An Army IS a war machine

[reccecrewman]

I didn't want to put this into a condolence page as it just isn't the right place. However, at the end of the CANWEST news story on our 3 more fallen in Afghanistan, they had Sgt. Leger's mother on the news as well. I'm sure ol Jack Layton was liking what she had to say, but that was NOT the time to have her comments on the news.  I understand she is a bereaved mother who has suffered a loss, but to put a mother on after announcing that we have 3 more dead in Afghanistan is just not the time to have a mother who believes we don't belong there and we should be off peacekeeping somewhere in the world. There are many soldier's who have given their lives in Afghanistan whose parents have stated in public that we do belong there and it is a worthwhile cause to help Afghanistan.

To ALL Canadians who have this preconceived notion that Canada's Army is only in existance to do everything BUT fight a war, step back, breathe, and read some books.  Yes, Canada has for many years been committed to peacekeeping missions in various areas of the world. We have helped our own Countrymen in time of national disasters such as the ice storm of '98, the Red River floods....... the FLQ crisis...... the list goes on and on with regards to the wide range of work our military does. Yes, we can do all these things and we do them very well when called upon.... hell, we set the standard for how these things are done.

However, at the end of the day, a Country's standing Army exists for ONE purpose, and ONE purpose only - TO TRAIN FOR, AND FIGHT WARS. We are not warmongers, we are professionals who accept the burden of defending the Country. This includes fighting in Country's that our elected Government decides we have a vested interest in. We do not, and never have, trained for peacekeeping, fighting fires, helping out in ice storms and floods...... we train for war. This is why a Country pays men and women to wear a uniform on a daily basis..... yes, even Canada. It's getting far overdue for people to get informed on what an Army is actually for.

 

[GAP]

Very well stated, but you are talking to the choir......it's the ones in the pews that need to hear it.

 

[canadian_moose]

I saw her when I was watching Global National and I thought it was uncalled for

 

[reccecrewman]

It was uncalled for, especially since the Harper Government has already given it's notice to the Canadian public that the mission to Afghanistan (that the LIBERALS committed us to in the first place) will be coming to an end in it's present form of our combat troops fighting in Afghanistan.  That simply wasn't the time for someone to jump up on the soapbox and use 3 brave men's deaths as an avenue to express your personal belief on the mission, and I'm certain Sgt. Leger wouldn't want his, or any other volunteer serviceman or servicewomen's death to be used as an argument for pulling us out before our job and commitment is done.

As well GAP, I know my original post is full of truths that most everyone on these boards is acutely aware of, but it made me feel a little better to put it in writing and post it on a public forum, where if by chance, ONE person gets some information out of it and goes "Huh, well I'll be ******...... I never looked at it that way" then I'm happy......

Yes, I know..... don't anyone bother saying it..... leave me to my little dream.

 

[time expired]

It seems to me that if this grieving mother is given a little more time
she would realise that pulling our troops out will mean we have been
defeated and her son will have died in vain,for nothing,nada.This is
of course cuts no ice with the the left leaning politicos and the the
jackals of the media,their contempt for Canadas military has been
amply displayed in the past and a mothers anguished cry of grief is
just grist for their mill.Please allow me to express my disgust.
                                        Regards

 

[GAP]

As well GAP, I know my original post is full of truths that most everyone on these boards is acutely aware of, but it made me feel a little better to put it in writing and post it on a public forum, where if by chance, ONE person gets some information out of it and goes "Huh, well I'll be ******...... I never looked at it that way" then I'm happy......

Yes, I know..... don't anyone bother saying it..... leave me to my little dream.

I was trying to say I agreed totally with you, but the frustration sometimes leaks through about the general public....

 

[toowoozy]

The mother has paid a great price, she has paid her dues, she can say whatever she wants whenever she wants and it can have whatever relevance it deserves. She's lost a son, and she lost that son to a cause she questions - I take it at face value and her opinion should be heard.

