The Canadian Airborne Regiment, 1968-1995 (merged)

[Infanteer]

Good point Jungle, the government sure didn't seem too keen on considering what its actions would do to the 99% if the Airborne Regiment who were good soldiers or, for that, matter the rest of the CF who had to wear the shame due to the fact that the government chose an action (disbandment) that collectivized the guilt of a few bad apples, in the eyes of the public, onto the CF as a whole.

Perhaps the Liberals owe not just the Airborne guys but the entire military an apology?

 

[Cloud Cover]

The Government does not owe ANYBODY an apology. They are the masters of policy in Canada, not the military. That is as it should be.  

That's not how it works .. policy is supposed to be within the confines of the law, and must exercised fairly and in good faith. Arbitrary decisions taken in bad faith and for strictly political reasons are contrary to the public policy of democratic governance.  Hence, this particular action must be viewed in the context of other government policy decisions at the same time [gun control, the 1995 budget, the EIA etc.] ... the product is Jeffrey Simpsons "happy dictatorship."

The government clearly breached it's duty of good faith owed to it's CF members. The government negligently misrepresented the effects of removing a military capability, a very serious matter which was not given any serious consideration at all. That in of itself was completely irresponsible, requiring not just an apology to Canadians, but some accountability as well. I believe Kenward when he says the issue has not finally been dealt with. I'm not sure what he is intimating, [although I have my suspicions] ... but I believe him when he says it's not over.

 

[Britney Spears]

Infanteer beat me to it. If you will accept the goverment of Canada as legitimate representatives of public will, then they owe the CAR no more apology than they owe to the rest of the forces.
You could make a case that former regiment members as a group were slandered or discriminated against in the course of their careers, as a result of their previous service, but to demand a blanket apology from the goverment in general for the disbandment would seem to fly against too many principles, no? Certainly the federal goverment  was acting within its powers,  since  they, as our paymasters, presumably have the right to restructure the forces in any way they see fit.

Oh, and MOD WAR! WOOHOO! FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT........

 

[Jungle]

Perhaps the Liberals owe not just the Airborne guys but the entire military an apology?

Heck, they certainly owe the CF an apology for the way they treated them in the last 15 years !!! 

 

[old medic]

I had to vote no on this one.

Was it a good decision, No. Times change however.

I have to agree with Jungle, but I'll go back further...
If they apologize for that, then I want one for all the services and unification,
and two more for 3 and 4 CMBG.

We'll never see it.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Obviously Mr Dorosh, you did not have to go through the post-Somalia period, and the disbandment. Regt members and their families were harassed by media people, spit on by other members of the Forces, and felt abandonned by the C of C (above Regt level) and the govt.
ALL the Men who served with the Cdn Ab Regt were painted with the same brush in 1995, regardless of what we did or when we served. Try doing the same when a person of a visible minority commits a crime...
We did not disgrace or discredit anyone or anything. Some people committed a crime, or let a crime be committed, and they are the only ones responsible. If you felt disgraced, it only demonstrates how thin skinned you really are. Maybe if you earned a medal other than the CD you would see things differently.
If our govt was able to apologize to Japanese-Cdns for their treatment during WWII, I think they can do the same for us... but like 2CDO said, I'm not holding my breath. I've gotten over that period, but I will never forget it.

You've done NOTHING to answer my question - how was the government supposed to undo the very serious damage undisciplined members of this regiment commited.  The entire Army was indeed painted by the same brush, that wasn't your doing but it wasn't my doing either.

Answer the question instead of insulting my own service.  What could the government have done to restore faith in the millitary?  I bet you don't have an answer.

And no, you obviously HAVEN'T gotten over that period or you wouldn't be getting so pissy about it.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I think accountability is a good thing whether it comes from an apology or actions.   By apoligizing the present gov't can show an accountability for what has happened.

 

[youravatar]

I do believe the government doesnt owe an appology to the regiment, but i dont believe that the governement was right in disbanding. the governement should as soon as possible create another PARA capable BN, and they shuld carry the name CAR. 

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I think accountability is a good thing whether it comes from an apology or actions.  By apoligizing the present gov't can show an accountability for has happened.

What are you blathering about?  Did the government ever claim that they DIDN'T disband the regiment?  They took full responsibility for it.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

An apology for making a bad decision.  Being held accountable for making an error is what I'm blathering about.  Just because the majority of people here disagree with your opinion don't come down on me for posting mine.  And yes I can take the flaming I just figured you were above it.

 

[Jungle]

And no, you obviously HAVEN'T gotten over that period or you wouldn't be getting so pissy about it.

