Canada's military mistake

[QUOTE BY= dbaker]Profesional. we have good folks in our military. Dennis Baker [/QUOTE] I concurr.

On the military, I believe funding has been dropping because enrollment has been dropping, not the other way around. Every Reserve unit is understrength and only the LFCA has been able to maintain its manpower for the previous couple of years. I suspect it has something to do with disillusionment.... our leaders haven't had the will to be the first to act in a crisis, let alone doing anything without following the lead of the US. I mean, a reconnaisance mission for the deployment of DART should have happened immediately upon news of the tsunami disaster. That's what it's there for. Some cash is always available somewhere, however, too much gets wasted on things like broken submarines, useless UAVs, maintenance of obsolete equipment (the Illtis was a good example of this) or other superfluous technologies (ie, computers in everything). For what? It's been nothing but an exercise in maintaining our ability to follow an American agenda.... for those who want Canada's military to become more like the US military, they should simply join the US military, I hear the USMC is looking for new cannon-fodder all the time. If maintaining the Navy's underwater capability is so serious, why would they spend over $1B on 4 subs that lack the range to patrol the northern coastline? Answer: our "allies" opposed the concept of a Canadian nuclear sub fleet because only the quieter diesel subs in the hands of a skilled Canadian crew could provide a useful training aid for them! Back in WWI, Canadians proved that conscription was of only marginal military value. Nobody should be forced to join (although, on the otherhand, those who like it only for the "exciting" bits have no meaningful role in the CF, IMO).

Ok, this will be my last post on this, it's getting redundant, I'm sure we'll meet on another post. I'll let you get the last word if you like. 1. There is considerable evidence that racism was pretty widespread during the Somalia affair. This isn't surprising, Canadians are as 'euro centric' as any other commonwealth country. There were several books I read on this, albeit several years ago. And of course the inquiry into conduct was shut down so we'll never really know-which makes it convenient for those who want to state everything was above board. 2. The americans are quite well documented as being medal hungry. In Grenada I think it averaged that most soldiers recieved more than one on what was hardly a tenuous engagement. A sniper shooting a member of the Taliban is hardly grounds for medals. I did note the article where it was extremely difficult for canadians to recieve medals, I'd be in favour of changing that and giving specific medals especially for whistle blowing and humanitarian conduct. As I said, the notion that canadian peacekeepers are respected abroad rarely means our snipers are good shots. If our peacekeepers are no better or worse than any other nation, then why the repeated emphasis on it? 3.Your history is wrong. In world war one attacking canada was the same as attacking britain but not so for world war two, or any time after 1927 when we pretty much became masters of our destiny (I forget the name of the act). Canada declared war a week after Great Britain when two Canadians were aboard an ocean liner sunk by the germans. Obviously we had strong ties with britain, but it was a free canadian choice. 4. My head is also swimming from your logic, which I don't understand at all. Are you saying that we are now friends with the Somalians because of our conduct? Are we friends with the Rawandans? Personally I would rather become friends with the scandanavians and swiss who have a doctrine of neutrality. They set a far higher standard than our 'back a warlord and hope the other side doesn't win' standard. If you look at terrorism on the world stage by far scandinavia is the safest place to be. Picking sides militarily means picking a side AGAINST somebody else, and often we pick the side of an autocratic state. 5. There's hazing and then there's hazing. Personally, I don't think hazing conducts trust, in my case it pissed me off at my tormentors who were way out of line because they lacked the discipline of a commanding officer who kept them in check. Bonding is precisely the issue here, when you live in a country like switzerland which grants a high measure of liberty, your countrymen and you have a profound bond, much more than the enforced military bond which basically tells you who to trust since you can't choose your comrades. 6. I respectfully disagree with the self respect from respect of an enemy. I don't know how you measure respect but I would never respect somebody I had little knowledge of -there was little in the way of communiques between parties exchanging personal information (most training doesn't involve cultural sympathies for the enemy) and who essentially wanted to kill me-no matter what their feelings of home and country. The nazi's may have thought they had the moral high ground, that doesn't make me respect them. Likewise, my own personal respect has nothing whatsoever with the respect I give to others who may deserve it. I do understand your points, which is why I may as well leave off here. I am not good at explaining myself, so often people 'take offense' or misunderstand my intent. Obviously people did bad things in Somalia, I am far more sympathetic than most because I'm quite knowledgeable about 'group behaviour' and what can happen in pressure situations. I have nothing but sympathy for the horrendous things soldiers are often told to do, often it is not on the side of the right, and these people have to live with it. This is why I personally dont think any one person, or one group of people should be making careers out of what everyone should be doing. Personally, I am trained in combat but I did it myself (when I was young and paranoid) and I think there are valuable lessons in self defense. Since world war 2 there have been few times that it has been in defense. I don't think we should ever go to war simply because nato does, but we saw the propaganda machine pump up about Yugoslavia too (while ignoring how many places?) Anyway, finally, I don't capitalize canada since I began my hard nosed research on it, simply because I don't believe in patriotism for patriotisms sake (when we're a democracy I will). I do try to capitalize Canadians though when I think of it, but also it's because i'm lazy and uncoordinated at the keyboard. See you on another thread...

