tess' rememberance day challenge
- Thread starter the 48th regulator
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Here's a copy of the letter I wrote to Graham's office back in April...(sorry it's so long) I did get a response.
April 25, 2006
The Hon. Bill Graham,
Leader of the Opposition
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
Dear Sir:
It is with great dismay that I find myself writing this letter to you with respects to the recent Government’s decision to no longer lower the Canadian Flag as a sign of national mourning when a member of the Canadian Forces is killed while on duty. I am also dismayed that this Government has once again, banned the media as they have previously done with respect to Cabinet meetings. Now, the media can no longer attend or broadcast the ceremonies of grief and remembrance of our returning dead.
As a wife and mother of serving members, I know all too well the potential risks that my family (husband, daughter and son-in-law) take wearing the uniform of Canada and I am also well aware of the terms "acceptable losses" and "acceptable collateral damage". I dare say with our 21st century mechanisms of new gathering and coverage, that my fellow Canadians are also aware of these terms. For our present Government to attempt to shield us, the general public, from the awareness of our Forces body count is a little too late. The Government is making a choice to ignore the "noble sacrifice" that our mean and women have made in order for what? Is it so that the general Canadian public will not notice exactly what the acceptable losses are to this particular Government? I again, daresay to mention that if the current Government is following the standard doctrines of war, then the acceptable losses will be the number of ground forces necessary to complete the mission (excluding Air Force and Navy) before the force becomes ineffective. Is it perhaps that number that is what the current Government is afraid to lower the flag for?
I find the present Government’s attempt to "hide the bodies" into one act of grief and remembrance on November 11th in order to maintain and justify a false sense of public support for our participation in a hostile arena somewhat condescending and patronizing of their constituent’s intelligence and moral turpitude. I find the rationale of "We are returning to the way we used to do it for the last 80 years." simply not good enough as it is demonstrative of a Government falling to recognize the dynamic intellectual growth of our Nation. It also smacks of a Government that is afraid to admit that it does not have a well thought out process for dealing with change and in some cases, especially this case, be accused of resisting change.
While I can appreciate the dichotomy between policy objectives and casualties, it does not excuse the current Government from facing the dilemma of how to respond effectively to domestic concerns about losses in conflicts abroad, while still showing the tangible signs of commitment necessary to maintain a claim to coalition and world security. This is a contentious subject and will continue to give rise to debate and justification in the years to come. I do expect our Government to do more than fall back on a speech that includes, "That’s the way we’ve always done it". The apparent advent of an era of peace operations has posed vexing new problems for government leaders. Such missions do not allow for the use of overwhelming force to attain quick, decisive victories. For a people whose standard for judging the wisdom of military intervention is based upon the results of Urgent Fury, Just Cause, and Desert Storm, peacekeeping operations are viewed with considerable scepticism. To a significant degree, current debates in Ottawa over foreign involvement—in Afghanistan, for example--make central the question, "How many lives is it worth?"
This seems to be a continuation of a trend that reaches back to the start of the Cold War. This trend understandably influenced military strategists to respond accordingly that military commanders were constrained by political realities that precluded the possibilities of total war. The luxury of large, trained forces as seen in WWII were no longer available and doctrines were rewritten to minimise combat losses, or at least to ensure that those friendly casualties suffered could always be justified in terms of commensurately greater injury suffered by the enemy. And as political-military stalemate came to define both conflicts, such justification became more and more difficult. A heavy reliance on air power, precision firepower, and mobility, and increasingly stringent standards for acceptable friendly-to-enemy casualty ratios, came to distinguish the allied way of war and conflict.
In 1970, new army doctrine was developed that focused on "winning the battle of the next war". As Paul Herbert noted in his excellent study of the development of American military doctrine in the 1970s:
The rising costs associated with the volunteer Army [and] the drastically increased cost of fuel . . . combined to make the Army of the early 1970s cost conscious to a fault. . . . The Army's need to preserve its investment in new weapons in an era of strict fiscal controls thus prompted the search for an overarching concept, or doctrine, and insured that the doctrine would have a strong weapons emphasis. A doctrine that maximised the potential of every weapon on the battlefield also appeared to maximise the return on every dollar spent on those weapons.
In the mid-80s, doctrine was again adapted to include limiting a protracted war or battles of attrition. It was clearly a move to prevent involvement of a Vietnam experience and more towards the sledgehammer effect as seen in Grenada, Panama, and the Gulf.
What we see now is the current Government attempting to come to terms with either reinventing a new political doctrine for the use of its military or scrambling to assert a more seasoned one of a sledgehammer effect for fear of ending up in a protracted conflict as we saw in Cyprus and Bosnia. And all the while attempting to remain precariously balanced on their fragile minority with the Canadian voting constituency.
