Soldier Defends Mission

[jranrose]

A very good EMOTIONAL read, Right now!!
PRO PATRIA

http://torontosun.com/News/Canada/2006/09/05/1803069-sun.html

Soldier Defends Mission

By ALAN CAIRNS, TORONTO SUN

A brave Canadian soldier, who knew the five men killed in Afghanistan over the weekend and is one day destined to fight there himself, says every soldier is devoted to the mission and accepts the risks.

"We all believe in what we are doing there ... We're not there because we are doing what we are told; we are there because we want to be there," said the man, who sought anonymity.

"My opinion is pretty much synonymous with every Canadian soldier. It's difficult to have any brothers in arms -- and your friends -- come home in a box with a flag draped over it, but the reality is this is what we do ... There may be a time when we close our eyes and never open them again."

MILITARY VOICE MISSING

The Toronto-born soldier -- who is stationed at CFB Petawawa with the 100-strong rear party of the Royal Canadian Regiment -- put his career on the line yesterday when he contacted the Toronto Sun to share a letter he wrote to "Dearest Canada."


Noting that media interaction is forbidden without permission, the trooper said the voice of the soldiers is missing from the public complaining and bellyaching.

Singling out NDP Leader Jack Layton, the soldier said nobody has asked for input from "the men and women who face the enemy head-on, in the front lines."

"We are not there as peacekeepers, as so many of you believe. We are the warriors who joined a cause to fight for our -- and your -- way of life," the soldier, who is in his 20s, wrote.

"We are at war ... and although you have the luxury of living your lives in relative comfort, there are people in the world who do not share this luxury ... people who cannot do the things we do for the fear of being beaten to death, or brutally murdered by those who hate us and their way of life. Our job is to stop these tragedies ..."

He said the soldiers vow to "protect those who are unable to protect themselves" and to help bring stability to the world.

"Although peace is an ideal way to achieve our goals, peace is not always the language the enemy understands," he wrote.

As someone preparing himself to go to Afghanistan after losing many friends there, he said he is "qualified" to wade into the debate.

COMMITTED TO ACTION

"We, the warriors, are doing what we are doing because be believe in it ... and there are few people in the world capable of facing death and engaging in battle."

He said Canada's soldiers deserve unqualified support.

Canada's troops did not sign on the dotted line to be peacekeepers without power, but to actually do something about the terror atrocities that plague the world.

"We are an army, an army of soldiers ... who said the Afghans, just because of where they were born and who their parents are, should be treated the way they (were under the Taliban) ... many people want us there, it is just the Taliban who don't want us there."

 

[McG]

Very good read.  Maybe the various SUN papers would like to look here for more on soldier views.

 

[GAP]

Maybe the government needs to remove the gag order on military personnel in some respects.

 

[Infanteer]

Superb  .

Refreshing change from the latest round of gabbing that is doing nothing but supporting AQ's PsyOps machine....

 

[Haggis]

Maybe the government needs to remove the gag order on military personnel in some respects.

No, it doesn't.

The CF and the Government have public relations mechanisms in place to dole out just such information. (see http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/menu-en.asp for example)  They can make soldiers available to the media and the politicans to speak to in the understanding that those soldiers are responsible for the accuracy and truthfulness of the comments they make to "the public" (oh, that the media be so encumbered!).  That is why soldiers are trained to "stay in thier lanes" when talking to the press.

This fella got away with this (so far), mostly because he appears to be articlulate in his writings and moderate in his tone.  We don't need a slew of "F##kin' eh, freedom ain't free! Pass the Timmy's and kill em all!" letters being published.

What we DO need is a government that is not afraid to "call a spade a spade" and tell the Canadian public that CANADA IS AT WAR and the reasons why, in simple, easy to understand terms.  They should also be able to simply spell out the consequences of in-action, unilateral withdrawl and a Taliban victory in terms that Joe Canuck can understand and relate to. (Getting this across to Jack Layton may require the assistance of a diety of some importance in the universe)

Soldiers should not feel compelled to defend the mission in the mainstream media.  Soldiers should be watching their buddy's back.  And the government should be watching the soldier's back.

 

[McG]

What we DO need is a government that is not afraid to "call a spade a spade" and tell the Canadian public that CANADA IS AT WAR and the reasons why, in simple, easy to understand terms.  They should also be able to simply spell out the consequences of in-action, unilateral withdrawl and a Taliban victory in terms that Joe Canuck can understand and relate to. (Getting this across to Jack Layton may require the assistance of a diety of some importance in the universe)

I've made this comment before WRT the PMs power to take television air time (and I see others are making this point again in other threads).  We don't need a fourth Commons debate & a second Commons vote.  We need Harper to be a leader & speak to the nation.

 

[warspite]

Your right it's time for the government to go on the offensive against the opposition and speak out and explain whats happening. The opposition parties are taking this opportunity to bark at the governments policy and the war. It is time to bite back.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Your right it's time for the government to go on the offensive against the opposition and speak out and explain whats happening. The opposition parties are taking this opportunity to bark at the governments policy and the war. It is time to bite back.