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Ok, this will be my last post on this, it's getting redundant, I'm sure we'll meet on another post. I'll let you get the last word if you like.[/quote] But, dude! We're having a good discussion here! Sorry if it's going in circles here, but there are just some things that are difficult to put into words. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc]1. There is considerable evidence that racism was pretty widespread during the Somalia affair.[/quote] Absolutely. It was very wide spread, and none of the Officers did anything to stop it. On the contrary, they were as bad as everyone else. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc]2. The americans are quite well documented as being medal hungry.[/quote] True. I think they have a medal for going #2 in a combat zone. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc]A sniper shooting a member of the Taliban is hardly grounds for medals.[/quote] True. For doing their job, I don't agree on a medal for that. But we don't know the circumstances of why the medals were awarded. Afhganistan is a difficult country to operate in. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc]As I said, the notion that canadian peacekeepers are respected abroad rarely means our snipers are good shots. If our peacekeepers are no better or worse than any other nation, then why the repeated emphasis on it?[/quote] I don't thing 'snipers' and 'peacekeepers have much in common. But our sinpers do hold the combat record distance for a hit (2783m, over a mile, in Afghanistan). We are good shots. I believe as peacekeepers, we do excel. We most certainally proved that in Croatia. Both sides respected our neutrality and our fierceness in battle, and that drew them to rely on us as the voice of reason. I think if we do something well, we should continue to highlight it and improve upon it. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc]3.Your history is wrong. In world war one attacking canada was the same as attacking britain but not so for world war two, or any time after 1927 when we pretty much became masters of our destiny (I forget the name of the act). Canada declared war a week after Great Britain when two Canadians were aboard an ocean liner sunk by the germans. Obviously we had strong ties with britain, but it was a free canadian choice.[/quote] True. I forgot about that. I think you're thinking the British North America (BNA) act, March 1927. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc]4. My head is also swimming from your logic, which I don't understand at all. Are you saying that we are now friends with the Somalians because of our conduct? Are we friends with the Rawandans? [/quote] Somails, no. Rwandans, yes. The ones who were't slaughtered do appreciate what General Delaire tried to do. They also appreciate his position the UN put him in, and the brass he showed in defying orders to abandon the people to genocide. More so, the Serbs appreciate us, because of what we tried to do in Medak, and what we continue to do in rebuilding. Medak was where the Croats learned you don't screw with the Canucks. The Serbs learned too that Canucks don't take sides when genocide is anyone's stated goal. This earned Canada the respect of both sides, and we were able to broker peace in the region. Sgt Mark Legier (2PPCLI) was instrumental in getting schools and hospitals built that were destroyed in the war during the early 90's, before he was killed by an American pilot in Afghanistan. His widow still collects donations in his memory, destined for Serbia to help rebuild. The Serbs called him 'King Marko'. Should we not recognize, reward and try to emulate people like this? [QUOTE BY= Marcarc]5. There's hazing and then there's hazing. Personally, I don't think hazing conducts trust, in my case it pissed me off at my tormentors who were way out of line because they lacked the discipline of a commanding officer who kept them in check.[/quote] There are always a few in a crowd that ruin it. I never experienced anything that could be considered 'over the top'. My squad and company leaders kept a relatively high limit to what was considered 'acceptable' and wouldn't let anyone cross that line. So I guess my experience with hazing was vastly different that yours. I guess our experiences led us to our respective opinions. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc]6. I respectfully disagree with the self respect from respect of an enemy. I don't know how you measure respect but I would never respect somebody I had little knowledge of -there was little in the way of communiques between parties exchanging personal information (most training doesn't involve cultural sympathies for the enemy) and who essentially wanted to kill me-no matter what their feelings of home and country. The nazi's may have thought they had the moral high ground, that doesn't make me respect them. Likewise, my own personal respect has nothing whatsoever with the respect I give to others who may deserve it.[/quote] This is one of those thoughts that's difficult to put into words. I used to play chess with someone by mail. I never met the person face-to-face, but you develop a respect for them based on how they play. And I respect them, because they made me a better player. And in that, I gain self respect. The same can be said of an enemy in battle. Sure, they are trying to kill me. Most of the time I'm trying to kill them too. And I'm sure they think they are right, just as I know I am. But knowing how the enemy thinks by what they do, helps a soldier become a better soldier. They may never meet the opposition face-to-face, but the soldier still understands the enemy's mindset as a group, and can respect the soldiers as individuals. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc]I am not good at explaining myself, so often people 'take offense' or misunderstand my intent. [/quote] That's the problem with written communication. You can't see the meaning in peoples expressions. I hope I haven't offended you ethier. It's rare that someone can relate to me through common shared experiences. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc]Anyway, finally, I don't capitalize canada since I began my hard nosed research on it, simply because I don't believe in patriotism for patriotisms sake (when we're a democracy I will).[/QUOTE] I didn't take it as a slight to patroitism. It's just correct English to capitalize a proper noun is all.

