An Army IS a war machine

[toowoozy]

The point that I was trying to convey was more so this disconnect between the community and the members of the forces, those whom are dedicated to the mission at hand and wish to have the mission and themselves perceived in a certain context (the example given: "war machine") - But success of that mission is dependent upon one very important factor (as you well know), and that is the perception and support of the electorate at home. Often members cannot understand how individuals can view the mission unlike how they view the mission (hence Sgt. Leger's mother)

This is where you have the greater context, where a member views his cadre as a "war machine" as such, but the community/society has a different perception, or rather a different political/social will - and thats where the point lies because many different armies serve in varying capacities with varying capabilities largely based upon the will of that nation. The will of the people to morally, ethically, politically, and financially support such missions, or the military in general is entirely dependent upon the societies view of such missions or their view of the military in over-all. This is nothing new for you, I'm sure this has been a topic many times before.

But where I think the community loses its will to give the military the mandate it desires comes from that disconnect. In these times most don't want to view their military (it is theirs of course) as a "war machine." Yes we have this romanticized view of our forces as our protecters of sovereignty, our blue berets, our DART spreading humanitarian relief - not a perceived tool of destruction. In Sgt. Leger mothers eyes, her son probably wasn't a war machine, she was her kind, loving son now gone - Sgt. Legers mother is that disconnect and this is the reality at home.

As for the other assertions. I actually was a member of this forum quite some time ago, not an avid poster but a participant none the less; just recently returned so I guess some re-introduction would be cordial. First off I'm not 14 years old, continuing on with my education and becoming an adult as pointed out - but I like the thought. The proverbial "we" I speak of has long past some 20 years now and where as I've continued on as an engineer (home and abroad govt. services) and now I have a son in RMC.

 

[FastEddy]

First off, this isn't about Roman history, or my academic qualifications (but just so you know, I am in fact among the top of my class, both in med school, and was also in my history classes).

But the point is that I agree with the idea that armies are far more than simply war machines. Armies are, and have been throughout history, routinely tasked with everything from nation-building, to conventional war-fighting, to counter-insurgency, to settling disputes of govermnental succession, to civil engineering, to providing assistance during natural disasters, to providing employment, to putting on a show for the cameras, to providing a minimal cadre of warfighting skills in periods of prolonged peace, to fighting pirates, to counter-terrorism, to crowd-control, to monitoring natural resources, to search and rescue, to de-mining warzones, to providing logistical support to humanitarian efforts, to providing security for hockey games (2010 anyone?).

An army is (among many other things) a war machine. Their job is (to do the bidding of their government and populace, and this includes being able) to fight wars.

But the fact remains that if the populace doesn't want you to fight a war, then you don't. If the populace wants you to stand around in the middle of a firefight with blue hats on, or to dig them out of a snowstorm in Thunder Bay, or to deploy a DART to Pakistan, then that is what you will do instead.

Warfighting is the job that ONLY armies do. But it is not the ONLY job that armies do, and it never has been.

Good for you, toot toot, that's the sound of you blowing your own horn.

No  one said the Roman Army's was the issue, YOU quoted them as a example, and IMO, your Roman History is still pretty poor.

The fact still remains that the primary reason for an Army's creation is DEFENCE and WAR. No one is disputing that their presence or services cannot be employed for any given number of Civilian circumstances. That comes under Emergencies & Disasters, where great numbers of additional Bodies are required to assist the Civilian Services. But that is not what we are Trained for.

If certain Logistic Branch's of the Military coninside with Civilian applications, they are not provided with that in mind, but support Primarily for the Military in their Primarily functions DEFENCE & WAR.

 

[Kirkhill]

Christ I hope you are doing better in Medical School than Roman History.

First of all , Romes Legions were Raised and Financed for Conquest, Subjugation, Territory and Policing.

The result of their success was partly due to the diversification of its Conscripted Soldiers, in that every male Roman Citizen of Military age had to serve in their Army's for a prescribed period.

What ever Engineering Feats were accomplished when the Troops were not killing or plundering were designed to keep the Troops busy and bring the Roman way of life. And might I note, they came at a very high price to the conquered populations.

