Mohawk Warriors to get military apology- CBC

[Container]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/12/20/mohawk-military-apology.html

The Canadian Forces is preparing an official apology for listing the Mohawk Warrior Society as a potentially violent insurgent in a draft manual in 2006.

Military officials are still finalizing the wording of the apology to the society, which was included in the draft counter-insurgency manual.

The apology is expected in January or February.

A spokesman for the Canadian Forces has called the apology important, and said it will be heartfelt.

"We want to make sure that it's [the apology] delivered in a proper format with a proper amount of respect and from the proper level," Maj. Martell Thompson told CBC News.

The draft document singled out the aboriginal militant group as an example of "radical native American organizations" that can be "viewed as insurgencies with specific and limited aims."

The mention angered many Mohawks who claimed they were being compared to international terror groups such as Hezbollah and the Taliban.

'We're being labelled again'
Cheryl Jacobs, former district chief of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, called the mention "a slap in the face."

She told CBC News earlier this month that it "brought up old feelings" related to the Oka crisis in 1990, in which Mohawks, Quebec provincial police (Sûreté du Québec) and the Canadian military clashed violently over native land rights west of Montreal.

"When news came out [in 2007], I think a lot of people were upset because of the feeling of a flashback, so to speak, of 'Here we go again, we're being labelled again,'" Jacobs said.

The Mohawk Warrior Society, Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and fundamentalist Islamist Taliban are all mentioned once in the 169-page draft manual, a copy of which is available online.

In particular, groups like the Mohawk Warriors "seek particular political concessions in their relationship with national governments, and control (either overt or covert) of political affairs at a local/reserve ('First Nation') level," the draft manual says.

Mohawks were reportedly not mentioned in a final draft of the manual, which has not been made public.

Jacobs wrote two strongly worded letters to National Defence Minister Peter MacKay in 2009 in which she described feeling "very insulted" about how Mohawks were portrayed and demanded an apology.

She said she's "very pleased" that the apology is coming and hopes it will mend old wounds.

"If I hear what I want to hear in there, then that's probably when I'll be excited enough," Jacobs said. "I may even give them a good clap that it didn't take 200 years to get an apology."

Deadly 1990 standoff
Even critics of the society, such as Stuart Myiow, believe the draft manual went too far in its assessment of its members and claim the apology is justified

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/12/20/mohawk-military-apology.html#ixzz18my3ViIu



Does anyone know any more about this? I would think it would be prudent to have plans in place for a similar situation as the Oka Crisis. Since it is viewed as a "success" to certain members of the Mohawk Warriors. Perhaps failing to differentiate between the people and radical element is the issue.

But contingency plans are good practice- especially when they are based on real world events.

I simply must assume that the real story is much more.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

This is not at all related to contingency plans - as it says in the first sentence of the article, the reference was made in a draft of the Counter-Insurgency manual.

 

[GAP]

History repeats itself, and those who don't pay attention, are doomed to repeat history.

I don't care whether it's natives,  aliens (Roswell type), or pink panthers,.....if you've had incidents which the CF may have to deal with, it should be looked at.

There has been much talk over the years about the potential for violence from various native groups, usually in the context of bravado/positions on issues/ or prior to/during some sort of negotiations of something.

The potential for insurgency of some kind is there, why would we hide from it?

 

[vonGarvin]

Jesus wept

 

[Container]

This is not at all related to contingency plans - as it says in the first sentence of the article, the reference was made in a draft of the Counter-Insurgency manual.

Excuse my ignorance. Wouldnt somebody reference the Counter Insurgency Manual when making a contingency plan for a low tempo insurgency? I suppose I worded my idea incorrectly. 

I mean the ability to prepare effectively may be reduced because of a fear of offending someone. Something in that area anyways. Contingency planning may have been the wrong idea to present.

 

[Old Sweat]

Leaving the apology issue for a minute, this extract from the CBC story is, to coin a phrase, crap:

"She told CBC News earlier this month that it "brought up old feelings" related to the Oka crisis in 1990, in which Mohawks, Quebec provincial police (Sûreté du Québec) and the Canadian military clashed violently over native land rights west of Montreal."

The only violent clash was the incident very early on between the SQ and the Mohawks in which a police officer was killed. Posturing aside, both the Mohawks and the CF were very careful to avoid escalating the situation into armed conflict. Moreover, it is my opinion, based on being a player at the national level at the time, that there was a more of less constant channel of communications between the CF and the Mohawks.

