The role of the military and its relation to alleviating humanitarian crises?!

[Future Prodigy]

   I just came back from a talk delivered at Wilfrid Laurier University by Romeo Dallaire, on the issues effecting global humanity. After the talk I approached him concerning his last segment of the presentation where he basically gave a short couple sentences on expressing the notion that now is one of the best times to join the ‘uniform,’ but he did not go into much detail. I am very intrigued by this and was hoping that you people here might expand on it a bit more. What exactly did he mean?!

I am now primarily interested in the role of the military in relation to international development. Mr. Dallaire made two points at the end of his talk, the 2nd one being that all the current Canadian forces missions are just and are actually making an impact on the societies in which they are fought.

Could you elaborate a bit more on this view of the military and its role in the above topics and in relation to to reducing poverty, nukes, arms, child soldiers, human injustices, etc?

Mr. Dallaire has captivated me with the possibility of a military career having a real impact in the international world. I have never thought along those lines before and would love to read more about this view.

I am very enthusiastic, more than this I NEED TO, about wanting to make some sort of difference in my career choice after I graduate this year - I am 4th year BA student at WLU. I feel it is an injustice to my education (liberal arts), and the material I have learned to just slip back into the status quo and do nothing for the 80% of the world’s population that suffers. Someone has to fight to help alleviate their suffering and I hope in some way shape or form I may be able to do that.

I don't want to sound like a brown-noser or anything but Mr. Dallaire really did inspire me, and give a bit of hope to the future – which can seem awfully bleak when you are studying the liberal arts.

Jason

Edited to correct thread title for grammar/spelling.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

p.s.  to be more clear: Which areas of the uniform would he have been suggesting? Just the combat arms regiment, or other groups like the intelligence sector, etc?

I'm going to guess that he meant joining the CF in general, since all branches and areas work together towards common purposes. 
As for the military info you seek?  You are definitely in the right place.  Have a go at the "Search" function and you should be able to pony up several months of reading on things military. 
Good luck, and welcome to the site. 

 

[TCBF]

Jason,

Welcome to army.ca!

In my opinion, the Canadian Forces are the most RESPONSIVE means at hand in a crises.  Why?  Because we are the means of last resort and have the capacity for massive lethal force, society retains a tight grip on our direction.  We can change policy course in midstream.

That does not appear to be quite the case in other government departments.  Some of them appear to have developed into untouchable fiefdoms where any government policy found to be 'regressive' gets slowly misdirected and sabotaged.  CIDA's 'assistance' in Afghanistan is an alledged example.  Maybe it is - perhaps it isn't.  

Any such sluggishness in DND or the CF would result in firings and resignations.  In the rest of the bureaucracy, it may seem that nothing happens.  I think a lot of this resulted from our "Freedom FROM Information" Acts and privacy regulations which serve to cloak responsibility and abuse.  It is a bit different in the CF. In most cases, members of the Canadian Forces can answer media questions if they so choose.  A democracy WANTS it's people in uniform to tell them what is going on.  Few other federal/provincial/municipal/contractual employees have that privilege.

Now: SHOULD we be the main force of development? NO.  We exist to provide the secure environment for the development 'experts' and their projects.  Using armed forces to build schools, hand out pencils, fight fires and shovel snow is an INCREDIBLE misuse of expensively trained and maintained assets, where other more specifically trained, cheaper and unemployed assets allready exist on site.

Where would you like to fit in?  Your choice.  You could even join CIDA!

 

[leroi]

Jason,

I'm new on this site and a civilian. I'm responding because my son is going through a similar transformation. He's a University of Guelph student. I'm guessing  Mr. Dallaire's It's a good time to join the uniform is in reference to General Rick Hillier who is now in charge of CF. But that's just a guess. Hillier seems to be a real take charge type of guy; an iconoclast who's not afraid to do the right thing for CF. (IMHO.)  I suspect his star is rising and predict he's going to upstage  many of our illustrious politicians in the near future. The April 2008 issue of The Walrus contains an excellent piece on General Hillier titled, Too Few Hilliers: The General Goes Where Ottawa Mandarins Fear to Tread.

The Recruiting Office nearest you is in Kitchener and they are a great resource to provide you with the direction you need. They are quick at processing applications, too (I hear this is because they aren't as busy as, say, Toronto).
Don't underestimate the power of this site:  I came here to get information on BMQ and was astounded by the collective wisdom that they have pooled here at Army.ca.--pure Canadiana ...

I wish you the best of luck.  Your desire to do something valuable with your degree is commendable and a worthy aim.

