- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
pbi said:Dennis Ruhl: Why is holding people accountable for their actions as leaders "beating up our own"? What would you prefer? The good old "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" approach? I served through the Somalia period (and for a good few years before that) and I have no desire to ever, ever see our military sink to that level again. Perhaps if we'd had a bit stronger culture of accountability in those days (at various levels of command), we might have avoided what happened, or at least dealt with it in a more effective manner. Trying to hide things like this will not work, and will only make the end result much worse when things are finally revealed.
I'm not following here very well. (Age, no doubt...) What exactly do you mean by this? And how, in the circumstances that exist in Afghanistan (as opposed to WWII or Korea), would you define "victory" ? And, anyway, what is the logical connection between that and the issue of being held accountable under military law?
Cheers
I don't think Canadian soldiers should be beating teenage thieves to death but I don't like second guessing actions that take place on an actual battlefield when emotions are strained. I took a couple courses at Petawawa way back, met a few Airborne and had one as an instructor. Some of those guys were caricatures of soldiers, and I thought that to be a good thing. The guilty were punished but unfortunately amid massive budget cuts, the Somali incident provided the impetus to disband the regiment.
By my Atiila the Hun/Mother Theresa flip-flop I meant that if you want soldiers, send soldiers. If you want social workers, send social workers. Soldiers do soldier things and micromanaging their battlefield actions has no positive outcome. As to what constutes victory in Afghanistan, how am I to know? The politians don't know, nor do I think the generals. I assume the goal is to stay on the ground for 5 years while minimizing casualties. A laudable goal? Tell me.