Does Canada need a Military?

[17thRecceSgt]

In the near future, Canadian soldiers could very well be part of an invasion of a foreign state because it either lost control of force internally

Would FRY not fit into what you say?  I am not sure if it would an "invasion" though.  Stabilization op, some other word, but invasion??

 

[xmarcx]

In the near future, Canadian soldiers could very well be part of an invasion of a foreign state because it either lost control of force internally

Would FRY not fit into what you say?  I am not sure if it would an "invasion" though.  Stabilization op, some other word, but invasion??

It was a move in that direction, but the international legalist community is really starting to stretch its legs now and politicians are beginning to pick up on the persuasive power of 'just cause' and 'failed states.' Elements of both were used to convince the UN/Security Council on Afghanistan and Iraq. The same ideas are being used to justify international involvement in Haiti and are laying the groundwork for a greater commitment to Darfur. The difference in terminology has more to do with what side of the conflict you're on. It's better for UN PR of course to call everything a stabilization or assistance mission, but if it's your country being 'stabilized' you'd probably have a different opinion 

 

[17thRecceSgt]

Well, its not only the "some" people in certain countries using the word Invasion...some folks here and in the good ol US of A are using that to describe our troops in A-stan, or the US in Iraq.

I guess I just don't think of Canada in A-stan when I think of "invasion".  I think of...the Nazi's, or something like that, as an example.

 

[aesop081]

It was a move in that direction, but the international legalist community is really starting to stretch its legs now and politicians are beginning to pick up on the persuasive power of 'just cause' and 'failed states.' Elements of both were used to convince the UN/Security Council on Afghanistan and Iraq. The same ideas are being used to justify international involvement in Haiti and are laying the groundwork for a greater commitment to Darfur. The difference in terminology has more to do with what side of the conflict you're on. It's better for UN PR of course to call everything a stabilization or assistance mission, but if it's your country being 'stabilized' you'd probably have a different opinion 

The US involvement, at least initialy, in Afghanistan stands on its own as the resons for it are strongly grounded in custumary international law (response to an attack against state interest).  The US invasion of Iraq can be, albeit arguably, justiied again in custumary international law as anticipatory right to self-defence.  Actions in "failed" states are legaly justifiable under various chapters of the UN charter relating to humanitarian intervention ( NATO bombings in Kosovo for example).  There is no great "stretching of legs" involved IMHO as correct interpretation of existing international law permits such operations.

 

[xmarcx]

Well, its not only the "some" people in certain countries using the word Invasion...some folks here and in the good ol US of A are using that to describe our troops in A-stan, or the US in Iraq.

I guess I just don't think of Canada in A-stan when I think of "invasion".  I think of...the Nazi's, or something like that, as an example.

I've never really thought of it that way.  Personally, I don't attach any negative connotations to invasions, but I have noticed that it's certainly a buzzword for the protesters. I've spent a fair bit of my academic career defending Canada's involvement in A-stan & the War on Terror as both a necessary and generally beneficial move for humanity, human rights, and the international rule of law, and always referred to the combined international effort as an invasion. I'd make the distinction on the end objective. If the goal is to protect a legitimate government while it restores order, than it's some kind of stabilization operation, but if the goal is overcome, destroy, and wholly replace a corrupt, failed, or illegal government then it's rightly an invasion.

 

[17thRecceSgt]

Roger, now I know where you are coming from, more, what you see the word meaning. 

And, yes, its the "buzzword" factor for all the protestors and such that got me curious as to why you used that word, thanks for clarifying.

 

[xmarcx]

The US involvement, at least initially, in Afghanistan stands on its own as the reasons for it are strongly grounded in customary international law (response to an attack against state interest).  The US invasion of Iraq can be, albeit arguably, justified again in customary international law as anticipatory right to self-defence.  Actions in "failed" states are legally justifiable under various chapters of the UN charter relating to humanitarian intervention ( NATO bombings in Kosovo for example).  There is no great "stretching of legs" involved IMHO as correct interpretation of existing international law permits such operations.

Generally I agree with you, but international law isn't static, it's evolving all the time and new precedents are increasingly important. For example, customary international law and the letter of the UN Charter is clearly interpreted as allowing self-defence and generally interpreted as allowing preemptive warfare as self-defence. Iraq certainly wasn't a matter of self-defence, and it'd be very hard to argue that it was preemptive warfare since Iraq didn't exactly have a legion of tanks floating at the borders of the United States. It was the perceived possibility that Iraq was developing or possessed WMDs and the intent to use them against America and the need to prevent this possibility that was claimed - despite it quite distinctly not being allowed by customary international law.

