- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Obviously _TheSaint_ has no idea of what he is talking about and should be down in his University Library researching the use of the Military in Canada, in matters of Aid to the Civil Power. Somehow, he is of the impression that all militaries are like those of some Military Despot or Junta. Where he gets this from, probably Hollywood films and TV shows, or perhaps from the experiences of Immigrants and Refugees from said States; Heaven forbid he listened to the lunatic ravings of the Left, is a sign that he has to do some more unbiased research and look at it with a neutral point of view.
Let's point him in the right direction by stating that the Canadian Military, although out gunned and out numbered by many Third World militaries, is not one. The Canadian Military has strict rules on how and when it can be called out in Aid to the Civil Power, and in all cases it is subordinate to the "Civil Power". In all, but the highest case, soldiers do not have any authority to conduct themselves as "Law Enforcement Officers". They usually are along to protect LEO's in their duties, not to actually do the job of LEO.
I suppose _TheSaint_ also feels that the military should hid in the woods in the farthest, most remote regions of Canada, and not come out at all to scare the civilian population. Never come to the aid of Canadians in times of Floods, Fires, or even to save Toronto from too much snow.
_TheSaint_ , you really are outside of your lanes on this site, aren't you? I would suggest a bit more research into the matter, before you start commenting on it.
Let's point him in the right direction by stating that the Canadian Military, although out gunned and out numbered by many Third World militaries, is not one. The Canadian Military has strict rules on how and when it can be called out in Aid to the Civil Power, and in all cases it is subordinate to the "Civil Power". In all, but the highest case, soldiers do not have any authority to conduct themselves as "Law Enforcement Officers". They usually are along to protect LEO's in their duties, not to actually do the job of LEO.
I suppose _TheSaint_ also feels that the military should hid in the woods in the farthest, most remote regions of Canada, and not come out at all to scare the civilian population. Never come to the aid of Canadians in times of Floods, Fires, or even to save Toronto from too much snow.
_TheSaint_ , you really are outside of your lanes on this site, aren't you? I would suggest a bit more research into the matter, before you start commenting on it.
Haggis
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,641
- Points
- 1,140
Enzo said:
Trust me: The potential for an all out firefight there is quite high, particularly at night. How many troops do we commit (in 1990 it was around 500)? For how long? With what ROE?
The cops do an admirable job on that stretch of water. Some days it seems you can walk from St. Regis to Cornwall by stepping from police boat to police boat. Leave 'em to it.
Haggis
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,641
- Points
- 1,140
vonGarvin said:
You're quite right. Op SALON at Oka (Kahnesatake and Kahnawake) was about 3,000. Most, if not all, of 5 CMBG was there with a substantial number of SQFT/LFCA Reservists. Op FEATHER at Akwesasne was around 500, mostly from 1 RCR, 2 CER, 2 Fd Amb, SD&G Highrs, 400 Sqn and (the then) LFCA HQ. I believe the number of police committed at Akwesasne was higher than Oka since it spanned several jurisdictions (OPP/SQ/NY SP/RCMP/AMPS/US and Canadian Customs and US BP to name but a few).
Haggis
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,641
- Points
- 1,140
The CF response at Oka was not quite what the Québec government expected, but you have to remember that when Québec called out "the army", The Army responded; guns, armour and all that jazz. Taking this a step further, had things gone pear shaped at either site, The Army was prepared to, and quite capable of turning the barricades into nothing more than a semi-rural smoking hole in the earth.
The CF is and should remain a force of last resort for armed intervention on Canadian soil. To do otherwise, you are killing a fly with a sledgehammer. That being said, we do train for it. "How?" you ask? Put it this way: the methodolgy of launching a platoon attack in Kandahar differs little from launching one at Kahnesatake. There's simply less trees in Kandahar. Remember the sledgehammer.
The CF is and should remain a force of last resort for armed intervention on Canadian soil. To do otherwise, you are killing a fly with a sledgehammer. That being said, we do train for it. "How?" you ask? Put it this way: the methodolgy of launching a platoon attack in Kandahar differs little from launching one at Kahnesatake. There's simply less trees in Kandahar. Remember the sledgehammer.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Military are trained in the controlled use of force..... released on command, as required, when required.