I may not like everything that goes on on Six Nations reserves in the area of trafficing in illegal cigarettes and smuggling as well as other issues, but in this case whoever wrote the phrase for inclusion in a manual erred.

 

[George Wallace]

What a fracking load of horse hooey.

Fact:  The Canadian Forces are constantly drafting contingency plans for worse case scenarios, so that they can be somewhat prepared should one of those worse case scenarios come to happen.

Fact:  Armed insurgents using the name of the Mohawk Warrior Society faced down QPP and Canadian Forces members in the Past.  Could they do it again?  The possibility is there. 

Fact:  An insurgent is an insurgent.  Often violent.  There are no GOOD insurgents, to be separated from BAD insurgents.  The fact that they carry arms and threaten violence makes them all the same. 


Fact:  Cheryl Jacobs is making an issue out of a non-issue.  It was a draft document, not a final 'official' product.  She is doing nothing but muckraking and looking for pity from the masses. 

Time for the Government to grow some kahonies.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Everyone think real hard for a moment. Re-read what you write, twice or three times if you have to, before hitting post for this thread.

We don't need anyone outside repeating something they read here, either in print or electronic media.

The old adage of 'If you don't have something good to say........'

We hold ourselves up to be a reflection of the CF. The CF has seen fit to reach an understanding.

They don't need any extra grief brought on by someone here saying something stupid and then being quoted, (as we've seen happen more than once before)

and neither does Mike

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't know if things have changed since the Flood dried but waay back in those days we planned our scenarios around an entity called the "Fantasians".

It seemed it wasn't considered appropriate to refer to a fellow UN member as an enemy or even a threat.

 

[George Wallace]

I don't know if things have changed since the Flood dried but waay back in those days we planned our scenarios around an entity called the "Fantasians".

It seemed it wasn't considered appropriate to refer to a fellow UN member as an enemy or even a threat.

We had to become PC on that as well.  It came down that our scenarios of the Fantasians coming across the river to invade Blueland was an insult to the Quebecers, as Fantasians were "Infantry" in Quebecois.  I wonder if Walt Disney is rolling in his grave?

 

[The Bread Guy]

APTN did the story about two weeks ago, shared in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright  Act:

The Canadian military is expected to officially apologize early next year for including the Mohawk Warrior Society in a draft version of the military’s counter-insurgency manual, APTN National News has learned.

The text of the apology has been approved by the upper echelons of the military command, but details still need to be worked out on how to deliver the statement and on how big of an event should be staged.

A draft 2006 version of the military’s counter-insurgency manual was released publicly in March 2007 and it included a reference to the Mohawk Warrior Society in a section describing different types of insurgencies.

First Nations leaders immediately reacted with anger, saying it appeared to equate First Nations with terrorist groups like Hezbollah and the Taliban.

The apology is expected to be delivered in either January or February.

The Assembly of First Nations and representatives from Akwesasne are involved in the discussions.

A draft 2006 version of the military’s counter-insurgency manual was released publicly in March 2007 and it included a reference to the Mohawk Warrior Society in a section describing different types of insurgencies.

First Nations leaders immediately reacted with anger, saying it appeared to equate First Nations with terrorist groups like Hezbollah and the Taliban.

Former Akwesasne council Chief Cheryl Jacobs began writing letters to National Defence Minister Peter MacKay demanding an apology.

It wasn’t until 2009 that she received a response indicating that the military was considering the request.

Jacobs welcomed the news that an apology was in the works.

“I can’t wait for it to become a reality,” she said. “The black brush-stroke across all Aboriginal people in Canada will go in reverse.”

The reference to the Mohawk Warrior Society is highlighted in a section under the heading: Overview of Insurgencies and Counter-Insurgencies.

It quotes directly from the master’s thesis of military historian Timothy Winegard who has written a book on the 1990 Oka Crisis.

“The rise of radical Native American organizations, such as the Mohawk Warrior Society, can be viewed as insurgencies with specific and limited aims,” reads Winegard’s text, from his thesis titled The Court of Last Resort: The 1990 Oka Crisis and the Canadian Forces. “Although they do not seek complete control of the federal government, they do seek particular political concessions in their relationship with national governments and control (either overt or covert) of political affairs at a local/reserve…level, through the threat of, or us of, violence.”

