Québec, le 22e Régiment, Afghanistan & Canada

[August1991]

I have had some thoughts on this and what Harper is doing. And I have heard different reactions of people that I know.

But I have decided not to post my thoughts or these reactions here. IOW, I have decided not to start what could have become, with luck, an interesting thread.

Why?

First of all, the personal insults on this forum are too depressing. I dislike threads in which posters gratuitously add one-line insults for no purpose except to belittle. I can understand a poster sending off a good zinger in response to a weak point but not gratuitous belittlement. I fear that any thread I might start would descend into pointless insults.

Second, I fear that anything I post will soon get hijacked either by conspiracy theorists or self-centred jerks who want the debate to be about them. (And that's an anonymous but not gratuitous insult.)

----

In case you haven't noticed, Canada's federation is undergoing fundamental changes now. It would be interesting to discuss these changes in such a public forum where people of widely different opinions can post their thoughts.

The Internet is a work in progress, and this forum too. Let's see.

Edited July 17, 2007 by August1991

[M.Dancer]

I have had some thoughts on this and what Harper is doing. And I have heard different reactions of people that I know.

But I have decided not to post my thoughts or these reactions here. IOW, I have decided not to start what could have become, with luck, an interesting thread.

Why?

First of all, the personal insults on this forum are too depressing. I dislike threads in which posters gratuitously add one-line insults for no purpose except to belittle. I can understand a poster sending off a good zinger in response to a weak point but not gratuitous belittlement. I fear that any thread I might start would descend into pointless insults.

Second, I fear that anything I post will soon get hijacked either by conspiracy theorists or self-centred jerks who want the debate to be about them. (And that's an anonymous but not gratuitous insult.)

----

In case you haven't noticed, Canada's federation is undergoing fundamental changes now. It would be interesting to discuss these changes in such a public forum where people of widely different opinions can post their thoughts.

The Internet is a work in progress, and this forum too. Let's see.

I was going to respond to this interesting topic about the storied Vandoos, but I decided not to.

[kimmy]

I have decided not to contribute my observation that while Quebec has the highest level of opposition to the Afghanistan mission among Canadian provinces, Quebec has traditionally also had amongst the highest rates of participation in the military among Canadian provinces.

I will decline to mention that Quebeckers who support the Afghanistan mission might be a lot like minority political opinions anywhere else-- Liberal voters in Alberta, for instance-- overshadowed by the size of the majority, but no less committed to their own view regardless.

I scoff at the idea of mentioning the impact that this will have on Harper's prospects in Quebec. Or pointing out that this only gives more ammunition to those who consider Harper to be a member of the Western Imperialists club or GW Bush's lapdog. And I will keep it to myself that I think many Quebeckers will be angry with Harper when young Quebecois are killed in the line of duty, as will inevitably happen. Mum's the word on expressing my hope that Stephane and Jack will not attempt to use the death of Quebec soldiers to political advantage.

-k

Edited July 17, 2007 by kimmy

[M.Dancer]

Someone shoot me if I even so much as try to compliment Kimmy on her wit and style.......

[jdobbin]

I have decided not to contribute my observation that while Quebec has the highest level of opposition to the Afghanistan mission among Canadian provinces, Quebec has traditionally also had amongst the highest rates of participation in the military among Canadian provinces.

I will decline to mention that Quebeckers who support the Afghanistan mission might be a lot like minority political opinions anywhere else-- Liberal voters in Alberta, for instance-- overshadowed by the size of the majority, but no less committed to their own view regardless.

It might be like the black population of the United States. They have a higher participation in the military compared to their proportion of the population. According to the poll numbers though, blacks in America have opposed the mission in Iraq in larger numbers than other parts of the population.

Elections in Alberta always reveal a part of the population that votes Liberal. It is small but it is always there.

Polls in Quebec show next to no support for the mission in Afghanistan. None. The most recent poll was last week. If there is a small proportion that supports the mission, so far is hasn't shown itself in Quebec. There is support for the troops, just no support for the mission.

I don't expect Dion or Layton's position to change on Afghanistan. Dion says home in 2009. Layton says home now.

The only leader who seems to be changing his position is Harper who says maybe home in 2009. Back in January, he was saying he would do the right thing even if it meant failing in an election. That seems to have softened. Or else maybe the right thing is different now than it was in January.

Edited July 17, 2007 by jdobbin

[M.Dancer]

It might be like the black population of the United States. They have a higher participation in the military compared to their proportion of the population.

