The following editorial from the Ottawa Citizen of 10 September 2007, which is re-produced under the provisions of the Copyright Act, dicusses the theme of the article in general terms. It does not take sides other than to note that the comparision to the First World War is a bit much.
Warring expectations
The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Monday, September 10, 2007
Modern warfare has evolved, and so have the expectations of the people watching from home. We expect our side to win every battle, and to do it with few, if any, casualties.
And most of the time, that expectation is met, and we at home forget just how astonishing that is. How different from wars past when Canada put uniforms on civilians and sent them across the ocean to be killed. We sometimes forget that during the First World War our boys -- and they were boys -- were slaughtered en masse fighting for an inch or two of mud.
An article in the recent edition of Legion Magazine has sparked an animated discussion about a battle that happened in Afghanistan a year ago in the Taliban heartland.
It was the beginning of Operation Medusa. Coalition forces had the enemy surrounded. The Canadian general in charge could have waited a few days, ordering air strikes to "soften" the Taliban so that the final Canadian assault would be easier. Instead, he sensed an opportunity and chose to attack. Four Canadian soldiers died and 10 were wounded.
Soldiers and civilians have the prerogative to study and question battlefield decisions, to glean what lessons we can. But we must also maintain some perspective.
The writer of the Legion Magazine piece describes the battle as "an old-fashioned WWI-style assault into the guns, albeit on a smaller scale. It was the charge of Charles Company." The allusion to the disastrous Charge of the Light Brigade in the Crimean War seems hyperbolic, as does the comparison to the First World War. It's a bit like saying the difference between a summer thunderstorm and a hurricane is only one of scale. The Canadian losses in Afghanistan do not compare with the bloodbaths -- scores and scores of soldiers dead in a day -- at the Somme, Ypres, Passchendaele.
Soldiers have always had reason to grumble and be skeptical, even in those days. The men who fought at Ypres had to put up with the eccentricities of the defence minister, Sir Sam Hughes, who defended the problematic Ross Rifle and patented a shield-shovel that was useless at either function. The worth of Dieppe, in the Second World War, will probably always be debated. The recent controversy over a display at the Canadian War Museum, about the bombing of German cities in the Second World War, shows how long these debates can last. Even hindsight cannot always discern wisdom or error in war.
The general who made the critical decision in Afghanistan has argued that Operation Medusa was a blow to the Taliban, in which Canadians showed remarkable bravery. Obviously we all would have preferred that it be won without a single Canadian casualty. Pte. William Cushley, Warrant Officer Frank Mellish, Warrant Officer Richard Nolan and Sgt. Shane Stachnik are missed.
But it's also fair to question the expectation, unspoken though it usually is, that Canadian soldiers will only die if commanders make mistakes. War is dangerous, and always has been. We are lucky to live in an age that mourns every soldier as he or she deserves to be mourned, that counts every death and remembers every face.