[QUOTE BY= Canuck] On the military, I believe funding has been dropping because enrollment has been dropping, not the other way around. [/QUOTE] You sir, are correct. <a href='http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=168e6640-dd7a-4bcb-b606-506fe30446a7'>Link</a>

Ok, the circles are beginning to be unwound, we seem to agree on a lot of things, perhaps too many points were being bandied around. All your arguments seem to be leading into what is my central argument, that it is the 'system' of the military which is the problem. This, I believe, is the problem with most closed bureaucratic systems, and canada is a notoriously bureaucratized society which is increasingly being closed to scrutiny. Canada, like all peoples, are ingenious, hard working, caring people-unfortunately their government is not. It has, and has always had, it's own agenda. Sometimes it agrees with the populations (peacekeeping with the UN rather than covert action)-although not always; sometimes it concedes to the populations (medicare, pensions, minimum wage laws) but it is not set up to do so, so 'making changes' is incredibly difficult and time consuming. I quite agree that good, and great behaviour should be rewarded. Not only in the military, which has obvious life saving examples (unfortunately also life taking examples), but also and especially in civilian life. Watch the documentary on the whistleblower who informed on Phillip Environmental that it was dumping untreated dioxins and radioactive waste. His life became a misery and the government only made it worse. That soldiers attempted peacemaking is not a difficult concept for me to grasp, however, increasingly it is the system's use which causes the problems in the first place. The violence in Yugoslavia reached horrible proportions AFTER nato entered and began bombing. Prior to that, although it was bad, it was not nearly as bad as what was happening to the kurds right next door in turkey, or even in normal columbian life (equal number of people killed, displaced, atrocities committed, etc.). However, Canada was and is doing substancial trade in turkey so we didn't want to offend them. Columbia, of course, is now considered by our government as just another wonderful democracy. The hazing I referred to isn't just from experience, I did an undergraduate honours thesis on it for sociology. My point certainly isn't that it is all-pervasive, or even normative, but that the structures in place keep any outside investigators from discovering how pervasive it is (and it is pervasive enough to be a problem). An 'open' military, which would include all people fighting for their country would not tolerate such behaviour. If I earn 40 grand a year and show up to learn tactical skills and some little pissant tells me to do 500 pushups while he sits on my back I would quite rightly tell him to go to hell (and that's mild hazing). That is impossible in today's military simply because of the norms. My sister is in religious studies and wanted to do a documentary on the affects on religion which Rwanda had on those veterans, the military refused anybody, particular the clergy, even talking to her. This, quite clearly is not threat to 'national security' or any such nonsense, the military simply didn't want it dealt with. Soldiers are often at as much risk from their own governments as from an enemy. Finally, I really do have to disagree about the respect. Tactical warfare is never like chess to the enlisted man. They generally have very little training in what their opponent is like and instilling respect of an opponent is the last thing an officer wants to do because it makes it harder to get a soldier to kill them. In the first world war it was a common tactic to send troops 'over the top', not because it was thought ground could be gained, but because it would result in many deaths, which would enrage the remaining soldiers enough to despise their enemy. Avenging a fallen comrade is a guaranteed way of ensuring ruthless behaviour. That being said I can understand your point about the chess. At an officer level or generally any level where there was far less chance of being killed, there is considerable respect for the tactics and manoevers of high ranking tacticians. It is a well honoured and well documented practise. Unfortunately, it is they who typically have the flamboyant biographers and their stuff sells far more books as they are typically far less brutal than the life shattering experiences of those pulling the triggers. However, I also understand that most of my arguments tend to the world wars, which I know most about, and not peacekeeping missions afterwards, except Korea, so I may be out of my league there. PS: the bna was in 1867 and was an act of union, there was another act in 1927 that recognized canadian independance (although if canada got out of hand there were still ways to yank the yoke.)

