Royal Canadian Air Force headed to mission in Africa ‘very soon’: top general

[medicineman]

I was thinking more of the political coverup of it and lack of acknowledgement.

It was a Liberal government at the time...who's to say it wouldn't/couldn't happen again?  My guess is an all out battle like Medak or Jadotville would have a hard time being covered up these days, but I'm sure they'd try given that such an activity (ie actively engaging baddies and handing their backsides to them) kinda flies in the face of Capt Happy's idea of peacekeeping/peace support ops.

MM

 

[Journeyman]

Well, since we're now focusing on the more cheery aspects of this deployment.......

Consider also that three of the countries mentioned as potential deployment areas -- CAR, Mali, Senegal -- all have significant  numbers of child soldiers. 

- What will the media/populace view of Canadian troops having to shoot kids? 
- Regardless of self-defence or otherwise, what will the OSI impact be on our troops (in this case 'Moral Injury' rather than 'PTSD')?

With those thoughts in mind, I suggest people go to the UN site and wade through the bureaucratic-jargon to actually read those missions' mandates -- while there are some that seem valid (eg - protecting civilians), there are a couple (eg - protecting heritage sites), that I think are total BS. 

Mind you, even those reasons have not been formally raised as justification, which has so far has been limited to: a) help Canada's bid for a UNSC seat; and b) get at least one army.ca member a bit of coloured ribbon for DEU -- both of which are  :

 

[Lightguns]

Well, since we're now focusing on the more cheery aspects of this deployment.......

Consider also that three of the countries mentioned as potential deployment areas -- CAR, Mali, Senegal -- all have significant  numbers of child soldiers. 

- What will the media/populace view of Canadian troops having to shoot kids? 
- Regardless of self-defence or otherwise, what will the OSI impact be on our troops (in this case 'Moral Injury' rather than 'PTSD')?

With those thoughts in mind, I suggest people go to the UN site and wade through the bureaucratic-jargon to actually read those missions' mandates -- while there are some that seem valid (eg - protecting civilians), there are a couple (eg - protecting heritage sites), that I think are total BS. 

Mind you, even those reasons have not been formally raised as justification, which has so far has been limited to: a) help Canada's bid for a UNSC seat; and b) get at least one army.ca member a bit of coloured ribbon for DEU -- both of which are  :

Our own elected members are still trying to fry the Military police over Afghan detainees.  I can just imagine the outcry the first time some poor trigger puller offs a child soldier to save his own life and CBC features 300 redundant stories complete with blurry video of the bodies......  Don't expect a single minute of political defense from the Trudeau for doing the right thing. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I might still be naive or something, but I'm going to give both the MND and CDS the benefit of the doubt going into this.  I don't see either of them as  post-Somalia Gen Boyle types and they both have BTDT t-shirts. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Both Honourable people in large swamp of less than honourable types who don't care.

 

[medicineman]

I might still be naive or something, but I'm going to give both the MND and CDS the benefit of the doubt going into this.  I don't see either of them as  post-Somalia Gen Boyle types and they both have BTDT t-shirts.

The problem in the end is the person that actually tells those two how high and far to jump...

MM

 

[dimsum]

Our own elected members are still trying to fry the Military police over Afghan detainees.  I can just imagine the outcry the first time some poor trigger puller offs a child soldier to save his own life and CBC features 300 redundant stories complete with blurry video of the bodies......  Don't expect a single minute of political defense from the Trudeau for doing the right thing.

Simple.  Issue everyone with helmet-cams like the police.  :

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The problem in the end is the person that actually tells those two how high and far to jump...

MM

Agreed.  I was very specific in my wording.  :nod:

 

[Ostrozac]

It was a Liberal government at the time.

The Medak Pocket battle occurred while Kim Campbell was Prime Minister. She was a Progressive Conservative.

 

[The Bread Guy]

And while everyone's looking at and ranting about the bright shiny flying things, lookit what the Info-machine cranked out earlier this week ...

"The CAF conduct airlift operations in support of French operations in West Africa and the Sahel region"

Welcome, Op FREQUENCE -- let the "Canada being back" begin ...

 

[Loachman]

The Medak Pocket battle occurred while Kim Campbell was Prime Minister. She was a Progressive Conservative.

Medak Pocket battle occurred in September 1993. The unimpressive Kim Campbell government was defeated on 25 October 1993.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Both Honourable people in large swamp of less than honourable types who don't understand or care.

:nod:

 

[Lightguns]

The Medak Pocket battle occurred while Kim Campbell was Prime Minister. She was a Progressive Conservative.

Progressive, yeah...conservative.....never.