 

[McG]

I am now primarily interested in the role of the military in relation to international development. Mr. Dallaire made two points at the end of his talk, the 2nd one being that all the current Canadian forces missions are just and are actually making an impact on the societies in which they are fought.

Could you elaborate a bit more on this view of the military and its role in the above topics and in relation to to reducing poverty, nukes, arms, child soldiers, human injustices, etc?

Try these:
http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/104-No-Security-Without-Combat.html
http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/76-The-Truth-About-Peacekeeping.html
http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/12-Peace-Making,-not-Peacekeeping-is-the-order-of-the-day.html

 

[Future Prodigy]

mcg - I don't quite follow why you suggested those readings? I'm not against just wars fought for the betterment of universal humanity - this implies that it must not be a nationalistic close minded view of humanity, where our needs must be met over others.. normally leading to a form of neo-colonialism/imperialism - and i believe strongly in this theory. I support that if 1 life taken saves a 1000 then it is a requirement. However, i have never heard someone talk about the military in such rhetoric... i.e. why i made this thread.

 

[CougarKing]

Now: SHOULD we be the main force of development? NO.  We exist to provide the secure environment for the development 'experts' and their projects.  Using armed forces to build schools, hand out pencils, fight fires and shovel snow is an INCREDIBLE misuse of expensively trained and maintained assets, where other more specifically trained, cheaper and unemployed assets allready exist on site.

Where would you like to fit in?  Your choice.  You could even join CIDA!

TCBF,

What about the Kandahar PRT? Isn't what you said above pretty much what the mandate of the PRT is? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Jason,

If you are seriously interested in the more humanitarian aspect of the CF, perhaps you should set your sights on becoming part of the Kandahar PRT or do a search on the "DART" units of the CF.

Here is more info on the CF's own PRT unit in Kandahar; the US Army also has their own PRT units in Iraq, IIRC.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0013061

http://www.mdn.ca/site/kprt-eprk/act_e.asp

Interestingly, the Kandahar PRT has members of Canadian civilian police forces, the DFAIT and the CIDA as well.

 

[a_majoor]

mcg - I don't quite follow why you suggested those readings? I'm not against just wars fought for the betterment of universal humanity - this implies that it must not be a nationalistic close minded view of humanity, where our needs must be met over others.. normally leading to a form of neo-colonialism/imperialism - and i believe strongly in this theory. I support that if 1 life taken saves a 1000 then it is a requirement. However, i have never heard someone talk about the military in such rhetoric... i.e. why i made this thread.

MCG provided these readings (and look at the rest of Ruxted too, by the way) to answer your questions WRT the military role in development, assistance and so on. I think the short answer is these are not our roles, but we do them in theater for our own practical purposes and to support the end goals of the mission. Like the big boss said; "We're not the public service of Canada, we're not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people."

The idea that the military has any formal role is development assistance comes from a combination of three factors: the notion of "Responsibility to Protect" or R2P, the fact that the helping hand allied to the mailed fist is a historically valid means of dealing with insurgencies and the fact that other agencies which are supposed to be doing the humanitarian and reconstruction work are often ineffectual, unable or unwilling to do the work.

I would argue that R2P is an inherently flawed notion, and indeed taken to its logical conclusion would compel nations to mount military actions without consideration of any overriding national interest. No only does that bring us back to the situation of the religious wars prior to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, where R2P was defined as invading neighbouring nations to save the immortal souls of the oppressed (Catholic/Protestant) people, but it also invites some practical considerations as well. Are you willing to invade China today to save the people of Tibet? Can you do this with any chance of success? Are you willing to incur the costs (up to nuclear response)?

Doing the right thing to support our own interests in theater is just a smaller scale application of the idea of supporting our national interests. It is considered in the national interest to dispatch the military in the first place, so to support our own interests in theater and win the peace, we engage in small scale reconstruction work of our own so long as it does not interfere with the overall conduct of the mission.

Contrast the impromptu rescue fleet of USN, RAN and Japanese Self Defence Force ships responding to the Tsunami crisis in Indonesia a few years ago with the totally flat footed response of the United Nations and other NGO's. Since the military is self contained and in theater we are able to do the job organizations like the United Nations and various agencies and NGOs  cannot, which is a bitter pill for many to swallow and the source of quite a bit of animosity towards the military as well (how do NGOs justify fundraising for relief efforts when the soldiers are the ones out there getting roads built and conducting medical clinics?).

I hope this is not too negative or cynical of a viewpoint for you. If you think about it, acting as the sword and shield of a liberal democratic nation like Canada preserves freedom and opportunity for our own people, which allows Canadians the scale and scope of actions and resources to engage in assisting other nations and peoples, and provides a beacon of hope for the oppressed peoples of the world.

