Liberals party defence review

[waldo]

You're wrong, the "experts" never offered said advice or opinion........in each one of your examples, politics superseded the "experts" advice, politics aimed at the uninformed public that you feel should have further input.

just which experts advice did Bush & Cheney ignore? Are you saying that U.S. led illegal invasion of Iraq 'snookered' all those "coalition of the willing" nations based upon the U.S. ignoring experts advice? Again, which experts advice was, as you say, superseded by politics? Name the names.

.

[Derek 2.0]

just which experts advice did Bush & Cheney ignore?

Giving pink slips to one of the largest armies in the world, to say nothing of gutting the Baathist Government bureaucracy and public/private sector workforce........they didn't just ignore advice, the ignored the formula used in the denazification of post-war Germany...........

Sprinkling the seeds of democracy (on paper) is popular among the public (until the "hard work" kicks in)......installing another puppet isn't, but its effective and good public policy......The Bush administration chose what was popular well seeking reelection.

The Trudeau Government, with this review, is attempting to do what is popular.......like the Bush administration did in Iraq.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[The_Squid]

Liberals party defence review

So it's the Liberal Party doing thew review? Or is the Liberal government doing the review?

[waldo]

The Trudeau Government, with this review, is attempting to do what is popular.......like the Bush administration did in Iraq.

again, your premise holds that general public input to that survey will be disproportionately weighted. You have no basis to that premise - none.

you made a statement/claim concerning experts advice being usurped in favour of political expediency, you were asked to identify those experts and, surprisingly, you once again fail/refuse to identify those experts. Not only that you somehow managed to shift the response you did provide to a post-invasion focus... neither the original statement you replied to or my extended question put to you have an after-the-invasion context. Nice try though!

.

[Army Guy]

His attitude towards the military is less hostile than the attitudes here towards the people that PAY for the entire show (you know... the "wave of ignorance") LOL.

People are literally up in arms over the government simply asking for Canadians opinion.

And who DOES get to have an opinion? Oh yeah! The EXPERTS!

The EXPERTS in the government and military that thought up and executed OPERATION: ABJECT FAILURE. The EXPERTS that spent twice as long fighting the Taliban as it took to win world war 2, and still lost.

Or the EXPERTS that told Americans the Invasion of Iraq would take "a few months" and cost "a few million dollars". Or the EXPERTS that have been dumb enough to get Canada dragged into that same war 14 years later.

Or the EXPERTS that spent 5 Trillion dollars on a "war on terror" that has resulted in record levels of terrorism.

I glad you brought up the attitude towards "you know the people how pay for the entire show", and the wave of ignorance....just for a second. you and others seem to think that because you pay taxes it entitles you to an opinion or a say in how or what the government decides....when paying ones taxes is law, it is the bill our government gives each and everyone every year for the services it provides to it's citizens....it gives you no rights or say in anything....In fact there are Canadians who don't pay any taxes but still have the same rights as you have to express opinions, not because of tax collection but through other means.....Your argument is that your opinion is more valuable than mine, because you pay taxes, here is a surprise most people pay taxes, including federal employees, that includes everyone in the military....at the same tax rate as you are billed....

Those rights are given to us through the constitution and Canadian laws, two separate issues....one does not have to pay taxes to be entitled to use all the freedoms under those charters....

Personal income taxes generate less than half of our total taxes collected, so they or in this case "the people you pay for the whole show" don't pay for the whole show as you suggest, I get the point we also pay other taxes collected as well, but once again those are bills we pay for services available to all Canadians.....Like your sears, Canadian tire, phone, power bills. only in this case you share those costs with all tax payers incurred for all services available to all Canadians....paying them does not give you any rights or privileges, they are just bills....

So i'm sorry, for bursting your bubble or debunking the myth that some how the military works for you because "you pay for the whole show" and i'm entitled to have a say in how our government functions, because it is not true...All that being said if enough Canadian citizens gather together and voice their opinion load enough you may get the attention of our government who desperately wants to win another election, but there is no guarantees....

an example of this is the Afghanistan conflict, 2 years into operations there it no longer had the majority of peoples support....and yet the conflict went on for 8 more years plus 2 years of training Afghan soldiers. why is that ? It is just one example of the government not listening.....or the power of the people not being strong enough....there are plenty more.....it also shows that the government if they have the will can do what ever they want within reason....

