Instead of the conjecture and supposition, in the discussion at: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52107/post-466254, I submit the following facts for the discussion thread:
The tone of the article in question was that of the reporter not the person interviewed. This has already been addressed directly with the media outlet.
The focus of the interview was that, while support is appreciated, it is best when given from knowledge and not myth or incorrect facts. Many of the items discussed came from US sources where "Iraq" was deleted and "Afghanistan" inserted, and "USA" was deleted and "Canada" was inserted. In many cases this gives the perception that these two conflicts are exactly the same and that Canadian efforts in Afghanistan are exactly the same as the US efforts in Iraq, in tactics, challenges, successes and failures. We know this not to be true. Support to be genuine needs to be based on fact, not propaganda. It is one of the basics of PA that inaccuracies be corrected where feasible. If Canadians are to understand the great efforts and successes our soldiers are making in Afghanistan and elsewhere it is up to us to ensure the correct facts are available. Here are the facts - well researched, and coordinated with the CF OPIs and chain-of-command in all instances:
I have friends in the US military that spend up to a year when they go on rotation to Iraq and large numbers of US soldiers are routinely seen in civilian airports. This common sight was turned into an ad for a civilian corporation in the US and has been widely circulated as a video clip on the Internet in addition to the "Little Courtney" e-mail. The Canadian version of the "Little Courtney" chain e-mail that has led people to believe that CF flights routinely use Canadian civilian airports to deploy soldiers overseas and that Canadian soldiers spend a year or more in-theatre on a single rotation. Not true. Canadians deploy via a military air-head and the vast majority of troops spend three to six months in-theatre.
US programs are mistaken for Canadian policy when it comes to packages for overseas. The "Any Soldier" program, is an independent, non-military, non-government effort strictly in the US. Canadian policy is "packages from known sources addressed to named soldiers" ( see the following releases: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2171 and http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2172 ).The intent of this is to utilize the limited lift capacity for non-mission materials most effectively. We have experienced delays in getting the most important packages from family, friends and unit associations overseas because of the volume of unaddressed packages from anonymous sources. Many lists circulating for items to be donated have US origins and include items like lip balm and sunscreen that are in the Canadian military supply system already - meaning soldiers get another tube of no-name lip balm instead of the specific, preferred items they have asked family and friends to send. Add to this the security concerns when package contents from anonymous senders are unknown. These packages are sometimes dropped off in the dead of night and staff have arrived at work to find a plain, brown, unmarked package blocking a military facility entrance in the morning. Items found in packages addressed "to any soldier" have included old and partially used medicines and personal hygiene products like partial tubes of athletes foot cream.
Flea collars and flea powder appear on many donation lists - again a practice that has originated with the US in Iraq. The US has issued orders that the practice of wearing flea collars and using flea powder be stopped. Checking with the CF PMed and the medical chain-of-command, I found that there are directives on this subject NOT to use these items. For these products to be effective the fleas have to come in contact with the insecticide. Animals do not sweat through their skin, they pant to relieve heat. They have sebaceous glands that secrete an oil that spreads the powerful insecticides from the collars down their bodies. Dogs' and cats' skin do not absorb these chemicals like a human's skin does, making the collars and powders effective and safe on those animals. However, humans using pet flea powder or wearing flea collars, even outside of clothes can cause the collars to leech chemicals into the skin because of sweat, causing chemical rashes and the absorption of some pretty noxious pesticides into the human body. In Afghanistan it is sand flies, not sand fleas that cause discomfort. Properly using the sand traps on pants by tucking them into boots, keeping sleeve cuffs fastened, using bug netting at night and reapplying the repellent packets to uniforms after the uniforms are laundered are the most effective and approved methods of preventing bites.
The idea and founding of Wear Red has been attributed by some in the Canadian media to two military spouses in Petawawa. This again is not fact. It was started in the US as a grassroots e-mail campaign by a veterans' organization and has become highly politicized there. It first appeared in Western Canada when LFWA soldiers were deployed and then in Ontario during this current rotation; first in SW Ontario, then in Petawawa. Kudos for the publicity the ladies in Petawawa garnered, but let's not forget to give those in the rest of the country their due for their efforts to support our soldiers prior to the publicizing of the Petawawa efforts. The Canadian version of Wear Red is somewhat different from the US campaign - without the political overtones - and this fact is noted in Wikepedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Friday ). Check www.Snopes.com, www.BreakTheChain.org and www.Wikipedia.org for further insight on this topic.
At no time did I indicate that support from the public was not appreciated, nor was there any comment that there was any blame associated for incorrect facts being promulgated, except noting the erroneous attribution by the media that "Wear Red" was an initiative started wholly in Petawawa.
Finally, it is ironic that in a debate on accuracy, that rather than ascertaining facts, individuals resorted to speculation - including speculating on my service experience and ability. There was also speculation on how PA worked. Those submitting posts used defunct terms like "militia" and "PAffO" - to be accurate, the terms are "Army Reserve" and "PAO" and have been in use for several years now. All PAOs are trained to one standard in the CF and Reg F PAOs are not assigned "to check Res F PAO's work." PA is a command function and PAOs at all levels work closely with their commanders and under their direction on all matters. All PAOs at formation level have the ability to release material to the public with the approval of their commander (DAOD 2008), but as matter of routine in the Army all PAOs submit media releases up the chain-of-command to Army level prior to public distribution.
I hope this clears up some of your subscribers questions.
Captain Alexander Peterson, CD
Public Affairs Officer
31 Canadian Brigade Group