 

[Future Prodigy]

MCG provided these readings (and look at the rest of Ruxted too, by the way) to answer your questions WRT the military role in development, assistance and so on. I think the short answer is these are not our roles, but we do them in theater for our own practical purposes and to support the end goals of the mission. Like the big boss said; "We're not the public service of Canada, we're not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people."

The idea that the military has any formal role is development assistance comes from a combination of three factors: the notion of "Responsibility to Protect" or R2P, the fact that the helping hand allied to the mailed fist is a historically valid means of dealing with insurgencies and the fact that other agencies which are supposed to be doing the humanitarian and reconstruction work are often ineffectual, unable or unwilling to do the work.

I would argue that R2P is an inherently flawed notion, and indeed taken to its logical conclusion would compel nations to mount military actions without consideration of any overriding national interest. No only does that bring us back to the situation of the religious wars prior to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, where R2P was defined as invading neighbouring nations to save the immortal souls of the oppressed (Catholic/Protestant) people, but it also invites some practical considerations as well. Are you willing to invade China today to save the people of Tibet? Can you do this with any chance of success? Are you willing to incur the costs (up to nuclear response)?

Doing the right thing to support our own interests in theater is just a smaller scale application of the idea of supporting our national interests. It is considered in the national interest to dispatch the military in the first place, so to support our own interests in theater and win the peace, we engage in small scale reconstruction work of our own so long as it does not interfere with the overall conduct of the mission.

Contrast the impromptu rescue fleet of USN, RAN and Japanese Self Defence Force ships responding to the Tsunami crisis in Indonesia a few years ago with the totally flat footed response of the United Nations and other NGO's. Since the military is self contained and in theater we are able to do the job organizations like the United Nations and various agencies and NGOs  cannot, which is a bitter pill for many to swallow and the source of quite a bit of animosity towards the military as well (how do NGOs justify fundraising for relief efforts when the soldiers are the ones out there getting roads built and conducting medical clinics?).

I hope this is not too negative or cynical of a viewpoint for you. If you think about it, acting as the sword and shield of a liberal democratic nation like Canada preserves freedom and opportunity for our own people, which allows Canadians the scale and scope of actions and resources to engage in assisting other nations and peoples, and provides a beacon of hope for the oppressed peoples of the world.

SO under your rhetoric why do you believe we should be in afganistan?! Despite what the role of the military was historically i believe we most evolve... and i'm very interested in dallaires points concerning the future roles of the military in alleviating these basic humanitarian crisis's. I'm positive any notion of a self-interested nationalism would not fly well with him, we need to stress the inherent value of all life, despite our geographical locations... and then pursue measures to alleviate their problems (whether through military force, etc)

After reading some posts here, I'm starting to wonder whether i have romanticized the military profession. It seems some people here are fixated on the fighting aspect of the military and not as concerned with the bigger issues with which the fighting is directed. We should never fight for a narcissistic nationalism, but rather for everyone (despite creed, color, gender!). This notion of our superiority due to our birth - in the lucky sperm club - is ridiculous. It is our human duty to protect everyone. One reason i somewhat support Peter Singers argument for a one world UN military

I hope this is not too negative or cynical of a viewpoint for you. If you think about it, acting as the sword and shield of a liberal democratic nation like Canada preserves freedom and opportunity for our own people, which allows Canadians the scale and scope of actions and resources to engage in assisting other nations and peoples, and provides a beacon of hope for the oppressed peoples of the world.

This is an interesting point... i need to think about it

 

[a_majoor]

SO under your rhetoric why do you believe we should be in afganistan?! Despite what the role of the military was historically i believe we most evolve... and i'm very interested in Dallaires points concerning the future roles of the military in alleviating these basic humanitarian crisis's.

We are in Afghanistan to prosecute a war against the Al Qaeda network and their allies the Taliban, who attacked us on September 11, 2001. The 9/11 attacks were acts of war against the United States, who we are obliged to come to the aid of under many treaties between our nations, as well as an indirect attack on Canada and our values (including the mass murder of Canadians in the World Trade Centre "Twin Towers").

Militarily defeating the Taliban and allowing the Afghans to install a democratic government under a Loyal Jirga ejected the AQ and prevented them from having a secure base and State resources to continue their attacks against us. Maintaining a military presence is required to prevent the Taliban and AQ from re-establishing themselves in Afghanistan and continuing their efforts against the North American metropole (the overarching goal), and providing a screen for the local government to create stable and functional institutions and policies to ensure long term national and regional stability which also serves our goal of maintaining peace and prosperity within our nation and throughout the world.

