Scavenging our Armed Forces

[Brad Sallows]

"Proactive"?  I do so enjoy knowing the people running the government have the education of railroad tie ballast.  A policy of doing nothing (Iraq, BMD) is hardly proactive.

I wonder if they understand that the "interests of Canada" are not always co-aligned with the "interests of Liberal MPs".

I wonder if it occurs to them that a rogue state regime that feels it must build enough missiles to defeat a limited US missile shield has already advertised its intentions.

 

[Kirkhill]

No Joy there Brad. There is always one more person who needs testicles removed at Taxpayers expense.  More money for health care  and one less source of testosterone.

It would be nice to think that there was some hope  for discourse with this bunch, and their male counterparts and that the following article by Sunil Ram would have some impact  -  but its flaming unlikely

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040825.w/BNStory/Front/

You know, off-topic, kind of, maybe this deserves a thread of its own but should we be more forthright in describing the business of National Defence as KILLING and DYING.  The reason I put this forward is that one reason the Canadians don't understand the need for Defence, aside from the fact that a bunch of them are refugees from wars (ie they ran rather than stood their ground - sorry if that sounds offensive but it is true for many nationalities including some French and Brits) but also that the discourse has been dumbed down by the vocabulary.

"Peacekeeping/Peacemaking/Peace Support" are examples but so are the words that we use to describe the job of Soldiers.  "National Defence" to describe a capability to launch expeditions to foreign lands.  "Fighting for Canada/Canadians/Freedom........" to describe KILLING enemies while DYING in the process.

The result is not just a problem for the civilian community and their lack of support for an Armed Force (forget "National Defence" that is a task not a tool) but it is also a problem for those recruited into the Forces. 

In the 80's-90's, somewhere round about there IIRC a study was commissioned by the CF that discovered that a goodly number of CF Members (members in a reading society??) were horrified to discover that they might actually be sent to War, called on to KILL and might DIE in the process.  They had joined for trades training and a University education.  Hopefully that situation has been rectified to some extent but comments from a number of posters on this site, prospective "Members" suggest that while they don't see the CF primarily as a Community College with trave opportunities they have an equally dangerous and debilitating view.  They seem to think that they are becoming diplomats in uniform.

A Soldier's job is really simple.  It is to KILL people.  And the people to be KILLED are the people his command structure instructs him to KILL.  The moral onus is on the people at the top of the pyramid to make that decision for him. 

Those same people have a similar moral onus to decide how many Soldiers will be required to DIE in achieving the decision-makers aims.  The Soldier agrees to stand and wait until told to react.
(Battle Drill Phase 3 IIRC in my day - Reaction to Effective Enemy Fire: Your Section Commander/Platoon Leader.......will inform you whether on not the Enemy Fire is Effective and you can go to ground and return fire, otherwise you follow the last order and continue with the Advance). 

If you can't accept that hard bargain then perhaps you are in the wrong trade.  If the politicians don't understand that bargain then perhaps they are in the wrong trade.  If they do understand the bargain but are unwilling to accept it then perhaps the honest thing to do is to say "We Can't Do This" and to pack up the CF and send its "Members" home.

Two thoughts: "Greater Love Hath No Man Than That He Give Up His Life For His Country"
                      "The Legion Sends You Where You Can Die".

George S. Patton's "Don't die for your Country. Make the other poor son-of-a-bitch die for his " tries to sugar-coat the pill. IMHO.

Can we still "sell" a CF, an Army, Navy and Air Force, where people accept that they conditions of their job invite DYING and require KILLING?  Or are we past that in this Post-Modern world?

Rant Ends, Shot Over......

 

[corporal-cam]

This post should calm most people down. I can't see even the liberals scrapping that much, okok, so they screwed up big time with the airborne, and the cormorant orders etc. etc. ok maybe the liberals would do something that stupid. I don't think anyone posted this yet.


http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/08/24/599258.html


OTTAWA -- Canada's top general is mad as hell, calling anonymous officers in his organization "unprofessional" for leaking what he termed "inaccurate" information about the expansion of the Armed Forces. Gen. Ray Henault summoned reporters to Defence headquarters yesterday to deny reports the military would have to slash navy and air force operations to pay for a Liberal election promise to add a "peacekeeping brigade" of 5,000 troops.

While the general is "disturbed" by those who have been feeding the reports, he said he has no plans to launch an internal investigation to discipline those responsible for the DND leaks.

But he rebuked the unnamed officers who spoke to Jane's Defence Weekly and others about an option that would mothball three navy destroyers and a quarter of the air force's CF-18 fighter jets to pay for an increase in ground forces.

"This is, of course, not the standard of professionalism, discipline and ethics that we expect in this organization," he said.

Saying he wanted to "set the facts straight," the general emphasized the Defence Department would not be robbing Peter to pay Paul. To the contrary, he said the expansion will "translate into a regular-force size of 65,000" from the current manpower cap of 60,000.

He said all military planning efforts for the expansion are based on the assumption the Martin government will make new investments in defence, adding his confidence is based on discussions he had with new Defence Minister Bill Graham.

The London-based Jane's Defence Weekly has estimated the increase in troop strength will cost more than $2 billion, based on new equipment and infrastructure costs, and an additional $400 million a year to maintain the additional soldiers.