The reality in regards to our military and it being a war machine is arguable in a free society. Our military is whatever its citizenry wishes for it to be; the members function at the behest of its nation, its citizens, its government (minority, majority, or coalition). If the citizens wish for us to be a peacekeeping force then so be it, or the populace may put emphasis on sovereignty or force projection (in the name of peace or sovereignty), then also so be it. For me personally I do not view the CF as a war machine; we are a mechanism of great value to our society and we perform many tasks that answer the needs of our great nation. But when the need arises for us to drop the gloves we have always been there - not a machine though, but a resounding force that deals with the great complexities in the world but able bring definitive force if it is required as a last result.

 

[George Wallace]

The mother has paid a great price, she has paid her dues, she can say whatever she wants whenever she wants and it can have whatever relevance it deserves. She's lost a son, and she lost that son to a cause she questions - I take it at face value and her opinion should be heard.

The reality in regards to our military and it being a war machine is arguable in a free society. Our military is whatever its citizenry wishes for it to be; the members function at the behest of its nation, its citizens, its government (minority, majority, or coalition). If the citizens wish for us to be a peacekeeping force then so be it, or the populace may put emphasis on sovereignty or force projection (in the name of peace or sovereignty), then also so be it. For me personally I do not view the CF as a war machine; we are a mechanism of great value to our society and we perform many tasks that answer the needs of our great nation. But when the need arises for us to drop the gloves we have always been there - not a machine though, but a resounding force that deals with the great complexities in the world but able bring definitive force if it is required as a last result.

Sadly toowoozy, you have no idea of what an Army, or the CF is.  The description provided was rather accurate.  Peacekeeping is a minor function that a well disciplined and well trained "War fighting" military can do well.  Warfighting is not a thing that a peacekeeping organization can do.  The CF trains for the worse case scenarios.  Never kid yourself that they don't.

 

[toowoozy]

Sadly toowoozy, you have no idea of what an Army, or the CF is.  The description provided was rather accurate.  Peacekeeping is a minor function that a well disciplined and well trained "War fighting" military can do well.  Warfighting is not a thing that a peacekeeping organization can do.  The CF trains for the worse case scenarios.  Never kid yourself that they don't.

George Wallace. Yes I have a very good idea what an army is - but respectively you miss my point. An army is many things and has many different functions depending upon which nation that army belongs. But more importantly my point was (in a broad context) that it is not up those members of that particular force as to what their design or purpose may be, but it is up to the citizenry of that free nation to decide as such (through their elected members of course). Yes the Canadian Army of course trains for "war fighting" as they train for a multitude of different conflict scenarios, as well as many humanitarian and logistical tasks. The point is that a democratic nation decides what the emphasis of that force will be, and changes or adapts the role as it sees fit - or as to its social or political will.

 

[xo31@711ret]

The POINT isToowoozy, with all due respect, that a military trains (and always has) for the worst case scenerio: war - 'hope for the best, but prepare for the worst'.

 

[toowoozy]

The POINT isToowoozy, with all due respect, that a military trains (and always has) for the worst case scenerio: war - 'hope for the best, but prepare for the worst'.

Uh yes I did point that out, we train for war, we train for many things, we train based upon our current doctrine, and we adapt if that doctrine changes. As I stated previously, if that is the will of a nation then so be it - we act upon the will of our nation.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Uh yes I did point that out, we train for war, we train for many things, we train based upon our current doctrine, and we adapt if that doctrine changes. As I stated previously, if that is the will of a nation then so be it - we act upon the will of our nation.

I know, I know, don't feed.....

1)  When you say "we", does it mean you're a serving member?  Can't tell much from your profile....

2)  The military, like the police, have all sorts of tools at their beck and call, and all sorts of responses they can use in various situations.  That said, they MUST train in the use of lethal force not because it's the first tool used, but because it has to be there if it IS needed.  If you don't train to use the ultimate tool, it can't be used in the interests of (and under the control of) the state and its citizens.

Or am I out to lunch here?

