The role of the military and its relation to alleviating humanitarian crises?!

[TangoTwoBravo]

Why is it that this sort of reasoning seems to be the minority? This i support wholeheartedly, but can not accept the above premises - the ones before it. How much does this sort of ideology influence current military affairs?

Ironically, even though i have been heavily influenced by the left wing academia, i do not agree with their passive stance on systemic change, etc. I believe in a more 'abrupt' change. I see the military having an important role in this for the future, but it must not serve just its own Canadian national agenda... the plights of humanity must be met.

I guess i can always hope for the future, maybe the status quo will demand change and force politicians to make policy changes  ;D

Which ideology?

The military serves Canada first and foremost.  The military does engage, however, in activities for the benefit of people living abroad.  All that we are saying is that our first priority lies with the defence of Canada and Canadian interests.  If I understand your position, you are OK with helping others but not with defending Canadian interests?

Your comment about the military having an important role in 'abrupt change' alarms me.  The military is an obedient servant of the government of Canada.  The military is an instrument of policy, not a policy-maker (in the big picture, the military has internal policies to be sure).  The military, along with public servants, can advise, of course, but at the end of the day it is the elected government that makes the call on what missions get conducted.

What abrupt changes do you envision, and how would the military play a role?

Cheers

T2B

 

[Future Prodigy]

tnago - by abrupt change, i am referring to the contrast between ngos approach to things and a forceful, with arms (abrupt), imposing of will done by the military. Thats what i meant. Where an NGO might go into a conflict and try to build infrastructure, empower locals, dish out medical supplies, food, etc... the military would forcefully overthrow the armed rebel groups or oppressive regime. I have a low view of humanity at times and i do not see a lot of things changing without this abrupt imposition (one reason i have shied a bit away from the teaching profession). I am glad to clarify anything else!

 

[TCBF]

... the military would forcefully overthrow the armed rebel groups or oppressive regime. ...

- Like the USA did in Iraq?  I agree.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I understand now.  Thanks.

While I ascibe to the view that man is fallen and can be trusted only to look to himself, I am also OK with that as the alternative can be much much worse.  One man's forceful humanitarian intervention can be another's neo-colonialism.  The doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was developed during a period of time when thinkers thought that history was dead and national sovereignty was at its end.  I do see some merit to going to help others in desperate need, but we also have to be clear-headed and understand the second and third order effects of our actions.   

It is terrible to watch anarchy in a country on the news, but going in with military force means a long-term commitment of blood and treasure.  To be effective we will probably have to take sides and there is often little to choose between the sides.  In our haste to do good we may do more harm.  Means and resources are limited and choices have to be made.  If national interests are not at stake it may be hard to maintain a long-term commitment to do what has to be done.  That being said, I recognize that there are times when action should be taken even if the interests at stake are hard to pin down.    

Humanitarian assistance to natural disasters is another matter, as we are looking at providing relatively short-term assistance to an assumably stable state (ante-disaster).  The military is fairly effective at picking up and moving great distances and doing pretty much what was asked of it in austere locations with a dodgy security situation.  We have field hospitals and our people are pretty good at setting up little towns in the middle of nowhere and supporting said towns.

 

[Future Prodigy]

I was speaking to one of my friends last night about this issue, and he mentioned to me: "The CF, like all military services of every nation in this world, serves its country, its people, and its interests. Along the way, they perform humanitarian interventions when it is in their interest (but they still do it, so that appeals to you). They can't help everyone in the world because it is simply unrealistic. Maybe one day, there will be a one world government and one military, but that won't happen in our lifetimes. But every mission that Canada has participated in over the last 100 years you would agree with, since they've done good."

Could anyone elaborate on this point here?

I have been in contact with some professors at RMC and they have suggested i study in their graduate war studies program, solely because of the questions i raise with them... and i find this rather strange as there has been a lot of people on this board that have either directly in the forum or through PM's told me to get lost and leave the CF all together; yet, the other spectrum says i am asking good questions and to continue my pursuit of knowledge. Which voice is representative of the CF i haven't been able to tell yet.

 

[Future Prodigy]

p.s. i know its not your point, and i should ask him to elaborate on it but he went to bed last night before he could and i thought id ask on here for clarification as well.

 

[TCBF]

... Maybe one day, there will be a one world government and one military,...