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Ok, the circles are beginning to be unwound, we seem to agree on a lot of things, perhaps too many points were being bandied around. [/quote] Agreed. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc]All your arguments seem to be leading into what is my central argument, that it is the 'system' of the military which is the problem. This, I believe, is the problem with most closed bureaucratic systems, and canada is a notoriously bureaucratized society which is increasingly being closed to scrutiny.[/quote] Cracking that nut won't happen with the way the Forces mindset currently is, I fear. For the other readers here - forces are basically divided into small units. 5 - 10 - 20 - 120 etc. I think there is a major shift coming. Way back when in ancient society (and warfare), your basic unit of community in pre-industrial times was the village, ie: friends and family. In post-industrial times, it's now your "primary attention group." Co-workers, family and friends. You live one place, and work somewhere else. You pay attention to that group and to "groups of purpose" -- groups neither bound to a place nor direct family. Now in internet times, you can associate with a group of individuals from just about anywhere, and you don't have to even speak the same language. Status in society changed too. In pre-industrial times your status was ascribed (based on birth); in post industrial times it was achieved; and now, in cyber communications times, it's assessed. The trend I see will become part of the Forces. What I see the forces becoming, and I will try and stick to geometric metaphors: - If the ideal network is a 2 dimensional planar structure covering a large area but with no hierarchy and - if the ideal hierarchical pyramid is an obelisk with many levels each dependent on each other, a lot of depth, a lot of control but influencing a very tight area and - if we assume these two configurations as the logical absurdities at the extreme ends of the organizational spectrum and - if we assume that neither logical absurdity is likely to happen then the likely organization will be somewhere in between It will be a pyramidical organization of some sort or other, a hierarchy will always exist, but the base may be more diffuse, non-contiguous and have fewer layers between shooters and decision-maker. In modern warfare, battlefield data makes these small units part of a much larger picture, responsible to many others. If the trend continues and the technology improves enough, in a few decades you'll be seing tactics relying on hundreds of 2-man teams all operating independantly but in concert with each other. (And that army will be like no other ever seen before!!) I think once this happens, all the secrecy and prying into the culture will not be such a big deal. You won't have to rely on 5 or 10 other guys for your survival, it'll be everyone's responsibility. The unit/squad/company/batallion hierachy can crack and an army of one will emerge. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Finally, I really do have to disagree about the respect.[/QUOTE] That's cool. Perhaps because of my trade it gave me a little different perspective from the other gravel monkeys. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>

Your first two issues are community and status. I can't quite wrap my head around your points, as it sounds like your theory has had enough thought to fill a book, so at least we should try to understand it. These are questions I have: 1. Your point about community seems to be it's expansion. We have more types of community than before; ones we work with, and ones online we share ideologies or interests with. How does the expansion of community apply to military tactics? 2. How is status assessed? 3. How do teams work 'independently' and yet 'in concert'? Meaning geographically separated? Doesn't this depend on terrain? 4. There are a whole lot of 'if''s in your assumptions and I won't pretend to understand them. I don't think 'technology' will change the hierarchical structure, warfare has essentially always had the exact same hierarchical structure at the state level. Usually the only successful reply to that has been the complete anarchic structure that we see with al queda, where there seems to be no central leadership, and where elimination of one 'leader' is replaced by another. This was also often the case in Vietnam, which is why the american forces often made the logical (and distressing) conclusion that every person was an enemy. To me that is the perfect form of military. Otherwise you are placing your hierarchical structure up against somebody elses. If you play with the same rule book, you will have serious tactical problems. Every european state found that out in the second world war. This is why to my mind it is ludicrous to play that game. You are quite right that there is little chance that that hierarchy will change, although it CAN change along with everything else with direct democracy.

I think you underestimate the strenghts of the Canadian Military. I know its in Canadian Security interests to re-establish Canada as the Number 1 country by U.N. standards. Our Military is Unique in the world............. why................. because you could not talk or order a Canadian Soldier to open fire on unarmed Canadian Citizens. Cause they would not do it. Dennis Baker

I hardly think that's unique in the UN, but I also think circumstances would dictate it. The police certainly won't fire on you at a demonstration, but they won't pat you on the back.