The military said it had deleted the reference from the manual.

More from QMI/Sun Media here.

Also, just a thought:  while CBC's headline writer and QMI says the apology will be delivered to the Mohawk Warrior Society, other references (esp. the first story on this) are vaguer, suggesting it might be made to the First Nation (note the quotes from former band leadership), not the Society in particular.

Also, what recceguy wisely said...

 

[vonGarvin]

With regards to "opposing forces" in training, when I first joined, back when Dresden, Berlin and Hamburg were still cooling, the enemy forces consisted of the 1st Guards Tank Division of the Soviet Army.  :warstory:

By the way "fantassin" (sp?) is "infantryman" in french, but yeah, it's close to "Fantasian".

 

[Jarnhamar]

Come on. 
What would their reaction have been if the report came out and it said "The Mohawk Warrior Soceity poses no threat what so ever and should NOT be considered a candidate for insurgency"?

Yup....

 

[PanaEng]

What a fracking load of horse hooey.


Fact:  An insurgent is an insurgent.  Often violent.  There are no GOOD insurgents, to be separated from BAD insurgents.  The fact that they carry arms and threaten violence makes them all the same. 

George Washington was an insurgent... a despicable-no-good insurgent according to you.

 

[George Wallace]

George Washington was an insurgent... a despicable-no-good insurgent according to you.

You haven't read any History have you?  George Washington and gang were all considered insurgents by the British.  So was Louis Riel.  Now we are seeing revisionist history, of course by the winners and/or loudest protesters, making them heroes.  Do you want any more technicalities?

 

[PanaEng]

You haven't read any History have you?  George Washington and gang were all considered insurgents by the British.  So was Louis Riel.  Now we are seeing revisionist history, of course by the winners and/or loudest protesters, making them heroes.  Do you want any more technicalities?

you obviously didn't get my point.  (and I'm in no way saying that  Washington and gang were  saints)

anyway, lets continue with the big brush strokes...

 

[George Wallace]

It doesn't matter that I may have missed your point.  Point is that we have become so Politically Correct that we will apologise to any loud vocal minority or group that comes along, be it the correct thing to do or not.  Why don't we have the compunction to say it as it is?  A potentially subversive/insurgent group was included in a long list of like groups by a person/persons drawing up a contingency plan.  I am absolutely sure that the CF is not the only organization to do so.  If anything, a complaint may be construed by some as an admission of guilt.  They know what it is that drives their group, and would prefer that no one knew about it.  Now for the Black Helicopters to take over the watch........ >

 

[Franko]

George Washington was an insurgent... a despicable-no-good insurgent according to you.

Apparently the FLQ were misunderstood, according to your analogy.

Regards

 

[Infanteer]

I think there was a little miscommunication on this one - George appears to be saying that there are no "good" or "bad" insurgents - just insurgents.  If you "insurge", then you are one.

And yes, Washington was an insurgent.

 

[PanaEng]

I think there was a little miscommunication on this one - George appears to be saying that there are no "good" or "bad" insurgents - just insurgents.  If you "insurge", then you are one.

And yes, Washington was an insurgent.

Thank you - maybe that was the case, that Mr Wallace did not convey his thoughts clearly enough.

Apparently the FLQ were misunderstood, according to your analogy.

Excuse-me!  I did not make any analogies, just made a statement to contradict Mr Wallace broad assertion, which I read to mean that there are no good insurgents - that they are all "bad"
of course there are good and bad insurgent movements (the ones we agree/sympathize with = good, the others = bad)

You haven't read any History have you?  ...  Do you want any more technicalities?

I am very confident in my knowledge of history, thank you professor!
and also of critical thinking and understanding - which seems to be lacking around here today...  >

Alright, I feel better...  ;D

The actual point here is that the writer of the draft document should not have included the named organization. Which, btw, Mr Wallace, and this is historical fact for you, the Mohawk Warrior society is not a homogeneous organization and in those days it just happens that a more militant faction gained control of their agenda ( and a few yahoos wanted their mugshot on the news). Sure, any good planner would take note of the fact that there are elements within it that are extreme and consider that in their estimate. Just as we can't label all right wing conservatives terrorist just because of Timothy McVeigh and a few others.

However, one of the many things that we can agree on is that, yes, we have become too politically correct and this "incident" is, I would say, a good example.

cheers,
Frank