- If there was only one world government, why would it need a military?

 

[Welshy]

Which voice is representative of the CF i haven't been able to tell yet.

No one voice here is the representation of the CF. People have posted what the CF aims are. This forum is not the military, but simply a place were military orientated people can discuss thing pertaining to the CF.

 

[helpup]

i am referring to the contrast between ngos approach to things and a forceful, with arms (abrupt), imposing of will done by the military. Thats what i meant. Where an NGO might go into a conflict and try to build infrastructure, empower locals, dish out medical supplies, food, etc... the military would forcefully overthrow the armed rebel groups or oppressive regime. I have a low view of humanity at times and i do not see a lot of things changing without this abrupt imposition (one reason i have shied a bit away from the teaching profession). I am glad to clarify anything else!

Interesting thread,  FP, if it were only that Simple as what I highlighted in your quote.  There is enough troubles going on in Iraq and Afghanistan after their "regime" change.  

If I am following your thoughts correctly your looking at the use of the CF to go to the despots or trouble areas of the world and impose a "regime" change in order to help those living there.  The goal itself, if that is your line of thought, is laudable but impracticable and dealing with Canada and the CF not what we are here to do.  

It is laudable as on the face of it righting the wrongs of the world and making the downtrodden on paper and morally should be a no brainer.  But in the current state of the world it is impractical on sooooo many levels.  To cover some of those reasons

Canada by our very history is not an "aggressor" nation.  We have ( I hope will continue) to go to war as part of a "coalition" or to support another country goals.  In the beginning it was under Great Britons umbrella as a colony.  But with WWI / II it became more important that we declare war on our own for a cause we believed in.  Mind you it was in both cases to assist GB.  Time went on and we switched from strictly following GB to using the UN.  Where it was and in some cases is perceived as a forum where our "middle power" abilities would be able to be utilized to a better extent.  In the beginning it seemed to be a perfect fit.  Our small well trained military went ( with others ) into conflicts to deescalate them and allow a form of normalicy to reign.  Korea took it a step further and turned it into a full born military action that ended in a stalemate.  Back to "peace keeping" ( I still hate that term but it is what it is ).  Through out all of this a realization was emerging that the UN is not able to in its current formula to provide the bias free club of altruistic leaders looking to better the world.  (But I will leave the details to that for other threads. )

Therein lies the problem, the UN has too many differant caveats built into its make up that more often then not prevents them from just sending a UN mandated military into any country let alone to force a regime change.  Most of those regimes that need to be changed are members of the UN and have the not so subtle backing of other larger countries that would prevent such actions.    

Then there is the who are we to judge aspect.  If we are going to say that Afghanistan is a place to be then logically why not Darfur, Gen Mugabie, or hey lets have a look at Israel.  Where would it stop? What would your conditions be and how would you get the rest of the world to go along with it.  

Personally I do believe that we should be doing more and if we cant get to all the places we should at least start somewhere.  However since I am a soldier I take my orders and in the 7 tours that I have had know from experience that on each and every one I left that place a bit better off then when we got there.  It may have been small things or very very slow things but the improvement was there.  ( mind you in one case at least it has backslid but I would argue we didn't stay to finish the job).

That job by the way is being done by a fully trained soldier who is taught to obey orders and to carry them out to the best of his ability.  With out, mind you, becoming a mindless automaton.  With our trained for war system we can and have stepped it back to provide relief where needed or as demonstrated in Afghanistan stand toe to toe with Timmy and still get the school fixed, wells dug.  

But we don't get to pick where we should be. And honestly as a soldier in the CF we should not be allowed to.  That is what the Government of Canada is there for.  We don't get to choose what we go over there to do.  That is decided for us.  We don't even get a choice on what our ROE's are those are made up for each and every mission we go on.  We have an input in what we can do at the local level but that is through our CoC and in the end it will be directed what if any major civilian aid will be done in a given area.  The higher your rank in the chain of command the more input you have for those working under you as to in what way will you attack and defend an area to the ways you help the civilians.  But your overriding concern is accomplishing your mission, looking after your troops and if your competent putting your own " stamp" on things.  That stamp is a reflections of your own beliefs but it cannot interfere with the first two priorities.  