This also explains why we are not in the Sudan; they do not directly threaten us, nor do they shelter groups like the AQ who work to threaten us and our interests. (So we don't quibble, the Sudan did harbor the AQ in the past, and may continue to do so today, but not in numbers that threaten us). Since neither Canada, the Anglosphere and the West as a whole do not have infinite resources, we can only deal with the most pressing issues first.

WRT solving a humanitarian crisis, the cause of the crisis is often a corrupt and dysfunctional government in the area in question. R2P would suggest we can invade them at will to solve these problems, but historical evidence is lacking. The US Marines invaded and occupied many Caribbean and Central American nations in the early part of the 20th century both to secure the approaches to the Panama Canal (the overarching goal), but also in pursuit of humanitarian goals. They built roads, hospitals and schools, ran corruption free customs services to raise government revenues and trained local police and military forces. While these were able to solve local humanitarian problems while the Marines were there, the local elites were not removed nor their attitudes changed, so once the Marines left, the elites went back to their corrupt ways and their nations descended into chaos and neglect (read Max Boot "The Savage Wars of Peace" for a more detailed account).

If you want to emulate General Rick Hillier and be part of the Canadian Forces; who's job is to kill people; then you will be working on one aspect of the problem. If you want to do the redevelopment and reconstruction work outside of the narrow boundaries that the military can supply, then join a development agency or an NGO (or form your own for that matter). Just make sure you are clear in what your wants, needs and expectations actually are so you don't end up frustrated or dissapointed.

 

[Future Prodigy]

So, in your view.. the mission of the military is nothing beyond killing people in order to serve our own Canadian self interests? Yeah, i may have to do some major reconsideration then... i don't know if i could live with that. The notion of superiority and service to self interests - whether it be nationalism, racism, etc - is in excusable in our day and age.

I do not want to join the military because i'm so young high school kid that wants to shot guns, drive fast cars, and jump out of planes. I want to make a 'difference' in the world! I see Afghanistan as a respectable mission and fighting for the rights of humanity, not just serving Canadian interests. But maybe like i said, i have romanticized things and in the process blinded myself to the reality of our narcissism. Ideally, militaries should fight for the helpless/voiceless/defenceless. We who are in power have the responsbility to do so... that was why i wanted to join the military to protect those who could not do it themselves, but im starting to think this is the wrong view?!

 

[Future Prodigy]

thucydides -  i find your quote kind of ironic. It seems to fly against everything youve posted. "If the greatness of life is measured in deeds done for others, then Canada's sons and daughters who have made the ultimate sacrifice in Afghanistan stand among the greatest of their generation" .. this seems to be beyond any national self interest?

 

[Yrys]

little hijack

The notion of superiority and service to self interests - whether it be nationalism, racism, etc - is in excusable in our day and age.

The ability to kill people (which was write) doesn't equal in my mind killing people. But as I'm no SME, I will
let that to people that must be tapping at their keyboards at the moment...

So you're saying that you don't buy products that serve yourself in an unfair way versus persons that produced them.
All your clothes are fairtade, made with ecological tissues, all your foods have been paid a fair price, which mean
NO white sugar whatsoever (sugar is in most food produce) (workers that produce it have relative slave life conditions), chocolate is from smalls cooperatives, etc.

Your runnings shoes have never been make by big brands that exploit people oversea. You don't buy anything from China, which also
include products (as medicaments, cereals, etc) with label as "made in Canada" but contain parts or ingredients comming
from China. You never bhought or accept to receive flowers that are made in south america (all flowers except fairtrade one and biological one) in usually hell health conditions for those workers. You also convince you mother, sister or other female relative to not receive them.
You never have eat meat because it would have serve your self interest and would have been a promotion of poor conditions of elevage and transport for animals. You will recycle the computer and other tech gizmo that you have used, to be sure it doesn't end up in a garbage in another country, polluting their water and lands.  You don't live by the capitalist system.

You also didn't receive a free education, provide by taxpayers moners, at their detriment FOR you self interest. Idem for health issue.

W   W, how do you do that ?

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Future Prodigy. You may be over thinking this thing a little bit too much. All of us joined because we want to do something meaningful with our life and military service can certainly provide that outlet. Having said that we are not thinking and living ideology everyday (like most of us did when we were in University). It's a way of life that runs the gamut between being in Canada (most of the time) training and doing a lot of mundane stuff from day to day (not everyone is in the Army training to do battle in afghanistan) like making machinery work that flys, sails or rolls along, technical trades in computers, research, etc.
Depending on your trade or classification there are opportunities to go overseas and do some pretty interesting and meaningful things, but our raison d'etre is to be ready to defend the country and it's interests in the way in which we are directed by the Canadian Government...we don't get to choose the whys and wherefores.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

So, in your view.. the mission of the military is nothing beyond killing people in order to serve our own Canadian self interests? Yeah, i may have to do some major reconsideration then... i don't know if i could live with that. The notion of superiority and service to self interests - whether it be nationalism, racism, etc - is in excusable in our day and age.

