Canada's peacekeeping myth

[Army Guy]

Poser:

The timing of this art is alittle off, i'm hoping this finally convinces Catchme"AKA Poser"

peacekeeping

[weaponeer]

Good luck with that armyguy:)

Great article, going to buy Granasteins new book today.....

[jdobbin]

Poser:

The timing of this art is alittle off, i'm hoping this finally convinces Catchme"AKA Poser"

peacekeeping

Granastein is usually quiet about his rabble rousing to getting Canada into the Iraq war. He rarely mentions it now.

I don't believe Canada is just a peacekeeping nation. We have actively been in wars from 1940s on to now.

[weaponeer]

There are as lot of people that believed we should have gone into Iraq, me included. I was duped, I can admit it.

He's a great author, I really like his work. He is right on the money with this article. There are many here in Canada that believe we in the military are just Boy Scouts, some do not even know we have a military, even in a city with a military base, go figure.

Military & security issues is something as Canadians we collectively know nothing about. Defence issues are not, and have never been taken seriously in this country......

[White Doors]

This is what happens when we don't teach history in school.

[jdobbin]

There are as lot of people that believed we should have gone into Iraq, me included. I was duped, I can admit it.

He's a great author, I really like his work. He is right on the money with this article. There are many here in Canada that believe we in the military are just Boy Scouts, some do not even know we have a military, even in a city with a military base, go figure.

Military & security issues is something as Canadians we collectively know nothing about. Defence issues are not, and have never been taken seriously in this country......

I think he is a good writer and a spokesman for military issues. But unlike yourself, he hasn't done a mea culpa on Iraq.

He was also an advocate of the the British subs which I thought wasn't going to be a great deal since we've *never* done great buying used subs. As a historian, he should have know that. I wasn't sure we should be in the sub business anymore and I'm still not sure why. I don't think the Navy have made a great case for those ships.

I would have supported a nuclear powered icebreaker or two instead for the Navy as way of enforcing sovereignty in the north and searching for subs hiding under the ice.

[tml12]

Good luck with that armyguy:)

Great article, going to buy Granasteins new book today.....

Yes I am familiar with that article. It came from The Dominion Institute's 5-Part Series "American Myths: What Canadians Think They Know About The USA." I don't know about in the rest of Canada, but in Quebec schoolchildren are taught that Canada is a nation that is loved by every country in the world because we leave everyone alone, because we stand up to the Americans, and because we never fight in combat wars but rather mediate peace between nations.

When one challenges this, they are told it's "not part of the curriculum."

The myth that Canada is a peacekeeper was fabricated by the Liberal government of Pearson and Trudeau. Although it is historically not accurate and a completely "sugar-coated" version of Canadian history, apparently it is very hard to get people to read and study the historical facts of the situation.

[tml12]

There are as lot of people that believed we should have gone into Iraq, me included. I was duped, I can admit it.

He's a great author, I really like his work. He is right on the money with this article. There are many here in Canada that believe we in the military are just Boy Scouts, some do not even know we have a military, even in a city with a military base, go figure.

Military & security issues is something as Canadians we collectively know nothing about. Defence issues are not, and have never been taken seriously in this country......

That's a fair statement...I completely agree.

[Army Guy]

Is it another example of a nation's ability to change or re write history thru time.

[Wilber]

We bought F-18's, the F101's and F104's they replaced, the Leopards and the Centurions they replaced, the Navy's destroyers, frigates and submarines all for peacekeeping? Not.

Does Granastein have a new book out?

[White Doors]

Interesting that Poser isn't responding eh?

She's too busy down there calling for the4 censure of Israel and pleading for the mis-understood Iranians.

[madmax]

Poser:

The timing of this art is

peacekeeping

Don't worry about the timing. It is a good article. I am not surprised by the content. He has put forth this argument in different formats for years. I can remember reading his commentaries and books always reminding Canadians of our strong military traditions and that we didn't cut our teeth peacekeeping.

He is a proud Canadian military historian, and we don't have enough of those.

But what needs to be understood, is the power of the myth, and how it bothers some of those in the military and certain historians.

[weaponeer]

This "Peacekeeping Myth" along with what is called the "Militia Myth" has plauged the CF, and Canada for years.

We do not have an Army, we have a "Land Force", we do not have an Airforce, we have "Air Command", we do not have a Navy, we have "Maritime Command". THe Canadian Forces, CF used to be called the Canadian ARMED FOrces, they dropped the armed, offended people. We are not armed anyhow, was sort of a lie.

