After Afghanistan - What Will Canada Do With Its Army?

[SeanNewman]

The Congo is sooo going to suck!

You could stand beside me as a Conscientious Objector is you want.

 

[Rifleman62]

What is i.e. The RCR going to do when, unexpectedly or suddenly, 25 or so crazed (on something), or threatened (by something) child soldiers, firing AK 47's, attack an outpost/patrol/convoy with the intent of death to the invaders? Do we stand and fight, try to get out of there, get overrun while thinking about it/waiting for order clarification, surrender?

What are the rules of engagement when attacked by child soldiers, cause you will end up engaging them in Africa, sometime, someplace for absolute sure? If anything, the "enemy" will make sure it happens. They know Canadian politics.

What is the result of Canadian soldiers killing child soldiers? More PTSD cases? War criminal charges led by the Liberals/NDP/CBC/ Jane Taber/Jim Travers et al?

What happens when some of these child soldiers capture one or so of our female soldiers who then becomes a toy? Or one of the guys being gutted, his heart eaten, body thrown into the bush?

Stay out of Africa.

 

[Jammer]

You could stand beside me as a Conscientious Objector is you want.

Done! You bring the coffee though.

 

[The Bread Guy]

...from 2008
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/76957.0/all.html

and 2003
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/2710.0.html

 

[SeanNewman]

What happens when some of these child soldiers capture one or so of our female soldiers who then becomes a toy? Or one of the guys being gutted, his heart eaten, body thrown into the bush?

If I and soldiers under my command were being attacked by anyone (children included) I would give a GRIT just like I would for anyone else attacking us.

All ROE supports using lethal force if your life is in imminent danger.

Plus, I would rather have soldiers with PTSD on my conscience than dead soldiers who could have been saved but weren't because of my fear of the NDP's reaction.

I'm not trying to sound cold, and rest assured I would probably be the first guy crying and puking when I had nightmares about a kid's head being split open by a C6 round, but I would never regret firing on someone who was trying to kill me whether they were 5, 25, or 85.

 

[Rifleman62]

I have no doubt that you and many others will execute the mission. My questions are to the Canadian and Quebec public, the LPC/NDP/Bloc. the media, the pot stirers, new Canadians from Africa?

Soldiers will carry out lawful orders, but do you trust the LPC/NDP/Bloc, the media, the pot stirers to cover your back. Not friggen likely.

The soldiers will be wounded within, in more ways than the engagement of child soldiers.

 

[George Wallace]

Just out of curiosity, why have you fixated on child soldiers?  There are a multitude of other threats out there.

 

[Jungle]

Arguably Australia could challenge it for the most dangerous place (granted, not a continent before the Literal Police chime in).

On all the Discovery Channel-types of shows you'd always see 9 of the 10 most deadly everything in Australia, be it spiders, snakes, sharks, etc.  Of course those are just the things you can see, too.  Malaria, AIDS, and Ebola are all just a bonus.

That being said, after watching "The Pacific" last night I'd happily take Australia over Africa, anyway.

I've been to Australia, in the bush, and Indonesia, also in the bush, but deadly-critter-wise, none of these places beats the amazon forest. I spent a month in the French-Guyana jungle, and that was the worse place I've been to.
Australia and Indonesia do not have nerve-toxic frogs and butterflies...

 

[40below]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the British raid on Rokel Creek in Sierra Leone in 2000, when one para was killed by AK-firing child soldiers and a number of others wounded after the child soldiers kidnapped and threatened to kill 11 members of the Royal Irish Regiment (who didn't fire on their abductors) lead to training and indoctrination of western troops to consider child soldiers legitimate targets during combat operations?

 

[Jammer]

If I and soldiers under my command were being attacked by anyone (children included) I would give a GRIT just like I would for anyone else attacking us.

All ROE supports using lethal force if your life is in imminent danger.

Plus, I would rather have soldiers with PTSD on my conscience than dead soldiers who could have been saved but weren't because of my fear of the NDP's reaction.

