Somalia scandal

[Gunner]

You won't see much publically about ROE, past or present, as it is an OPSEC issue.

Actually, ROE are classiifed information.  Their application in an operational theatre would be considered OPSEC.

Sorry, OPSEC issues are my pet peeve.

 

[armyrules]

I agree with Caesar I think we should let it be its over and it should stay over

 

[Acorn]

Sorry Gunner, my sloppy use of terminology. I should know better.

Acorn

 

[the 48th regulator]

Let Sleeping dogs lie?

Nope, I think his trial should be broadcast so the world can see the b*****d that brought death to someone and shame to a Regiment, a force, and a Nation.  I want to see him get his due process and be punished for his actions.


He escaped scott free and disappeared like a ghost, which allowed for everyone to be a scape goat.  Push the goat aside and get the jackal.

tess

 

[armyrules]

Did u read the book "Sacpegoat" 48th regulator if u did what did u think of it?

 

[Acorn]

Kyle Brown was clearly guilty as charged, and his five-year sentence was probably light considering he was an accomplice to murder and torture.

Scapegoat implies that he was an innocent sacrificed to protect the senior officers. I'd like to point out that his OC ended up slammed, and his CO certainly isn't in the news as an Army high-flyer anymore. Even the comd of the mission, Col Labbe, hasn't been seen on the BGen list. Plus a few other careers were consigned to the scrap heap, and Brown may have done the most time, but he wasn't the only one to spend time in digger. All of which owe more to the inquiry than to some book.

Peter Worthington seems to have forgotten his time as a soldier, and allows his son-in-law(?), Scott Taylor, to influence his journalisting objectivity (now there's an oxymoron.) His recent "postcards from Kabul" demonstrate that.

Acorn

 

[armyrules]

You do bring up a great point Acorn I guess i never thought of it that way thank-you for that sheading of light  what is your take on the whole case? 

                                                                              Cheers

 

[pbi]

Peter Worthington seems to have forgotten his time as a soldier, and allows his son-in-law(?), Scott Taylor, to influence his journalisting objectivity (now there's an oxymoron.) His recent "postcards from Kabul" demonstrate that.

Roger that!  Cheers.

 

[dutchie]

Let Sleeping dogs lie?
Nope, I think his trial should be broadcast so the world can see the b*****d that brought death to someone and shame to a Regiment, a force, and a Nation.   I want to see him get his due process and be punished for his actions.
He escaped scott free and disappeared like a ghost, which allowed for everyone to be a scape goat.   Push the goat aside and get the jackal.

If I thought that the Canadian media would report on this trial in a fair, objective, and even-handed manner, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, the media is partially to blame for the huge amount of the disinformation and the negative perceptions that Canadians have (or had) of the Forces. The other guilty party in this is the Liberal governemt at the time, and the last time I checked they are still in power. The Fed Gov (read: Cretin and Co.) held our arms while the media pummeled us. They sacrificed a Regiment and the pride of Canadian soldiers to win political points.

I see no reason to believe the CBC will all of a sudden spin Somalia into anything other than a condemnation of the Forces as a whole, rather than a condemnation of a few individuals. Don't let the recent positive press fool you (post-9/11) - the CBC likes nothing better than to expose this institution as a cesspool of incompetance, brutality and perversion.

I want to see that 'Jackal' swing as much as the next guy, but I don't want to see the kind of bullsh*t on the CBC that we saw 10 years ago because of it.

 

[oneup]

Guilt for the unfortunate civilian casualties in Somalia should not be carried by one or two people.

Under different circumstances, for example Afghanistan today,  Matchee would not behave the same way,  because the army has improved a lot. 

At the time of the deployment to Somalia,  the Canadian army was soft from 40 years of peace.  The CAR soldiers did their best with what they had,  but it didn't help matters that the CO didn't understand the type of conflict he was in.  Proof of this is in his camp layout.  He was more concerned with having a firm place to sleep than being tactical,  and he ordered the troops to 'shoot to wound' and 'rough up' civilians caught entering the wire.

