Something from the CBC

[The_Falcon]

I found this while looking for info on past CF recruiting campaigns.  I believe it is a highschool-universty extra hand out to discuss/disect a video about 3VP in the Stan in 02  http://www.cbc.ca/newsinreview/march02/PDFs/forces.pdf

I read through it and while not totally suprised with the way some things were worded, it is disheartening.  This was Canada's first official "combat" mission in 50 years yet this thing is written to avoid mentioning that fact as much as possible.  Here are some highlights:

In Kandahar, for example, troops have to deal with poisonous snakes and spiders, a landmine-studded landscape, and a lack of amenities such as running water and electricity

Gee I would think dealing with blood thirsty murderous terrorists would have been at the top of the list.

Our forces in Kandahar have also had to deal with a public debate about the appropriatenessof Canadian troops working in a
combat mission, especially under U.S.command. Some critics say that Canadas forces should be concentrating on a role as autonomous peacekeepers rather than as U.S.-led fighters.

  :'( Wow, this coming from our national news agency.  I guess Chretien was right about us being scouts

Other people assert that it is only by taking on tough combat roles that the Canadian Forces will build a strong team of peacekeepers.

  Wait a second, so now it is alright to take part in combat as long as it builds better "peacekeepers".  I thought we took on combat roles so we could become better warriors and fighters, my mistake.

From the first day of basic training, each member of Canadas troops develops a set of specialized military skills that help the forces as a whole meet the demands of a variety of missions. Soldiers work on general safety skills, physical conditioning, topography exercises, survival techniques, and marksmanship, as well as other proficiencies.

I wonder what they mean by that, because clearly during basic training we learn everything other soldiering judging from thier list.

The possibility of face-to-face combat might be the most dangerous aspect of this operation, but it is by no means the only one.

Really, who knew combat might be dangerous? :

it (the government) tries to keep attention away from the activities of the elite commando unit known as Joint Task Force Two (JTF2)....The JTF2, who have had some 40 to 50 members in Afghanistan since the fall of 2001, have been involved in other missions with only minimal details leaking out.

Right because we want the enemey to know exactly what we and our allies up to.

CANADAS FORCES GO TO AFGHANISTAN
Peacekeepers at War...In Afghanistan, offensive action could be needed to capture members of the Taliban or Al-Qaeda still in the area. The operation, CanadaÕs first full combat mission since the Korean War in the early 1950s, appears to be a shift in the function of the Canadian Forces as an international peacekeeper.

Wow, this is what people learn and schools and actually believe and then perpetuate.  Once I was old enough to, I clearly understood the job of the forces was to protect Canada and her interests and participate in warfighting if necessary.  The description of the role of the infantry left it very clear in my mind "to close with and destroy the enemy".  We really need to change peoples ideas.

Others suggest that providing assistance to the U.S. military effort, especially when a United Nations-mandated international security force is also operating in the country, reflects badly on Canadas reputation as a peacekeeping nation. But others say that a combat mission is actually essential to an effective performance of our peacekeeping duties.

again loss for words. 

Again not really suprised, but still a little disheartened.

 

[TCBF]

Remember that that drivel was produced by the highly trained propagandists at the Communist Broadcorping Castration.

Tom

 

[The_Falcon]

Remember that that drivel was produced by the highly trained propagandists at the Communist Broadcorping Castration.

I am very aware that is why I wasn't surprised about the way this was written, just disheartened that this is material they allow schools to use to supposedly "educate" the youth of the nation.

 

[brin11]

Quote
In Kandahar, for example, troops have to deal with poisonous snakes and spiders, a landmine-studded landscape, and a lack of amenities such as running water and electricity

Gee I would think dealing with blood thirsty murderous terrorists would have been at the top of the list.

They were at the top of the list.   If you read on the very next sentence states:

"On top of all this, their main
concern is the accomplishment of their
duties, including patrolling the perimeter of
the Kandahar base, clearing minefields,
searching for Al-Qaeda and Taliban members
still hiding in the area."

I'm not the biggest fan of some of the things CBC does,  but I wanted to point this out.

