The Past Was Once The Future - Canadian Armed Forces in the New Millenium (Part 1)

The recent deaths and injuries to Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan have Canada’s involvement once again in the spotlight. The airwaves and Internet are positively a buzz with talk about it. There have been calls for a Canadian withdrawal. Many have said we need to return to our traditional peacekeeping capacity or we shouldn’t be there until it is safe for our troops.

Through it all, I have noticed much of opinion is based on misunderstanding, confusion and downright ignorance about our military and, more ostensibly, the current role it is filling in Afghanistan. Of course, the Canadian penchant for having a short memory doesn’t help either.

A little history.

Canadians often take pride in Canada’s reputation as peacekeepers. It is a job that our military is well suited for and excels at. Since 1947, we have been involved in over 70 international missions and we have contributed everything from a few people to the thousands involved in the Korean War. The idea of peacekeeping on the world stage is attributed to Prime Minister Lester Pearson and Canada has been recognised for its contributions by the United Nations.

That was the more public face of the military.

During the same period, Canada was also a major player in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). NATO, which was formed in 1949, was intended to defend its members from aggression by other nations. The core of the agreement was Article V, which basically states that an attack upon any of the member nations would be considered an attack upon NATO and would be treated accordingly.

As part of its NATO commitment, Canada stationed troops in Germany in preparation for war. During the time that the idea of peacekeeping was being romanticised by Canadians, the bulk of the Armed Forces had their guns trained towards the Iron Curtain, waiting for a war that, thankfully, never happened.

What is peacekeeping?

Most people do not realise there are certain criteria that must be met in order for a peacekeeping mission to be launched.

First, before the United Nations can even consider sending in a peacekeeping contingent, both sides in the conflict must agree to it. Often, it is United Nations pressure that causes them to ask for help but it may also be a realisation that the conflict must end. This could be due to humanitarian considerations or, just as easily, be because it is costing too much money.

Secondly, the warring parties have to agree to an end to hostilities and be willing to pull back. Again, not an easy task, especially if it has been a long, drawn out conflict which can leave a lasting feeling of animosity towards the other side.

Finally, the soldiers who become part of the peacekeeping contingent are expected to be lightly armed and only use their weapons for personal defence. This means if one side or the other breaks the cease-fire the only thing the peacekeepers can do is keep their heads down unless threatened. They are not allowed to interfere in the internal policies or activities of either side. The peacekeeping contingent is allowed to give humanitarian aid under the auspices of the UN, but mainly they are expected to monitor and report on adherence to the cease-fire agreement only.

The system worked in keeping conflicts from spreading. Although they often caused stalemates that could last decades, Cypress and Korea being prime examples, the threat of a world war was minimised.

Then the Cold War ended.

Canadian Armed Forces in the New Millenium (Intro)

Can Canada Take It?

 

We, as Canadians, pride ourselves on not being American.

We wrap ourselves in the cloak of moral superiority, feeling that we, as a nation, have taken the high road to the US’s base imperialism. Repeatedly we look on with disdain, as the US seems to stumble about alienating nations worldwide.

Many Canadians rolled their eyes at the US invasion of Iraq believing the American public would change their support the moment soldiers started dieing. After all, isn’t that what happened with Vietnam? Canadians derided the US as weak-willed, taking on only the easy stuff and running away when the going got tough.

Now we see the US and Canada are not different at all.

In the wake of the September 11^th terror attacks of the World Trade Center, we stepped up to the plate with all the ardour of a country ready to combat tyranny. With much flag waving and chest thumping, we were determined to put an end to terrorism and its threat to the world. We watched as a final ultimatum, put to the Taliban in Afghanistan, told them to comply with the UN resolution demanding the surrender of Osama Bin Laden or face the consequences. When the Taliban refused, we, as a nation, stood up and demanded action.

Then Prime Minster Chrétien announced on 8 October 2001 that Canada would be joining the US in the war on terror in Afghanistan.

"We are part of an unprecedented coalition of nations that has come together to fight the threat of terrorism," Chrétien said. "I have made it clear from the very beginning that Canada would be part of this coalition every step of the way."

He also warned it would not be quick or easy.

"The struggle to defeat the forces of terrorism will be a long one. We must remain strong and vigilant. We must insist on living on our terms, according to our values, not on terms dictated from the shadows," Chrétien said.

"I cannot promise that the campaign against terrorism will be painless. But I can promise that it will be won."

Canadians responded positively. Prior to the announcement, an Ipsos-Reid poll showed that 73% of Canadians believed we should join the US in the war on terrorism while an Ekos poll showed that 57% of Canadians supported the idea of military retaliation in response to the September 11^th attacks and 22% neither supported nor opposed.