I do not want to join the military because i'm so young high school kid that wants to shot guns, drive fast cars, and jump out of planes. I want to make a 'difference' in the world! I see Afghanistan as a respectable mission and fighting for the rights of humanity, not just serving Canadian interests. But maybe like i said, i have romanticized things and in the process blinded myself to the reality of our narcissism. Ideally, militaries should fight for the helpless/voiceless/defenceless. We who are in power have the responsbility to do so... that was why i wanted to join the military to protect those who could not do it themselves, but im starting to think this is the wrong view?!

Future Prodigy,

The military of a state exists first and foremost to protect that state.  Self-interest is the hard centre of a nation's foreign policy when you strip away the fluff.  The Rwandan operation foundered in no small part on this issue, and the same can be said for other attempts to employ UN forces when there was no real national self-interests at state.  The use of military force should be in those matters that are of great interest to the nation using that force.  Wanting to help because of images on the news can lead to problems when the rubber hits the road.  Will is very important, and will springs in no small part from self-interest.

The military of a given state can still execute tasks that benefit another nation, but when military force is applied you will usually find some element of national self-interest at stake.

Cheers

 

[George Wallace]

So, in your view.. the mission of the military is nothing beyond killing people in order to serve our own Canadian self interests?

This is a overly simplistic deduction on your part.  I would say that you are having a great deal of difficulty in absorbing the meaning behind the Canadian Forces Military Ethos.

Yeah, i may have to do some major reconsideration then... i don't know if i could live with that.

???  I have to truly wonder what you though a nation's military was for?

The notion of superiority and service to self interests - whether it be nationalism, racism, etc - is in excusable in our day and age.

To turn this around, you have just made a very biased opinion, without really looking at the matter with an open mind.

I do not want to join the military because i'm so young high school kid that wants to shot guns, drive fast cars, and jump out of planes. I want to make a 'difference' in the world! I see Afghanistan as a respectable mission and fighting for the rights of humanity, not just serving Canadian interests. But maybe like i said, i have romanticized things and in the process blinded myself to the reality of our narcissism.

I think you have been looking at the world with blinders and rose coloured glasses on.  You have a very narrow and closed mind on many things.  Even in your search to find more information, you are not accepting it, nor are you understanding what little you have absorbed.  Please browse through some of the subjects posted here and widen your perception of the world and the use of Canada's military at home and abroad.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

How about this:
A good chunk of the planet is screwed up and sucks.  We don't have the money or resources to go to every place that sucks and make it better, so we have to pick and choose.  One of the deciding factors is "what will it get us", which is what the people ultimately want from the Gov-good bang for their bucks.  We also belong to a big, dysfunctional family (UN) who all expect everyone else to help (meaning the US).  As part of the family, Canada had dodged its turn to step up a few times over the years.  Now it is our turn, otherwise the family will be really pissed with us. 
Fight the bad guys on their own turf to avoid another 9/11.  As part of an effective counter insurgency operation you need to win over the locals, and you need to spend money to do that.  It is a nice side affect that it helps peoples every day lives, but to be perfectly honest if paying to unleash a horde of trained rats was the best solution, we probably would be doing that. 
However, that is at the policy level.  Pretty much every soldier that has been there has been genuinely moved by the strife of the people of Afghanistan, and really gives a crap about helping them.  That is the human element, and IMO is a function of how good our military is.  Therein lies the disconnect between the CF support of the mission and the lack of promotion on the part of the government. 
Maybe I'm way off.  I'm no poli-sci major.  But that is how I see it. 

 

[Future Prodigy]

This is a overly simplistic deduction on your part.  I would say that you are having a great deal of difficulty in absorbing the meaning behind the Canadian Forces Military Ethos.

I disagree, that was his words... which is why i was asking him for clarification. I did not deduct anything!

And i will not argue that my idealist view is close minded because that is a subjective statement in and of itself, which can as easily be applied to your worldview.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Prodigy,

If this were a play, I would find your statement that you "will not argue that your idealist view is close-minded" somewhat ironic.  By refusing to argue, aren't you being close-minded?

Cheers

T2B

p.s. Writing in red font makes it hard to read.

 

[George Wallace]

Prodigy,

p.s. Writing in red font makes it hard to read.

Not to mention the fact that your inclusion of your comments within the quote of another poster is very confusing.