Canadians embrace new role for military

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is an article I think deserves some discussion:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadians-embrace-new-role-for-military/article1355000/

Canadians embrace new role for military
As the Forces spend money and sacrifice lives in Afghanistan, Canadians have warmed to the country's new role as a warrior nation. But what happens after 2011?

Erin Anderssen

From Saturday's Globe and Mail Published on Friday, Nov. 06, 2009 10:34PM EST Last updated on Saturday, Nov. 07, 2009 3:03AM EST

There's no doubt that Canadians have developed a full-blown, if heartbreaking, romance with their soldiers – and, it can be argued, a more robust sense of the country's place in the world. They have become modern-day action heroes, fighting the Taliban in lethal skirmishes, chasing pirates off the Somali coast, providing a worthy air escort for the Olympic torch across the ocean. But it's an awkward love affair.

And if Canadians have accepted – and even come to admire – a military that is more muscular, they are still more comfortable with Joe, the Canadian of that decade-old beer ad who declared: “I believe in peacekeeping, not policing.”

But after decades of keeping the peace, our soldiers have become police – immersed in a deadly combat mission which, according to several polls, a majority of Canadians oppose. While tending to accept that their soldiers should stay in Afghanistan to the 2011 deadline, a war-shy public will be hesitant to commit to a future of grieving over the Highway of Heroes, however renewed their patriotism. Afghanistan, some analysts say, may be the country's last war, at least for a while. So a hard conversation looms when the fighting side of the mission ends two summers from now: Welcome home, brave soldier. But where and how will you serve next?

“The question facing Canadians – and it's very important – is what do we want to do with a better armed, better equipped, better funded military,” says Janice Stein, director of the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto. “Are we willing to use it? That's the debate that's coming.”

For a country shaped over the past 50 years by its peacekeeping identity, that means a truth-telling: “Classic peacekeeping of the kind where you interpose yourselves between two armies and play volleyball in the middle, that's gone.” Now wars are fought inside countries between armies and militants, and civilians are killed deliberately. In Afghanistan, Dr. Stein observes, “we can talk about it as a reconstruction mission or stabilization mission, but that actually involves fighting and dying. [That makes] many Canadians uncomfortable still.”

Canadians largely support a military presence in Canada's north, but that's a matter of “standing on guard” for sovereignty, not advancing into war. As Dr. Stein says, “Nobody is going to die in combat in the Arctic.”

The military – particularly under the outspoken command of Rick Hiller, now retired as chief of defence staff and promoting his autobiography across the country – has been quite deliberate in self-promotion, and successful, to a point. “If the key icons of the 80s were things like medicare and the CBC, the military became the new icon of the 21st century,” says pollster Frank Graves, president of the social research firm EKOS. Once the Afghanistan mission began, “the military became the most recognizable face of the federal government,” he said.

The lingering shame of atrocities by Canadian soldiers in Somalia has dissipated into history, the images of soldiers piling sandbags during the Red River flood or saving stranded citizens during the ice storm that struck Quebec and Eastern Ontario in 1998 sparked the return of affection. But it is the war in Afghanistan – and the steady, wrenching return of fresh-faced young men (and a few women) in coffins – that inspires the solemn crowds on those dozens of overpasses between CFB Trenton and the Coroner's office in Toronto, and the ribbons of support on car windows (or the more hostile bumper-sticker rebuke “If you don't stand behind our troops feel free to stand in front of them”). Annual Armed Forces appreciation nights have become de rigueur at professional sports events across the country. most recently at a Senators game in Ottawa, where 2,200 uniformed soldiers were given free tickets. “Ten years ago,” Mr. Hillier said during a phone interview this week, “that would have been incomprehensible.”

Standing in a line for a flight at the Ottawa airport, a couple months ago, anonymous in his civvies, he watched the mass of people in line approach the uniformed soldiers, shaking hands, even offering to buy them a Tim Hortons coffee. Less than five years ago, he observes, that would never have happened. “I don't think most Canadians would have known who they were, and even if they had known, very few of them – if any - would have gone out of their way to say ‘Thank you for what you do, our hopes and prayers are with you.' And I've seen that across the country.”

