Has anyone ever noticed?

[LawnDart]

Has anyone out there noticed something?

In England, the young men of the royal family are expected to spend time in the armed forces of the United Kingdom. Usually, they join the Navy, as in the UK, that's the senior service.

Prince Charles is the subject of much derision here in Canada, however, he served honourably in the Royal Navy and became an accomplished helicopter pilot.

Prince Andrew served in the RN, and actually flew a helicopter in the Falklands during the war there. I mean, hey, the guy's a veteran of a real war.

Prince Edward had a go at the hard core element of the Royal Navy, known as the Royal Marines. Unfortunately, he wasn't quite up to the job, and the RM now warrant the moniker, "Not so Royal Marines."

Let's compare that to the leading elements of the United States Government.

George Bush, who has been criticised mercilessly for his minimal flying hours in the early seventies, was still an Air Force Pilot, and regardless of what happened in the Arkansas Air Guard, flew more hours as a reservist than his Canadian Armed Forces counterparts would have during the same period.

Colin Powell was a platoon commander in Nam, led the US army to victory in Gulf War 1, and led the war in March 03.

Meanwhile, here in Canada, we soldiers have the following to look up to......

Brian Mulroney....never served a day in his life, and turned over the entire infrastructure of the military to Marcel Masse, a separatist'e who hated Canada.

Jean Chretien....the most CORRUPT individual we've ever had the misfortune of electing.....

Paul Martin..... the most indecisive and fumbling idiot we've ever had the misfortune of electing....

Steven Harper...likes the army, but still never served a day in his life, and is willing to sell us out in a second if it gets him 2 seats in Quebec.

Hey, don't sweat it guys. In the future, there's hope. I mean, hey.....

Ben Mulroney, that incredibly boring moron on CTV late at night who regurgitates the day's entertainment news because he can't score an orginial interview will soon be speaking at Conservative Party conventions telling us why we should vote for him.

And Justin Trudeau, the left wing re-incarnation of his father's anti-military, Nazi-helmet wearing, motorcycle riding self, will soon be telling the Liberal party faithful to vote for him as leader, emasculate the CF a little more, and who know's what else? Maybe advocate riding motorcycles and wearing NAZI helmets!

We are well and truly led by clowns who care not for the lives of 23 year old Flight personnel who they send up in ancient Sea Kings.

 

[Infanteer]

Being selective can hurt your arguement.   Since you're honing in on Britain and the United States, I'll keep it there as well (with one German).

Adolf Hitler was a Corporal who served with distinction in WWI - yet he would organize a party of criminals and misfits and convince the German people to follow him down a path of ideological hatred that would lead to the outright destruction of the German State and, in the process, carry out some of the most heinous and unspeakable mass-murders in recorded history.   Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a cripple who never served a day in his life and yet would sit through four terms, bring America out of isolation, and ultimately lead it in winning the greatest war in the history of civilization and coming out on top as the new global power - a global power that would alone rebuild both Europe and Asia, and in the process of doing so save it from the clutches of a Totalitarian monster.

In the antebellum United States, the war hero General Zachery Taylor was elected President with hopes of effectively dealing with the North-South social rift - which he failed at before dieing prematurely.   In postbellum Reconstruction, the victorious hero (and first full General) Ulysses S Grant was elected on the hopes that he would clean up the administration and help push through Southern re-intergration into the United States - he would serve through two terms which would be infamous for cronyism and rampant corruption.   Abraham Lincoln, a gangly and ridiculed stump-lawyer from Illinois (who only patrolled the backwoods for a bit in the Blackhawk War), would lead the United States through its Civil War, and would ride a divisive administration through an crisis unpopular with a good percentage of the public in order to ensure the survival of the Republic - he today is revered as the Great Emancipator.

Sure, the first US President was the Revolutionary War General George Washington, a Founding Father.   But the next three - John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison - were all diplomats, lawyers, and statesmen by trade (and also Founding Fathers and key players in the Revolution).   Their actions were probably more profound then Washington's in guiding the direction of the young Republic.

Sure, Britain's greatest statesman of the 20th Century, Winston Churchill, was a war vet - he would stand steadfast against the Fascist tide just as he did at Omdurman.   But who was it who would shore up the West against a resurgent Soviet Union, keen to take advantage of the weakness of the West following Vietnam and the soft-gloves of Jimmy Carter (an Annapolis Grad and a Naval Officer)?   A lawyer named Margaret Thatcher and some actor named Ronald Reagan.  

Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington, was Britain's greatest commander, the only one to consistenly defeat Napoleon's Grande Armee on the field of battle - yet his tenure as Prime Minister was a flop; he was howled at by a mob, considered stepping down, and was defeated by a vote of non-confidence in Parliament.   But of the four greatest statesmen of 19th century Britain - William Pitt the Younger, Benjamin Disraeli, Lord Palmerston, and William Gladstone - none were soldiers.   And yet these were the men who would guide and steer the Empire through Victorian Era, building and maintaining the Commonwealth and the world's first Global Power.

Although I understand the sentiments you have expressed Lawndart, and I see no glimmer of a true statesman in the fops (or their children) who flit around Parliament and the CBC news, I refuse to believe that their is some sort of correlation between serving in the military and stepping up to be a great statesman.

 

[DBA]

Seems an odd line of reasoning to equate the royals to leaders in the US. Parliament has power not the royal family.

It does raise a different thought however. Does having a significant number of veterans in government improve the effectiveness of the military? Does having too few reduce it or leave decisions with more political considerations than practical?

 

[Meridian]

Im confused as to why Colin Powell was equated to our former PM's... the positions are not analogous... the more appropriate comparison would have been to compare say Pettigrew with Condolezza Rice

 

[Danjanou]

Nice reply Infanteer.

Comparing US and Canadian politicial leaders former military service or lack thereof, like comparing many other things between Canada and the US, is an act of futility.

Odds are more of our cousins to the south with political aspirations will have prior military service simply because a larger percentage of their population has in the past served in some capacity. They've had peace time conscriptionin the past we haven't. Add to that their "right to bear arms" minute man ethos and public perception of their military (compared to our public apathy) ensures that odds are most of them will have had some military service in their youth even if it's ROTC and/or National Guard service to avoid the draft or whatever. Look at the big emphasis placed on Kerry's and to a lesser extent's Bush's miltary service during the last election.

Up here it's a non issue.

 

[dutchie]

Just another point, England and Canada have the same monarchs. You can't give credit to England for their accomplishments and not Canada.

If you want to make a more 'apples-apples' comparison, and you are looking at our civilan elected politicians, you need to look at England's same, ie - Blair, Thatcher, and the boring guy in between.

Cheers.

ps - I've also never subscribed to the theory that our civilain masters should have military experience. Do we require our soldiers to have political experience?

 

[BKells]

Your argument is fundamentally flawed. Examine the British parliament and you'll find the same lack of service as any other elected official in any other country.

 

[Rfn]

I can understand your post, Lawn-dart. But as has been pointed out so well in the above posts, prior military service by politicians are not any guarantee of good military leadership.

We have had veterans serve as cabinet level members of government with mixed results. There was Harkness that had the great misfortune to serve Prime Minister Diefenbaker....another great ditherer.

And then there was Paul Hellyer, an ex-recruit with a chip on his shoulder that became Defence Minister under Trudeau, introduced Unification and look how well that worked out.

 

[HItorMiss]

I would argue though that having at least some Representatives in Parliament with prior military service would be a goodthing for the military and government in general.

my line of thought would go that with service would come a better understanding of military needs and of course when and when not to deploy our forces in international affairs...it's a simplistic view I am taking but think about it, Minester Bloggins did 6 yrs in the forces as say a cbt arm officer does 2 tours then leaves the forces for the public sector, after X amount of years he then goes into politics and gets elected to a governing party, his prior military service is noted by the PM and he gets appointed as Deffence Minister now the forces have a true advocate and Minister that knows what it is like to be overseas etc etc....

Now place said example into say 5 serving members in the house in opposing parties and you get at the very least differing views and arguments but at least they are finally in support of the forces with a true understanding of their use and nature...instead of say "boy scouts with guns"

my 2 chicklets of course

 

[Bic519]

From Lawn Dart
"Meanwhile, here in Canada, we soldiers have the following to look up to......"

It's a democracy, if you want better politicians, become one.

 

[nULL]

Again, being selective, but military-turned-political leaders haven't historically enjoyed the most stellar track record. To add to Infanteer's mention of Hitler, one could also get Hussein, Pinochet, and Nasser to fall in on the line.

Good leadership is not a quality exclusive to the military.

   

 

[PeterLT]

ps - I've also never subscribed to the theory that our civilain masters should have military experience. Do we require our soldiers to have political experience?

While the rank and file may not need political experience, since the Trudeau years it's become a requirement of the CDS. I would dare say that for many years it was more of a requirement than being a military leader.