My own advice to you is to take the plunge join.  You will quickly find out if the job is for your or not.  In either way you will learn a bit more about yourself in the process.  If at some point your don't like your job get out.  Really the timeline is not that long and the life skills you will learn are immense.  

OK I have rambled enough.  This non university person has some paperwork to do.  

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I was speaking to one of my friends last night about this issue, and he mentioned to me: "The CF, like all military services of every nation in this world, serves its country, its people, and its interests. Along the way, they perform humanitarian interventions when it is in their interest (but they still do it, so that appeals to you). They can't help everyone in the world because it is simply unrealistic. Maybe one day, there will be a one world government and one military, but that won't happen in our lifetimes. But every mission that Canada has participated in over the last 100 years you would agree with, since they've done good."

Could anyone elaborate on this point here?

I have been in contact with some professors at RMC and they have suggested i study in their graduate war studies program, solely because of the questions i raise with them... and i find this rather strange as there has been a lot of people on this board that have either directly in the forum or through PM's told me to get lost and leave the CF all together; yet, the other spectrum says i am asking good questions and to continue my pursuit of knowledge. Which voice is representative of the CF i haven't been able to tell yet.

I don't see much in that quote that has not already been said, with the exception of the world government bit.  TCBF has already addressed that part quite well.  I will refer you back to Mr Campbell's outstanding post a few pages back with regards to the last part about "since they've done good."  Now, I am proud of what the Canadian military has done at home and abroad and I think that history will judge the intentions behind our battles kindly.  That being said, it is not all touchy-feely either and you don't get to pick from the menu.

You will hear nothing official here with the exception of links to broad government policy.  I do not speak for the CF, and I ramble here based on my studies from fifteen years ago.  I encourage you to pursue what interests you, be it further academics, service with the CF or some other career. You will not know until you try. 

 

[TCBF]

TCBF,

What about the Kandahar PRT? Isn't what you said above pretty much what the mandate of the PRT is? Please correct me if I'm wrong...

- I am not saying we don't or won't do a lot of those things, only that we should provide the secure framework for doing so and other better suited agencies should do the nation building.

- The fact that we are, in many cases, better nation builders than the designated agencies are is more of an indication of the corruption and ossification of our public service than it is and indication of our suitability to do so.

 

[CougarKing]

- I am not saying we don't or won't do a lot of those things, only that we should provide the secure framework for doing so and other better suited agencies should do the nation building.

- The fact that we are, in many cases, better nation builders than the designated agencies are is more of an indication of the corruption and ossification of our public service than it is and indication of our suitability to do so.

Thanks for the long-awaited reply. 

 

[a_majoor]

Rereading some of FP's posts indicates he hasn't thought this proposition through very well. If it is given that armed force can be deployed to "rescue" people who's rights are being offended against, who does the deciding and what "rights" are being upheld?

Perhaps FP would like to see Canada occupied by the PLA and Cuban troops who would occupy the Jane-Finch corridor, aboriginal reservations and the province of Quebec, based on the need to "protect" the rights of the people living there. The occupiers would expect payment of course......

The conceit behind R2P is to deny national sovereignty and local governance. Unfortunately, the people who brought us this idea haven't thought it through either, since there is nothing in the construct which suggests that radical Islamic Jihadis don't have the right to subjugate us to impose Sharia law, or the former USSR wasn't duty bound to impose Marxism on everyone and so on. Historical experience should also demonstrate this is a flawed idea; the 30 years war in Europe was fought for precisely the reasons we are supposed to engage in R2P as expressed in 15th century thought (to the point of reducing the populations of German principalities by 30%), and in the 20th century various Socialist blocs fought each other with unrestrained savagery in order to ensure the "correct" version of Socialism was practiced and observed by the people. The current unrest through the Islamic arc can be seen as a struggle to "save" the various populations from apostate forms of Islam (and to a lesser extent to free the people from Islam altogether, i.e Ba'athist ideology).

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Rereading some of FP's posts indicates he hasn't thought this proposition through very well.

IMO it's because he is getting us to write some sort of term paper for him with our responses.  Is no one else feeling manipulated?

 

[PMedMoe]

IMO it's because he is getting us to write some sort of term paper for him with our responses.  Is no one else feeling manipulated?

Yep, if you look here, I said that as well, partly in jest, but mostly not.

 

[McG]

... he is getting us to write some sort of term paper for him with our responses. 

