A rchive Date
[ 28-02-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Canada ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/worthington.html
A demeaning role for a once proud army
By PETER WORTHINGTON -- Toronto Sun
February 28, 2003
When it was announced that Canada would be sending up to 2,000 troops to Kabul instead of joining America's war against Saddam Hussein (assuming it is coming), Defence Minister John McCallum admitted not all in the military were happy with the decision. It was an odd admission for him to make - kind of sweet, really, and a trifle ingenuous. Even disarming.
Of course, most in the army would have preferred to go into a combat theatre, even in a support role, with their traditional allies. To be relegated to constabulary duties in Kabul verges on the demeaning.
People join the army for a variety of reasons, none of them because they want a safe, drab, routine and bland life. To deny combat-trained soldiers a chance to do what they signed up for, is demoralizing and unfair.
What doubts generals and senior officers may have about going to Kabul can be multiplied significantly when it comes to soldiers in the regiments designated for Kabul - first the Royal Canadian Regiment (RCR), followed by the Royal 22nd Regiment (VanDoos).
There are few things infantry soldiers dislike more than roles they feel are more suited to military police.
What soldiers feel, individually or collectively, is not the point. Soldiers do what they are ordered to do. Had McCallum been a little more experienced in his job, he would never have admitted to dissatisfaction in the ranks.
I'm one who thinks a succession of governments has done its best, deliberately or inadvertently, to destroy what was once one of the most respected small armies in the world - as proven whenever it was called upon to face danger, in peace or war.
There are still hints of past prestige in the regiments, but even that is withering.
Difficulties are admitted in retaining trained and experienced personnel in the military, and there are even greater difficulties attracting recruits - any recruits, not just the hand-picked ones the army, navy and air force prefer. Bonuses are even paid to specialists who sign up, as if they were free agent athletes in a bidding war.
FOLLOWING ORDERS
As for soldiers approving or supporting what they are ordered to do, that's irrelevant to soldiering, which McCallum shouldn't even have mentioned.
In a war, soldiers are not usually keen, say, to launch a frontal assault on a strongly defended position. But they do it when ordered. The history of World War I in particular is replete with examples of the Canadian high command in France arguing vehemently with the Commander-in-Chief, Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, against sending Canadians (and Aussies) into a meat grinder simply to divert the Germans from another meat grinder attack by British troops. We did as ordered, with subsequent futile losses.
Soldiers do what they're told, not what they like.
Many military people disagreed with the raid on Dieppe in World War II that cost Canada its bloodiest day of the war - a stupid attack that should have been obvious from its inception.
Dieppe was complicated by the fact the restless Canadian troops, stir crazy confined in Britain, wanted action regardless of the consequences. They got it at Dieppe, performed gallantly - and were chopped to bits. The people who chose Dieppe, even though Canada's troops craved action, should have had a saliva test.
The reason Canadians are going to Kabul - a role we rejected when the Princess Pats went to Afghanistan to fight - is a face-saving political gesture to compensate for not being able to go to Iraq in a fighting role.
Our military's depleted strength and inadequate equipment are a national embarrassment. The human quality is okay (there are no bad soldiers, only bad officers) but even the Chretien government daren't send soldiers into a fight where they haven't sufficient weaponry or logistical support.
RATIONALIZED NEGLIGENCE
Rather than spend the money and invest the time to make the Canadian military respectable again, the government chooses to rationalize its negligence and alter the military's role. Hence, constabulary duties rather than soldiers' roles.
Two results emerge from this policy.
First, a government without pride in its military, that not only permits its military to wither and deteriorate but actually encourages it, is a country with limited impact or clout on the world stage. It becomes a silly, irrelevant, posturing nation.
And the other oddity of Canada is that unlike most countries, it is not our foreign policy that determines the role of our military, it's what our military cannot do that dictates our foreign policy - such as sending our troops to Kabul instead of Baghdad.
Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@sunpub.com.
 World Fact Book (CIA)]]
|