That may have been true during conscripotion when the monied classes could opt out through deferment, but in the all volunteer age......

consider the casualty stats......

http://icasualties.org/oif/ETHNICITY.aspx

Black or African American 9.44%

White 74.52%

Blacks make up around 12% of the US population.

[jdobbin]

I have had some thoughts on this and what Harper is doing. And I have heard different reactions of people that I know.

But I have decided not to post my thoughts or these reactions here. IOW, I have decided not to start what could have become, with luck, an interesting thread.

Why?

First of all, the personal insults on this forum are too depressing. I dislike threads in which posters gratuitously add one-line insults for no purpose except to belittle. I can understand a poster sending off a good zinger in response to a weak point but not gratuitous belittlement. I fear that any thread I might start would descend into pointless insults.

Second, I fear that anything I post will soon get hijacked either by conspiracy theorists or self-centred jerks who want the debate to be about them. (And that's an anonymous but not gratuitous insult.)

----

In case you haven't noticed, Canada's federation is undergoing fundamental changes now. It would be interesting to discuss these changes in such a public forum where people of widely different opinions can post their thoughts.

The Internet is a work in progress, and this forum too. Let's see.

By all means post your thoughts on the Van Doos and Afghanistan.

Have your thoughts changed on the mission because the Van Doos are going? Support for the mission went up, stayed the same, went down? I suspect they stayed the same but if they changed, why?

I don't know that the Van Doos have anything completely different than other storied regiments that have been sent to Afghanistan. They are all brave and committed troops.

The issues of Afghanistan won't change because you send in the new team.

Just the other day, a governor in Afghanistan was fired for stating the obvious.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/16/...ernor-Fired.php

Afghanistan's government fired a provincial governor days after he said Afghans are distancing themselves from President Hamid Karzai and that a "vacuum of authority" is allowing the Taliban, al-Qaida and other groups to gain power.

Abdul Sattar Murad, the governor of Kapisa province, was fired because "he sowed discord" among the people and provided U.S.-led coalition troops with wrong information about the people of the province, said a statement from the Ministry of Interior, which appoints the country's 34 governors.

The removal comes only days after Murad gave an interview to Newsweek magazine highly critical of the central government.

"In remote parts of the country there is practically a vacuum of authority, a vacuum of power. Somebody will have to fill that vacuum. Either the criminals fill that vacuum or the Taliban and al-Qaida do," Murad said in the interview.

Karzai continues to face such criticism and growing opposition. The government might control the appointments of governors but they do not assert control over the countryside. In fact, in many cases, the government or its branches is the destabilizing force.

Edited July 17, 2007 by jdobbin

[M.Dancer]

I see in another source that black enlistment post 9.11 has risen to where they account for almost 15% of the total.

In the same study it shows white enlistment is also up.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalS...ty/cda05-08.cfm

[jdobbin]

That may have been true during conscripotion when the monied classes could opt out through deferment, but in the all volunteer age......

consider the casualty stats......

http://icasualties.org/oif/ETHNICITY.aspx

Black or African American 9.44%

White 74.52%

Blacks make up around 12% of the US population.

The casualty counts don't tell the whole number.

Remember the proportion of Reserves being sent. There are more whites in the Reserves. More blacks serve actively.

http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-co...06-23-0130.html

Blacks continue to serve in the Army in far greater proportion -- about double -- than their presence in the U.S. population.

If you can find a figure that says differently, I'd be surprised. This was published July 22.

[M.Dancer]

Blacks continue to serve in the Army in far greater proportion -- about double -- than their presence in the U.S. population.

If you can find a figure that says differently, I'd be surprised. This was published July 22.

If it were double that would mean a sharp, incredibly sharp rise to over 24% of the military.

And that ain't true.

[jdobbin]

I see in another source that black enlistment post 9.11 has risen to where they account for almost 15% of the total.

In the same study it shows white enlistment is also up.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalS...ty/cda05-08.cfm

Form your link:

Table 3 also includes a breakout comparison of the 2003 Army recruits, since that branch bears a larger share of danger on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, the data show that, proportionally, blacks make up 43 percent more of the Army recruits than does the general population

[M.Dancer]

Blacks continue to serve in the Army in far greater proportion -- about double -- than their presence in the U.S. population.

If you can find a figure that says differently, I'd be surprised. This was published July 22.

If it were double that would mean a sharp, incredibly sharp rise to over 24% of the military.

And that ain't true.

I may be wrong.......

Mark this day, it may be in the trivail pursuits 2010 edition........