And after a long stretch of resistance to spending money on the military, support for defence expenditures has steadily risen over the past decade, rooted in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, in the need for a stronger military, and, at times, an even stronger desire to make work safe for the soldiers themselves.

“We have to be careful we don't romanticize the change too much,” counters Douglas Bland, chair in Defence Management Studies at Queen's University School of Policy Studies, who believes that dwindling political and public enthusiasm for combat missions makes a sequel to Afghanistan unlikely. “It's not very deep-seated.”

The public, he says, will not support big-money defence spending and hasn't responded to newly enthusiastic flag-waving by enlisting. (Every branch of the Armed Forces is struggling to replace retiring veterans with new recruits.) Bottom line, Dr. Bland said, Canadians are “not very keen on a mission that involves a lot of shooting.”

But for two more years, they will have to live with one. In the meantime, Canadians will wear their poppies and shake the soldier's hand on the bus, and sadly, inevitably, line up to honour more convoys carrying the casualties of a divisive war.

Last week, after a speech at the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa, Mr. Hillier played a video of pictures from the Highway of Heroes, with a Canadian version of the stirring U.S. country western anthem, God Bless the USA . (“I am proud to be in Canada,” chants the chorus.) A standing ovation followed in homage to the soldiers flashed on the screen. That's the easy part – waving the flag a little higher, caring much more for lives sacrificed in service to country. Now the tough talk begins about the future of the country's finer fighting force.

I agree wholly with Prof. Doug Bland: public support for the CF may be a mile wide but it is only an inch deep.

That being the case Janice Gross Stein is also correct. “The question facing Canadians – and it's very important – is what do we want to do with a better armed, better equipped, better funded military ... Are we willing to use it? That's the debate that's coming.”

I have argued and I continue to believe that we will, in the not too distant future find ourselves in a series of peace making or stabilization or peace support mission – mostly in Africa. No matter what we call the missions before the troops are deployed, they (the missions) will look, again and again, a lot like Afghanistan – the defining characteristic of these wars ”fought inside countries between armies and militants.” We will also find the same higher level problems we face in Afghanistan: a reluctant, confused UN that will give us (whoever we are) a mandate and then, hesitantly, try to interfere; disjointed combined (multi-national) C2; conflicting doctrines; caveats and so on.

I think the public memory is short: both about its new found ‘affection’ for its troops but also for its reluctance to ‘get involved.’

 

[SeanNewman]

Grrrr....the continuing fallacy of "...a country shaped over the past 50 years by its peacekeeping identity".

Fairly certain that a hell of a lot more Canadians served in Europe loaded for bear and full-blown war in the post-WW2 years than wearing a blue beret.

 

[HollywoodHitman]

What drives me is the notion that our role has somehow changed from peacekeeper to warrior. The one would never have been able without the mastery of the other.

That a generation or 2 is just now realising that the CF is and always have been a fighting force, a force for good and not evil, no matter what political leanings people take, is a little sad. Governments that wish to appease a popular opinion on a given subject often conveniently refer to our 'traditional roles as peackeepers'....I hate that.

I am proud of our military and how we represent our country. I am proud of our accomplishments and of our early 20-something veterans.

I am not a peacekeeper. I am a Canadian soldier and peacekeeping is something I can do, not what I am.

 

[X-mo-1979]

Oh I dunno.Use a killing military force to sweep hangers,then get together in the spring and the fall to train and do combat team commanders courses.Send a small number to a relatively safe area,show them on television around the holidays feeding a sick African kid,giving water to people in a hot place.You know...the feel good stuff.

Thats how I see us using our combat force for the next 5-10 years.

 

[a_majoor]

We may not have much of a choice.

If we are sent to a "stabilization/peacekeeping/security and reconstruction" mission then we will be drawn into combat almost by default.

If we avoid going to escape combat losses, then we will face the twin backlash of "Why aren't you doing anything to help these people" and "Why are we paying for an expensive military" (although the very people asking are the ones who are setting the terms and conditions. Obviously people have no idea of consequences).

Dammed if we do and dammed if we don't. Another decade of darkness?

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
Dammed if we do and dammed if we don't. Another decade of darkness?

Makes sense. Murphy predicts that you (the CF) are not going to be tasked until you are least able to respond efficiently and effectively.