I'm not trying to sound cold, and rest assured I would probably be the first guy crying and puking when I had nightmares about a kid's head being split open by a C6 round, but I would never regret firing on someone who was trying to kill me whether they were 5, 25, or 85.

It's not cold at all, it's fact. If it's in the ROEs then you are duty bound to act in your defence or that of your comrades. PTSD be damned, at least you're alive.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

What is i.e. The RCR going to do when, unexpectedly or suddenly, 25 or so crazed (on something), or threatened (by something) child soldiers, firing AK 47's, attack an outpost/patrol/convoy with the intent of death to the invaders? Do we stand and fight, try to get out of there, get overrun while thinking about it/waiting for order clarification, surrender?

I hope they would do the same thing that my next door neighbour did when he was attacked by a 15-year old member of the Hitler Jugend - he shot him dead!

 

[Kat Stevens]

Aim for the centre of visible mass?

 

[Edward Campbell]

So called 'child soldiers' were a problem in Congo 40 50 years ago, too.

At that time, and I suspect now, 'children' as young as 13 were ready for manhood, of a sort.

It is, I think a fairly common phenomenon in poor, rural societies. Our (Euro-American) 'prolonged adolescence' is relatively new. In the 16th century boys went to sea and to work at 13, by the 18th century 'manhood' had been deferred to about age 16, and in our time it is sometime after 18. In the 1960s many parts of Africa were socially similar to 16th century Europe; that may still be the case.



Edit: oops, senior's moment - how time flies, and all that - 1960 was 50 years ago, wasn't it?

 

[GAP]

In Viet Nam during firefights there were what would be classified as "child soldiers"....that and the diminutive nature of the Vietnamese people themselves, you had neither the time nor the inclination to stand there sorting it out......as the saying goes "shoot them all and let god sort it out" mindset did apply.  If they had a weapon, they were a combatant.

 

[SeanNewman]

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that it would fail the Globe and Mail test of the general public's opinion, but that's our problem to deal with. 

It wouldn't matter that the life expectancy may be 30 so a 10 year old is the equivalent of a 25 year old in Canada...the optics would be bad.

At the end of the day, if you can live with what you did, then that's all you can ask.  We signed the dotted line and all that came with it.

 

[Petard]

To me this"Congo" deployment idea has all the potential of just retelling an old story, like this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jadotville
My favorite line from this was the Irish OC's comment during the height of the siege:"We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey".

While today's belligerents in the Congo have changed certainly in their country of origin, if not age as well, there's every possibility our outcome would not be much different than it was for those hapless Irish; perhaps we should have on hand some whiskey in case the need arises.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen is an editorial that, I think, pretty much sums up a lot of the reaction to the some of the bombs Robert Fowler tossed about at last weekend’s Liberal ’thinkers’ conference’ in Montreal:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorials/Lament+elite/2742029/story.html

Lament of an ex-elite

THE OTTAWA CITIZEN

MARCH 30, 2010

Robert Fowler is angry, frustrated and bitter -- and really, who can blame him?

For decades, urbane liberals like him had a monopoly over Canadian foreign policy, and they shaped that policy in the image of European elites whose respect they coveted.

But now Canada's foreign policy has fallen into the hands of outsiders like the Harper conservatives, who eschew custom-made suits, don't know the bread plate is on the left and who might even prefer the company of vulgar Americans to cosmopolitan Eurocrats.

How mortified poor Fowler must be whenever he runs into associates from his days on the international diplomatic circuit.

A former Canadian ambassador to the United Nations, Fowler didn't actually use the word "vulgar" Sunday in his anguished lament that today's Canada is not the one he knew back when he wielded influence in the foreign ministry. But he did refer to "Little Canada" and made clear that in his view, small minds -- smaller than his, that is -- are running the country.