So the Government’s first act in this dichotomy is not establish a new army doctrine nor redefine what will be acceptable losses but to stop the lowering of the Flag on the Peace Tower when there is a casualty and to stop the media from covering the return of the remains. I say with tongue-in-cheek, that is brilliant political manoeuvring that sends out a clear message to both the voting constituency and our military that our current government is in a state of inertia by simply rationalising that it’s the way it was done before. The government fails to recognise that Canada is a dynamic society and as such, requires of its Government the ability to be visionaries and look to the ever-changing global network that we are part of and contribute to in every aspect. But because we are part of that network it does not mean we have to follow suit with other countries.
Are we to always follow what the United States does with its flag with respect to their military casualties? Do we not pride ourselves as being different and unique from Americans? I find references to the way Americans do or do not lower their flag as a reasonable explanation as to why we should not do it to be the weakest of all the current Government’s arguments. I would urge the current Government to rethink this argument as it wears a distinct aroma of Bush on it.
I think our current Government would find the public’s relationship with its military very different from that of the United States and even if not all the public will agree to the continued presence in Afghanistan, it will agree to continue to support our men and women of the Canadian Forces. And as such, will want to mourn the loss of each one. All the Government has to do for proof of this act is to observe any given day at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.
If the Government continues to assume that the public’s support is more important than supporting its military members then the words of the ancient Chinese strategist and commander Wu Zi who wrote the following will be of a greater concern for the commanders of our Forces:
In general, on the battlefield, if soldiers are committed to fight to the death they will live, whereas if they seek to stay alive, they will die. . . . Thus it can be said that the greatest harm that can befall the army's employment [stems from] hesitation, while the disasters that strike . . . are born in doubt.
I hope this correspondence will assist you in conveying to the current Government that their decision to not lower the Flag and censor the public’s view of returning casualties is erroneous and smacking of an inert Government mired in Americanism.
I remain yours truly,
April 25, 2006
The Hon. Bill Graham,
Leader of the Opposition
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
Dear Sir:
It is with great dismay that I find myself writing this letter to you with respects to the recent Government’s decision to no longer lower the Canadian Flag as a sign of national mourning when a member of the Canadian Forces is killed while on duty. I am also dismayed that this Government has once again, banned the media as they have previously done with respect to Cabinet meetings. Now, the media can no longer attend or broadcast the ceremonies of grief and remembrance of our returning dead.
As a wife and mother of serving members, I know all too well the potential risks that my family (husband, daughter and son-in-law) take wearing the uniform of Canada and I am also well aware of the terms "acceptable losses" and "acceptable collateral damage". I dare say with our 21st century mechanisms of new gathering and coverage, that my fellow Canadians are also aware of these terms. For our present Government to attempt to shield us, the general public, from the awareness of our Forces body count is a little too late. The Government is making a choice to ignore the "noble sacrifice" that our mean and women have made in order for what? Is it so that the general Canadian public will not notice exactly what the acceptable losses are to this particular Government? I again, daresay to mention that if the current Government is following the standard doctrines of war, then the acceptable losses will be the number of ground forces necessary to complete the mission (excluding Air Force and Navy) before the force becomes ineffective. Is it perhaps that number that is what the current Government is afraid to lower the flag for?
I find the present Government’s attempt to "hide the bodies" into one act of grief and remembrance on November 11th in order to maintain and justify a false sense of public support for our participation in a hostile arena somewhat condescending and patronizing of their constituent’s intelligence and moral turpitude. I find the rationale of "We are returning to the way we used to do it for the last 80 years." simply not good enough as it is demonstrative of a Government falling to recognize the dynamic intellectual growth of our Nation. It also smacks of a Government that is afraid to admit that it does not have a well thought out process for dealing with change and in some cases, especially this case, be accused of resisting change.
While I can appreciate the dichotomy between policy objectives and casualties, it does not excuse the current Government from facing the dilemma of how to respond effectively to domestic concerns about losses in conflicts abroad, while still showing the tangible signs of commitment necessary to maintain a claim to coalition and world security. This is a contentious subject and will continue to give rise to debate and justification in the years to come. I do expect our Government to do more than fall back on a speech that includes, "That’s the way we’ve always done it". The apparent advent of an era of peace operations has posed vexing new problems for government leaders. Such missions do not allow for the use of overwhelming force to attain quick, decisive victories. For a people whose standard for judging the wisdom of military intervention is based upon the results of Urgent Fury, Just Cause, and Desert Storm, peacekeeping operations are viewed with considerable scepticism. To a significant degree, current debates in Ottawa over foreign involvement—in Afghanistan, for example--make central the question, "How many lives is it worth?"