 

[FoverF]

He does raise a perfectly valid point, though. The Army *is* indeed a 'war machine', but it's much more than that, and what exactly it is *is* defined by the citezenry. In fact, there are many countries who's armies are *not* war machines, because the government/people choose not to equip/train/fund them as such. Read as much history as you want, the Roman Legions were used as construction labour, there used to be conscript armies the world over who's main purpose was to keep the masses of unemployed 18-20 yo's occupied. There are also armies that exist mainly for the purpose of peace-keeping (Bangladesh et al).

If the citizens of Canada unwisely decide that the CF will become one of the above, then that's what will happen. The CF is only a war machine so long as the gov't of Canada forks over the money for it to do so.

 

[FastEddy]

[quote
[/quote]

"toowoozy"

On the Plus side, you express and write very well, also, it would appear that you are continuing a course of Higher Education and becoming a Adult.

On the down side, if you are a member of our Armed Services, we'd better get you the F... out. But I doubt that you are or ever will. I think that your rhetoric is founded on saving and keeping your own ass out of Harms Way.

If you had a Tour in either Sandbox, I would intently listen to why or if we should be there, but who or what we are and the main purpose for our being, you haven't got a clue and never will.

 

[reccecrewman]

Yes the Canadian Army of course trains for "war fighting" as they train for a multitude of different conflict scenarios, as well as many humanitarian and logistical tasks. The point is that a democratic nation decides what the emphasis of that force will be, and changes or adapts the role as it sees fit - or as to its social or political will.

Not that I enjoy feeding the trolls, but this cat does seem to be a little more than an average troll and has been expressing himself in a calm and thoughtful way, so I counter with this..... We do NOT train for a wide multitude of tasks my friend..... In nearly 10 years in uniform I am yet to ever conduct an exercise or some sort of training on how to conduct peacekeeping missions, fight a forest fire, help out in an ice storm or how to hand out humanitarian aid for victim relief in a disaster area. I HAVE, however seen all of these things done by our Military, but only because we were asked to do so because a situation dictated that we should do so.

When we deploy to the field for training, it is to train for warfighting and or theatre specific training for a mission abroad. The people of a Country do not decide that their Army is to be used only for peacekeeping and humanitarian aid..... the Army has a DUTY and an OBLIGATION to those citizens of it's Country to train for war and prepare for it. If we decided to focus on only peacekeeping and humaritarian aid, we are doing a gross injustice to the people of Canada as our warfighting skills would deterioriate..... then what would happen IF we needed those skills quickly either by another power forcing it upon us or we need to help someone that cannot help themselves properly? Canada has been caught a few times with our pants down when it needed it's Army and it was a mad scramble to get troops into uniform and trained for war...... LEST WE FORGET

 

[FastEddy]

He does raise a perfectly valid point, though. The Army *is* indeed a 'war machine', but it's much more than that, and what exactly it is *is* defined by the citezenry. In fact, there are many countries who's armies are *not* war machines, because the government/people choose not to equip/train/fund them as such. Read as much history as you want, the Roman Legions were used as construction labour, there used to be conscript armies the world over who's main purpose was to keep the masses of unemployed 18-20 yo's occupied. There are also armies that exist mainly for the purpose of peace-keeping (Bangladesh et al).

If the citizens of Canada unwisely decide that the CF will become one of the above, then that's what will happen. The CF is only a war machine so long as the gov't of Canada forks over the money for it to do so.

Christ I hope you are doing better in Medical School than Roman History.

First of all , Romes Legions were Raised and Financed for Conquest, Subjugation, Territory and Policing.

The result of their success was partly due to the diversification of its Conscripted Soldiers, in that every male Roman Citizen of Military age had to serve in their Army's for a prescribed period.

What ever Engineering Feats were accomplished when the Troops were not killing or plundering were designed to keep the Troops busy and bring the Roman way of life. And might I note, they came at a very high price to the conquered populations.

 

[xo31@711ret]

Uh yes I did point that out, we train for war, we train for many things, we train based upon our current doctrine, and we adapt if that doctrine changes. As I stated previously, if that is the will of a nation then so be it - we act upon the will of our nation.
 