And as for our politicians, don't forget we elected them.

Peter

 

[Zipper]

Well to play devil's advocate. He did raise a good question, worded it badly with terrible examples, and was answered quite well by Infanteer who clarified it well.

While it doesn't take military service to make a great statesman. Does it take some ex-military personal in your government administration in positions of decision making to allow for good decisions on your military?

That would probably point to more logical suspects as he stated.

 

[pbi]

This reminds me of my time as a student at USMC C&SC Quantico. As part of the "foreign guy" contingent, I was taken to visit Congress. Our escort officer told us that it was a great concern to the US military that "only about 50%" of Congressmen had any military service. The Brit and I both started to laugh, and the Royal Marine said "Try having nobody with military background". So, you can see that it is much the same in Britain, yet it seems to me that they are more effective in the defence and foreign policy areas than we are.

Still, it wouldn't hurt to have a few folks in power who know what soldiering/sailoring/aircrewering is about.

Cheers.

 

[FSTO]

This reminds me of my time as a student at USMC C&SC Quantico. As part of the "foreign guy" contingent, I was taken to visit Congress. Our escort officer told us that it was a great concern to the US military that "only about 50%" of Congressmen had any military service. The Brit and I both started to laugh, and the Royal Marine said "Try having nobody with military background". So, you can see that it is much the same in Britain, yet it seems to me that they are more effective in the defence and foreign policy areas than we are.

Still, it wouldn't hurt to have a few folks in power who know what soldiering/sailoring/aircrewering is about.

Cheers.

A couple of reasons (not substantiated, just my opinions) why the Kippers are better at defense policy than us.

Experience of Empire - 500 years of world operations will give EVERBODY in your nation an idea of the use of the military

While our Admirals and Generals will voice their opinion to the government in private, the US and a lesser extent UK military leadership will and are able to voice their opinion in public without threat of dismissal

 

[dutchie]

While the rank and file may not need political experience, since the Trudeau years it's become a requirement of the CDS. I would dare say that for many years it was more of a requirement than being a military leader.

I agree 100%. However, the CDS is hardly a good example of an average soldier. Obviously, for Officers the higher the rank, the more political it becomes. Being a Res Cpl, I am not the best person to comment on when an officers job is more political than military, perhaps pbi, PPCLI Guy, etc could comment.

 

[Gunner]

While the rank and file may not need political experience, since the Trudeau years it's become a requirement of the CDS. I would dare say that for many years it was more of a requirement than being a military leader.

While it is a nice dream to think that a hard charging officer will be come CDS and line the troops up and tell everyone to "follow me" and leap out of the trench for the enemy, it probably isn't going to happen.  The current CDS is a soldiers' soldier and probably one of the best we have had in years.  But you know what?  For him to be successful he will have to be politically successful with whichever party is in power and reinvigorate the CF.  While we are very luck to have Gen Hillier as CDS, I thought Gen Henault did an outstanding job as well.  As the censor will delete most of my comments about Baril, I shan't waste time writing them.

While our Admirals and Generals will voice their opinion to the government in private, the US and a lesser extent UK military leadership will and are able to voice their opinion in public without threat of dismissal

Different systems.  All CF members swear loyalty to Her Majesty and those placed above us.  The US officer swears loyalty to the US Constitution. 

 

[FSTO]

While it is a nice dream to think that a hard charging officer will be come CDS and line the troops up and tell everyone to "follow me" and leap out of the trench for the enemy, it probably isn't going to happen.  The current CDS is a soldiers' soldier and probably one of the best we have had in years.  But you know what?  For him to be successful he will have to be politically successful with whichever party is in power and reinvigorate the CF.  While we are very luck to have Gen Hillier as CDS, I thought Gen Henault did an outstanding job as well.  As the censor will delete most of my comments about Baril, I shan't waste time writing them.

Different systems.  All CF members swear loyalty to Her Majesty and those placed above us.  The US officer swears loyalty to the US Constitution. 

Re-read my post, the senior Uk military is allowed on occasion to publicly voice opinion regarding defense policy.
Our system is unique where almost all criticism of the centre is ruthlessly discouraged.

 

[Gunner]

Re-read my post, the senior Uk military is allowed on occasion to publicly voice opinion regarding defense policy.
Our system is unique where almost all criticism of the centre is ruthlessly discouraged.

What do you call public hearings by SCONSAD and SCONDVA?

 

[HItorMiss]

Honestly I would call them an politicaly easy to ignore farce, but that's my oppinion.