Every aspect of the Afghanistan conflict is controlled not by the experts but by government, you seem to think the PM handed control over to the CDS and said go crazy....kill those scum bags.....but in reality that was not what happened everything not at the tactical level was controlled, approved by our PM at the time......nor was it approved by US ground commanders, All Canadian operations were approved by the PM.....You know the guy in charge of the country.....

The CDS at the time the military expert , told the PM, the CF was not ready for any overseas deployments, it was under manned, and under equipped. That he suggested putting the entire forces into a rest and rebuilding period, lets not forget we were coming out of Yugo, and the equipment we had required major overhauls ....The decisions you talk about where made by the PM .....against the CDS advice.....and like Big guy so elegantly puts it, DND is paid to follow orders , and said yes sir pack your bags we are leaving for Afghanistan.....

[Derek 2.0]

again, your premise holds that general public input to that survey will be disproportionately weighted. You have no basis to that premise - none.

.

I've stated clearly several times that I don't know how much consideration the public's input will play into this Government's review..........if it is of little importance, then the exercise is a waste of time and money, and is nothing more than political theater.

you made a statement/claim concerning experts advice being usurped in favour of political expediency, you were asked to identify those experts and, surprisingly, you once again fail/refuse to identify those experts.

Which "experts" in the context of dre's claim?

Not only that you somehow managed to shift the response you did provide to a post-invasion focus... neither the original statement you replied to or my extended question put to you have an after-the-invasion context. Nice try though!

Again my response was to dre in context to his statement of "experts" versus elected officials...........in response to you, the choice to invade Iraq, yet again , was political......the manner in which the war was fought was made political (like Vietnam) as opposed to the releasing of the proverbial "dogs of war" to achieve the strategic aims of the civilian leadership.

......In other words, if the Waldo decides to reno his bathroom that is in his purview, that he will have to fund, via a contractor. It is reasonable to assume that in the initial stages, the Waldo will offer to the "experts" his detailed objectives of what he wants to accomplish (color of the tiles, style of the fixtures etc) as his end game...said experts will inform the Waldo what is required and from there the Waldo can choose to listen or ignore said experts.......said experts will then carry out their assigned task and yet again the Waldo can choose to interfere or not, there could be satisfactory results or the end result could be a disaster.....again it all reverts to the Waldo.....

The Bush Administration was allowed to bugger up the works for their hired contractors..........

-------

With this defense review put forth by the Liberal government, it appears the Government is asking for anybodies advice on how to tell the experts to do their jobs.........

[bush_cheney2004]

....Again my response was to dre in context to his statement of "experts" versus elected officials...........in response to you, the choice to invade Iraq, yet again , was political......the manner in which the war was fought was made political (like Vietnam) as opposed to the releasing of the proverbial "dogs of war" to achieve the strategic aims of the civilian leadership.

Agreed....Iraq was already engaged long before any invasion through political process. The U.S. Congress authorized and funded such engagements through political process, and did not require an internet survey of Americans' feelings to determine defense policy.

Pivoting the discussion to Iraq is just another lame attempt to escape Canada's political decision to "invade" Afghanistan and accept responsibility for doing so while blaming Canadian Forces military leadership.

Perhaps Americans and other coalition members should also complete the defense review survey, because what the U.S. and other nations do apparently figures so strongly in determining Canadian foreign policy and defense review excuses.

[waldo]

I've stated clearly several times that I don't know how much consideration the public's input will play into this Government's review..........if it is of little importance, then the exercise is a waste of time and money, and is nothing more than political theater.

what you've stated clearly several times are your 2 clearly arbitrary extremes... either fluff or failure! Of course, when I ask you to quantify your extremes within that weighting range bound by your extremes - you do what you do; you deflect away. What's the weighting for your declared fluff... for your declared failure?

.

Which "experts" in the context of dre's claim?

Again my response was to dre in context to his statement of "experts" versus elected officials...........in response to you, the choice to invade Iraq, yet again , was political......the manner in which the war was fought was made political (like Vietnam) as opposed to the releasing of the proverbial "dogs of war" to achieve the strategic aims of the civilian leadership.

you're the one that brought forward a reference to "experts"... that was you. You're the one saying that experts advice was usurped by political expediency... that was you. You're being asked to qualify which experts (and their advice) were ignored by Bush & Cheney in regards their puffed up "regime change" (aka the illegal invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq). Again, which experts and what advice? You made the statement/claim - you did! Per norm, you do... what you do - you deflect and play silly buggar! Of course you do.