The Mohawks recognized in the CF a bunch of professionals with their act together and the situation was allowed to follow it's course, under control....
can't ask for a better outcome if you ask me.
The Mohawks recognized in the CF a bunch of professionals with their act together and the situation was allowed to follow it's course, under control....
can't ask for a better outcome if you ask me.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
Haggis said:
I don't think using the forces to tighten up border security and port security is the same thing as a CF response to Oka, we are a still a far cry from firing up the old war measures act.
Is it possible yes, is it likely no. Could you imagine the tension at a port with union workers and soldiers doing the same job? One making union wages and overtime and the other making his set pay no matter how many hours they work. Not only that but then you start hearing the whining about the troops taking jobs away from those who need them. Plus you can see the rhetoric starting on well how come the CF is only inspecting the cargo coming out of Middle Eastern nations or Europe or Asia or insert country name here. Be it rue or not.
I get that this would make George Bush's fortress America dream come true but surely we are not that far down the slippery slope yet.
Besides taking away personal freedoms to life in a policed state would be no different then letting the extremist win. They want us to have less liberties.
MOO
Haggis
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,641
- Points
- 1,140
Wizard of OZ said:
The War Measures Act (now the Emergencies Act) wasn't invoked for Oka. Notwithstanding that, CF member REPLACED the civilian police at the barricades, the same as CF member could REPLACE CBSA agents at the ports, along the borders, etc.
Wizard of OZ said:
Just like the Ice Storm. Hydro workers making $90/hour working sid-by-side with CF members making $90/day.
geo said:
This time. What if CF members are forced to face off against stevedores at the ports? Or immigrant communities in Vancouver?
geo said:
+1, Geo, +1!
Well we use the Airforce and the Navy for off shore patrols as it is. The will intercept illegal ships and send them home or allow them to dock in Canada and then let Immigration Customs or the Police carry on with their end.
They also perform fisheries patrols etc along side with RCMP and Fisheries Wild Life. So why not work along side Customs at the borders?
The only reason I have heard so far that even comes close to justifying not doing this is the fact that so many are over tasked right now.
The argument can be said that others are undertasked.
What is the verdict? there really isn't one. We can or we can't. Right now we can't. Will we in the near future is the question to be asked?
They also perform fisheries patrols etc along side with RCMP and Fisheries Wild Life. So why not work along side Customs at the borders?
The only reason I have heard so far that even comes close to justifying not doing this is the fact that so many are over tasked right now.
The argument can be said that others are undertasked.
What is the verdict? there really isn't one. We can or we can't. Right now we can't. Will we in the near future is the question to be asked?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
"The War Measures Act (now the Emergencies Act) wasn't invoked for Oka. Notwithstanding that, CF member REPLACED the civilian police at the barricades, the same as CF member could REPLACE CBSA agents at the ports, along the borders, etc. "
With what powers to act ? And under what authority? What powers of search would they have? Where would they get this power? Its not as easy as saying ok today we are all going to play border guard as CF members. At Oka the CF was called out, this has not happened today, to help secure anyting.
Just like the Ice Storm. Hydro workers making $90/hour working sid-by-side with CF members making $90/day.
And how did that make the guys feel, was there not a bunch of bitching and complaining going on then, imagine it in a non-emergency setting, for a longer period. And what would happen when the port authorities started to cut the overtimes of the guys because the army guys can work 18 hr days and not be paid more. Unions are a powerful force in this day and age you would see mass strikes and walkouts. HMMM does this help or hinder the situation.
Everything is situation, Yes we are trained for it, we are trained to kill people but we don't go around doing that because we think we should. Do you not see that but locking the barn door after the horse has escaped we are playing into their hand. Besides the larger threat now seems to be coming from home grown problems. How would locking down the border now solve this problem. I have no qualms against letting the Air Force and Navy do surveillance and assist the legal authorities secure our airspace and water ways but I am not going to agree with troops at border crossings and ports. Bad Bad move and that is a sure way down the slippery slope to policed state, weather you see it or not.
With what powers to act ? And under what authority? What powers of search would they have? Where would they get this power? Its not as easy as saying ok today we are all going to play border guard as CF members. At Oka the CF was called out, this has not happened today, to help secure anyting.