 

[medicineman]

The Medak Pocket battle occurred while Kim Campbell was Prime Minister. She was a Progressive Conservative.

That was such a short lived government I forgot about her...and M. Chretien was in there not long thereafter, continuing the cover up to ensure Canada stayed put in The FRY for some time to come - didn't want the image of Peaceful Peacekeeping" to get tarnished too much.

Thank you for correcting me on that.

MM

 

[The Bread Guy]

One step closer ...

The military is about to sign off on a set of guidelines for Canadian soldiers on what to do when they encounter child soldiers in the field — a move one expert says would be the first of its kind in the world.

While Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan is widely expected to unveil Canada’s pending contribution to UN peace support operations in Africa before Parliament rises for winter break on December 16, the past year has seen the military quietly ramping up its strategy for training soldiers on what to do when they encounter child soldiers, laying out their responsibilities under international and military law.

“We’re well aware we’re going to encounter this,” said one senior military source. “When that happens, our troops go through the spectrum. If someone was walking towards you slowly, you’d have time to employ possible several options to try and deal with the problem.

“But if someone is running at you from a fairly short distance, at some point the bottom line is our soldiers always have the right to defend themselves. It doesn’t matter the weapon, the context or who the attacker is. And it sounds maybe to the uninitiated jaded that our soldiers could maybe use deadly force against a child if the child was about to kill them, but the bottom line is if we didn’t do that, our opponents could use that tactic all the time.”

The instructions are currently in draft form but will be finalized shortly and will reflect input from the Romeo Dallaire Child Soldier Initiative — input which stresses the need to remember that child soldiers are children first.

“We’ve been working with the Canadian Armed Forces over the last year and a half to make this point really clear and we’ve had good support from the Minister of National Defence and from the chief of defence staff,” said Shelly Whitman, executive director of the Child Soldier Initiative, a Dalhousie University-based NGO that works to eliminate the use of armed children in warfare.

“We’ve been doing presentations with them, working through with them the doctrine. They have a draft doctrine note that they have put together on this, and they would be the first country in the world that would have doctrine on how to encounter and interact with child soldiers.” ...

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Not sure who initiated the writing of that child soldier guideline, but good job guys. 

 

[daftandbarmy]

Not sure who initiated the writing of that child soldier guideline, but good job guys. 

Just the Christmas present I was hoping for: formal direction on when it was OK to shoot kids.

I'm sure that the difference in relative risk between a 'walking armed child' and a 'running armed child' or 'children throwing petrol bombs and pushing a small car off the top of a building onto my patrol' will become more apparent on the battlefield, and the CDS and judge will back me up to the hilt.  :sarcasm:

 

[Journeyman]

  :sarcasm:

Well, since you started it....... 

The article says Canadian troops' right of self defence authorizes deadly force, even against children... coupled with a "Dalhousie University-based NGO that works to eliminate the use of armed children in warfare."  I gather they agree on the end-state, but differ on means.    ;D  (again, he started it)


However....
The instructions "will reflect input from the Romeo Dallaire Child Soldier Initiative — input which stresses the need to remember that child soldiers are children first."  This is the part that's troubling; I've no doubt that they  will get more than their share of sound-bites when African children start getting themselves killed -- Ottawa chair warmers focused on their age, and probably racism....not the fact that they're shooting at Canadian troops who were sent there to help. I also imagine backing from the sunny days camp will be particularly absent.    :

 

[daftandbarmy]

Well, since you started it....... 

The article says Canadian troops' right of self defence authorizes deadly force, even against children... coupled with a "Dalhousie University-based NGO that works to eliminate the use of armed children in warfare."  I gather they agree on the end-state, but differ on means.    ;D  (again, he started it)


However....
The instructions "will reflect input from the Romeo Dallaire Child Soldier Initiative — input which stresses the need to remember that child soldiers are children first."  This is the part that's troubling; I've no doubt that they  will get more than their share of sound-bites when African children start getting themselves killed -- Ottawa chair warmers focused on their age, and probably racism....not the fact that they're shooting at Canadian troops who were sent there to help. I also imagine backing from the sunny days camp will be particularly absent.    :

I just find it bizarre, unrealistic and dangerous to introduce this kind of PC hogwash into the RoE. What's next? Various lines that include other disadvantaged/ minority groups?

The current RoE seem robust enough to handle most situations already, and determining if an armed opponent is under the age of 18 before I pull the trigger will definitely be 'tricky', unless I'm provided with some kind of DNA sensor that gives me the age of the bad guy before I can slot him/ her in a certain manner, or not.

 

[Jarnhamar]

If a child soldier is shooting at Canadian soldiers then the soldiers should get on a phone and call the child's parents.