.

[Big Guy]

What exactly did you put at risk during your 45 years in the classroom?

Correction, 45 years ago I spent a few years in front of the classroom.

I have no problem with people looking at soldiers as "toughest bastards on the block" or "grunts" or whatever. If you take brute force as an asset for front line troops then I will not disagree with you. That is what a front line soldier is supposed to be like - throwing his body out in front. I believe that the decision making leaders in the military have to be far more cerebral, analytical and impassioned. They have to make the decisions.

Using the analogy of a football team, the lineman and linebackers are your soldiers - the quarterbacks are your leaders. They are not "the toughest bastards on the team."

I disagree that the military gets involved when the diplomats and politicians have failed. That is the logic that causes military coups, battlefield atrocities and rogue commanders. There is no room for the General Douglas MacArthur's in our military.

As far as my lack of understanding, I am quite comfortable with the information and research that I have done to come to my opinions and stand by my postings.

I believe that a good commander spends his time trying to minimize the "risk" of his charges, not celebrate their reaction to it.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Big Guy

[Big Guy]

I fully intend to try to make sure that my views are aired at the roundtable discussion that will be held in Toronto by the committee. I hope other on this site will also express theirs in a medium that may have some hearing.

[Wilber]

Correction, 45 years ago I spent a few years in front of the classroom.

I have no problem with people looking at soldiers as "toughest bastards on the block" or "grunts" or whatever. If you take brute force as an asset for front line troops then I will not disagree with you. That is what a front line soldier is supposed to be like - throwing his body out in front. I believe that the decision making leaders in the military have to be far more cerebral, analytical and impassioned. They have to make the decisions.

Using the analogy of a football team, the lineman and linebackers are your soldiers - the quarterbacks are your leaders. They are not "the toughest bastards on the team."

It is the job of the military to be the toughest bastard on the block when required. Applying force or the threat of applying force when other alternatives fail is their reason for existing.

You confuse physical strength with toughness. A quarterback can indeed be the toughest bastard on the block even if he isn't the strongest physically. When you consider the injury rates of CFL quarterbacks, they need to be tough bastards. The smaller you are on a team playing a contact sport with bigger guys, the tougher you need to be.

I disagree that the military gets involved when the diplomats and politicians have failed. That is the logic that causes military coups, battlefield atrocities and rogue commanders. There is no room for the General Douglas MacArthur's in our military.

What's this nonsense about rogue commanders? We are not and never have been a military dictatorship. In a democracy, the military gets involved only when the politicians and diplomats have run out of ideas other than going to war. Going to war has always been a political decision. Never in our history has one of our military commanders instigated a conflict.

I believe that a good commander spends his time trying to minimize the "risk" of his charges, not celebrate their reaction to it.

Of course a good commander spends time trying to minimize risk to his charges but he also has a job to do, given to him by the politicians. He also knows that in order to do that job he may have to get some of his people killed, that's part of his job description which he will have to live with.

Wellington, one of the greatest soldiers of all time, was known to break down and cry after a battle. He never lost a battle by the way. He once said, "nothing but a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won".

Edited April 8, 2016 by Wilber

[Wilber]

The EXPERTS in the government and military that thought up and executed OPERATION: ABJECT FAILURE. The EXPERTS that spent twice as long fighting the Taliban as it took to win world war 2, and still lost.

Or the EXPERTS that told Americans the Invasion of Iraq would take "a few months" and cost "a few million dollars". Or the EXPERTS that have been dumb enough to get Canada dragged into that same war 14 years later.

Or the EXPERTS that spent 5 Trillion dollars on a "war on terror" that has resulted in record levels of terrorism.

Canada had about 10% of its population in uniform during the world wars. At the end of WW2 we had the third largest navy and fourth largest air force in the world, How much commitment was made to Afghanistan?

The defeat of the Iraqi armed forces was very rapid. Regime change was a political concept, not a military one.

[dre]

I glad you brought up the attitude towards "you know the people how pay for the entire show", and the wave of ignorance....just for a second. you and others seem to think that because you pay taxes it entitles you to an opinion or a say in how or what the government decides....when paying ones taxes is law, it is the bill our government gives each and everyone every year for the services it provides to it's citizens....it gives you no rights or say in anything....

Almost everyone pays taxes... whether these are taxes on income, consumption, investment income, property ownership etc. And it absolutely DOES entitle citizens to an opinion and a say in all matters of the state. That's what representative government is. In fact its the entire point of it.