Interesting thought there Fast Eddy.

I suppose that one way of looking at the Roman "Army" was that it was actually and Armed Constabulary that spent most of its life "Policing" an armed, and restive populace.  Its record when facing other "national armies", like the Carthaginians and in particular the Sassanids, was mixed.

 

[FoverF]

Their character was also far from uniform over their *very long* and very dynamic history, as they varied from the conscripts of the city of Rome, to the ethnically germanic mercenary armies of Christendom.

They also fought each other for the purpose of installing their respective generals as emperors, and elements of the military played the role of 'king makers' on many an occasion over the centuries.

This politcal role, which is often demanded of armies (and even enshrined constitutionally) still continues today in countries like Turkey, where one of the core duties of the army is to overthrow governments which they consider too 'Islamic' (or at least non-secular).

Yet more key roles which armies are/have been expected to fill.

 

[Good2Golf]

Folks, conduct by all concerned, in accordance with site policy, is what is expected here.  That means "all".

Milnet.ca Staff 

 

[FoverF]

Just to make sure it's not mis-interpereted, my last post was not meant to sound anti-military, or imply that the CF has any designs on overthrowing the government or anything. Just pointing out that the institution of the army also often plays a critical role in governing nations, even ones which are ostensibly democracies. We have our own non-democratic safe-guards for when the wheels of government slip, such as  the GG, but in many nations, and at many times, it has been responsibility of the army to protect a society from their own government. This is not just an ancilliary role they play, but one of their reasons for existing.

Not in any way trying to tie the CF specifically into this, though. 

 

[tango22a]

Toowoozy:

" Si Vis Pacem Bellum Parare "

Literally translated: If You Wish For Peace, Train For War.

That's what  the CF does!

Cheers,

tango22a

 

[reccecrewman]

Stating that your standing Army is a "peacekeeping" force and to be used in natural disasters is a nice easy out for keeping a standing Army in force on the cheap. Many centre left politicians love that concept because it justifies stripping the budget of the Military..... "They don't need all that money for equipment if they're only being used as peacekeepers"

I apologize, but I don't remember who stated it that during the Liberal reign of the 90's virtually EVERYONE saw their budgets go up at the expense of WHO??? The CF.

 

[FastEddy]

Stating that your standing Army is a "peacekeeping" force and to be used in natural disasters is a nice easy out for keeping a standing Army in force on the cheap. Many centre left politicians love that concept because it justifies stripping the budget of the Military..... "They don't need all that money for equipment if they're only being used as peacekeepers"

I apologize, but I don't remember who stated it that during the Liberal reign of the 90's virtually EVERYONE saw their budgets go up at the expense of WHO??? The CF.

"reccecrewman" No need to, knowing who said it is unimportant, knowing who did it is.

Cheers.

 

[Greymatters]

If I was toowheezy, I wouldnt bother coming back either - only two people took his comments seriously.

He points out a very significant point, that the general public IS in control of our mandate.  Our missions are given to us not because we chose them, we are given them because the public wants us to perform them. 

We know that the primary purpose of an army is to conduct war, to defend home territory, to repel invaders, and (when requested) to conduct the will of the government outside of the country.  To use lethal force and inflict casualties if required.  These are concepts imbedded in most armies aroun the world. 

However, our general population has their own viewpoint of what an army is for.  Its different from ours.  Many of them would rather see not an army, but a 'Salvation Army', handing out free food and medicine, and being unarmed masters of diplomacy.  Unfortunately, they have more influence than we do because they get to voice their opinions, and complain to their local elected official, while most military members are muzzled. 

The elected officials, at all levels of government, have their own agendas as well.  They would like to score brownie points like previous governments did, getting good news bites and having a safe place to travel to overseas where they can pose with the troops and pretend they are accomplishing world peace and get their names in the history books.  Who better to send than the CF?  Thats what they are there for right?

