The major differences between Vietnam and Afghanistan are mainly in Command and control,the Commanders have a far greater situational araweness now than ever before,we are better trained and equipped than the forces of that time,and there is of course the fact that our mission is entirely different..In short not even close.
But in a general sense, we have boys deployed a long way from home for what will increasingly seem like dubious ends, especially if God forbid casualties should mount. The difference in weaponry and equipment are not insignificant, but at its most basic you still have soldiers moving by foot and helicopter in rugged terrain trying to find an elusive enemy.
I should think the largest difference is that while the communists in South Vietnam were numerous and well supplied by the North Vietnamese, with Soviet and Chinese assistance, the Taliban (I hope) have no major allies - and while Cambodia was a terrific sanctuary, I hope Pakistan is something less so...
As for the code of conduct this is not the first time that canadian troops have been dropped in hostile areas,back in 1992 we had no problem sticking to the Code as it was then with our troops being wounded and shot at on a daily basis.
You mention the murder in Somalia. My understanding of the event would lead me to believe that the conditions which fuelled the event aren‘t likely to repeated today - you both mention ROEs, for example, which I am sure won‘t be anything like "shoot between the skirt and the flipflops."
The fact that you are under fire or have taken casualties dosnot give you lisence to go on a rampage,obviously you have some delusions that at the first casualty the troops are going to snap and go on some sort of a killing spree or some such nonsense.This speaks volumes of your lack of experience and knowledge of military training.I would expect much more from someone who fancies him self an authourity on the Canadian Army.
I understand military training quite well TYVM. No one expected William Calley to go on a killing spree at My Lai 4, either. Their ROEs were clearly defined, they had a very good legal system, and a clear chain of command, and training for Vietnam-bound soldiers consisted of a minimum of several weeks basic training followed by advanced (trades) training and some form of "jungle school" - and yet not just one "bad apple" but his entire platoon proceded to kill the inhabitants of an entire village. It happened in WW II at Friesoythe as I pointed out, though the Canadian soldiers there didn‘t kill any civilians. Why should we believe that the current generation of Canadians would be any more exempt in any and all circumstances?
As for the swift justice every where soldiers deploy there is a chain of command which is responsible to ensure the code of Conduct is followed. The saga of the CAR should be illustration of this alone,or the incidents involving the soldiers in Bakovici, Bosnia-Herzegovina.
We were discussing instances where Canadian soil was under invasion; I am not saying I would expect soldiers to forget their training, oath, and adherence to the codes, but I also wouldn‘t bet that 100 percent of them, especially in a long and ugly conflict, would do so, either. There‘s no reason to believe we‘re any better than anyone else. We have plenty of murderers (check out the pig farm in BC), rapists, villains and scum in Canada. Try as you might, you won‘t keep them all out of uniform, especially if someone else‘s tanks were rolling across the border.
In short I hope you are just playing Devil‘s Advocate here because if you are serious perhaps you are in the wrong line of work,the Code is not a guideline or a suggestion and will be followed regardless of the situation.I may not agree with all sections of it but will ensure that it is follwed by anyone under my command.
I don‘t doubt you would, in fact I would not only expect it but demand it, would have no qualms in reporting you to your superiors if you didn‘t, and would do my level best to follow it and preach to my colleages to do the same if I was in your section.
Nonetheless, there is absolutely nothing to suggest to me that such things are impossible; I would have a hard time believing the commander of the Americal Division honestly expected his troops to commit atrocities against civilians.
I think the main point you are making is that given our level of training and equipment (to which I would add the level of intensity of our current operations), conditions are not there to fuel such "events." I agree completely, and, I have no doubt our troops in Kabul will operate with the honour that is rightly theirs.
But given a hypothetical situation, such as a long term war in which lesser well trained troops were deployed out of necessity, this wouldn‘t always be so just because we have the rules in place. The rules were in place in Korea in 1950, when the large massacre of civilians took place by US troops. The difference was that they were garrison troops, terrified at that, in a country where people of an entirely diffferent race formed both the civil population as well as the enemy. Well trained troops wouldn‘t have committed those acts, but it is still cause for concern; the Airborne was well trained (but perhaps not well suited?) for their mission, just as the Americal Division (dubbed after My Lai "Americalley" or "Amerikill") were. The training for the current deployment is probably much better than what either of those two received, but shifting back to our hypothetical invasion of Canada - if we‘re assuming we could really defend the country with the handful of professionals we have now, then I agree any unfortunate incidents would not be likely. If you were to add hastily raised units and troops into the mix...
y‘know?