And that's exactly why we have elections. If the government enacts policies that are at odds with what Canadians want then we can fire their asses.

[dre]

Canada had about 10% of its population in uniform during the world wars. At the end of WW2 we had the third largest navy and fourth largest air force in the world, How much commitment was made to Afghanistan?

The defeat of the Iraqi armed forces was very rapid. Regime change was a political concept, not a military one.

There was no defeat of the Iraqi armed forces. They simply shed their uniforms and fought as insurgents under a number of different groups.

At the end of WW2 we had the third largest navy and fourth largest air force in the world, How much commitment was made to Afghanistan?

A huge commitment was made to Operation: Abject Failure. Western nations spent somewhere around 5 trillion dollars on the projects. They didn't fail because of a lack of resources, they failed because Civilian, Military, and Intelligence officials underestimated the resilience of the asymmetric resistance that would inevitably follow the toppling of existing regimes.

Your "experts" (civilian, military, intelligence) shat the bed.

And there are broader questions in play here that we as a nation have to ponder. Do Canadians want to pay for incompetent "world policing" and other types of global socialism. Do we want of pay for nation building projects in other countries when we are told we aren't even paying enough taxes to keep our own infrastructure up to date? Do we want to pay for intervention into other peoples civil wars? Do we want to pay for to keep arbitrary borders intact in places like Iraq and Syria... Borders that make no sense and disenfranchise 10's of millions of people and generate perpetual conflict. Do we want to pay for humanitarian missions? If so... how much? Do we want a big military or a small one?

You don't have to be an expert to have an opinion or provide feedback on any of these questions. They aren't questions with objectively right or wrong answers, they are questions for Canadians on what we want our role and our capabilities to be, and how much resources we want to allocate.

Edited April 8, 2016 by dre

[Derek 2.0]

what you've stated clearly several times are your 2 clearly arbitrary extremes... either fluff or failure! Of course, when I ask you to quantify your extremes within that weighting range bound by your extremes - you do what you do; you deflect away. What's the weighting for your declared fluff... for your declared failure?

.

How am I to "declare my weightings"? I didn't write the survey, nor am I conducting the review, this is the Trudeau Liberals "thought exercise"

you're the one that brought forward a reference to "experts"... that was you.

Yes, vice the uninformed.

You're the one saying that experts advice was usurped by political expediency... that was you.

Yes, but then, this is not a new phenomenon.

You're being asked to qualify which experts (and their advice) were ignored by Bush & Cheney in regards their puffed up "regime change" (aka the illegal invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq).

Why would I qualify such a statement, when I never suggested it?

Again, which experts and what advice? You made the statement/claim - you did!

Where did I claim the Bush administration ignored (or sought) anybody's advice over their (political) decision to invade Iraq?

Per norm, you do... what you do - you deflect and play silly buggar! Of course you do.

Per norm you play the part of a pseudo Riddler, espousing the virtues of Word Salad.......why don't you riddle a point?

[waldo]

How am I to "declare my weightings"? I didn't write the survey, nor am I conducting the review, this is the Trudeau Liberals "thought exercise"

you certainly had no qualms in laying down your "fluff & failure" benchmarks... yet somehow you can't manage to state what survey weightings would correspond to your declared benchmarks. And per norm you jump into your ready-reach deflection routine when you're challenged to do so - go figure!

.

Why would I qualify such a statement, when I never suggested it?

there was a very pointed grouped list you responded to with the following... perhaps you should review exactly what you responded to and what experts you were referencing when you stated, "........in each one of your examples, politics superseded the "experts" advice, politics aimed at the uninformed public that you feel should have further input."

.

Per norm you play the part of a pseudo Riddler, espousing the virtues of Word Salad.......why don't you riddle a point?

the key point is you're in such a fabricated, fake tizzy over the process component that has the government offering an open survey soliciting input from the Canadian public. Perhaps you can run that into showcasing yet another flavour of your oft presented hypocrisy with the following: in 2014, DND and CAF commissioned a study: --- bloody hell! Looking to the general public to aid in decision making and information requirements!

The Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) commissioned Phoenix SPI to conduct the 2014 wave of the department’s annual tracking study to explore Canadians’ perceptions of the Canadian Armed Forces and related issues. The survey was administered to 2,025 Canadian residents, 18 years of age or older. Fieldwork took place April 8 to April 30, 2014. The research results represent an important source of information to support decision-making and inform communications activities on the part of DND and the Canadian Armed Forces.