Just like the Ice Storm. Hydro workers making $90/hour working sid-by-side with CF members making $90/day.
And how did that make the guys feel, was there not a bunch of bitching and complaining going on then, imagine it in a non-emergency setting, for a longer period. And what would happen when the port authorities started to cut the overtimes of the guys because the army guys can work 18 hr days and not be paid more. Unions are a powerful force in this day and age you would see mass strikes and walkouts. HMMM does this help or hinder the situation.
Everything is situation, Yes we are trained for it, we are trained to kill people but we don't go around doing that because we think we should. Do you not see that but locking the barn door after the horse has escaped we are playing into their hand. Besides the larger threat now seems to be coming from home grown problems. How would locking down the border now solve this problem. I have no qualms against letting the Air Force and Navy do surveillance and assist the legal authorities secure our airspace and water ways but I am not going to agree with troops at border crossings and ports. Bad Bad move and that is a sure way down the slippery slope to policed state, weather you see it or not.
- Reaction score
- 7,337
- Points
- 1,160
Reading some of these comments I get the sense that many of the posters feel that the military should not train for unpleasant duties because they are unpleasant and might cause friction, especially with the civilian population.
I would argue the contrary.
The military is the government's last available resource in maintaining the state. It is available to it to defend the state from outsiders. Equally though it is available to the government to support the government in its other task: controlling its own population and protecting its neighbours from its own population. That is the nature of a government. It is a middle man that convinces its population that it can get a good deal from the neighbours and convinces the neighbours that it can get a good deal from its people. In both instances it needs to be able to influence events.
The Army is the biggest hammer in the toolkit and it can be wielded against both foreign and domestic threats. The Army has to be able to deal with both situations effectively and professionally.
In addition to training for war it also needs to train for the unpleasant duties associated with managing domestic threats with the least unpleasantness possible. In one sense the current operations in Afghanistan are supplying lessons that may one day be applied here at home.
As I said earlier, the Army should not be doing border patrols as a matter of course. In the interests of maintaining a sense of normalcy the Police should be conducting those operations. The corollary is that the more operations the Police can handle, the less often the government will be required to revert to the Army, and the more the sense of "business as usual" will prevail.
However the Army needs to be able to do many of the things that the Police do. It either adds depth by taking on tasks that the police can't do because of lack of numbers, preferably in areas that are out of view of the majority of the public (remote border patrols vs urban border patrols as an example), or because of lack of necessary capabilities (helicopters and APCs etc). If capabilities such as helicopters and APCs are deemed to be useful to Police on a regular basis then it is better if they are painted blue and manned by police officers, again to maintain the sense that this situation is normal and life continues.
The Army also is available as a counterweight to the Police force: a truly unpleasant thought for all honourable members of both professions that support their governments. However, in the event of a Police strike, the Army can be called in to take their place. Or in the event of a strike by Prison guards or by other Emergency Services. Equally, as difficult as it might be to imagine in Canada, it bears considering that in other places and times soldiers have been arrested in their barracks by police forces for anti-government activities.
I don't propose this as a likely use of either the Police or the Army in Canada. I just point out that there has historically been a reason for keeping the Police and the Army separate even though many of their duties and capabilities may overlap from time to time.
The point is though: their duties overlap from time to time - and the Army needs to be willing and able to perform those duties as circumstances and the government dictate. And it needs to be able to perform those duties the way it does everything else: with quiet professionalism. That level of professionalism comes from preparing doctrine and training so as to reduce the number of surprises likely to be encountered if/when situations arise.
Events like the BC and Cape Breton Miner strikes, the Winnipeg General Strike and Ipperwash, or the initial SQ intervention into Oka, not to mention Kent State, Peterloo and too many others to mention, are all remembered because of how badly authorities both military and civil handled the situations. Others, like the later stages of Oka, the military involvement in the October crisis, the Montreal Olympics and Kananaskis seem to be fading from the public consciousness ( if the evidence of some of the younger posters is anything to go by), precisely because they were handled so well.
We can't rely on successful ad hoc solutions to those types of problems every time. Those operations, like any other require coordination, planning and training.
I would argue the contrary.