Fowler offered this display of arrogance during a speech to the Liberal party policy conference in Montreal. Fowler is old-school anglo-establishment. His Wikipedia entry notes that at McGill University he was a member of Kappa Alpha Society, the oldest Greek-letter social fraternity in North America. He presumably knew from an early age that the bread was on the left, and that he was destined to use that skill in the diplomatic corps.

Alas, today Canadian foreign policy, Fowler seems to suggest, is in the hands of what the establishment might describe as not our sort. Fowler denounced the influence of "ethnic" communities, reserving particular scorn for the Jews, who have somehow persuaded Canadian politicians to adopt positions against Canada's interests.

Now in fairness to Fowler, he said a number of sensible things in his speech. His main theme was that Canada has abandoned Africa, a continent Fowler knows well and which he believes holds strategic value for Canada.

It's true the Canada today does not seem particularly interested in Africans, even though they are the poorest people in the world and had come to believe, over the years, that they had a relationship with Canada. Fowler is right to chastise the Harper government for not leading the way on foreign aid. We are a rich country and can afford to do more in the world.

Unfortunately, whatever reasonable points Fowler wants to make about the benefits of an internationalist mindset are obscured by his retrograde rhetoric. He is determined to play the caricature of a Canadian foreign policy aristocrat from yesteryear, contemptuous of Americans and, in keeping with the Arabist tradition inherited from the Europeans with whom he identifies, peculiarly hostile toward Israel.

Fowler singled out Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, as the primary source of instability in the region. Meanwhile, a country like Iran -- a totalitarian theocracy bent on obtaining nuclear weapons, which it has already threatened to use -- didn't get a mention. Is that Fowler's idea of an "even-handed" approach to the Middle East?

By externalizing blame for Arab-Muslim dysfunction -- pinning it on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and on Israeli intransigence in particular -- Fowler is playing into the hands of all the Muslim dictators, autocrats and mullahs who use the "Zionist" threat to win popular legitimacy and to justify their refusal to embrace modernization, democratization and economic reform.

As eminent Middle East scholar Barry Rubin has put it, attributing the Arab world's problems, including the rise of Islamic extremism, to Israel serves only to prevent "the kind of reappraisal necessary to fix the internal factors at the root of the problems and catastrophes" that have crippled virtually every single Arab country.

Fowler and his ilk at Foreign Affairs feel they have been usurped. If they have, maybe it's not such a bad thing.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Let me, please, dissect it from my point of view:

Lament of an ex-elite – wrong; Mr. Fowler is still part of the Ottawa elite. He is, still, usually the smartest guy in whatever room he enters and his opinions are still sought, heard and considered. There was a reason Jason Kenny was so muted in “respectfully disagreeing” with Fowler – he (Fowler) is respected and, even, feared a little;


For decades, urbane liberals like him had a monopoly over Canadian foreign policy … Fowler is old-school anglo-establishment – very true. Mr. Fowler is, almost, the last of O.D. Skelton’s foreign service which was populated with the likes of Vincent Massey, Hume Wrong and Lester B Pearson – all so different but, in so many ways, all alike;

Fowler didn't actually use the word "vulgar" Sunday in his anguished lament that today's Canada is not the one he knew back when he wielded influence in the foreign ministry. But he did refer to "Little Canada" and made clear that in his view, small minds -- smaller than his, that is -- are running the country – and that IS part of the problem. The foreign service, once the playground of an intellectual elite dedicated to public service (often because they could afford to be), is now just another department while the “brains” and the “elite” of government have migrated to the centre – to PCO and Finance;

His main theme was that Canada has abandoned Africa, a continent Fowler knows well and which he believes holds strategic value for Canada – that was, indeed, his main theme and I, for one, believe that Mr. Fowler has let is humanity overrule his big brain. Or, maybe, I am just so dim that I cannot see the “strategic value for Canada” in Africa;

Fowler is right to chastise the Harper government for not leading the way on foreign aid. We are a rich country and can afford to do more in the world – agreed, but there is a messy little thing called practical politics. Canadians, in the aggregate, do not like sending money off to feed or house ungrateful foreigners – ALL Canadian politicians know this;