.

[Army Guy]

That is the first place where we differ. I would prefer someone who made quality decisions based on logic, experience and the common good. The toughest bastard on the block should be in a boxing ring and not be in a commanding position. I have been a macho jock but I have never depended on the military for my living so I may have a different view of the world.

Your portraying some Hollywood image to reality and they are not the same, being tough does not mean you have to look like the incredible hulk, being tough is being 160 lbs and expected to haul your weight into combat, day after day, with a rucksack weighing in at over 110 lbs while carrying over 40 lbs of wpns,body amour, strapped onto your body and do that in the most hostile terrain know to man the mountains of afghan in plus 50 degree heat....and then once you've reached the objective your expected to close with and destroy the enemy.....Now that is tough...and to do that one has to not only be able to surpass your physical limitations, and all the pain that goes with that, but you also have to be mentally tough as well, to see the horrors of combat process that , then forget all that and carry on....

Leadership in the military is not only about all the above, but leading by example, living through every moment and being able to give orders to your men under incredible stressors such as enemy fire, enemy arty, RPG attacks, and watching some of your soldiers being wounded or killed....Making instant decisions that save lives, and win battles....but before you even get there a leader has to plan every move his soldiers make, right down to the last detail, he must study the map, know every feature around you, right down to an 10 figure grid reference...and the higher your command level the further out you have to plan ahead....being the CDS that would be months in advance for the entire military , planning every units move, resupply, enemy contacts, .....You don't become the CDS unless you've mastered this art.....it takes a life time to master.....

I walked into my career with my eyes wide open knowing exactly what I was getting into and what was expected of me. I assume you walked into your career with your eyes wide open knowing exactly what I was getting into and what was expected of you. I, on the other hand, do not expect people to feel sorry for me or for what I have accomplished.

When I first joined the Military, I did know exactly what I was joining , i'm 4 th generation to do so, So for me everything was already mapped out. But I did have some expectations, one was my country would provide me with the tools to do the job...and in the 1980's we had most of the tools, but things have slipped from that point to where they are today, and I hang my head in shame ....Our nation is sending our troops into conflict zones with equipment that is older than most 3 rd world nations, and what we have there is not enough to go around so it is shared...I don't want you to feel sorry for me....I want you to be concern for the next generation of soldiers.....Why would we as citizens of this country have the balls to ask our soldiers to stand up and defend this nation or it's interest, and not even bother to equip them for the job......it's not just shameful, its disgusting....

And you know what.... our soldiers would stand up if you gave them sticks and a bag of rocks, and be proud for the honor to fight for this nation .....because they believe in this nation, and what it stands for...They believe it is worth the sacrifice....to bad most of our citizens don't think so....This government just spent 40 bil in a blink of an eye.....no questions asked, and then told DND sorry no more money for you...when our forces lay gutted, rusted out, not enough to go around gutted....

Funding is so tight some units have parked their vehs to save funding by not spending it on fuel.....you can't train a mechanized outfit in school busses....

DND is not looking to become some new world power, it is not asking for equipment because it wants it, they are begging for equipment , and once again we turn our backs on them .....and when this government gets a chance they will send our forces to some shit hole in the world, they always do....our nations soldiers will have to die.....I say again die..... before someone wakes up and decides to purchases some of the equipment they need.....it will get national attention for a couple of days then poof.....Canadians will breath a sign of relief and say we dodged another one.....

We are not looking for your pity, we are looking for the tools to do our jobs so we can return from those shit holes and see our families......And if that is to much to ask.....then disband our forces, until someone comes to the conclusion they are needed again.....And history will repeat itself once again....

[Big Guy]

....Our nation is sending our troops into conflict zones with equipment that is older than most 3 rd world nations, and what we have there is not enough to go around so it is shared......

...

We are not looking for your pity, we are looking for the tools to do our jobs so we can return from those shit holes and see our families......And if that is to much to ask.....then disband our forces, until someone comes to the conclusion they are needed again.....And history will repeat itself once again....

The answer would be in being very selective as to which conflict zones and shit holes we send our military - and under the conditions as layed out in the Powell Doctrine (as adapted to Canadian forces):

The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:

Is a vital national security interest threatened?

Do we have a clear attainable objective?

Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?

Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

Is the action supported by the American people?

Do we have genuine broad international support?