The fervour did not die down once Canadian troops were actually on the ground. An Ipso-Reid survey January 2002 found that 66% of Canadian favoured a combat role for our troops while only 33% favoured a traditional peacekeeping role. Another Ipso-Reid poll in the same month also found that 67% favoured an expansion of military activity against other countries in the war on terrorism.

Even a year after 9/11, Canadians still felt the military should be involved in Afghanistan. An Ekos survey done in August 2002 found that 58% of Canadians still supported Canadian involvement in Afghanistan while only 20% opposed.

Now, suddenly, we are hearing calls to bring our troops home from Afghanistan.

Have we forgotten why we went in the first place? Have we forgotten that the Taliban was one of the most repressive regimes in the world? Have we forgotten that the Taliban not only gave refuge to Osama Bin Laden but also actively supported his terror training camps? What about their refusal to abide by the UN resolution to turn Bin Laden over for his part in the attacks on the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania in 1998 killing 220 people and injuring almost 4,000? What about the fact that Afghanistan was the training ground for, not just Al Qaeda, but numerous other terrorist groups bent on attacking the west?

We talk about wanting to be taken seriously on the world stage yet, when our country is asked to do the hard jobs needed, certain politicians and members of the public want us to turn away. We cannot be a country that runs as soon there is trouble or we become nothing more than a joke. There is a reason we send soldiers and not boy scouts overseas and that is because it is dangerous. However, if we are to be a world player we cannot shirk our global responsibilities and run whenever the job gets tough.

If we pull out now, we might as well be the US. From our mount of moral superiority, we point out what happened in Vietnam, Somalia, Lebanon, and we shake our collective heads. Nevertheless, are we any different if we pull out of Afghanistan now? No.

It would also leave Canada in a tenuous position in the future. If we were to pull out of Afghanistan now, then we would be a bigger target if we needed to intervene in any future situations around the world. The US is a target partially because the belief is, if you kill some Americans, the US will tuck tail and run. We would be in the same boat.

We have to stand up to threats wherever they emerge in the world. We have to expect there will be casualties because those who live by violence will not stop until they are forced. Threats to world peace, and our way of life, will not go away on their own. Burying our heads in the sand will not make the world safer; it will only ensure the violence eventually comes to our country, our homes. They have declared war on our way of life and in war there are casualties.

The main question is, are we strong enough to face the challenge?

Soldiers recall heroism, horror of Canada's bloodiest day in Afghanistan

Copied from Yahoo News
By Terry Pedwell

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - The day started as expected, with the soldiers of Charlie Company of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry setting out in the early morning darkness on orders to root out Taliban fighters.

It was Thursday, Aug. 3, 2006.

What they would not discover until many hours later was that they had witnessed what would become known as Canada's bloodiest day of combat so far in Afghanistan.

"We got our orders early in the evening for the mission," recalled Sgt. Patrick Tower, a blond, bespectacled 34-year-old whose body language displays a sense of authority.

"The mission was to move into a school in Pashmul, which is in Panjwaii District," he said.

The troops drove out in their heavy green machines under cover of darkness, heading west, and almost instantly got into a fight.

"As we were coming up to the objective . . . we saw an enemy position lined up in front of us," Tower recalled.

Master Cpl. Tony Perry was the 2nd Platoon crew commander of the Light Armoured Vehicle, or LAVIII, at the front of the assault.

He radioed his commanding officer, asking if there were Afghan National Police patrolling the area, to make sure he wasn't about to hit friends.

"No, there's not," was the response heard back on his headset, clearing the way for Perry to light up the guns, the loud rat-tat-tat of machine gunfire cutting through the night air.

Within only a few minutes, the initial engagement over and the enemy destroyed, Two Platoon moved forward.

They were far from being out of danger, however, as the third vehicle in the convoy, another LAV, was struck by two roadside bombs.

It would be their first casualty of the day. Despite valiant efforts to save him, Cpl. Christopher Reid would later succumb to his injuries from the bigger of the two blasts. The vehicle's platoon commander was also hurt, but survived.

Once the casualties were in the hands of medics, the troops moved on to what would become a 12-hour battle marked by blood, heat exhaustion and a storm of grenades and bullets.

Even under heavy fire, the Canadians were able to overtake a school that was at the heart of their mission.

"On the initial assault, I was on the first wave," explained Cpl. Jason Hoekstra, describing how Afghan police officers who were part of the mission were being overwhelmed.

