- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
It would be hard to argue that serving allied militaries is dishonourable, when my own family history is full of officers who served the Indian Teritorial Infantry, and Bengal Lancers. Proffessional British trained officers were in demand in the world, and given a military education, and the need to make your way in the world, it was expected you would follow your profession and seek your fortune. My own father served as a mercenary in Angola when service in the Congo for the UN (arguably also mercenary service) left him feeling less than welcome by civilian Canada. Several soldiers that I served with went on to US or UK service. They had done their service to their country, and wished to follow their profession in forces where they would have the opportunity to use their skills and training in warfighting, rather than scorekeeping (as UN peacekeeping was known to us). UN service exposes our personel to risk, with little chance of making a difference. It is also the most common reason my fellow soldiers gave for what made them think fighting for someone else was a good idea. The only thing worse than a warzone, is a warzone your ROE forbid you to change. The US and UK offer the chance to finish the job. As a soldier that is profoundly attractive. If the CF is deployed and fought like a "real army" not a glorified referee, then we will keep more personel. We have a real army, we just don't have the political will to let it prove it. Give the army missions it can take real pride in, like Afghanistan rather than Kosovo, and we will keep more troops. Let our soldiers see their actions lead to real change, and we will regain the pride in our colours that our grandfathers had. Until then, many of our best will follow their profession into other armies that see more agressive deployment.