Matchee got drunk and went overboard,  in the belief that he had the CO's backing,  which it would seem he did,  if you refer to the order to rough up or wound to deter civilian infiltrators.

In this light,  Matchee cannot be held solely responsible.  His actions were symptomatic of larger problems in the army.  The Somalia Commission of Inquiry explained this fully,  but too few people have read it.

 

[the 48th regulator]

agreed,   very good points by all.

But in the end, I still believe the worm should hang, as he couldn't even get that right.

I did read scapegoat, was he guilty? Of course, but the book did raise some good points, one was the use of Mephaquine which was a taboo subject to talk about in those days, considering it could haved caused the govenment yet another embarassment.

So ya, I thought it was good.

tess

 

[Bartok5]

It is Mefloquine, and it has varying effects on individuals dependant upon physiology.  There are exceedingly few cases where the drug results in irrational behaviour.  Indeed, there were none (of 850 troop) that I know of on my last operational tour. 

Prescribed Meflo use is zero excuse for psychotic behaviour.  If it upsets your stomach, then you get the daily dose of an alternate drug instead. 

Mefloquine psychosis is a myth.  Anyone hanging their "pension hat" on that particular excuse is evidently grasping at rather thin straws... 

 

[the 48th regulator]

i cut and pasted from the web medical dictionary as used by google sorry if i chose the wrong dialect, I aint much for that fancy book reading.   As for the myth, hmm why did many a nation stop issuing that to their troops, Britain being one.

I will pass on your info to them. BTW pretty harsh words regarding anyone "hanging their pension hat" gone are   the days of a stiff upper lip mate.

cheers

tess

 

[pbi]

If I hear this Mefloquine myth one more time.......

To the best of my knowledge,(and I stand to be corrected) the current clinical evidence concerning Mefloquine(as opposed to the "Scott Taylor" evidence) is that about one in 2000 users may develop psychological side effects, and of these very, very few will approach psychotic behaviour. A few people may have sleep disorders or irritability, but the tripe about Mefloquine making people "go crazy" is just that: tripe.

I took Mefloquine for seven months in Africa, along with a number of other Canadians. I had occasional upset stomach and that was it. Nobody else that I know had any issues.

To blame disgusting, pre-meditated, calculated criminal behaviour by soldiers on their Mefloquine intake is the cheapest kind of "out". We mock this kind of "blame/entitlement" or "victim" culture in civil society, yet we thoughtlessly parrot this rubbish because we have difficulty coming to grips with the criminal nature of what was done by Canadian soldiers.

Abnormal behaviour by soldiers on operations can, IMHO, be far more likely attributed to:

-pre-existing psychological problems or criminal tendencies, especially in the early 90s when we were paying little or no real attention to this issue;

-the many, many stresses and fears that an operation such as Somalia creates in a soldier's mind and on his body;

-lack of proper discipline; and

-a group subculture that at least tolerates, if not encourages criminal behaviour.

I am in agreement that the command climate can contribute to these crimes: I have seen similar examples elsewhere in which a commander created an environment in which subordinates felt empowered to do wrong and dangerous things, with equally tragic results.

Disbanding the Airborne Regiment was stupid and utterly pointless. Punishing war criminals in the most exemplary manner possible is not.

Cheers.

 

[the 48th regulator]

My point about the drug is if down the line people suffer other effects that we can attribute to said drug the they should be compensated.

I think from the theme of what I said before and my feelings about the people involved that in no way am I blaming the drug for their actions.

Somehow a lot of medical professionals crop up and call things "myth" "lies to get compensation"

Well this really burns me.   You know, recently I have been told   exactly that by a medical Doctor retired, yet employed by contract, from the military;

"Oh, your injuries were only minor, an your V.A file means absolutely nothing to me"

Trust me 50 years from now you too will have realised our time in did some damage to us, and the general attitude is suck it up and shut up whiners are not allowed. Unfortunately I have to learn this a little earlier in my life.


Any way sorry to steer away from the topic at hand.

I still think we should see him pay for his actions.

tess

 

[pbi]

48th regulator: You misunderstand me, I think.