"We took a lot of fire, but they're just police officers," he said. "So we took the initiative and we took the school."

But the Taliban - between 150 and 200 of them - weren't about to give up without a fight.

Forming a horseshoe and nearly surrounding the building, they attacked with a vengeance.

"At that time, we started taking fire from multiple spots," Hoekstra recalled.

The Canadians fought back hard.

"We just, we hammered them," said Hoekstra.

"If we had four deaths, I can guarantee you we had four times that. We gave it to them."

Military officials refused to say how many Taliban fighters were killed. Sources say, however, that dozens of bodies littered an area around the schoolyard.

As bullets flew and rocket-propelled grenades smashed the building, at one point coming every few seconds, it's unclear when the Canadians realized that they were literally in the middle of a killing field. The Taliban had strategically planted landmines throughout the compound.

With nine soldiers down, three of them dead, they knew they had to get out.

"Are you sure you guys want to do this?" the LAV platoon commander asked his fellow soldiers as they desperately pleaded to move in to save their brothers in arms.

No one who was there will reveal the identity of those who risked their lives by literally driving through a daisy chain of mines to reach their comrades. The actions of one should never overshadow the actions of many, they insist.

"Every one of the soldiers that were there can be proud of the way that they acted, with heroism and bravery and courage," said Tower.

"I don't want to take away from any one of them by trying to identify a specific soldier who outshone the rest," he explained.

"They're all heroes to us, and that's how they'd want to be thought of."

Canadians also need to understand, Tower stressed, that those who lost their lives that day were not unwilling participants. Everyone knew the risks of the six-month tour of duty.

"The soldiers that died weren't victims," he said. "They were fighting. And they were fighting for each other."

"People at home should be proud of the quality of soldier that's over here."

On Saturday, many of the 10 Canadians injured in the operation shed tears on the tarmac of Kandahar Air Field as they watched four flag-draped coffins being loaded onto a C-130 Hercules aircraft bound for home.

More than 3,000 soldiers from Canada and other NATO countries serving in Afghanistan stood shoulder to shoulder in impressive formation, silently saying their goodbyes.

The bodies of Reid, Pte. Kevin Dallaire, Sgt. Vaughn Ingram and Cpl. Bryce Jeffrey Keller returned home. Those who remain behind for at least a few more days or weeks in southern Afghanistan vowed to carry on.

"We've got to keep going to honour them," said Hoekstra.

"Because if we stay (at our base), what good it is then?"

As if someone, or something, was telling them 'your time here isn't over yet,' the week ended with yet another tragedy: the death of another soldier in what appeared to be a simple traffic accident.

Master Cpl. Raymond Arndt of the Loyal Edmonton Regiment, died Saturday, just hours after the four killed on Thursday had left Afghanistan, when a large truck collided head-on with a Canadian G-Wagon, about 35 kilometres southeast of Kandahar. Arndt, 32, of Peers, Alta., was married.

The Canadians would have to endure yet another ramp ceremony to again mark an unexpectedly early journey home for one of their own.

Three other soldiers were injured in the accident, two of them being flown to a hospital in Germany for further treatment.

One of the injured, Cpl. Jared Gagnon, a reservist with the Loyal Edmonton, was listed in very serious condition.

Are you ready to wave our flag?

Are you ready to wave our flag?
From the Toronto Sun
By JOE WARMINGTON

A Canadian flag costs $8.

How many will go this weekend and buy one in support of our men and women in Afghanistan? How many will then stick one on their front lawn in memory of all our troops who have already died fighting for freedom over there?

"We sell at least one a day," Akeem Segree, 21, said last night at the Canadian Tire at Yonge and Church Sts., which has been selling flags since 1922.

It would be nice if thousands were sold across Canada and displayed so the troops over in Afghanistan would see we are behind them 100%. But are we?

It's not clear. This became evident to me while guest co-hosting with Craig Bromell on his radio show on AM640 yesterday. A poll question asked whether Canada should pull out of there? The results showed 84% said yes.

If this is how Canadians really feel, this may be one of those times of truth in Canadian history that expose what we are really made of. The question is simple, really. Do we have the resolve? The Taliban doesn't think we do and is counting on weakness. This is the time for strength.

Four more Canadian soldiers are dead and almost two dozen have already been killed and there's bound to be more. The numbers are sickening but so is the suggestion it is time to cut and run.

Political agenda

But you can see some planting that seed --- enhancing an agenda to hurt Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the next election -- despite the fact it was a Liberal government that put the troops there in the first place. But the politics doesn't matter. What matters is the soldiers on the ground; the memory of all those who have been killed or injured; and that we back them in this fight.