This seems to be a continuation of a trend that reaches back to the start of the Cold War. This trend understandably influenced military strategists to respond accordingly that military commanders were constrained by political realities that precluded the possibilities of total war. The luxury of large, trained forces as seen in WWII were no longer available and doctrines were rewritten to minimise combat losses, or at least to ensure that those friendly casualties suffered could always be justified in terms of commensurately greater injury suffered by the enemy. And as political-military stalemate came to define both conflicts, such justification became more and more difficult. A heavy reliance on air power, precision firepower, and mobility, and increasingly stringent standards for acceptable friendly-to-enemy casualty ratios, came to distinguish the allied way of war and conflict.
In 1970, new army doctrine was developed that focused on "winning the battle of the next war". As Paul Herbert noted in his excellent study of the development of American military doctrine in the 1970s:
The rising costs associated with the volunteer Army [and] the drastically increased cost of fuel . . . combined to make the Army of the early 1970s cost conscious to a fault. . . . The Army's need to preserve its investment in new weapons in an era of strict fiscal controls thus prompted the search for an overarching concept, or doctrine, and insured that the doctrine would have a strong weapons emphasis. A doctrine that maximised the potential of every weapon on the battlefield also appeared to maximise the return on every dollar spent on those weapons.
In the mid-80s, doctrine was again adapted to include limiting a protracted war or battles of attrition. It was clearly a move to prevent involvement of a Vietnam experience and more towards the sledgehammer effect as seen in Grenada, Panama, and the Gulf.
What we see now is the current Government attempting to come to terms with either reinventing a new political doctrine for the use of its military or scrambling to assert a more seasoned one of a sledgehammer effect for fear of ending up in a protracted conflict as we saw in Cyprus and Bosnia. And all the while attempting to remain precariously balanced on their fragile minority with the Canadian voting constituency.
So the Government’s first act in this dichotomy is not establish a new army doctrine nor redefine what will be acceptable losses but to stop the lowering of the Flag on the Peace Tower when there is a casualty and to stop the media from covering the return of the remains. I say with tongue-in-cheek, that is brilliant political manoeuvring that sends out a clear message to both the voting constituency and our military that our current government is in a state of inertia by simply rationalising that it’s the way it was done before. The government fails to recognise that Canada is a dynamic society and as such, requires of its Government the ability to be visionaries and look to the ever-changing global network that we are part of and contribute to in every aspect. But because we are part of that network it does not mean we have to follow suit with other countries.
Are we to always follow what the United States does with its flag with respect to their military casualties? Do we not pride ourselves as being different and unique from Americans? I find references to the way Americans do or do not lower their flag as a reasonable explanation as to why we should not do it to be the weakest of all the current Government’s arguments. I would urge the current Government to rethink this argument as it wears a distinct aroma of Bush on it.
I think our current Government would find the public’s relationship with its military very different from that of the United States and even if not all the public will agree to the continued presence in Afghanistan, it will agree to continue to support our men and women of the Canadian Forces. And as such, will want to mourn the loss of each one. All the Government has to do for proof of this act is to observe any given day at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.
If the Government continues to assume that the public’s support is more important than supporting its military members then the words of the ancient Chinese strategist and commander Wu Zi who wrote the following will be of a greater concern for the commanders of our Forces:
In general, on the battlefield, if soldiers are committed to fight to the death they will live, whereas if they seek to stay alive, they will die. . . . Thus it can be said that the greatest harm that can befall the army's employment [stems from] hesitation, while the disasters that strike . . . are born in doubt.
I hope this correspondence will assist you in conveying to the current Government that their decision to not lower the Flag and censor the public’s view of returning casualties is erroneous and smacking of an inert Government mired in Americanism.
I remain yours truly,
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 530
rmacqueen said:
Yes but it is still low. Remembrance Day is in honour of those fallen soldiers who have made the supreme sacrifice in defense of this Country's freedom and democracy. Sacrifices made on their behalf for all of Canada's citizens.
I see absolutely no connection whatsoever with honouring that great sacrifice, which is non-political by protesting a mission that they may or may not agree with politically. Then again, maybe it's just me.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
The only good thing I can think of in someone making that kind of a statement on the petition is this:
While they may personally be politically opposed to the ongoing operation in Afghanistan, at least they are in support of the Rememberance of the ultimate sacrifices made by this nations fighting men and women.