But, see whiskey 601's comment at: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49789/post-439214.html#msg439214

What if the government doesn't have a clear strategic vision?  What if scoring political points off the Liberals for sending troops to Kandahar in the first place is the sole aim of the operation?  And remember, please, that the Liberals were looking for a PRT in a nice quiet corner, away from those nasty car-bombs in dangerous Kabul, where we could pass out candy to school-kids; they dithered while 30 or so other countries snapped up the soft, safe places.

 

[Babbling Brooks]

The CF and the Government have public relations mechanisms in place to dole out just such information.

That prompts another question: are those PR mechanisms working?  Given the level of understanding of military matters in the Canadian public, I'd say it's not working as well as it could.  Public Affairs is stepping gingerly and carefully into a more assertive posture, and considering how best to use some of the new media (Bill Roggio's embed, for example), but they have a long way to go.

You can get more soldiers' voices out there in the public space without forfeiting all control of the message.  You just have to train and trust your troops, is all.

Look at what the U.S. forces are doing as far as access to deployed personnel: http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/006351.html

As part of the CENTCOM program to push the military's story into more places, spaces, and Google, I've been offered the chance to interview a Marine doing Civil Affairs work in Iraq.

Canadians have been so ignorant of military matters for so long now that if the CF and gov't won't aggressively educate them, support will be all over the map (we're proud of the troops, we're scared of casualties, what the hell are we doing there, we like blue berets, aren't we just building schools and digging wells, etc).  The public needs to hear more from soldiers themselves, since they don't trust the media or gov't to give them the unvarnished truth.

In that respect, this letter is useful - but there needs to be a coordinated push from NDHQ to get the message out past the filters Public Affairs normally has to contend with.

 

[warspite]

Babbling Brooks I think you're right about the need for more education about the military. Where I live knowledge about the armed forces isn't all that plentiful. Personally I only know one ex-infantry member and have met a few cadets. For most of the people I know only the basics are know i.e. we have an army, we have an navy, we have an airforce, and what they hear on the news.

 

[043]

Soldiers should not feel compelled to defend the mission in the mainstream media.  Soldiers should be watching their buddy's back.  And the government should be watching the soldier's back.

SSM,

I concur with most of your above statement however if something is broken, it has got to be fixed. I think it is fine and I also think that more civilians need to hear from the soldiers themselves. I know that every civilian that I talk thinks that wew shouldn't be in Afganistan yet when I explain to them that it is our job and that we have to follow through with the mission and that everyone who is over there wants to be there, they usually change there tune pretty guick. I say good on the guy and I hope to hear more comments.

Chimo!

 

[SOLDIER702]

Good on the guy, Good views. The Sargeant Major was a little pissed, but hey it happens. I do agree that we see so many people giving their opinions, when these people aren't actually involved first hand; However, The Lad should be playing by the rules, and we all know that he stepped out of line. This may be a good thing as it gets people to see a different side. I hope the guy doesn't get pinched. But I also hope that he hasn't "inspired" any other "Crusaders"

 

[RatCatcher]

It was a great letter...putting aside the fact that it goes against regs.  The best PR for the military is us, the rank and file.  How do we change views? Talk to friends and family, ask them to talk to their friends, tell our story.

I live in the most anti-military province,  I am a member of a local curling club (don't laugh). The closest contact to the military is a couple of naval reserve guys, until me! I've gotten into many a stimulated, sometime heated debates, with people from all walks of life. Most viewing Canadian operations in Afghanistan negatively.  I told them what we do there, explained three block war and that peace doesn't happen overnight. Some were still doubtful, til I left for an exercise for a month and a half.  Then they started to see the sacrifices we make. Then as casualties started, they asked me if I knew any... I do. They always ask if I am still willing, I respond yes...because it is the right thing for our country to do.

Their impression changed, and although they don't want me to go have asked me to make of list of things I would want in a care package.

All that to say, go in your communities and share... your experiences and what your job is. Last time I checked we can do that!!!

Bravo Zulu to us all!

 

[Haggis]

My point wasn't that this well-intentioned and honourable young soldier should be pilloried for "speaking out of turn".  My point is that the CF has to impose some checks and balances for those soldiers who do make comments to the press (either solicited or unsolicited). 

Unlike the media, the soldier has a duty and an obligation to provide accurate and truthful information.  Unlike the media, the solider's comments/remarks/opinion will be disssected in excruciating detail in a very public setting.  And, unlike the media, the soldier will be held accountable for any misinformation, inaccuracy, OPSEC breaches, misrepresentations,  mis-quotes, distortions or outright lies in the info s/he provides to the media.

Some of the best "war reporting" soundbites and quotes I've ever seen have come from well briefed, well informed soldiers, sailors and aviators (of all trades) and were made within the bounds of exisiting PR controls.

Now, tell me, what's wrong with that?