But the UN High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change recently (Dec. 2005) made one of the most legitimate and authoritative claims that preventative warfare if conducted multilaterally and with just cause is an acceptable if not desirable global practice. 50 years ago, that claim would have been outrageous. Post 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and after a few failures to prevent massive genocides, it starts to make a lot more sense and may very well define how the international community approaches human security in the future.

 

[Buschgirl427]

In my opinion, not only does Canada need a military as a symolism of  protection of our Canadian heritage, but in history, the involvement of Canadian in peacekeeping and humanitarian missions has created a positive Canadian identity abroad.

 

[exsemjingo]

What about active combat missions?  Aren't they valuable?

 

[armyvern]

In my opinion, not only does Canada need a military as a symolism of  protection of our Canadian heritage, but in history, the involvement of Canadian in peacekeeping and humanitarian missions has created a positive Canadian identity abroad.

No offense. But new history is being made by our soldiers each and every day in Afghanistan....we are moving to the future now. Advance.

 

[Buschgirl427]

I acknowledge that there is a shift occuring in our military history right now. We are becoming more agressive when it comes to "maintianing peace" but this shift is necessary. I was simply stating that in the past, those have been our motives.

 

[Cote]

I haven't read all 20 pages, sorry for just jumping in. But what kind of response was the author of this thread expecting to get, I mean in effect he asked the Canadian Military if Canada needs a military... I would think that the answer would have a flavour of bias, sort of like asking a group of gun enthusiasts if guns should really be owned legally...

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I haven't read all 20 pages, sorry for just jumping in. But what kind of response was the author of this thread expecting to get, I mean in effect he asked the Canadian Military if Canada needs a military... I would think that the answer would have a flavour of bias, sort of like asking a group of gun enthusiasts if guns should really be owned legally...

The thread started in April of 2001, and the person who started it is not even a member anymore.  "Sorry for jumping in" will not hold a lot of water around here.  Try to be familiar with an entire thread otherwise your post will not be contributing anything useful.

 

[exsemjingo]

The thread started in April of 2001, and the person who started it is not even a member anymore.  "Sorry for jumping in" will not hold a lot of water around here.  Try to be familiar with an entire thread otherwise your post will not be contributing anything useful.

Good one Zipperhead.  This guest will leave with a favourable view of the web site and an improved view of the Canadian Forces.
Now as for Recce Pigeon, you've made not just one, but two fallacious arguments.  First you compare the Canadian Forces, which operates under and for the nation of Canada, to "Gun Enthusiasts" who exist largely in magazines and also liberal nightmares.  Most firearms owners do not fall into this category, but certain leftward segments of the population like to believe they do.
Secondly, you pretend that the legality of owning firearms has been questioned in this country.  It has not, even under the foolishly conceived and executed federal gun registry.

As far as undue bias goes: a Canada without a military is a Canada without sovereignty. That's simple and objective, and further detail can be found throughout the 20 previous pages.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Canada's Future Role in Hemispheric Defense
Article from 'Parameters'

An interesting article about why our big neighbour to the south thinks that Canada needs an Army.

 

[bbereziuk]

A little ancient history, and some boring Latin - "Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum"

-Means 'if you want peace, prepare for war'.  A Roman military writer known as Vegitus wrote the line after pondering the way the Spartans used to rape and pillage defenceless towns that indicated they would not support them in a war against Athens.. and how the Romans regularly took over 'barbarian' towns with little or no defences - even though they often represented no threat to the empire.

-Basically.. if a hostile country really wanted to start stiring the international pot again by attempting a Nazi style wholesale take over of the world - Canada would represent a threat to that nation simply by exisiting.  If we did NOT represent an immediate threat to that nation, Canada would surely represent a potential future threat merely due to our economic strength and educated population.  -They would want to ensure we don't build a military to take them on later..

-Of course, conquering us would ensure their access to our resources and population to increase their strength.

-So, to anyone who thinks we don't need a military - if you like nice things - like a house, a car, a regular job, food... guess what... history has shown us many examples of how easily other nations can step in and bring that all crashing down.  - If you want peace, prepare for war...

 

[midget-boyd91]

I like the comment made about asking gun-nuts if guns should be legally owned, that sums a lot up  : . But I also think that it isn't just Canada that needs a military, but Canadian politics need it just as much. Where would The NDP be if they could not come down on the government about the mission which was started by the other-other party.