Soldiers going home after 'highlight' of careers

[old medic]

Soldiers going home after 'highlight' of careers
By Bill Graveland, THE CANADIAN PRESS
2nd October 2009

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2009/10/02/11251001.html

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan —

Working in a war zone is seldom considered a career highlight or opportunity — except perhaps for diplomats and humanitarian workers, and members of the Canadian Forces.

For many soldiers, wrapping up their tour in Afghanistan and going back to their regular jobs will be a welcome relief but also a bit of a letdown.

But if you are a career soldier, going to war is something that you want to do at least once.

“Definitely the highlight of my career — there’s no doubt about that, not at all,” Maj. Darryl Adams, a Chinook pilot originally from Antigonish, N.S., said with a laugh.

The risks are worth it even if it comes with a bit of danger.

“That was my first time being shot at and I wondered how I would react and I didn’t even think about it until it was all over. I’m not going out there looking for that much excitement,” said Adams, who said he will be looking for a job on the ground within the next year.

His co-pilot, Capt. Nick Noel de Tilley, 35, from Gentilly, Que., joined the forces 10 years ago after working as a civilian pilot. He will be leaving the military and Canada once his stint is up in November. Noel de Tilley, his German wife Bettina and three children will be living in Germany.

“It’s going to be hard to be away and not care what’s happening here so I’m going to make sure I keep listening to the news and make sure nothing’s happening to the great guys I’ve met here,” he said.

But he feels good about ending his military flying career in Afghanistan.

“It’s pretty much at the top of what we can do in tactical helicopter flying. Flying in Afghanistan is exactly what we’ve been trained for in the past five or six years so we got to see the real deal,” Noel de Tilly said.

“After that, everything should be relatively simple after being here. It’s the most challenging flying conditions I have ever seen.”

But others stay in the military.

It’s certainly not because of the glamour or the pay —often they could work in the private sector and make a lot more money. But many veterans have had the opportunity to be in numerous locales over the years.

Col. Danielle Savard, the commander of the Role 3 Hospital at Kandahar Airfield, has also been in Bosnia and Eritrea during her 24-year career.

“It’s nice to go back home,” said Savard. “Myself I stayed in the forces.”

“Every time I was wondering whether I wanted to stay or go they gave me a mission so I stayed. And if the missions don’t come, then maybe it will be time to do something else.”

As of February, Master Cpl. Dale Warren will have been in the military for 30 years. After a tour in the Persian Gulf in 1990 as part of Operation Desert Storm, and a peacekeeping mission in Bosnia in 2004, he intends to continue with his military career.

“As long as I’m healthy and still enjoying it, I will stick with it,” said Warren, a flight engineer who has worked on 13 different aircraft over the years, including F-18s, Auroras and the Labrador.

“It’s definitely not the money that keeps me here because we’re not really that well paid. I think I just take pride in my work and for 30 years I haven’t crashed yet and that’s a good sign.”

 

[Infanteer]

A big post 2011 adjustment for our military....

 

[X-mo-1979]

About 9 years ago I explained being a soldier to my buddy (a chef) as learning all about recipes,stoves and cooking and never getting cook.After Afghanistan I can sincerely say that was the highlight of my career.When we were bugged eyed troopers we always talk about what it would be like to do x.How we would react etc.
After last tour no questions went unanswered.

It really sucked coming back to morning PT,drill (I never did like it)and normal garrison B/S.Everything that was causing such a stink in garrison life seemed so trivial and stupid.

haircuts...blackened boots...

I would prefer to be in Afghanistan than Canada for a pleasurable working environment.I found Afghanistan a B/S free zone.

I finally got to do my job.And that was a rewarding thing.Many other trades (supply,cook)do their jobs no matter where they are deployed.Myself on the other hand have done a whole lot of training with nothing to validate my wasted youth.
Afghanistan was awesome.

 

[Jammer]

Now it's up to us to take the highlights and pass them on the the new gen coming in.
When the morning comes when I think I have nothing else to give, that's when the boots get hung up.