Uh, yes, I see that you pointed that out. Maybe things have changed, but from 1982 to 2006 while I was reg, the main focus of my army training, from my humble experience anyway  has been training as per war related scenario. First as an infanteer (advance to contact for example) or then as a medic (casualty clearing station etc). But I'll settle back in the back 40 and recce only as this looks it has the possibility of goin' nowhere except into a dog-pile.

 

[1feral1]

Uh yes I did point that out, we train for war, we train for many things, we train based upon our current doctrine, and we adapt if that doctrine changes. As I stated previously, if that is the will of a nation then so be it - we act upon the will of our nation.
 

Uh, yes, I see that you pointed that out. Maybe things have changed, but from 1982 to 2006 while I was reg, the main focus of my army training, from my humble experience anyway  has been training as per war related scenario. First as an infanteer (advance to contact for example) or then as a medic (casualty clearing station etc). But I'll settle back in the back 40 and recce only as this looks it has the possibility of goin' nowhere except into a dog-pile.

In the two armies that I've been in, its always training for conventional warfare which takes precidence, we did specialise in what we were to experience in Iraq (OPSEC so won't discuss), but overall conventional warfare is the main key to all-round trg. We can specialise after that.  Before "Peace-Keeping" comes "Peace- Enforcing".

We'll see if Toowoozy comes back, but like I said, we'll see. We've all seen the shoot and scoot types on here, and they don't last long.

OWDU

 

[FoverF]

First off, this isn't about Roman history, or my academic qualifications (but just so you know, I am in fact among the top of my class, both in med school, and was also in my history classes).

But the point is that I agree with the idea that armies are far more than simply war machines. Armies are, and have been throughout history, routinely tasked with everything from nation-building, to conventional war-fighting, to counter-insurgency, to settling disputes of govermnental succession, to civil engineering, to providing assistance during natural disasters, to providing employment, to putting on a show for the cameras, to providing a minimal cadre of warfighting skills in periods of prolonged peace, to fighting pirates, to counter-terrorism, to crowd-control, to monitoring natural resources, to search and rescue, to de-mining warzones, to providing logistical support to humanitarian efforts, to providing security for hockey games (2010 anyone?).

An army is (among many other things) a war machine. Their job is (to do the bidding of their government and populace, and this includes being able) to fight wars.

But the fact remains that if the populace doesn't want you to fight a war, then you don't. If the populace wants you to stand around in the middle of a firefight with blue hats on, or to dig them out of a snowstorm in Thunder Bay, or to deploy a DART to Pakistan, then that is what you will do instead.

Warfighting is the job that ONLY armies do. But it is not the ONLY job that armies do, and it never has been.

 

[The_Falcon]

Not that I enjoy feeding the trolls, but this cat does seem to be a little more than an average troll and has been expressing himself in a calm and thoughtful way, so I counter with this..... We do NOT train for a wide multitude of tasks my friend..... In nearly 10 years in uniform I am yet to ever conduct an exercise or some sort of training on how to conduct peacekeeping missions, fight a forest fire, help out in an ice storm or how to hand out humanitarian aid for victim relief in a disaster area. I HAVE, however seen all of these things done by our Military, but only because we were asked to do so because a situation dictated that we should do so.

When we deploy to the field for training, it is to train for warfighting and or theatre specific training for a mission abroad. The people of a Country do not decide that their Army is to be used only for peacekeeping and humanitarian aid..... the Army has a DUTY and an OBLIGATION to those citizens of it's Country to train for war and prepare for it. If we decided to focus on only peacekeeping and humaritarian aid, we are doing a gross injustice to the people of Canada as our warfighting skills would deterioriate..... then what would happen IF we needed those skills quickly either by another power forcing it upon us or we need to help someone that cannot help themselves properly? Canada has been caught a few times with our pants down when it needed it's Army and it was a mad scramble to get troops into uniform and trained for war...... LEST WE FORGET

Just a small reminder about the recent (and quite large) LFCA-JTF(C) Disaster Exercise that just occured a few weeks, ago was training specifically for the items I bolded.  And before I get jumped on, I will say that yes, these exercises are pretty rare and infrequent, and when they do occur, are usually within the reserves.