Every time our left-leaning media and politicians talk about running away, it gives the Taliban a giant morale boost. It could result in more Canadians being killed.

"We were very worried about the handover from the Coalition forces to NATO because of this kind of thing," a senior NATO official told me. "We have the ability to win but do we have the will?"

NATO officials have faith that Harper does have the will. They are not so sure about some other countries. They had better find the guts because the alternative is the Taliban getting back in control and maybe even Osama Bin Laden being allowed out of his cave.

All of this has to be put in perspective, Conrad Winn, president of the Compas polling company assures me. "Wanting people to (say stay in Afghanistan)is absurd."

Nobody, he says, is going to want to see our kids coming home in caskets.

Yet, the majority don't want to turn tail and run. And if you commissioned a poll that asked people just that, "the same people who said we should come home would say we should not leave," says Winn.

Dumb question

"It's like asking people, do you want to help single mothers or have lower taxes?"

The real question, he adds, is this: "When it comes to terrorists, where do you want to fight them? In Mississauga or Afghanistan?"

It doesn't matter how the opinion polls swing, he says, the reality is Canada is there and will continue to be. "Realistically speaking there's not a chance an NDP government would pull us out, either," says Winn, who has been doing polls for two decades.

Meanwhile, where is our patriotism? Where are the people across Canada letting the enemy know we are not going to budge and have the backs of our troops?

Coach Don Cherry has been wondering the same thing. "Some of them think they are forgotten," he told me last night, ironically while writing letters to soldiers. "Ron MacLean and I run into them in airports and they appreciate the support."

And Cherry agrees with me on the flag: "There is a Canadian flag in front of my house and it is there 12 months a year."

How many will be placed on lawns in Canada this weekend?

Time to Re-think Peacekeeping

In light of the current situation in Lebanon, I have begun to wonder about the effectiveness of the United Nations and, more precisely, peacekeeping. Have they, in fact, made things better or worse?

The Middle East is probably one of the most watched places on the earth. The first UN peacekeeping force deployed to Israel in 1948. Its mandate was to monitor the ceasefire between Israel and the surrounding countries of Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq. It is there to this day.

Another peacekeeping force was put in place in 1974 to separate Israel and Syria on the Golan Heights and another into Lebanon in 1978 to monitor the Israeli withdrawal. Both missions are ongoing.

With all the peacekeepers in an area about the size of Prince Edward Island, you would think Israel would be one of the safest places on earth yet, as we have seen, this could not be further from the truth.

One can argue, rightly so, that the intervention of peacekeeping forces put an end to those particular conflicts and, on the surface, that would be true. Unfortunately, UN intervention does not seem to put an end to the war.

And therein lies the problem.

Instead of putting an end to the war, direct hostilities are simply put on hold. Using the UN as a shield, adversaries continue to skirmish and lob rockets at each other. Some countries sponsor guerrilla groups to continue the war underground and many more people continue to die.

As we have also seen in the Balkans and Lebanon, groups who are not answerable to the UN use UN observers as human shields. In Lebanon, Hezbollah guerrillas frequently set up rocket launchers near UN observation posts using their proximity to UN personnel as protection. In Bosnia, UN safe havens were used to stage strikes against the enemy.

In fact, one could argue peacekeeping is responsible for thousands more deaths than if the UN had not intervened.

In Lebanon, all of the deaths in this current crisis are directly attributable to the UN. If peacekeepers had not intervened in years past, the war would have been finished one way or another and the current war would not have happened. Add those deaths to the thousands that have happened in the region since 1978 and you have to wonder if it was truly worth it.

In fact, the history of UN involvement in conflict is not exactly stellar. The UN has been in Cypress since 1964 with no resolution, the Kashmir region since 1949, Georgia since 1993 and the Western Sahara since 1991. Of course we know about the really spectacular failures of Bosnia, Somalia and, especially, Rwanda.

Perhaps it is time to rethink the idea of a UN brokered ceasefire. We need to look to finding solutions to the actual war not just the momentary conflict. And we need strict enforcement of these solutions.

We definitely need to fix this situation before "peacekeeping" causes more innocent deaths.

Survey Question

I recently completed an online survey by a company used by McLean’s magazine and Can West Global. I found the following question very interesting.

Which of the following is a bigger threat to world peace?

Please select one response only.
Iran
Hezbollah
Israel
North Korea
Lebanon
Syria
Don’t know enough to say

What I found interesting was that the United States was left off this list but, as my wife always says, “if you don’t like the answer, don’t ask the question”.