And there are very voices to protest aganst these viewpoints.  This is why Gen. Hillier was so popular (or unpopular depending on who you were) - he reminded Canadians that the army isnt a training depot for society washouts (as it is often described by our opponents), or an expendable source of peackeepers, it was a lethal weapon that you aimed and fired, and if you want to use it dont expect flowers to come out of the end of the gunbarrel.     

In summary, the type of arguing being done over the past few pages should have been in reply to the statement, not attempts at character assasination just because someone has a different opinion or viewpoint.  If you think the person is just trolling, ignore them.

 

[Armymedic]

He points out a very significant point, that the general public IS in control of our mandate.  Our missions are given to us not because we chose them, we are given them because the public wants us to perform them. 

More so, it is the Government in power that tell us what our military will be. WE train for the worst case scenario, full high intensity warfare. But we are sent on missions from armed peacemaking to unarmed humanitarian assistance. And yes we do train for more than full out war. Do you really think DART just comes together..or do they exercise their people and equipment?

We are trained to adapt and overcome, to think and problem solve to fight wars. Adapting those same skills for other roles is what makes us the best individual soldiers in the world.

Do not blame the uneducated if they think otherwise.

 

[reccecrewman]

Touche..... I overlooked DART, that was my mistake. Yes, they certainly do conduct some tough training to prepare them for their tasks of the humanitarian nature..... however, my point was that the Mechanized Brigades of the CF do not conduct these sort of exercises on a regular basis..... apparently there have been the odd few, but they are the exception, not the rule.  The typical training cycle of a Canadian combat arms unit is warfighting...... not peacekeeping or humanitarian aid.

As for who chooses our mandate.... I do not agree that it is the Canadian public who picks and chooses what we are and where we go...... considering the overwhelming number of people I personally have encountered who believe we are fighting for George Bush and oil is the motivating factor in Afghanistan. ( : For all the oil reserves Afghanistan has)  There are many Canadians who simply don't understand why we are there and what we are doing. How can the uninformed be the ones determining where we go and for what purpose? I am not implying that my fellow Countrymen are morons either, but many Canadians live in a little happy bubble (That having the mighty U.S as a protector and being on the continent of North America, far from the problems of the world provides) and choose NOT to get informed of external affairs.  Key word I used was MANY, not ALL.

It is the Governments responsibility to decide where we go and why...... just as it is their decision on the size of our budget. Now, if the Government chooses to listen to the public on where we go and why.... well.....  But why should they listen to that and not all the OTHER things Canadians are perpetually screaming about to be changed?

 

[GAP]

Do not the members of DART and other groups like it not initially train as a grunts.....they are all given the basic skillset, then tasked to other things....

 

[aesop081]

Do not the members of DART and other groups like it not initially train as a grunts.....they are all given the basic skillset, then tasked to other things....

They are a member of a multitude of trades that are tasked to DART for a specific period of time.

 

[GAP]

They are a member of a multitude of trades that are tasked to DART for a specific period of time.

My point was that they ALL have basic military training to enable them to defend themselves if needed....

 

[Armymedic]

Do not the members of DART and other groups like it not initially train as a grunts.....they are all given the basic skillset, then tasked to other things....

If you mean the officers and troops of the purple trades, other than their BOTC or BMQ, where they learn the basic military skills, no.

Not every trade in the CF trains exclusively for high intensity warfare. For instance, on my Med Tech QL6A, our small team project was to plan for a battalion+ size UN deployment into a tropical country.

Diversity of training and experience is not a bad attribute to instil upon a military.

 

[Greymatters]

As for who chooses our mandate.... I do not agree that it is the Canadian public who picks and chooses what we are and where we go...

We can agree to disagree, and it is a perception based on an extended interpretation - if the leaders making the decisions are elected by the population base (those willing to vote anyway), then the population is effectively picking and supporting the policy upon which our leaders base their decisions (ideally anyway, public opinion on individual issues can go counter to platforms). 