Nobody (least of all me...) is questioning that Canadian soldiers can become injured on operations, or can develop long-term health problems. For example, I am close to being an H3 because of years of exposure to loud noises, aggravated by the fact that when I joined the Reserve we almost never wore hearing protection.

What I am questioning is "medical conspiracy theories" which stir up all sorts of fear and alarm, but seem to run along on the power of isolated cases or rumour fed by shoddy journalism. If there is some conclusive proof that Mefloquine causes significant psychological effects, or long term downstream effects, then let's have it. Yet, instead, as Mark C and I have both tried to point out, there does not seem to be evidence vailable. Has there been single court case in this country, or any other, in which Mefloquine has been the subject of a compensation award?

As for "medical professionals" defending the medication: well...who else would we turn to for this evidence? We expect people to turn to us as military professionals, on military issues, right?

Finally, I disagree completely that our current culture is "suck it up and shut up" Ten years ago--maybe.Now--no .We have had a long, hard road since then and IMHO have changed 100% in how we deal with the injured and disabled. . I am familiar with several compensation cases in our Bde for Res soldiers who have developed disabilities while on active duty and the system is definitely there to help. In fact, if anything, we may be in danger of drifting too far the other way. Cheers.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Point taken PBI

I just get fired up when myth is used, though, there are no cases now does not give us a reason to write it off.   I remember a time when people said, including myself, that PTSD was a way for people to get an easy pension out of VA.   As for the current attitude, trust me, all the troubles I have had has happened in the last decade, in fact very recently, so I am baseing my opinion on hard facts.   The attitude really has not changed much, but we are moving forward, all be it slowly.

anyhoo we will save all that for another thread.   Thanks again for the fired up back and forth! As I said, I am glad to have signed up for this board

tess

 

[Bartok5]

Well, I can only echo what PBI has quite eloquently said. 

Heck - I'm an H4, and I didn't get that way from my wife screaming at me!  Try countless live-fire exercises where I had to remove the ear-plugs so that I could actually perform my job.  But try and prove cumulative injuries to the pension board without a climactic "episode" in your hip pocket.  Sorry - but it ain't gonna happen.

I turn 40 in 2 months.  My right hip and rotator cuff are screwed from a very bad (3 weeks on crutches) para landing in high winds.  My left knee "clicks" when I walk and my lower back constantly aches from simply doing the "infantry thing" for 23 years.  Neither of the latter are recorded on my med docs because there was no "incident".  Cumulative injuries are not quantified nor necessarily recognized by the medical system (and more importantly, by the pension board).  They simply don't "get it".  The people who decide whether or not you receive a pension and determine the amound don't have a frigging clue.  And that is where the bureaucratic fight ensues....

Beware if you make the conscious decision to burn out your body wearing the Canadian Flag.  The system does not care, and will fight you for compensation every inch of the way. Play the game and you are liable to end up broken, pissed-off, entirely upappreciated, and forgotten.  Such is life.....

 

[Infanteer]

Beware if you make the conscious decision to burn out your body wearing the Canadian Flag.   The system does not care, and will fight you for compensation every inch of the way. Play the game and you are liable to end up broken, pissed-off, entirely upappreciated, and forgotten.   Such is life.....

Is anyone else starting to get concerned with what seems to be a deep-seated propensity of the bureaucracy to assume that any claim by a soldier is automatically an exaggeration, a lie, or an outright fraud?   I've seen this attitude in investigations, injury claims, dealing with kit, etc, etc.  

For some reason, culpibility always seems to be a part of dealing with paperwork and (especially) money.   I still remember the beady-eyed little Finance Officer (a true Rear-Ech warrior if I ever seen one) who spent a good amount of time in posturing with various threats on what would happen if we tried to fuck around with some sort of financial claim she was yapping about - she just automatically assumed that we were ready to rob the bread truck if given the oppurtunity.   I found it offensive to me professionally (did I say that!) that I worked my ass off for months only to have this wiener come down and warn me about where my criminal tendencies may take me.

Is this a bureaucratic trend that tends to become a norm once decision making is removed from the units and centralized?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I think if the finance types were more forthcoming about what we are entitled too we won't take advantage of the system when we are given the chance.