He is determined to play the caricature of a Canadian foreign policy aristocrat from yesteryear, contemptuous of Americans and, in keeping with the Arabist tradition inherited from the Europeans with whom he identifies, peculiarly hostile toward Israel – ony partially correct. Canadian diplomacy does have a European, Arabist (and, consequently, anti-Zionist) tradition but the “contemptuous of America” feature is recent, dating from the early 1970s;

Fowler and his ilk at Foreign Affairs feel they have been usurped – very true, Fowler’s ilk have been replaced by a more representative group; and

maybe it's not such a bad thing – I disagree, the ‘anglo-elite’ had many faults, it was Euro-centric and Arabist but it was, also, clear headed and realistic where Canada’s interests were really involved, and it was, above all, liberal and democratic in its outlook – always aware that most of the world, including Europe and Arabia, was is illiberal or totalitarian or both.

As for the topic of this thread: as far as I know, Mr. Fowler is a pretty strong supporter of an efficient and effective (combat ready and (rapidly) deployable) military but he does not see the military as the be-all and end-all for the world's many problems.

 

[Rifleman62]

Just out of curiosity, why have you fixated on child soldiers?  There are a multitude of other threats out there.

To answer your query: Child soldiers are the biggest problem. Bigger than weather, insects, disease, snakes. All this is out weighed by Canadian politics. I personally do not think the Canadian public will accept, under any circumstances, Canadian soldiers shooting/killing/wounding/opening fire on child soldiers. Canadian politics will not allow it. The CF has a track record of war crimes in Somalia and Afghanistan. I did not say that, but the G & M/CBC/CTV/etc, the Liberals/NDP has constantly bombarded the Canadian Public with this.

Right now, if :

- 2 PPCLI was somewhere in Africa, and following all the rules (anyones: Canada/NATO/UN);
- fourteen boys, aged approximately 12 to 14 were wounded, with three mortally wounded after an armed attack on a element of Canadians delivering food aid;
-  two Canadian soldiers were wounded (none killed);
- the entire episode, from start to finish, was video taped by CBC, and witnessed by a G & M repeater; and
- the video clearly shows, beyond doubt, that the Canadians held their fire to the last instant, attempted,by whatever means to stop the attack, took two wounded, then fourteen individual  soldiers each took one shot only at their target (no sounds of "rapid" fire).

So where do you think the focus of the story would be? How would that video be edited? What part of the video would be repeated, and repeated (guess:the dead "boys", focusing on the youngest). The outrage of Iggy and Jack (and Quebec) would be bouncing off the rocky mountains.

Stay out of Africa. Let China do it. China is already in Africa building influence. They will be the next world power, like it or not.

 

[dapaterson]

Edward:  I admire your naivete, calling Mr Fowler liberal, and ignoring that he was addressing a Liberal gathering.  He may have undermined much of the senior public service in Ottawa with his little stunt, as he clearly revealed himself to be a Liberal ("30 of 39 years..."), feeding the longstanding suspicions of the current government that the senior bureaucrats are in fact closet Liberals.

That being said, may I paraphrase Mr Fowler's speech?  Though I am certain many liberals (and Liberals) would object to the characterization below, our dear friend Mr Kipling put it best.

The White Man's Burden
Rudyad Kipling

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain,
To seek another's profit
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine,
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
(The end for others sought)
Watch sloth and heathen folly
Bring all your hope to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No iron rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go, make them with your living
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden,
And reap his old reward--
The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness.
By all ye will or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent sullen peoples
Shall weigh your God and you.

Take up the White Man's burden!
Have done with childish days--
The lightly-proffered laurel,
The easy ungrudged praise:
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers.

 

[observor 69]

I had a dream .....

Canada has an appropriately sized and adequately equipped  military ready to respond to a Foreign/Defence policy rationally developed in a bipartisan parliamentary debate.

Then I woke up