We used to have the Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Canaidian Airforce, all gone. We have reduced our defence, and handed over the protection of our country to the US, then we site on the sidelines and bitch about how they protect us. First it was the British in the 17 & 1800's who protected us, now the Americans....

To me this is no different than saying, "this is my wife, I can be bothered sleeping with her, so I will let the neighbour do it. Then I will bitch & whine about how he's doing it wrong".

CANADA, WHERE NATIONAL DEFENCE IS SOMBODY ELSES RESPONSIBILITY.......

[guyser]

Weaponeer ,

Howdy neighbour , what does your wife look like ?

I agree with you. I think we have shamed our forces by not supporting them for the past 30 years. Sad to say, I was probably one of "those" who thought ..pffft, why bother with Defence, who we pissing off.

To a large degree did we have those names, or come up with those names to differentiate us from the Americans?

[weaponeer]

Actually I have no wife, so I safe there:)

We had the RCAF, we had RCN. We amalgumated our forces in 1968, what the hell for I don't know, all the arguments were bunk.

We have systematically "defanged" our military for years. I work at NORAD, we are very very, very junior partners. Not because the US pushes us around, because we choose not to take defence seriously. That's the underlying issue, Canadians do not take defence seriously!!. We have had, sadly, tha attitude that it is not our job. In the 17 & 1800's the threat to us was the Americans. The British "regulars" in Canada protected us. We did not win the War of 1812, the British "regulars" did.

After WW1 the US threat to Canada was reduced to nothing. After WW2 we entered into alliances that we have never lived up to, we defered the defence of Canada & North America to the Americans. The Americans want us to be equal partners, they want our input, they want our forces.

The arctic will become a huge issue in the future, we do not have the ability to operate there. Half of Canada is in the artic & our mititary cannot operate there effectivly. Does that NOT concern anyone?? The Danish military have more forces in Greenland than we have in our artic. We are the second largest land mass on earth, and we cannot feild a fully equiped army brigade (5000 troops), we cannot deploy a full figther wing (72 jets). We cannot defend PEI. We have no helicopters that can properly support our Army, sorry, Land Force.

We go around the world hitching rides from the US, Russia, anyone we can. We are in the G8, one of the richest nations on earth, but we cannot even send our own medevac helicopters to Afghanistan, because we don't have any.

The way we treat the military, the priority we give it, as a nation we should be embarrassed......

[blueblood]

Actually I have no wife, so I safe there:)

We had the RCAF, we had RCN. We amalgumated our forces in 1968, what the hell for I don't know, all the arguments were bunk.

We have systematically "defanged" our military for years. I work at NORAD, we are very very, very junior partners. Not because the US pushes us around, because we choose not to take defence seriously. That's the underlying issue, Canadians do not take defence seriously!!. We have had, sadly, tha attitude that it is not our job. In the 17 & 1800's the threat to us was the Americans. The British "regulars" in Canada protected us. We did not win the War of 1812, the British "regulars" did.

After WW1 the US threat to Canada was reduced to nothing. After WW2 we entered into alliances that we have never lived up to, we defered the defence of Canada & North America to the Americans. The Americans want us to be equal partners, they want our input, they want our forces.

The arctic will become a huge issue in the future, we do not have the ability to operate there. Half of Canada is in the artic & our mititary cannot operate there effectivly. Does that NOT concern anyone?? The Danish military have more forces in Greenland than we have in our artic. We are the second largest land mass on earth, and we cannot feild a fully equiped army brigade (5000 troops), we cannot deploy a full figther wing (72 jets). We cannot defend PEI. We have no helicopters that can properly support our Army, sorry, Land Force.

We go around the world hitching rides from the US, Russia, anyone we can. We are in the G8, one of the richest nations on earth, but we cannot even send our own medevac helicopters to Afghanistan, because we don't have any.

The way we treat the military, the priority we give it, as a nation we should be embarrassed......

A lot of people don't believe there is any threat from a nation. Running around Afghanistan with our hands tied is doesn't help either. I believe a threat can come anytime at anywhere. Don't a lot of democratic countries have mandatory service? The majority of the country want money spend on luxuries like daycare and fun stuff like that and would accuse those who spend money on the military as fear mongering. A lot of people on the left think we live in this utopian world where countries are always going to respect each other and play by the rules. You can't predict the future but by having a respectable military, we can at least be prepared.

[hiti]

We still have the PPCLI and the Vandoos plus more.