 

[Edward Campbell]

A big post 2011 adjustment for our military....

But, I fear, a brief one.

The nice, safe, Cold War and immediate post Cold War world is gone. Welcome to Chaos amongst the "bottom billion" and/or the countries of the gap.

There will be "work" aplenty for soldiers and new, bitter lesson to be learned.

 

[Infanteer]

But, I fear, a brief one.

The nice, safe, Cold War and immediate post Cold War world is gone. Welcome to Chaos amongst the "bottom billion" and/or the countries of the gap.

There will be "work" aplenty for soldiers and new, bitter lesson to be learned.

The Canadian public gets weak-knee'd about Afghanistan and wants out in 2011 -how do you think the public will feel about shoot-outs and flag-draped coffins coming from some other crappy corner of the globe so soon after Canadian apathy wins its peace dividend?

Infanteer's SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess) - get ready for a few slow, lean years.  It's the Navy's turn for money anyways....

 

[George Wallace]

...........................after Canadian apathy wins it peace dividend?

I really hate those words.  The Canadian Public have been drawing its "Peace Dividends" since 1954 and the cessation of hostilities in Korea.  We have seen the demise of 4 Fighter Wings in France and Germany, the loss of an Aircraft Carrier, the loss of a CMBG, the closure of hundreds of CF installations and Bases, and the list goes on.  They are now squeezing blood from a rock, and they will never be satisfied that they are getting anything in the way of a "Peace Dividend".  What a fickle bunch of naive twits.  A Monty Python commentary on our Canadian society.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Canadian public gets weak-knee'd about Afghanistan and wants out in 2011 -how do you think the public will feel about shoot-outs and flag-draped coffins coming from some other crappy corner of the globe so soon after Canadian apathy wins its peace dividend?

Infanteer's SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess) - get ready for a few slow, lean years.  It's the Navy's turn for money anyways....

The public attention span, especially on foreign/defence issues, is notoriously short. They will "forget" Kandahar, maybe even all of Afghanistan, early in 2012. As soon as the "death watch" (the ONLY reasons Canadian journalists are in Afghanistan (because only death sells soap)) ends the "story" ends too, and Canadians ignore that which is not rammed down their throats. Then there is a "new" story, with "new" (albeit contrived) outrage and a "new" demand to "do something".

But I do agree with you that we you are in for some lean years, until sometime after you deploy to some hell-hole with too little, poorly suited kit.

 

[DirtyDog]

In contrast to the officer's commentary in that article, the money is definitely an incentive to some of the lower level grunts with not a lot of education or marketable job skills.  Not to mention the job security, benefits, pension, etc...

A private makes nearly $50k these days.

 

[PuckChaser]

It's the Navy's turn for money anyways....

They're due, but we shouldn't be taking turns replacing 30 year old equipment.

 

[X-mo-1979]

I agree with Infanteer.
I think the next time Canada commits to any mission it will be long after the fighting,in a very safe spot.Or on our own soil.
No government is going to make the mistake of having troops in a unpopular war.We will however jump all over feeding tsunami victims and standing guard in a warzone that's been dead for 20 years.

Next I agree will be the navy fighting pirates.And of course adding in a humanitarian mission of dropping off food to someone along the way to give it a feel good feeling overall.

 

[Haggis]

No government is going to make the mistake of having troops in a unpopular war. 

Every war, no matter how righteous, will be unpopular with somebody.  In Canada that usually means Her Majestey's Loyal Opposition and the media outlets allied with that particular party will, inevitably, turn even the most "proper" war into something highly unpopular simply for political hay.

 

[Nauticus]

I don't want to turn this into a political debate, but at least the Conservatives put enough money into our Forces so that we are at least somewhat effective.

The regular civilian forgets that it was the Liberal government who, after years of cutting military budgets, send the CF to Afghanistan in the first place.

 

[Roy Harding]

I don't want to turn this into a political debate, but at least the Conservatives put enough money into our Forces so that we are at least somewhat effective.

