tasop_999 said:
As I was on the road this morning, CBC reported that there is a plan to 're-role' some CF members in order to cover off the manning shortages in Afghanistan. I have heard of this before, as it was on the news two days ago. The difference with this morning's broadcast was that they specifically mentioned taking people off ship to perform the duties of an Infanteer in Afghanistan. This seems a little strange to me, as the media tends to skew things quite often, but this really got some of us talking today and some very interesting points were made.
1. North Korea is flaring up and may call for a deployment of ships in the next six months to enforce UN sanctions. With people robbed from already deprived ships' companies this would become unsustainable.
This assumes there's a role for Canadian ships in this effort. Even then (and being mindful of the fact that the news media is hardly an authoritative source), I doubt that sufficient numbers of personnel to completely render the navy dysfunctional would be pulled away, because a) it's not smart, as you point out below and b) we have limited training resources anyway, again as you point out below.
2. We have some of the best infanteers on earth over there right now who have more experience fighting a war than I'll ever have and unfortunately they are having a hard time with the Taliban as it is now. These men and women trained their entire careers for a mission like this and there is no way that a few months of Army training can make a sailor ready for what is happening over there.
Again, probably not the intent. The government and military are, I'm sure, well aware of the optics around this idea. However, there are jobs in the SW Asian theatre currently being done by otherwise combat-capable personnel, that don't entail the same risk as that faced by those who work routinely outside the wire. Some of these probably fall well within the skill sets of naval personnel (who, I might add, should not be sold short. There are very capable and tough naval personnel that could probably be trained quite quickly to a standard reasonable for some types of even fairly risky employment in the region).
3. How could you possibly accomplish the logistics of training and equipping so many people without a concerted effort on the part of a very vulnerable government?
4. More casualties in Afghanistan as the result of troops who have been pressed into service there will leave the government and the mission very open to attack from other political parties and a very anxious public. People will begin to wonder what is going on and the public mood could turn drastically against the Afghanistan mission.
I'd take care with that term "pressed into service". The connotations of "press gangs", "draft" or "conscription" it carries aren't at all applicable. Consideration is being given to employing military personnel in a job that doesn't necessarily fall into their "day job". That's very different. There's a long history of personnel being re-employed, usually because of need, but sometimes because it just made sense. Consider the following, from the Wikipedia entry on the "Glider Pilot Regiment":
Massed airborne landings at Sicily, Normandy and Arnhem achieved success but at great cost. The Airborne Forces at Arnhem did not lose the battle, they were ordered to hold for two or possibly three days, they held out for eight days. The Regiment's casualties were the highest at Arnhem, 90% were killed, wounded or taken prisoner of war.
These losses were made up by the secondment to the Regiment of Royal Air Force pilots and several hundreds of them took part in the greatest and most successful airborne operation of the war, Operation Varsity, the Crossing of the Rhine. The RAF pilots acquitted themselves with great gallantry, in the air and on the ground, 60% of the Regiment's killed in action on that day were RAF pilots seconded to the Glider Pilot Regiment.
5. Domestic security is going to suffer, as there will be no one manning the ships conducting the business of maritime security along our coastlines. Does anyone remember the boat people from the late 90's? Well, they are part of the reason the Navy brought back the sovereignty patrol.
This is a possibility. However, it's a case of assessing, and then accepting risk. The greater strategic risk to Canada right now is in SW Asia, not in its coastal waters.
6. Lastly, there are sailors who will just not want to be pushed into such service and they will take release. Not everyone is capable of performing the duties of an infanteer. Believe it or not QL 3 infantry is a good deal more than DIG HOLE 101. There is some serious skill required to perform the duties of an Canadian soldier.There is a unique ability possessed by infanteers to be able to cope with "the suck." There are many more people out there who do not share this wonderful gift/curse (however you look at it) and cannot cope with some of the necessary BS that follows with being in the Army.
There's a sample of some of the discussion we had today. I know there are those who will not agree with much of what I have written, but these thoughts are out there and they are matter of fact. I have written this as objectively as possible and left out my own bias (nobody needs another opinion on something like this) so please don't shoot the messenger.
No shooting intended. You raise some valid concerns. However, I don't think the issue is as dire as you generally imply.