[bush_cheney2004]

The answer would be in being very selective as to which conflict zones and shit holes we send our military - and under the conditions as layed out in the Powell Doctrine (as adapted to Canadian forces):

The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:

Of course.....Canada's choices should be guided by the wisdom of an American as it applies to the policies of the United States.

"Powell Doctrine for Canada !". Start printing those bumper stickers.

Edited April 8, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Army Guy]

Almost everyone pays taxes... whether these are taxes on income, consumption, investment income, property ownership etc. And it absolutely DOES entitle citizens to an opinion and a say in all matters of the state. That's what representative government is. In fact its the entire point of it.

And that's exactly why we have elections. If the government enacts policies that are at odds with what Canadians want then we can fire their asses.

Maybe this concept is to big for you to swallow.....paying taxes has nothing to do with any of your rights within Canada.....Not everyone pays taxes, You've agreed to this in your statement....so are you suggesting that they are not allowed to enjoy any freedoms or rights as you do, they are not allow to voice their opinion.....which one is it only tax payers have a say or everyone has a say......

So where does your rights and freedoms originate from......I'll help you, our constitution....and laws.....No where does it say in those documents that if you don't pay taxes you loose your rights....nor does it say any where that paying your taxes gives you any right or freedoms.....

Your right we do have a representive Government, every 4 or 5 years we as a nation gather at the polls , where every citizen is free to vote for any party that is registered.....

As for your power to fire a government....I'm assuming you mean after they have finished their term your free to vote for another party....that suits your needs.......But to fire a government takes more than a one person voice .....it would take shutting down the nation....something that has not happened, so serving a 4 year term is pretty much guaranteed unless they do something illegal.....

You can also voice your opinion to our elected government anytime you want, and if you can convince them of your issue then you might spur change within the government.....but as I already pointed out to you....their is no guarantee....if the government does not like your proposal....such as ending the conflict in Afghanistan.....Not only did they not listen but won another term.....

[waldo]

Of course.....Canada's choices should be guided by the wisdom of an American as it applies to the policies of the United States.

"Powell Doctrine for Canada !". Start printing those bumper stickers.

you literally beat my posting a countdown to this anticipated post of yours... by seconds! So predictable... it's hardly a tailored "American only" facet - it's a boiler-plate if there ever was one... notwithstanding MLW member Big Guy did attach the caveat, "as adapted to Canadian forces". But why let that get in the way of your obsessive need to play out your predictability!

.

[bush_cheney2004]

This gets better (meaning funnier) the more I drill down into the defense review puff pieces and survey questions.

I like this one....and so will anyone who wants to worship an American's "doctrine" while being mostly incapable of doing so:

How can Canada keep pace with and complement American technological advancement?

[Army Guy]

The answer would be in being very selective as to which conflict zones and shit holes we send our military - and under the conditions as layed out in the Powell Doctrine (as adapted to Canadian forces):

The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:

Is a vital national security interest threatened?

Do we have a clear attainable objective?

Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?

Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

Is the action supported by the American people?

Do we have genuine broad international support?

Your worried about the conditions in which our forces are sent, but is that not putting the cart before the horse....lets ensure they are equipped before we send them any where.....

[Big Guy]

you literally beat my posting a countdown to this anticipated post of yours... by seconds! So predictable... it's hardly a tailored "American only" facet - it's a boiler-plate if there ever was one... notwithstanding MLW member Big Guy did attach the caveat, "as adapted to Canadian forces". But why let that get in the way of your obsessive need to play out your predictability!

.

I refer to the Powell doctrine because it comes with experience. Powell was a very intelligent fellow and still managed to do well in spite of dealing with prejudice, common to all black Americans. He is also one of the very few to understand and be successful in the military and political theater.

Powell does have an advantage in military strategy in being an American. The Americans are a nation with the most experience in war since they have been in so many especially the last few years.

The Americans have also lost so many (Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia etc.) that Powell would have a pretty good idea on how to avoid another loss.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Big Guy

[Big Guy]

Your worried about the conditions in which our forces are sent, but is that not putting the cart before the horse....lets ensure they are equipped before we send them any where.....

Is there not a danger then that we have a very well equipped military looking for a war in which to participate?

The USA provides, and will continue to provide, many opportunities and conflicts for a well equipped Canadian military. A small military would keep the pressure off our politicians to get involved in American created civil wars and allow our taxes to be used to make Canadian lives better.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Big Guy