproductive to criticize publicly the secretary-general [empasis added]...

On May 19, 1967, Canada and Denmark requested that the Security Council meet to discuss the alarming situation concerning UNEF's departure from the Middle East, though the appeal was denied by the Soviet Union and Bulgaria. The United States, while not vehemently opposed to a meeting of the Security Council, had not been overly anxious for one, as it would let Syria air the claim that the situation in the Middle East was the work of an Anglo-American plot.[34]  Canada had pushed ahead regardless, yet came up against a similar sentiment when Secretary of State for External Affairs Paul Martin met with al-Kony on May 20, 1967 [emphasis added]. Al-Kony, while stressing that the UAR's, "respect for Canada remains high and favorable," expressed the feeling that there was concern in Cairo, and "elsewhere in [the] Arab World," that there was "a sort of conspiracy" to challenge the UAR's sovereign right to ask for the withdrawal of UNEF.[35]

Canada, hitherto, had been extremely critical of the decision to disband the UN peacekeeping force. Martin's meeting with al-Kony, however, when combined with reports from Egypt, led officials in the Canadian Department of External Affairs to question whether it was wise to oppose UNEF's withdrawal while Canadian troops were still on the ground.[36] Canadian officials in Ottawa and New York began to temper their remarks accordingly, yet the damage had already been done [emphasis added]...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[geo]

heh... Ignatieff and Martin Srs... plus ça change.....

Had a chief clerk many years ago who was with the UN force in the Sinai when the Egyptians gave out the order to "get out".  Little or no time was provided for Canadian troops to remove the equipment we were using there.  Based on his stories, Canadians were being shot at by the Egyptians while they (canadians) went about their business of smashing all the airfield equipment - so as not to let ANYTHING fall into Egyptian hands.

Yeah - the withdrawal went real smooth

 

[Greymatters]

Not arguing with what the General did while in Bosnia but ya gotta admit that he certainly stretched the parameters of our terms of engagement considerably AND, it would vary considerably from one Gen to the next.....

Our troops witnessed an awful lot of dreadful things in the FRY -  without doing all that much to oppose it

I agree it wasnt a complete sucess but it was the first big step and got the ball rolling...

 

[ltmaverick25]

I agree it wasnt a complete sucess but it was the first big step and got the ball rolling...

For those of us unfamilier, what exactly was it that he did?

 

[pbi]

Has any of the many Peacekeeping missions embarked upon by the UN actually brought peace to the extent that would allow for the total removal of all UN Observers?

Cambodia? Mozambique? Nicaragua? I think there have been a few examples of such success. I think though, that while the UN force in each case probably deserves credit for "greasing the wheels" for a final political solution, the issues were usually decided by bigger forces in the background. In the case of Mozambique (which I'm familiar with) those forces seem to have been mutual exhaustion after over a decade of civil war, and the collapse of the patron regimes of the two belligerents (Soviet Union on one side, apartheid South Africa on the other). I'm not aware of any missions in which the UN can claim sole or even major credit, except possibly Cambodia.

Cheers

pbi


*edit* - fixed quote, G2G

 

[geo]

You have to remember that, for there to be Peacekeeping BOTH sides have to want peace.
If either side isn't "on-side" for peace, it isn't going to happen.  Even if both sides ARE willing, there is often a 3rd side that is prepared to throw in a monkey wrench into the broth & ruin everything... +/- Ex: Israrel, Fatah & Hamas....
Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots & Greece + Turkey...  and there, the jury isn't out - the green line is slowly coming down.

In a certain manner, I believe that the UN can provide a safe haven / establish a perimeter beyond which the warring parties cannot leave.... last one out - turn the lights out please :warstory:

 

[Greymatters]

For those of us unfamilier, what exactly was it that he did?

He was instrumental in getting the ROE changed so that Canadian troops could actually legally defend themselves during the deployment when they came under enemy fire...