While they may personally be politically opposed to the ongoing operation in Afghanistan, at least they are in support of the Rememberance of the ultimate sacrifices made by this nations fighting men and women.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
A letter is a letter just make sure spelling and grammar are correct, and I'm sure they will take it seriously
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
James101 said:
You are never too young to take a political interest, in fact I think it is honourable for you to do that.
Go for it.
dileas
tess
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
James101 said:
Send the letter, Son.
Bless you for being interested and wanting to be involved. For what it's worth, remember that YOU represent MY future - and with young folks like you coming in behind me, I'm sanguine about my future.
Go for it.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act;
http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20081111/081111_rudyard_griffiths/20081111/?hub=CP24Home
Holiday would make remembrance a family affair: author
Tue Nov. 11 2008 3:29:54 PM
Web Staff, cp24.com
The last post is played as Canadians observe a moment of silence on Remembrance Day at the National War Memorial in Ottawa, Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2008.
Canadian war author Rudyard Griffiths thinks Canada could be doing a lot more to commemorate its veterans.
Griffiths -- who wrote Rare Courage, an anthology of wartime memories -- thinks the government should make the Remembrance Day a national holiday.
He says giving Canadians a day off work on Remembrance Day would be a chance to make the occasion a family affair, one where parents and their children would attend events together.
"It's not about losing the teaching opportunity in the classroom," Griffiths told CP24 during the station's Remembrance Day coverage.
"I think it would be great to see families get more involved. What a great way, as a family, to go out together and participate in this important day."
Remembrance Day is celebrated in many parts of the world, and commemorates the 90th anniversary of the end of the First World War, in which millions of lives were lost.
CP24 viewers seem to agree with the idea of such a holiday. As of 3 p.m. Tuesday, about 70 per cent of respondents to the CP24.com web poll had registered their approval for a Remembrance Day holiday.
Griffiths believes having the day off would compel more Canadians to attend the ceremonies, something he says would make a huge difference to the country's veterans.
"The veterans take real consolation out of events like this, when they see these large crowds, when they see that their memories will be remembered," he says.
Residents of the Northwest Territories currently get the day off for Remembrance Day. So do people in countries such as France, where Canadian Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson attended a ceremony on Tuesday.
"Today is a national holiday here. Huge crowds have come out to say 'Thank you' to Canadians and all those other nations that helped liberate France in both wars," Thompson told CTV's "Canada AM" on Tuesday.
Throughout Canada, banks and bond markets are closed on Remembrance Day.
© 2008 CTVglobemedia All Rights Reserved.
Geez,
I guess I should have wrote a book, to have my challenge heard!
Good on ya Mr. Griffith, you nailed my beliefs.
dileas
tess
http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20081111/081111_rudyard_griffiths/20081111/?hub=CP24Home
Holiday would make remembrance a family affair: author
Tue Nov. 11 2008 3:29:54 PM
Web Staff, cp24.com
The last post is played as Canadians observe a moment of silence on Remembrance Day at the National War Memorial in Ottawa, Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2008.
Canadian war author Rudyard Griffiths thinks Canada could be doing a lot more to commemorate its veterans.
Griffiths -- who wrote Rare Courage, an anthology of wartime memories -- thinks the government should make the Remembrance Day a national holiday.
He says giving Canadians a day off work on Remembrance Day would be a chance to make the occasion a family affair, one where parents and their children would attend events together.
"It's not about losing the teaching opportunity in the classroom," Griffiths told CP24 during the station's Remembrance Day coverage.
"I think it would be great to see families get more involved. What a great way, as a family, to go out together and participate in this important day."
Remembrance Day is celebrated in many parts of the world, and commemorates the 90th anniversary of the end of the First World War, in which millions of lives were lost.
CP24 viewers seem to agree with the idea of such a holiday. As of 3 p.m. Tuesday, about 70 per cent of respondents to the CP24.com web poll had registered their approval for a Remembrance Day holiday.
Griffiths believes having the day off would compel more Canadians to attend the ceremonies, something he says would make a huge difference to the country's veterans.
"The veterans take real consolation out of events like this, when they see these large crowds, when they see that their memories will be remembered," he says.
Residents of the Northwest Territories currently get the day off for Remembrance Day. So do people in countries such as France, where Canadian Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson attended a ceremony on Tuesday.
"Today is a national holiday here. Huge crowds have come out to say 'Thank you' to Canadians and all those other nations that helped liberate France in both wars," Thompson told CTV's "Canada AM" on Tuesday.
Throughout Canada, banks and bond markets are closed on Remembrance Day.
© 2008 CTVglobemedia All Rights Reserved.
Geez,
I guess I should have wrote a book, to have my challenge heard!
Good on ya Mr. Griffith, you nailed my beliefs.
dileas
tess