The military is the government's last available resource in maintaining the state. It is available to it to defend the state from outsiders. Equally though it is available to the government to support the government in its other task: controlling its own population and protecting its neighbours from its own population. That is the nature of a government. It is a middle man that convinces its population that it can get a good deal from the neighbours and convinces the neighbours that it can get a good deal from its people. In both instances it needs to be able to influence events.
The Army is the biggest hammer in the toolkit and it can be wielded against both foreign and domestic threats. The Army has to be able to deal with both situations effectively and professionally.
In addition to training for war it also needs to train for the unpleasant duties associated with managing domestic threats with the least unpleasantness possible. In one sense the current operations in Afghanistan are supplying lessons that may one day be applied here at home.
As I said earlier, the Army should not be doing border patrols as a matter of course. In the interests of maintaining a sense of normalcy the Police should be conducting those operations. The corollary is that the more operations the Police can handle, the less often the government will be required to revert to the Army, and the more the sense of "business as usual" will prevail.
However the Army needs to be able to do many of the things that the Police do. It either adds depth by taking on tasks that the police can't do because of lack of numbers, preferably in areas that are out of view of the majority of the public (remote border patrols vs urban border patrols as an example), or because of lack of necessary capabilities (helicopters and APCs etc). If capabilities such as helicopters and APCs are deemed to be useful to Police on a regular basis then it is better if they are painted blue and manned by police officers, again to maintain the sense that this situation is normal and life continues.
The Army also is available as a counterweight to the Police force: a truly unpleasant thought for all honourable members of both professions that support their governments. However, in the event of a Police strike, the Army can be called in to take their place. Or in the event of a strike by Prison guards or by other Emergency Services. Equally, as difficult as it might be to imagine in Canada, it bears considering that in other places and times soldiers have been arrested in their barracks by police forces for anti-government activities.
I don't propose this as a likely use of either the Police or the Army in Canada. I just point out that there has historically been a reason for keeping the Police and the Army separate even though many of their duties and capabilities may overlap from time to time.
The point is though: their duties overlap from time to time - and the Army needs to be willing and able to perform those duties as circumstances and the government dictate. And it needs to be able to perform those duties the way it does everything else: with quiet professionalism. That level of professionalism comes from preparing doctrine and training so as to reduce the number of surprises likely to be encountered if/when situations arise.
Events like the BC and Cape Breton Miner strikes, the Winnipeg General Strike and Ipperwash, or the initial SQ intervention into Oka, not to mention Kent State, Peterloo and too many others to mention, are all remembered because of how badly authorities both military and civil handled the situations. Others, like the later stages of Oka, the military involvement in the October crisis, the Montreal Olympics and Kananaskis seem to be fading from the public consciousness ( if the evidence of some of the younger posters is anything to go by), precisely because they were handled so well.
We can't rely on successful ad hoc solutions to those types of problems every time. Those operations, like any other require coordination, planning and training.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
There is a huge difference between have some Coyotes set up in a remote are of the border watching for smugglers and having the 3 RCR deploy a couple of platoons at Bridge crossing in Ontario.
I agree we should be able to do the job if asked to do it. The key is the government must ask us to step to the plate before we can get into the game. Would you not agree?
I have no problem with the training that is going on. It is necessary and vital to both operations abroad and possible domestic. I have a problem with jumping the gun and rushing to be something the CF is not. The police are more the scalpel for more precise extractions with in the everyday life of the publice without to much in the way of change. The CF would be like bringout the Broad Sword to cut the body in half.
I agree we should be able to do the job if asked to do it. The key is the government must ask us to step to the plate before we can get into the game. Would you not agree?
I have no problem with the training that is going on. It is necessary and vital to both operations abroad and possible domestic. I have a problem with jumping the gun and rushing to be something the CF is not. The police are more the scalpel for more precise extractions with in the everyday life of the publice without to much in the way of change. The CF would be like bringout the Broad Sword to cut the body in half.
- Reaction score
- 7,337
- Points
- 1,160
Wizard, I agree with everything you said in your last post. No reservations.
Youir position wasn't as clear to me in your earlier posts.
I also agree with those saying that there are enough jobs for the bodies available without looking for employment opportunities.
Cheers.
Youir position wasn't as clear to me in your earlier posts.
I also agree with those saying that there are enough jobs for the bodies available without looking for employment opportunities.
Cheers.
Similar threads