People aren't aware what is meant by peacekeeping. It takes a highly trained soldier to be a peace keeper. More highly trained, effective and deadly than a soldier out to make war.

Canada's military are not boy scouts and never have been. People should be educated on our military history.

http://www.peacekeeper.ca/

[weaponeer]

We have the PPCLI & Vandoos, yes & the RCR. 3 infantry Regiments, three UNDERSTRENGTH infantry Regiments. If we combined all three, we could "maybe" field a full regt.

G8, second largest country on the planet, that's sad!!

Peackeeping is a task, just like disaster relief & combat. The prob is most Canadians think it is our only task, and do not understand why we need weapons like tanks, subs, fighter jets & arty guns!!!

[hiti]

Why doesn't Steve order O'Connor to hold hearings in Ottawa and get the message out to Canadians, as the Opposition keeps on asking?

Canadians want to support our troops but this "new" government does not give them a reason to do so.

Plus after the Cold War ended everybody was downsizing their military forces, not just Canada. It isn't just Steve who has put the push on for refitting the military. Paul Martin started increasing the budget and looking to buy more equipment.

[weaponeer]

We did not have an adequet military to fight the Russians in the CW, therefore we really did not earn a "peace dividen". Had we left our armed forces at the level it was in 1991, we'd actually be OK today.

No one political party is at fault. The downward spiral started with Trudeau, was continued under Brian "the chin", and the "death blow" came from Jean.

O'Connor has started the process, he has military experience, he knows what need to be done. He has an excellent partner in this in Gen Hillier, he has been an overdue breath of fresh air for us in the military.

Together, these two have identified the probs, and have started fixing things. They started by just buying some equip, no bidding, no crap, just buy it. That is great for the tax payers, ID the equip you need & buy. Bidding & BS cost $$.

It took 40 years to make this prob, it will take many years and BILLIONS to fix. We have no choice, our allies will not put up with any of or BS anymore. That's one reason we are neck deep in A-stan.....

[Remiel]

What exactly is the " Militia Myth " ?

I can agree that we have underserved our military over the years, but the fact is that we are never going to be able to do enough to make the Americans happy. We spend too little, they spend too much. People are always accusing the Liberals and NDP of having only one solution to every problem: throwing money at it. The Americans seem to have the same problem with their military. They spend a crap load of money that doesn't really seem to get them anything worthwhile. The best we can hope for is to just spend our money to the best of our ability, and who gives a damn what the Americans say.

[weaponeer]

Actually the Americans do not really want that much from us.

I work at NORAD with USAF every day, so I will give you the "unclass" about what they want. First, they want us to have enough fighters to meet our NORAD commitment, wartime commitment & peacetime. They do not want to have THEIR fighters on alert to defend Canada daily, or in a wartime situation. They will back us up, but we should have enough of our own jets to protect Canada, we don't. The # required is classified, buy we ain't there!!

In NORAD, they want us to have the same operating systems, sofware, radars, data link capability they do. We are getting there. They would really like us to have some air refuelling tankers of our own, cuts down on theirs being used. A few, not 100, just a few. We are correcting that. They would like us to have some AAA. Currently we have very limited capability here.

They would like us to have some of our own strat airlift. we can deploy our own units around the world, takes heat off their fleets. We have corrected that with our C17 purchase.

They would really like us to get real military helicopters. Every time we operate outside Canada, somebody else, US, Brits, Dutch, Singapore are providing us with helicopter support. Attack helos, medevac helos, transport helos. In A-stan today, the Dtch support us with Apaches, & Chinooks, the US Army, same, they also medevac our wounded of the battlefield.

They would like us to provide our own close air support aircraft, fighters to protect our own troops. We have them, them, the CF18, we just don't have enough.

They would also like us to be able tio sealift our equip around planet earth without gtapping into their resources all the time.

The "Militia Myth" is an idea that no long exists today. In the early years of Canada, the folks in Upper & Lower Canada relied on the Brithish "regulars" and some local militias for defence for indian raids & the occassional American "visit". After sevral years of this the British got tired of this and wanted Canada to form it's own regular army. Canadians were absolutly against this, defebce of Canada was not our responsibility, it was Englands. If Canada was attacked, the local militia, every guy in town with a gun, could defend Canada, we did not need an army. This MYTH has existed ubitl recent times here in Canada, we don't need an army all the time, we'll just raise on if war breaks out, like in WW1 & WW2. Thousands of Canadians died in those wars because we did not have a trained standing army. That's the MILITIA MYTH!!