Wow mr Dorosh, who's getting pissy ?? I am not insulting your Service, but you don't see me getting into an argument about playing the bagpipes, do you ? I have no idea how it's played, so I stay away from bagpipe discussions...
You could simply have answered the question without getting into specifics.

Former airborne soldiers need to get over it.  Better yet, put yourselves in the Government's shoes - a few bad apples brough disgrace and discredit to everyone in uniform at that time.  Disbanding the Regiment may not have made operational sense, but it did give the public some form of reassurance that the disgusting atrocities carried out in Somalia were being taken seriously.

This is where you should have STFU, the first part of that quote. You want me to get into the govt's shoes, are you willing to get into mine ?? I've had to make life and death decisions as a Leader, both in trg AND in Ops; real ones, not some kind of dog and pony in the UK...
Now, to answer your question: all the govt had to do is give LCol Kenward a chance to explain what had been done in the 18 months since he had taken over as CO. He had gotten rid of most of the problem Soldiers, a number directly to civvie street as he deemed them unfit for the Army. He had improved the unit's trg, and the Regt had won CFSAC and NECIC in the last year before disbandment. Very few units can claim winning these 2 competitions in the same year. Discipline was effectively restored, and I am the first to admit some people had gotten out of control. The govt should have sent an independant team to verify the facts, and report to the govt on their findings. Then the govt reports to the population.
Finally, most Canadians had no opinion on the matter. And those I know that did were against disbandment. The pro-disbandment crowd was very loud; and as usual, the squeaky wheel got the oil...

 

[Cloud Cover]

Taking "responsibility" for the disbandment does not even come close to being equated with accountability. The members of the airborne are at least entitled to know what factors were considered in disbanding the reginent, who those factors were considered by and ultimately who participated in the decision. I would hazzard a guess none of those factors were principally of a military nature.

The government of the day never once demonstrated a shred of accountability wrt to the disbanding of the unit. I agree they would gleefully take responsibility for committing the act, but it was a senseless and irresponsible thing to do in light of the serious consequences of eliminating the regiment. Obviously, " what were we supposed to do"; "we had no choice"; "it was the right thing to do"; are insufficient. An honest explanation might go a long way to mitigate the circumstances, even today.

There is no way in hell this was a policy driven decision, because written defence policy did not change after the disbandment. It changed by default of political circumstances, contrary to the well established, legally sustainable policy making doctrine of Canadian government.

Anyway, I think an apology is in order. What better way for PM PM to rub Chretiens face in more doo-doo than have Graham apoligize, perhaps by way of a speech to his UofT academic buddies on theories of civil-military relations. Huntington, anyone?

 

[Cloud Cover]

Certainly the federal goverment   was acting within its powers,   since   they, as our paymasters, presumably have the right to restructure the forces in any way they see fit.

This is a pretty good snapshot of the post-GW1 manifestation of one version of Huntington, although purists would suggest the theory is far more nuanced.    

 

[Cloud Cover]

If they apologize for that, then I want one for all the services and unification,
and two more for 3 and 4 CMBG.

But don't you think that as long as there are people who continue to use the CAR as a rallying symbol against funding a proper military that even the current government has some responsibility to explain more fully why this happened, assume leadership and then act with some accountability by offering an aplogy?

 

[Britney Spears]

This is a pretty good snapshot of the post-GW1 manifestation of one version of Huntington, although purists would suggest the theory is far more nuanced.

Well, you obviously spend more time thinking about this than I do. I'll take your word for it.

You as a citizen can and should hold the goverment accountable for making a monumentally stupid and ill thought out decision in the realm of national defence, you can ask for an apology that way if you want, but as long as they still own the hat, they can do whatever they want with it.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

The Government does not owe ANYBODY an apology. They are the masters of policy in Canada, not the military. That is as it should be.   I would be appalled if my commanding officer came on to the parade square to apologize for something in the way of a policy, even if he was in the wrong.   That is simply not something that is done.

Whether or not the Airborne should have been disbanded, no one is "owed" a darn thing by the Government.  

When I was with the Canadian contingent to the Beating Retreat of the Scottish Division in the UK many years ago, the senior Canadian drum major wore an American sweater with his CF uniform.   Barracks Dress was sweater and kilt.   We didn't think much of it (or him) but no one cared enough to complain, and if we did, there was no one to complain to.    

Just before we departed Scotland for England after the two weeks of rehearsals, and he had us lined up on the road, he explained why he was wearing the sweater (he had loaned his CF sweater to a piper who neglected to bring one from Canada).   To me, personally, and many of us, he seemed weak after that - stooping to explain something he really didn't have to.

