Coping with Casualties - the Education Gap

[Keepitsimple]

Lorrie Goldstein recently wrote an article that focused on why a relatively few number of casualties has had such an impact of the Canadian Psyche – and it’s pretty simple. We’re simply not taught of the great sacrifices that Canadians have made in the line of duty – World War One – 60,000 killed, World War Two – 40,000 killed, Korean War – over 500 killed. “Peacekeeping Missions” – 120 killed. These conflicts contained many proud and courageous accomplishments for our brave soldiers. The “Canadian” approach to formulative education seems to be to shield our children from these nasty moments when in fact, they should be studied and understood. What was the mindset of Canadians that led them to sacrifice so many of our young men in WW1. What made 10% of Canada’s population take up arms to fight in European countries that they had never set foot on? The events leading up to, during and following these conflicts – and how they affected Canadians are an important part of our history – and as they say – if you don’t learn from history, you are bound to repeat it.

Please take the time to read the entire article at: http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...pf-4322730.html

My purpose is not to disparage the memory of these fine Canadians. But it is to point out how our failure to educate ourselves about our own military history, is now having disastrous consequences for our country.

Simply put, it has made us ill-equipped to deal with the realities of war.

In the process, we have lost a vital part of our sense of who we are as a people -- inevitable when generations of Canadians have been raised to believe the myth that our military past is summed up by one word -- "peacekeeping."

[weaponeer]

Good post,

Yes this article is right, we have neglected our military and even our general history in Canada. I know some positive moves have been made as of late, the thousands of people who returned to Vimy earlier this year. When you actually stand on the real battlefield, and see real graves it really hits home, as no monument at home can... I know some schools have asked returning Afghan vets to come a speak to the students. When your a 16 year old student talking to a 19 year old vet, well you understand.....

[Mad_Michael]

Lorrie Goldstein recently wrote an article that focused on why a relatively few number of casualties has had such an impact of the Canadian Psyche – and it’s pretty simple. We’re simply not taught of the great sacrifices that Canadians have made in the line of duty – World War One – 60,000 killed, World War Two – 40,000 killed, Korean War – over 500 killed. “Peacekeeping Missions” – 120 killed. These conflicts contained many proud and courageous accomplishments for our brave soldiers. The “Canadian” approach to formulative education seems to be to shield our children from these nasty moments when in fact, they should be studied and understood. What was the mindset of Canadians that led them to sacrifice so many of our young men in WW1. What made 10% of Canada’s population take up arms to fight in European countries that they had never set foot on? The events leading up to, during and following these conflicts – and how they affected Canadians are an important part of our history – and as they say – if you don’t learn from history, you are bound to repeat it.

Rather trite coming from one of Canada's most notable and consistent warmongers.

Fact is, if the cause is just, then casualties are acceptable. If the public loses faith in the mission (which appears to be the case here), then not even a single casualty is worth it.

In other words, if you want to understand why Canadians may be upset about 'comparatively' light casualities on the Afghanistan mission, the answer does not lie in the traditional conservative ideology answer (attack liberal education system). The answer lies in the mission itself. If anyone can state what the mission these days with a straight face, I'd be impressed.

A just war and a meaningful mission? Canadians will support it, no doubt of that.

But Canadian soldiers dying for a mission that is turning out to be impossible due to the USA not working from the same playbook as NATO is, and of course, the US Iraqi quagmire (along with US ally Pakistan) is having a 'spillover' effect to contaminate the mission in Afghanistan. Canadians have a right to be highly skeptical of Canadian political and military leadership and their mantra of 'stay the course'. Ottawa is starting to sound like George W. Bush on this issue while Canadian soldiers die for no good reason.

The Afghanistan mission began as a just war with a clear and responsible mission. It isn't any more. It is just a sideshow for George Bush's most excellent Iraqi adventure now and few have the guts to admit it.

As a final note, I will point out that Canadians were anguished over casualty rates in WW1 and WW2, almost to the point of riots and bringing down the Government. To say that Canadians 'accepted' these casualties without question suggests that Lorrie Goldstein has as much trouble with actual factual history as he is accusing others of.

[August1991]

What is this? A morbid competition to see how many deaths we can accept?

The journalist is somehow suggesting that people today are less "good" because we tolerate death less than previous generations. That's ludicrous.

----

At present, we are engaged in a minor but tricky skirmish in Afghanistan. The purpose is to ensure that Afghanistan does not become a place where Islamic terrorists can have a base. We should deploy our forces in a way that achieves that goal in the quickest and best way possible.

In my mind at least, getting blown up by a roadside bomb hardly advances our objectives and too many of the 66 have died precisely that way.

[seabee]

Education or brainwashing? the difference can be infinitesimally small.

[Wilber]

At present, we are engaged in a minor but tricky skirmish in Afghanistan. The purpose is to ensure that Afghanistan does not become a place where Islamic terrorists can have a base. We should deploy our forces in a way that achieves that goal in the quickest and best way possible.

In my mind at least, getting blown up by a roadside bomb hardly advances our objectives and too many of the 66 have died precisely that way.

How does that differ from dieing from any other form of enemy action? What manner of dieing do you think would advance our objectives in a more effective way?

Certainly, we would all like to see our objectives carried out with no casualties but sometimes the enemy is not prepared to cooperate.

The question is, do we believe our objectives are worth the price that may be necessary. Not an easy question because no one really knows if they are attainable or what the final price may be.