[weaponeer]

JOHN BOILEAU <index.cfm?cid=129>

The Daily News

Misinformation bombards us on a daily basis about Afghanistan and our mission there. Much of it can be attributed to a few reasons - naivete, misunderstanding of Canadian history, distortion of the facts and unwillingness to consider the overall picture.

One of the frequently heard criticisms is that we can't conquer Afghanistan because neither the British nor the Russians were able to do so after prolonged campaigns. This is truly comparing the proverbial apples and oranges - and is irrelevant as well.

We're not trying to "conquer" Afghanistan. We are there at the request of a democratically elected government to help provide a safe and secure environment in which peace can flourish - and in which Afghans can decide the future of their country.

Our presence - and that of 36 other nations - is legitimized by eight separate UN Security Council resolutions.

Many people have forgotten that the previous Liberal government authorized the Canadian mission in Afghanistan for the full spectrum of military operations - bar none. The present Conservative government decided to continue the mission, and the House of Commons voted to extend it until February 2009.

Developmental commitments

Largely ignored by much of the media are Canada's most recent developmental commitments to Afghanistan: $10 million towards the salaries of Afghan police officers, $1.75 million for women's health and literacy and $11.5 million for reconstruction.

Another criticism claims that we're fighting U.S. President George W. Bush's war. Those who believe this are people of principle - the principle that they automatically oppose Canada doing anything in concert with the United States.

This knee-jerk reaction against everything American has backed the leftist and feminist camps into a corner of their own making. The draconian, medieval standards that the Taliban forcibly imposed on women and girls relegated them to the status of slaves. Females were forbidden to attend school, work outside the home or even leave their residences without a male escort.

Violators were punished and some were killed. Yet somehow, the left - which made the feminine agenda their own - is strangely silent on this matter. Its fervid anti-Americanism has outweighed its belief in even the most basic rights for women.

NDP Leader Jack Layton - nicknamed "Taliban Jack" by our troops in Afghanistan - and others would have us go to Darfur, in the Sudan, where apparently the rights of women are somehow more important than those of their sisters in Afghanistan - and where the United States is not heavily involved.

What about the cry that we should return to our proud tradition of peacekeeping? Canadians love our peacekeeping role - no conflict, no combat, no blood, no bodies. Peacekeeping was even listed in a poll as one of the top 10 things that make us what we are - and differentiates us from Americans.

But, as I pointed out in this column recently, peacekeeping is a myth perpetuated by fuzzy-thinking idealists who have little, if any, understanding of Canada's military past.

Even at its height, traditional peacekeeping was never central to our military commitments.

Besides, what we are doing in Afghanistan - like it or not - is the gritty new reality of peacekeeping in the 21st century. For those unaware of recent history, it's been that way since the early 1990s, with the various missions in the Balkans.

Then there are those who contend Afghanistan is not our problem. It would certainly be possible to build such a case.

Here'sa good article....

But that would also mean Canadians were essentially prepared to turn our backs on the rest of the world.

Helping others

By extension, this argument also rejects the idea of helping others less fortunate than us, foreign aid, supporting the UN and fulfilling our commitments to the collective security alliance to which we belong. Sadly, it seems many people are prepared to do just that.

Without military action in Afghanistan, the preconditions for stability and development will never exist. All Canadians want the conflict in Afghanistan to end - none more than the soldiers fighting there.

Yet our troops deployed in Afghanistan strongly believe in what they are doing. They understand the favourable circumstances they must create before the mission can change from a military one to a civilian one - and full reconstruction can follow.

[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

John Boileau supports the good work Canada is trying to accomplish in Afghanistan.

[Remiel]

While the idea behind the Militia Myth, that we don't need an army, is patently ludicrous, it does contain a component of something I always wonder about...

Do you think Canadians would fight tenaciously in the face of an invasion, or do you they'd just give in to " superior " military force?

[PolyNewbie]

weaponeer:The way we treat the military, the priority we give it, as a nation we should be embarrassed......

We can't afford to borrow all the money to keep up the army because we would have to borrow from private bankers instead of the Bank Of Canada. If the country chose to finance the army through the Bank Of Canada we would have a world class army. The private bankers own the country and they have the USA as their strong arm to enforce their currencies and enslave foreign countries. They don't need Canada to have a strong army and we don't need the tax and interest burden.

Who is going to attack Canada ? - (or the States for that matter). The armies are just collection agencies and goons for the IMF, World Bank, and Federal Reserve.