 

[SeanNewman]

It is perhaps the ultimate irony with peacekeeping operations.

In the long-run the most peace is kept by providing a massive combat-capable deterrent.

The only kid who can break up a fight at school is the strongest kid there.  Any time a nerd tries to break up a fight he just causes confusion, gets a black eye, and the fight keeps going anyway.

 

[Jungle]

Murphy

Fantastic !!!  ;D I could probably have a couple of appearances in that video... 

As stated, it's a good time to be in the CF now, but i'm not sure about 3 or 4 years down the road...

 

[Kilo_302]

I think it's great that the CF is more "operationally focused" now than it has been in awhile. As for what the future holds, that's anyone's guess.
Soldier will definitely be in demand, but I think Canada will be have to be very selective of what missions it signs on to. Africa will be a hotbed of conflict, but what can the CF do on that continent that will benefit Canadians directly? The majority of future conflict may be as a result of climate change (direct or otherwise), and as a result there may little military force can do to achieve a positive outcome internationally. Without trying to sound like a "doomer," I think now is the time to explore what the CF will be asked to do in Canada in the next 30 years. It may get to the point that the CF will be asked to protect Canada itself, rather than Canadian interests abroad.

 

[sm1lodon]

The original poster quoted from that paper saying the Forces are having trouble filling up its slots with new recruits?

Infantry, for an example is so over-subscribed now that they aren't even performing selections, at this time, for infantry. according to a corporal I online-chatted with on the Forces.ca site.

Are there still problems filling spots for other jobs? Are there enlistment bonuses for jobs that are lacking?

 

[ballz]

The original poster quoted from that paper saying the Forces are having trouble filling up its slots with new recruits?

Infantry, for an example is so over-subscribed now that they aren't even performing selections, at this time, for infantry. according to a corporal I online-chatted with on the Forces.ca site.

Are there still problems filling spots for other jobs? Are there enlistment bonuses for jobs that are lacking?

That's more due to the lack of capacity to train them all than the overwhelming amount of recruits.
Yes there are are other jobs that are in demand. Bonuses? Ask the recruiters.

I sure hope we remain active in the world and continue upon the progress we've made since this war started. Canada's military is quite simply too small at the present time and much more so for the future.

As for the peacekeeping thing, I always loved this beauty from the Big Cod himself. "We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fYbdmAIr58 starts at 1:26, and after the quote he elaborates on the whole "presumed conception" that our soldiers were only peacekeepers.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterday’s Globe and Mail is the first volley of the counter offensive:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/oh-oh-canada/article1389608/

Oh-oh, Canada
That Governor-General Michäelle Jean has become GI Jean is but one example of our proud identity being turned upside down

Governor-General Michaelle Jean and Prince Charles speak with veterans after a Remembrance Day ceremony in Ottawa on Wednesday, November 11, 2009.
The Canadian Press

Gerald Caplan

Friday, Dec. 04, 2009

My country seems to be slipping away in front of my very eyes.

Our proud identity, our cherished core values – never mind the vast gap between aspiration and achievement – are being turned upside down.

Gun control advocates are out, gun apologists are in.

Peacekeeping is out, warriors are in.

Preventing war is out, killing scumbags is in.

Demonstrations for peace are out, demonstrations of a martial spirit are in.

Thoughtful, restrained Canadianism is out, hand-on-heart Yankee-style patriotism is in.

Take a gander at Michäelle Jean. She herself, when appointed Governor-General, was the very embodiment of Canada's finest aspirations. But GG Jean suddenly has become GI Jean, all resplendent in military uniform. Nor is this a mere gesture to boost the morale of the troops. Only recently Jean declared that “the people of Afghanistan support progress, democracy, the reconstruction of peace, the respect of rights and freedoms, the equality of women, education and development.”

This is self-evidently baloney. Who's she talking about – the Karzai government, the Taliban, the religious leaders, the war lords, the poppy growers, the torturers, the rapists of girls and women?