Former airborne soldiers need to get over it.   Better yet, put yourselves in the Government's shoes - a few bad apples brough disgrace and discredit to everyone in uniform at that time.   Disbanding the Regiment may not have made operational sense, but it did give the public some form of reassurance that the disgusting atrocities carried out in Somalia were being taken seriously.

Perhaps one of the armchair politicians would like to explain how best to restore public confidence, after the hazing videos and Somalia enquiry, without disbanding the regiment?

First off Michael, you are obviously a bright guy, but your inability to provide a viewpoint without finding a way to demean others is absolutely reprehensible.

Second, your argument is nonsense.  Anyone or any entity who makes decisions is accountable for those decisions and when they make errors in judgement, they MUST step up and apologize.  The lack of this essential act of contrition undermines the legitimacy of the authority. This is not a matter of law.  Laws are written by fallable men and are revised on a regular basis.  It is the application of 'justice' that truly defines leadership and is the responsibility of leaders to those they lead.  For the government to have ignored justice in its attempt to follow a short-sighted and ill-advised public opinion is not justice.  It is vote-pandering cowardice and the fact you applaud it is nauseating.

You do what's right for the right reasons.  Always.  No exceptions.  

No system, structure or hierarchy is exempt from the application of this fundamental tenet of organization.




Matthew.  

 

[old medic]

But don't you think that as long as there are people who continue to use the CAR as a rallying symbol against funding a proper military that even the current government has some responsibility to explain more fully why this happened, assume leadership and then act with some accountability by offering an apology?

I think the reality is, there will never be any apology.  It's a rare day a government does such a thing, it opens up liability. That is a dirty word to governments. As far as accountability, sadly there was an election and they won again. Therefore the voters they account too,  can be assumed content with the disbandment. 

If we want to argue for a properly funded military with the voters, we need to be rallying around something they all agree with and like.
Domestic operations (Manitoba flood, Ice Storm) were things voters liked.  The DART they seem to like.  You can put photos of those things up in public and on front pages. They'll be understood and supported. Not every voter will grasp strategic capabilities.

I think that's the reality of it.  We need to use the right PR cards if we want to lobby for better funding.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Michael,....please stop, I know you got your back up here, but, please move your post and reread it in 24 hours and see if you  think that it was really a good anology.
..and if so , repost....

Here's another analogy - on your basic, if one of the troops in the platoon was undisciplined (not slow, stupid or not able to keep up, but deliberately undisciplined) - did the platoon warrant ever punish the entire platoon until the individual in question learned to tow the line?

So the CAR had a few bad apples.  Why did the Regiment tolerate them?  Why blame the government for their own inability to reign in their own soldiers?

Granatstein talks about the disbandment thusly:

Where were the sergeants and the officers?  Why didn't they intervene to stop the torture that March night in Belet Uen?  Were they intimidated by their troopers?  Their inaction suggested a complete and wilful breakdown in authority and discipline, and the (hazing) videos provided yet more evidence of this kind.

Even if one passes off the hazing videos as normal ritual in an elite unit (and that too is debatable), how far off the mark is Granatstein, really?  Not to denigrate all the good that the CAR did in Somalia, but at what cost to the reputation of not only themselves but the rest of the military?

If the incidents would never have happened, there would have been no disbandment.  That's pretty black and white, to me.  So who was to blame?  I hope future generations of Canadians on operations will keep the lesson to heart.

 

[Kirkhill]

What could the government have done to restore faith in the millitary?  I bet you don't have an answer.

Michael:

How about investigate fully in a timely fashion.  Determine possible culprits, have a trial and punish those found guilty.  Quickly, openly and in public and include not just those that got their knuckles bruised but those in the Chain of Command that failed in their duty to make sure that a such a thing could not happen.

It works in most other situations.

I apoligise for piling on but there were other ways to deal with the problems.

I don't know about getting a governmental apology but I would love to hear Collenette and Chretien in front of Judge Gomery, in a new inquiry, offering evidence as to the reason for their actions.

Cheers, Chris.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

That's better, Chris, but it is funny - "the government", a collective body, is being called on to apologize, when really, the disbandments were the actions of a couple of key individuals.  The MP for Yellowknife had nothing to do with it.

Yet when called to task, the defenders of the Airborne jump up and say "oh, but it was just a couple of bad apples, blame the individuals."

The CO, OCs, sergeant majors all had a duty to know what was going on in the unit, the same in any other.  If I drive home drunk from the mess one night and kill someone in a hit and run, everyone from the duty corporal to the PMC to the CO is going to be called on to explain, even if the CO was in another country on vacation and the PMC was off duty, and the duty corporal went home after closing the place down and left the bartender to lock up.

I have no doubts that a vast majority of the CAR were good soldiers - so why did they let it all happen?