Please lets not try and confuse the statement, and yes the police will and have fired on unarmed citizens. Pincher Creek Alberta...2years house arrest. Portage and Main..............(long history of it actually) The british military have done it, in Ireland. Nixon did it, at Kent State. Canadian Military is unique. dennis Baker

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Your first two issues are community and status. I can't quite wrap my head around your points, as it sounds like your theory has had enough thought to fill a book, so at least we should try to understand it. These are questions I have:[/QUOTE] Yea, an entire book could be written on that <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> I'm making a leap in logic, based on how communities have changed over the last 10 years or so. When I first heard about new battlefield data displays, it gave me a epiphany about how soldiers on the battlefield would be linked. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc]1. Your point about community seems to be it's expansion. We have more types of community than before; ones we work with, and ones online we share ideologies or interests with. How does the expansion of community apply to military tactics?[/QUOTE] Real time two way data would give C&C total knowledge of where each soldier is on the battlefield, and would let each soldier know where they are in realtion to any other soldier, and terrain. Company commanders wouldn't have to relay information back and forth to C&C, and much more information would be available to the individual soldier. GPS maps, terrain maps, force deployment, obstacles, sattlite imagery . . . almost an information overload. Currently, a squad or company have to be at least in visual communication range to work well together. Being a former 'meat bomb', once you get on the ground, you have to link back up with your squad. With a HUD (Heads up display), you'd get a real time terrain map with the postitions of your squad overlayed. You wouldn't have to be in visual range to know where and how everyone is. You can proceed to objective independently, and cover more area with less risk of detection than previously. There are many other advantages too. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc]2. How is status assessed? [/QUOTE] I don't think that would change any. Only the importance of status would. A trooper would be no less important than a Sgt, just they would have different duties and responsibilities. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc]3. How do teams work 'independently' and yet 'in concert'? Meaning geographically separated? Doesn't this depend on terrain?[/QUOTE] See above. You could send in 100 pairs of troops, rather than 20 squads of 10. Less risk that an entire squad gets ambushed or detected. [QUOTE BY= Marcarc]4. There are a whole lot of 'if''s in your assumptions and I won't pretend to understand them. [/QUOTE] Me ethier. I just see the parallels of de-centralization in society, and in the military.

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Read some history, don't rely on things other people told here, here is the quote I posted on the other thread from the history journal: The Nazis could have eventually have conquered Switzerland, but at a fearful price. The Wehrmacht expected 200,000 German casualties; it would have taken a very long time to remove the Swiss military from the Alpine “Reduit” to which they planned to make a stand. And by the time the Swiss were defeated, every bridge and train track and everything else of value to the conquerors would have been destroyed. The reason that Switzerland was too difficult to invade—in contrast to all the other nations which Hitler conquered in a matter of weeks—was the Swiss militia system. Unlike all the other nations of Europe, which relied on a standing army, Switzerland was (and still is) defended by a universal militia. Every man was trained in war, had his rifle at home, was encouraged to practice frequently, and could be mobilized almost instantly. The Swiss militiaman was under orders to fight to the last bullet, and after that, with his bayonet, and after that, with his bare hands. Rather than having to defeat an army, Hitler would have had to defeat a whole people. [/QUOTE] You didn't read a bloody thing I said did you mate three words "protracted guerilla war"

My point was meant as a counterpoint to your claim that 'they were already conquered' simply because they were surrounded. This is far from true, as I quoted, Hitler wanted to be the 'butcher of the swiss' for good reason. Not only was Switzerland used as an allied base it was a centre for allied espionage. They also took in far more of the repressed minorities the nazi's were after. So they weren't helpless, as you seem to infer. But perhaps I just misunderstood your point. Sorry, I did read the message.

Swiss Banks did Okay! Back to the Canadian Military. Canadian Peace Keeping Forces need the reputation that France has when French Peace Keepers are killed. The ability to quickly retaliate in support of Canadian Peace Keepers, in a manner similar to Abijan. Taking out the Airforce, on the ground, did ensure the safety of the expatriates. Replacing an airforce ain't cheap. The danger associated with retalitory ability is the potential missuse of it for economic gain. I know there's a fat wallet behind most Military endeavours, but should the Canadian Military overtly participate in such ventures, the Illusion,the myth, the Shangrala, which most humans on the planet associate with Canada will be lost.Reality is, Canada can not live up to its reputation, but we can try! Dennis Baker