- Reaction score
- 27,511
- Points
- 1,090
President Eric Trump enters the conversation.Shoot me now.
President Eric Trump enters the conversation.Shoot me now.
Well, to be fair, the link in the CANFORGEN was broken. Which I thought was onbrand…Check the latest CANFORGENs. One of them is announcing a document describing this concept and includes a link to it.
The CAF has been working on Pan Domain for some timeA hint possibly:
Re-evaluating the Defence and Security Landscape: The Pan Domain Approach | Centre for International and Defence Policy
Dec 5, 2022 | Policy Brief | by Chelsea Popewww.queensu.caRe-evaluating the Defence and Security Landscape: The Pan Domain Approach - Nov 22
…but other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?Problem areas have been Chinese, Indian and Middle Eastern Relations.
My only issue is: can we, as a nation, muster the political will to tell our political leaders that we want
correct. It requires the CAF to produce commercials highlighting achievements because the news outfits will never put the CAF as a lead item unless its another senior officer being arrested. The public is interested in what they are told. If you can convince a outlet to feature information re: the military then you will have people interested and concerned. Can you get on 22 minutes in a healthy way or devise an alternative 30 minutes to the Survivor? How about a story line integrating SAR with Hudson and Rex and coming out as a worthwhile partner? It isn't that the public doesn't care, they don't know.Unfortunately I don't feel we as a nation can agree on what we want. Even more so I think the majority probably wants less military spending.
To me the problem is three fold.
First our military has been dragged through the mud last few years with controversy after controversy. And politicians on both sides have used us as a whipping boy to score cheap political points.
Second we have done little to promote the positives we have done, most operations we go on get little to no recognition in the public and the public mostly don't know about it.
Third is complacency by our geographical location. Have the US as our only border nation has giving our public and even our military in some ways a lack of a sense of urgency or even need. This has also lead to the public devaluing the need for a robust military.
I really think our government regardless of stripe needs to do more of a job promoting our military, and not just for recruitment. But to give Canadians that sense of pride in our service men and women. This is not something that can happen over night, and realistically could take a generation or more to turn around.
I think Canada missed a great opportunity this summer when they were deploying troops to help combat forest fires. It was mostly only mentioned as a footnote in most news broadcasts, and that was it. I think a few commercials simply showing our troops at work could of done wonders for helping our image.
... can we, as a nation, muster the political will to tell our political leaders that we want effective and efficient, the two are not mutually exclusive, armed forces that can operate, in our national interests, in a complex strategic environment?
... I really think our government regardless of stripe needs to do more of a job promoting our military, and not just for recruitment. But to give Canadians that sense of pride in our service men and women. This is not something that can happen over night, and realistically could take a generation or more to turn around.
"We are not the Public Service of Canada. We are not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people," General Rick Hillier - July 2005
Peacekeeping as any sort of priority is pointless. There is often no peace to keep, and too often it results in troops being deployed too late or too ill-equipped to do anything meaningful.I have immense respect for General Hiller. But I think that statement is part of the problem and I personally don't agree with the end part.
Our military does so much more than train for killing people. Our deployments over the years have been varied in roll and purpose. From active humanitarian relief, to search and rescue and yes some times it is ... to kill.
Canada has long lost the 'peace keeper" label that brought us both national and international respect.. maybe it's time to focus on that again.
I do agree the primary purpose of a military is either offense (the kill) or deterance.
But regardless of our purpose, we still do pretty much squat all about promoting that to our citizens. It's hard to have public support if the general population think we do nothing but the negative news we get.
One doesn't have a military in order to run active humanitarian relief, one doesn't have a military to perform search and rescue operations - one has a military in order to defend its national/international interests with the threat of 'killing the other sides military' in a more efficient/effective manner. By having the last skill set, it provides us with the luxury to perform the first and second skill set.I have immense respect for General Hiller. But I think that statement is part of the problem and I personally don't agree with the end part.
Our military does so much more than train for killing people. Our deployments over the years have been varied in roll and purpose. From active humanitarian relief, to search and rescue and yes some times it is ... to kill.
Canada has long lost the 'peace keeper" label that brought us both national and international respect.. maybe it's time to focus on that again.
I do agree the primary purpose of a military is either offense (the kill) or deterance.
But regardless of our purpose, we still do pretty much squat all about promoting that to our citizens. It's hard to have public support if the general population think we do nothing but the negative news we get.
One doesn't have a military in order to run active humanitarian relief, one doesn't have a military to perform search and rescue operations - one has a military in order to defend its national/international interests with the threat of 'killing the other sides military' in a more efficient/effective manner. By having the last skill set, it provides us with the luxury to perform the first and second skill set.
Too true. How often does the GOC publicly identify any action by any branch of the CAF as noteworthy and deserving of official commendation? And the emphasis goes on publiclyI have immense respect for General Hiller. But I think that statement is part of the problem and I personally don't agree with the end part.
Our military does so much more than train for killing people. Our deployments over the years have been varied in roll and purpose. From active humanitarian relief, to search and rescue and yes some times it is ... to kill.
Canada has long lost the 'peace keeper" label that brought us both national and international respect.. maybe it's time to focus on that again.
I do agree the primary purpose of a military is either offense (the kill) or deterance.
But regardless of our purpose, we still do pretty much squat all about promoting that to our citizens. It's hard to have public support if the general population think we do nothing but the negative news we get.
Notwithstanding the logic or correctness ion Rick Hillier's comment it was a PR disaster. It put the gov't-of-the-day in a position from which there was no backing away: he was their guy saying things that the overwhelming majority of Canadians did not want too hear.
Admirals and generals, like children, should be seen but not heard.