 

[RatCatcher]

You make a good point haggis (by the way I love the location on your profile!). However this troop did, technically, break the regulations by going to media without consulting PAO first. On the other hand, I wish I had the gonads to do the same! I find that the first hand reporting by serving soldiers on CBC.ca is more conducive to public opinion due to the fact that their names are published. Having someone withold their name takes away from the message he is trying to convey.

"The law is the law...but the law is an A**!"
Unknown

 

[pbi]

Interesting discussion. We were knocking this whole media relations thing around here at the College today, and we all agreed that the CF is way, way out ahead of the pack in our liberal approach to dealing with the media. Very few Fed Govt agencies, incl the RCMP, come anywhere near us, and Provincial and Municipal Govts seem to be even tighter. Many actually seem to be afraid of the media, or at least afraid of what their peope would say if the media could talk to them.Very few organizations other than the CF let their "junior ranks" anywhere near a microphone, preferring to rely on very senior people, or more often their PR people. Watch any media coverage of a major RCMP case and see who is in front of the camera, usually reading a prepared statement. See who speaks for other Federal ministries.

Generals just don't cut much ice with the average Canadians: the public expects them to toe the party line, and to be as much political as they are military (Perhaps this is why Gen Hillier has caused such a sensation).But, to hear a smart, articulate junior soldier, who knows what they are talking about and believes in what they are doing, is a totally different thing. I think Canadians are more inclined to trust the "little guy", Plus, letting our soldiers speak defeats these patronizing anti-military squawkers who peddle the line that we are just a bunch of mindless robots following orders because we want a chance to kill somethin'.

I think the soldier's letter is an indication of the fact that many, many soldiers want their voices to be heard, so we can counter the Jack Laytons, Steven Staples and other ill-informed, self-serving prattlers who are using Afghanistan as a political football. The trick for the Army is to let as many of our soldiers as possible get the chance to talk.

Cheers

 

[McG]

Soldiers should not feel compelled to defend the mission in the mainstream media.  Soldiers should be watching their buddy's back.  And the government should be watching the soldier's back.

Agreed.  The fact that the soldier felt compelled to write this may indicate that not enough was being done higher.

 

[Centurian1985]

I think the soldier's letter is an indication of the fact that many, many soldiers want their voices to be heard, so we can counter the Jack Laytons, Steven Staples and other ill-informed, self-serving prattlers who are using Afghanistan as a political football. The trick for the Army is to let as many of our soldiers as possible get the chance to talk.

Ditto, +1!

 

[Weinie]

  Interesting discussion indeed, and one that is not new; I have participated in similar debates several times in the past.

  We do indeed have, by far the most liberal policy when it comes to allowing soldiers to speak to the public vis a vis the media. DAOD 2008 allows any member of the CF to talk about "his/her job and experiences." and I agree that oftentimes they are by far our most articulate, and more importantly, credible spokespeople. PAff folks actively seek them out to speak about current/topical issues.

Although technically speaking the soldier who wrote the letter didn't follow the regs, I haven't heard of any lynch mobs being prepared at NDHQ to hunt him down; oftentimes the C of C will inwardly applaud and support the expression of sentiments such as this, without implictly acknowledging or supporting them.

That said, I am a strong believer in a consistent and coordinated approach to media by DND. The stakes are too high to not bring a degree of discipline to our communications efforts. And there has to be some checks and balances. Although we all applaud non-attributed  sentiments when they match ours, I also can recall a number of occasions where someone with an axe to grind ( but who feels no less passionate about his cause) has written or contacted the media and used them to attempt to further their own ends.

 

 

[pbi]

That said, I am a strong believer in a consistent and coordinated approach to media by DND. The stakes are too high to not bring a degree of discipline to our communications efforts. And there has to be some checks and balances. Although we all applaud non-attributed  sentiments when they match ours, I also can recall a number of occasions where someone with an axe to grind ( but who feels no less passionate about his cause) has written or contacted the media and used them to attempt to further their own ends.

 

And herein lies the other edge of the sword. Just as we all want to see and hear proud, dedicated and passionate soldiers speak the truth to counter the disinformation and ignorance that marks Canadian society and political culture, we have all seen and heard soldiers speaking out with quite the opposite point of view. (Although, thankfully, the worst of that was a few years ago...) If we allow freedom for one, we accept the risk that the other may happen as well. The truth is just that: the truth-it doesn't take sides. And sometimes it can be embarassing or confusing.  (I set OPSEC issues aside here, of course)

But, IMHO, considering all things, I say "suck it up and take the risk". I've lived through an Army whose attitude toward the media went from almost no relationship at all to where we are now, which IMHO is far better. Today Canadian soldiers and their leaders are daily faces and voices to the Canadian people. We have a CDS that Canadians actually recognize and listen to (they might not like him, but they hear him...) I don't want to see us go backwards again. If we don't want soldiers to speak bad truths, then don't create the grounds for them to do so. A very large part (IMHO) of what led to the brown envelopes, etc was abysmal leadership and neglect of responsibilties by several levels in the CF, along with a bureaucracy that saw itself more in opposition to the soldier than in support of him. Don't do stupid stuff and you probably won't have it thrown in your face.

Cheers