... considering the overwhelming number of people I personally have encountered who believe we are fighting for George Bush and oil is the motivating factor in Afghanistan. ( : For all the oil reserves Afghanistan has) 

If an opinion is voiced often enough and loud enough, even lies can eventally be regarded as the truth.  The Bush/Oil factor has been spread widely with very few dissenting voices, so the public believes its true.  Ive heard in the past that even teachers at high schools and universities expressed this same opinion in their classrooms, which is a pretty hard nut to crak in terms of credibility - Id like to know what 'official paper' they got their facts from. 

If credible reasons for the mission were just as widely voiced and distributed, it would counter the Bush/Oil myth.  When I have had to debate the issue in the past, the other person is unable to provide any actual facts that this is occuring, only that they read about it in a blog (someone's opinion), an editorial (someone's opinion), or a special interest group site (someone's cherry-picked facts and opinion).  No one I know can recall seeing a credible site countering the myth with facts, including myself - we know its not true, but Ive never seen an official document addressing the issue. 

There are many Canadians who simply don't understand why we are there and what we are doing. How can the uninformed be the ones determining where we go and for what purpose? I am not implying that my fellow Countrymen are morons either, but many Canadians live in a little happy bubble (That having the mighty U.S as a protector and being on the continent of North America, far from the problems of the world provides) and choose NOT to get informed of external affairs.  Key word I used was MANY, not ALL. 

Its a general opinion, true, except I dont believe a lot of people really see the US as our 'protector' these days (not in BC anyway). 

Regarding our missions, its rather surprising how forgetful people are.  Many of the missons we got sent on over the past twenty years were initiated by the will of the people.  Agreed, not ALL of the people, but by some small vocal segments of the people and the special interest groups who had the ears of the higher elements and whose voices were loud enough that these requests and opinions were printed in newspapers (which after a few years, most of the general public forget they have read these articles calling for action).  Examples are Kosovo, East Timor, and several humanitarian aid missions. 

Others were a direct request for aid by specific countries or organiztions.  Prior to the last deployment to Haiti for example, there were numerous protests and demonstrations demanding Canadian action.  The representatives of the Haitian coalition government requested Canadian assistance through the OAS.  Not just for food and economic aid, but for troops who could help stabilize the situation.  Demonstration groups afterwards conveniently forgot that information, calling us 'occupiers' and 'invaders', some of them the same groups that asked for Canadian action in the first place. 

It is the Governments responsibility to decide where we go and why...... just as it is their decision on the size of our budget. Now, if the Government chooses to listen to the public on where we go and why.... well.....   But why should they listen to that and not all the OTHER things Canadians are perpetually screaming about to be changed? 

No answer for you - "they listen when they feel it's in their best interests"?

 

[PanaEng]

Just as I was going to jump in the fray Graymatters posts this great reply. I don't think there is anything else to say.

But let me add my summary and call to action:
- the public elects our politicians and government. in order to stay in power, the government does (mostly) what the people want;
- therefore, if the people want to take away our guns, give us daisies and pink dresses and still call us an army, that's what would happen (I would resign of course) ;D
- to prevent this we must ensure the people know that we need an army with teeth.
- How: each one of us is a PR person; go forth and spread the good word (but don't beat the lefties with a stick as much as they may deserve it, start gently and with patience)

Anyway, it's late, I'm still at work and I'm starting to see bugs crawling across my screen... time to go...

 

[Greymatters]

Prairie Dog makes a pretty valid point, though - politicians can be pretty selective about when and whom they choose to listen to when they make decisions...

 

[len173]

I don't think anyone can deny that the military serves many purposes other than war fighting. However it's main goal is training to win a war. Other tasks are performed because the need and expertise is there. Most of the jobs that aren't about fighting/killing are there to support those that are tasked with combat. Canada has a military, just because we have a history of peace keeping doesn't mean we are peace keepers. That is a function the military *can* perform in certain situations. Frankly Canadians need to get over the blue beret fetish and take a strong look at our peace keeping record. We didn't have peace keepers, we had an excuse not to purchase good equipment and the Canadian people bought it. People that argue the CF is not a war machine are wrong, because if it deteriorates into a mumaitarian aid/ peace keeping force we no longer have a military, we have something different all together.