- Reaction score
- 4,895
- Points
- 1,060
hagan_91 said:
Please break down the logistics and costs of your fantasy venture for us.
To stay in your lane, you, at least, have to be on the road.
Op PRESENCE/Mali (Cdn mission/s, sitreps, etc. - merged)
- Thread starter Nfld Sapper
- Start date
Please break down the logistics and costs of your fantasy venture for us.
To stay in your lane, you, at least, have to be on the road.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,283
- Points
- 1,160
Sounds like it might be an idea to encourage the "2nd world armies" to interact with the Mali army and then "1st world countries military" can support "2nd world forces" in the mission.
- Reaction score
- 2,418
- Points
- 940
So you believe that Canadians are willing to go to war to protect Mali? Does your average Canadian even know where Mali is? Do you?hagan_91 said:
Is such an expenditure of wealth in the competitive self-interest of Canada?....is there anything in Mali worth a single Canadian soldier's life?......what about political capital, since domestically and internationally people will disagree with our intervening in a sovereign nation?....does intervening create a security dilemma, in that it makes Canada a more appealing al Qaeda target for retribution?
All these, plus the aforementioned logistics' tail, the opportunity costs, the roto requirement, etc, are points to be considered when bandying about the term "national interest," and blithely saying you'll throw a Battle Group at the problem.
OK, now yes, you did indeed say that our national intrest [sic] "should" be to defeat terrorism. What does that mean to you? Terrorism is a tactic; proclaiming a "war on terror" is as logically empty as calling WW2 a "war on blitzkrieg." How is a Battle Group going to do that? Why a BG -- why not a Combat Team or a Brigade Group? Hell, we should send the Div HQ over, and give them to AQ -- have them bogged down in PowerPoint in no time! But you want a Battle Group. To what end?
A quick perusal of your posts show you routinely jump into threads with both feet.....firmly in your mouth. You'd think you'd tire of it. :not-again:
Journeyman said:
It would not be reasonable to single out intervention in Mali as a war supported by the Canadian public, who do not have an actual say in decisions pertaining to national security. Whether Canadian are willing or know the geographic location of Mali is irrelevant as long as the government believes there is sufficient interest at stake and the costs can be retrieved or justified. Depending on who you ask, there may be assets in Mali that are worth sending military advisers for. Battle Groups will not be necessary unless we're trying to change the entire country a la Afghanistan. Besides, as per Somalia doing this via proxies would appear the most cost-effective and keep our hands clean at the same time. In other words, it may be worth the lives of soldiers in that general area to be involved.
Wouldn't be too worried about political capital since there is already a U.N. resolution that was passed unanimously. As for a security dilemma, if we're worried about being targeted by militants at this stage of the game it's a little late. As for logistics, given that West Africa is made up of many former French colonies who have ties to France I do not foresee a problem. Not to mention the groundwork that had already been laid out for the operations in Libya or the reach of the United States military (AFRICOM).
Anyway, other interests aside from humanitarian issues is that Canada has a few companies in Mali that the Canada Pension Plan is invested in to the tune of millions of dollars. Based on what I read they are mining companies. Makes sense since gold appears to be one of the primary drivers of the Malian economy. Still one of the poorest countries in the world, though.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada–Mali_relations
Everytime i say ONE thing, the objective is to make me look stupid. Why one battle group, and not more? Because the bigger countries can provide the bulk, while we contribute a nice force. The afghan war is pretty much done for us, we can afford a new theatre of war. As for civilians caring about the mission or not, imho when Canada is thinking of a mission the only people who should have influence is the soldiersthemselves.Canadian soldiers are willing to fight over there, to rid the country of a terrorist safe haven. Also many canadians would be willing to sign up just to go(me).
- Reaction score
- 1,444
- Points
- 1,260
hagan_91 said:
The majority of Canadian soldiers that I talked to don't want anything to do with that continent, they remember previous missions there and want nothing to do with the place. They will obviously go if ordered but wanting to go there I am not convinced.
Historically the UN fails in africa, but as a pending soldier, I can say any deployment would be a worthy experience. Also were going in to HELP Mali rid there land from AQ. Were not there as an occupying force, but rather as mentors, and possibly a security boast.
- Reaction score
- 3,720
- Points
- 1,140
hagan_91 said:
Trust me, no one cares if you look stupid....and you do it all by yourself:
This is so completely wrong as to be laughable. We should have NO say at all. The military provides advice to the government, and they, as the elected representatives of the people of Canada get to decide when, where, and why we deploy. The moment it becomes "soldiers themselves" that decide on our military commitments and hence our foreign policy, and hence a declaration of exactly what our national interests are, then I will hang up my spurs.
<< edited for egregious grammatical error>>
- Reaction score
- 4,341
- Points
- 1,160
PPCLI Guy said:
I hope everyone who cares even a wee tiny bit about Canada and democracy reads what PPCLI Guy wrote, thinks about it - a lot - and takes it on board. He has, neatly and succinctly, distilled about 500 years of Western constitutional history into one sentence - that's why we have functioning democracies and others have dictatorships. All good, professional soldiers share his sentiments - history teaches us what happens when otherwise solid military men lose their professionalism and decide to dictate themselves or to serve dictators.
Its not laughable to somebody who see do macracy as a reason the world is where it is.Everyday citizens who know more about Kim and kanyes new baby then about anything relative to history, politics, economics, and defense are in charge of voting our leaders in (half are brainless goofs that care only about there wallet then the welfare of citizens)and dictating our policies made in any field. Qualifications should be needed in order for one to vote. That's an argument ill make another day and keep this on track. Also to your next point. I never said you should have say, if you reread and focus you ll notice i said the word "influence".
- Reaction score
- 2,544
- Points
- 1,260
That may have been what you thought, but we can only see what you typed.....hagan_91 said:
Gotta be careful with modifiers like "only" - that sorta means "nobody else", as in "nobody else should have influence".hagan_91 said:
Similar threads