We are giving ourselves too much credit if we think the quality of this thread could be turned into anything better than a high school report ... and even there it wouldn't be an A.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

We are giving ourselves too much credit if we think the quality of this thread could be turned into anything better than a high school report ... and even there it wouldn't be an A.

Clearly my knuckledragging isn't proving a thesis somewhere, but this feels like rough notes being put together towards something.  Anyone can insert the UFI required to make it into an intellectual submission once the outline is done.  Reminds me of the blind testing techniques that are used in psychology.

 

[Leonard]

IMO it's because he is getting us to write some sort of term paper for him with our responses.  Is no one else feeling manipulated?

Hi there, I’ve been following this thread for a while, so let me analyze what has transpired.

FP is not trying to get you fellas to write a paper for him. He was inspired by Romeo Dallaire’s inspiring speech about the positive role the CF plays in international conflicts. As a result, FP was genuinely interested in hearing your invaluable observations and advice whether the CF can expect to participate in more international development and humanitarian-type missions in the near future.

Some of the responses he got were helpful (especially by the eloquent CSA 105), while others jumped on him for trying to bait a flame war or accusing him of having some secret agenda. Have you not looked at his assortment of other topics? He’s graduating in one week, and seriously confused and unsure of where he wants to go in life. Be nice.

What ensued was an unnecessary nit picking at each other’s posts, cursing him for following Chomsky, followed by some flaming, which eventually led to FP quoting the bible and declaring that modern society is all wrong (and for god’s sake, do you have to post in red font?).

Like FP said, he wants to be involved with activities such as protecting human rights and alleviating human suffering, and also forcefully intervening in failed states, as opposed to fighting for strategic resources. He is willing to die for these kinds of goals, but not die protecting Canadians or accomplishing Canada’s national interests. Obviously, he is an idealist, being spoon-fed left-wing rhetoric all throughout university, with little real world experience (like 2 CDO stated, and FP has admitted).

So, with half of the thread deleted, there is a ripe collection of informative responses remaining that FP should consider:

The actions we take are first and always in support of Canada and our national interests. We undertake humanitarian tasks to support the broader mission, and know that the overarching goals of Canada (peace and security for Canadians) also translates to peace and security for others as a pleasant side effect. - Thucydides

If you can’t fight for Canada’s national interests, then you should not even walk through the door at the recruiting centre (good advice Piper, milnewstbay, E.R. Campbell).

Write the Foreign Affairs exam; take a job with Oxfam; go into politics; become a journalist – E.R. Campbell

You are a smart guy. You have potential. As for your future, only you can answer that one. Take a look at what you know, what you've experienced, what you think you can do.
My 2 cents - you can probably make more of a difference serving, even for a brief time, in the military, not just in terms of external changes you create in the world, but also in terms of what you will learn and bring back into Canadian society - a return on investment, if you will, than you will in occupying some stale corporate office or tapping out Emails in some obscure government agency after going cross-eyed analyzing long-dead policy statements. – CSA 105

To finish off with some of my personal thoughts., FP, you definitely have potential. I think you just need to find the right trade. It seems that you are only considering serving as infantry, in which you won’t have the option to refuse orders just because you disagree with them for personal reasons. If you’ve got what it takes, I suggest that you try looking at jobs such as a fire fighter, medic or SAR Tech. You will undoubtedly find yourself making a real difference in these trades by saving people’s lives, and not being forced into personal and moral conflicts about fighting overseas on a mission that you don’t agree with.

If you do choose the CF, I can guarantee that you won’t regret it. It will be a positive experience. You’ll meet some amazing people and learn things about yourself that you’ve never considered before. I believe that when you reflect on your times in the CF, they will be some of the best days of your life and you will feel that you made a difference. But you’ll never know, unless you try. Whatever you choose, just don’t let your life slip through your fingers when you still have the chance to do something with real meaning. Before you know it, you’ll be old, and left wondering if you really did make a difference at all in this world.

 

[medaid]

Onew thing that many of us have come to understand is this. Soldiers exist to fix the failings of politicians and diplomats. We are a tool, and that is just it, a sharp tool. The pointy end of the stick.

 

[CougarKing]

- If there was only one world government, why would it need a military?

To defend against the alien invasion of.................the MEDTECH CLONES!!!!!  ;D