The regular civilian forgets that it was the Liberal government who, after years of cutting military budgets, send the CF to Afghanistan in the first place.

While I am certainly not an apologist for (of even a sympathizer of) the Liberals, let's not forget that there were Conservative governments (of the "Progressive" brand) who were also involved in the fiscal starvation of the Forces.

The longer I live, the less I believe that a particular "brand" makes a politician any more likely to support anything - including the military.  What it takes is for the vocal minority, who are capable of making their voices heard, to support a particular cause or institution.

Perhaps the former Premier of Alberta, Ralph Klein, expressed it best when he said, "I’ve always been of the philosophy that you find out which way the parade is going and you get in front of it".

Note that he didn't say anything about agreeing with the philosophy of "the parade", simply finding out which way it is going.

The difference between Liberals and Conservatives in this country has escaped me for the past few years, despite having been a "true blue" Tory for most of my life.  I simply don't believe anything any of them say.

All that to say - the Conservatives put money into the Forces when it was politically expedient.  The Liberals put money into the Forces when it was politically expedient.  And BOTH of them took money away from the Forces when they thought they could get away with it.

 

[X-mo-1979]

Every war, no matter how righteous, will be unpopular with somebody.  In Canada that usually means Her Majestey's Loyal Opposition and the media outlets allied with that particular party will, inevitably, turn even the most "proper" war into something highly unpopular simply for political hay.

Yeah but no one is gonna be bitching on T.V every night because the Canadian forces are not under contact and getting killed.No one is going to make a canadian handing a teddy bear to a bosniak kid a outrage/protest.We will be neutered to aiding people from now on I believe.

 

[Rifleman62]

Roy Harding. Please refresh my memory as to when the Liberals put money into the Forces (politically expedient or not).

Thanks.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Roy Harding. Please refresh my memory as to when the Liberals put money into the Forces (politically expedient or not).

Thanks.

Both Trudeau and Chrétien bumped up military spending (in the late '70s and late '90s and early '00s, if I recall - and I'm too lazy to go look) in both cases under intense international pressure. Both had tested the levels to which defence spending could be allowed to sink before there were real reactions from key trading partners and, indeed, from Canadians, themselves.

My recollection is that Trudeau's bump was about 99.9% in response to foreign pressure, but Canadians, themselves, were putting pressure on Chrétien as our missions in the Balkans and, later, in Afghanistan, and the concomitant budget problems became better known.

A tip of the hat is due to a tiny handful of retired soldiers and an even tinier handful of commentators who pressed the issue in both eras.

 

[jollyjacktar]

And Louis St Laruent, it was the PCs who killed the Arrow. 

 

[Rifleman62]

Thanks. A 99.9% increase after several massive cuts equals?? If you cut a budget e.g. 30 % year one, 15 % year two, and 5 % year three, then increase the remaining balance by 50%,  does not equal the original budget.
I though Roy was meaning increased spending over the norm. That's how I read it.

jollyjactar. What was a Bobcat, and where can you see one today?

 

[gcclarke]

Roy Harding. Please refresh my memory as to when the Liberals put money into the Forces (politically expedient or not).

Thanks.

Under Paul Martin, the 2005 Budget Plan (http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget05/bp/bpc6-eng.asp) included:

Defence and Security
Over $12 billion in new money for defence ($7 billion in budgetary funding) over five years—the largest increase in a five-year period in the last 20 years.
Delivers on the Government’s commitment to expand the Canadian Forces (the Forces) by 5,000 troops and the reserves by 3,000.
Important investments in the operational sustainability of the Forces.
More than $2.5 billion for new medium capacity helicopters, utility aircraft, military trucks and specialized facilities.
$3.8 billion for capital and other projects to support new roles for the military identified in the upcoming defence policy review.
$1.0 billion over five years in support of key national security initiatives.

Of course, at the time the Conservatives argued that the increases were not enough, and did bump it up further once they formed the government the next year, but the Liberals did indeed increase spending substantially at that time.

Now, there is the minor detail of the fact that they were the ones who slashed the budget in the first place, but that's another argument.