Canada, Jean added, “in turn supports their efforts and initiatives to promote viable Afghan solutions to Afghan problems.” This is a deeply controversial, partisan assertion. Since when did our GG become a maven on Afghanistan and since when does she take sides in issues that deeply divide Canadians at home? This is fairly precarious turf our figurehead is treading on. She too has caught the new macho virus, the military-based nationalism that has suddenly infected large parts of our peaceable little dominion.

Just look at the huge gala that the True Patriot Love Foundation threw in Toronto on the eve of Remembrance Day last month. Who had ever heard of this foundation before that night? Who in fact had ever heard those three little words outside of the national anthem – whose other lyrics many Canadians still can't exactly recall, a nice symptom of our maturity and sophistication. Canadians could love Canada without invoking bombs bursting in air. We had nothing to prove about our belligerence.

General Walter Natynczyk greets retired captain Trevor Greene at the True Patriot Love gala in Toronto on November 10, 2009.
Fred Lum/The Globe and Mail

No more. Everyone and their aunt was at that foundation event, to be seen and to be counted. Naturally and appropriately, military families were present, including Jodi Mitic (whose father I know) and Trevor Green, extraordinarily courageous soldiers who had suffered grievous injuries in Afghanistan. But so were a veritable cornucopia of political leaders, various Canadian “celebrities,” and not least, lots and lots and of business folk.

Why not? It was in a good cause: to raise about $2-million for something called the Military Families Fund, to assist military families facing urgent financial need resulting from conditions of service.

And more. As Chief of the Defence Staff General Walter Natynczyk told the 1,700 glitterati, part of the mission of the TPLF was “recognizing the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform and their families are making today.”

Several questions demand to be raised.

Why are military families dependent on private charity for any needs resulting from conditions of service? Two million dollars is chump change for any government. The Harperites waste that amount on partisan political gimmicks every morning. And the PM loves our troops. He embraces them at the drop of a photo op.

So why do they need $2-million from private sources? Does this mean that until that gala evening, Canadian military families in time of need were left in the lurch by their government? What if those families need more than $2-million? Why should the soldiers we honour so loudly be dependent on private handouts?

As for recognizing the sacrifices of our troops in Afghanistan and their families, let it be noted that virtually no one else in Canada shares their sacrifice or ever has. Most of the business-people at the gala didn't even pay for their own $750 seat; their companies bought tables which they'll bill as a charitable donation for a tax refund.

No Canadian has ever been asked to give up a single pleasure, a luxury, a frivolity, an indulgence, a frivolous consumer want, on behalf of our soldiers. Rich Canadians and Corporate Canada fight like the devil any suggestion they pay more taxes for the greater good of the larger community. Sacrifices are for others – those fine boys and girls we love to be seen honouring.

Finally, I wonder what would have happened if some political leader had chosen not to endorse the True Patriot Love gala. Well, I don't really wonder. I know. We all know. They would have been denounced on every front for being unpatriotic, un-Canadian, betrayers of our boys and girls abroad. And not one dared do so.

I'm no pacifist. There are, very occasionally, conflicts that can only be resolved by war. I would not have been with the founder of my party, J. S. Woodsworth, when he stood alone in the House of Commons in 1939 to vote against Canada declaring war on Nazi Germany, though my admiration for his courage is boundless. There are principles worth losing popularity for.

But I do stand with – of all people – U.S. general Dwight Eisenhower, commander of the allied forces in Europe on D-Day 1944. “I hate war,” Ike said, “as only a soldier who has lived it can, as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.”

Those who glorify war will always find it. My Canada will not.

Gerald Caplan is a former national campaign director for the New Democratic Party and author of The Betrayal of Africa

Caplan’s views are not only those of a few disgruntled Dippers – his little laundry list – “Gun control advocates are out, gun apologists are in ... Thoughtful, restrained Canadianism is out, hand-on-heart Yankee-style patriotism is in” – is the default position of many, many, likely most Canadians.

As I keep saying: yellow ribbons and red T-shirts to the contrary, support for the military is a mile  wide and an inch deep.

 

[ballz]

:clubinhand:

This guy makes about as much sense as his party, and has the same amount of charisma as the bottom of my shoe.

God forbid anybody (besides the NDP of course) do anything or support anything without some back-alley agenda behind it.

And if anybody is to blame for the lack of funding for the military and it's families, they're standing on his side of the fence.