 

[The_Falcon]

It was the way they worded it.  They put those little minor things first seemingly emphasing them over the primary mission of 3VP.  If they had put it the other way around I wouldn't have taken issue with it.

 

[Thompson_JM]

next thing you know CBC will be writing about how were so proud that our little soldiers even ate all their veggies and cleaned up their rooms before bedtime....


My Apologies to the fine soldiers who served over there, but the way cbc worded this it sounds like they're not just putting minor mission roles first, but rather basic day to day activities that should be taken for granted....


it would be nice if someone could finnaly step up to the plate and accually publically say that, the army's primary job is to go out there and Kill the Enemy. and then go on to mention all the other good stuff we do.... My fear especially in this day and age where warfare is so much more complicated is that we loose sight of this fact and begin to loose the ability to fight.  Hopefully that is just a far fetched idea though....

 

[Glorified Ape]

While I understand that the basic raison d'etre for the Forces is national defense and such, peacekeeping IS what its been doing 99% of the time when overseas since Korea, no? Canada's foreign policy is pretty peace-heavy so efforts to portray our forces as peacekeepers isn't surprising. I suppose the government could try to portray our forces as lean, mean killers and all but that would kind of run counter to our foreign policy and the image the government's trying to create.

 

[pbi]

While I understand that the basic raison d'etre for the Forces is national defense and such, peacekeeping IS what its been doing 99% of the time when overseas since Korea, no? Canada's foreign policy is pretty peace-heavy so efforts to portray our forces as peacekeepers isn't surprising. I suppose the government could try to portray our forces as lean, mean killers and all but that would kind of run counter to our foreign policy and the image the government's trying to create.

Not really. We kept thousands of Army and Air Force personnel stationed in Germany and throughout NW Europe and Norway for decades following Korea. During those years, those forces always represented the majority of Army and Air Force personnel outside the country, as our UN deployments were generally quite small except for Cyprus. We also deployed, on a periodic basis, battalion groups (and on one memorable occasion, a Bde...) to Norway. These were classed as "exercises" but were very clearly done as intentional show of force operations against the USSR. Our participation in the first Gulf War, in the ongoing Gulf naval blockade, in Kosovo, and in Afghanistan were not "peacekeeping" operations, even though they were under UN authorization.

While I agree that the Govt (and to a certain extent some DND types) have been quite happy to propagate the "Happy Blue PeaceKeeper Guy"   as something easy to sell to an ignorant and skittish public, this is rather hypocritical since all of the examples I listed above were carried out as part of our foreign policy.

Cheers

 

[Glorified Ape]

Not really. We kept thousands of Army and Air Force personnel stationed in Germany and throughout NW Europe and Norway for decades following Korea. During those years, those forces always represented the majority of Army and Air Force personnel outside the country, as our UN deployments were generally quite small except for Cyprus. We also deployed, on a periodic basis, battalion groups (and on one memorable occasion, a Bde...) to Norway. These were classed as "exercises" but were very clearly done as intentional show of force operations against the USSR. Our participation in the first Gulf War, in the ongoing Gulf naval blockade, in Kosovo, and in Afghanistan were not "peacekeeping" operations, even though they were under UN authorization.

Good points - I completely left out the cold war deployments.

While I agree that the Govt (and to a certain extent some DND types) have been quite happy to propagate the "Happy Blue PeaceKeeper Guy"   as something easy to sell to an ignorant and skittish public, this is rather hypocritical since all of the examples I listed above were carried out as part of our foreign policy.

Cheers

True enough.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

"something easy to sell to an ignorant and skittish public"

The sheep will believe what ever you tell them if you repeat it enough times.

 

[paracowboy]

My fear especially in this day and age where warfare is so much more complicated is that we loose sight of this fact and begin to loose the ability to fight.   Hopefully that is just a far fetched idea though....

no, I'm afraid not. I have witnessed a disheartening change in how we conduct Work-Up training. I'm not going to go on a long rant about it, but the focus (once we got 'past' BN level training) has always been about traffic accidents, rather than threats from an Opposing Force of any kind.