[jdobbin]

If it were double that would mean a sharp, incredibly sharp rise to over 24% of the military.

And that ain't true.

According to the link and if you go to the U.S. Army's recruiting site, blacks make up 22% of active service members. That was 2005 figures.

I guess you can play around with the numbers but any number you put up there will say that black numbers in the military, especially in active Army service are higher proportionally than their population in the U.S.

[fellowtraveller]

Are the Van Doos now part of a Quebec military?

There is a large base near my home in Alberta, but I've never heard anybody think of them having anything to do with the province other than living here. They are a national resource.

[August1991]

I have decided not to contribute my observation that while Quebec has the highest level of opposition to the Afghanistan mission among Canadian provinces, Quebec has traditionally also had amongst the highest rates of participation in the military among Canadian provinces.

As a response to a flounce, I suppose that's not bad.

----

The Afghanistan mission is largely under the radar in Quebec. It's not in the news (in any real sense). No one talks about it.

People of course know about Afghanistan and they know that Canada is involved and some even know that Quebecers are going there now. But it's not real.

It will be real when a Gauthier or a Tremblay becomes a headline. When there are several headlines, then the discussion will take on its full force.

I happen to think that the discussion will be as mature as anywhere elsewhere in the Western world. People in Quebec value their freedom, understand the stakes and question wisely whether this is the best way to pursue our interests.

It is interesting that Harper has forced this (future) debate on Quebec. But he has every right to do so. The military is clearly a federal jurisdiction. So far, I have noticed that Harper has been well-advised in his Quebec actions and I think that he has also used his own WASP instincts.

Last little anecdote. A young francophone woman I know phoned me to say that she'd have to postpone our appointment. Her boyfriend was leaving for Afghanistan and she obviously wanted to be with him instead. I agreed to a different time and as I hung up the phone, I thought about her voice. She sounded older.

[jdobbin]

The Afghanistan mission is largely under the radar in Quebec. It's not in the news (in any real sense). No one talks about it.

For a six month deployment, the issue of the Van Doos could become an election issue in Quebec. It didn't matter when the soldiers came from based in Ontario, New Brunswick, Alberta and Manitoba. It will, as you say, hit home when they are from Quebec.

The only way it won't be an issue is if real progress is made in the next months. Fingers crossed on that for the sake of Afghanistan and for our troops.

[August1991]

For a six month deployment, the issue of the Van Doos could become an election issue in Quebec. It didn't matter when the soldiers came from based in Ontario, New Brunswick, Alberta and Manitoba. It will, as you say, hit home when they are from Quebec.

That's possibly true, depending on the election date.

I think my point is that people in English Canada seem far more concerned about the "Van Dooze" than people in Quebec. For the moment, this is an English story.

Among political junkies in Quebec, the debate has already started and as usual, it will divide on separatist/federalist lines, but with a twist.

Harper is painting the separatists/nationalists into a Leftist/peacenik corner. Harper's risk is that he may lose the Quebec isolationists. I don't think that they are numerous now. The WTC resembles too much Place Ville Marie, the soldiers in Afghanistan chose to go there and Quebecers know that Quebec can't be removed from this world. The isolationists will have to take sides.

Surprisingly, Harper has chosen to put Quebec on the world map and when that becomes apparent in Quebec (it hasn't yet), then something might change.

Are the Van Doos now part of a Quebec military?

There is a large base near my home in Alberta, but I've never heard anybody think of them having anything to do with the province other than living here. They are a national resource.

Canada is not a country as you imagine it, and the word "national" has a different meaning.

I have decided not to contribute my observation that while Quebec has the highest level of opposition to the Afghanistan mission among Canadian provinces, Quebec has traditionally also had amongst the highest rates of participation in the military among Canadian provinces.

Kimmy, I'll now ignore your style and respond to substance.

Canada's soldiers traditionally come from the Maritimes and Newfoundland, not Quebec. I think that recruitments from the region of Quebec City have been high recently but I wouldn't generalize yet.

You will soon see Quebec's reaction to Afghanistan and I think that it will be similar to the US reaction - without the kneejerk support for Bush Jnr.

[M.Dancer]

Canada's soldiers traditionally come from the Maritimes and Newfoundland, not Quebec. I think that recruitments from the region of Quebec City have been high recently but I wouldn't generalize yet.

Having my summers spent at Bagotville and Val Cartier, having trained alongside le 12e Blinde and the 22e and well as numerous other Quebec based regt's.......having stood for hours with recruits in line at Longue Pointe in hope that the quarter master would still have pants to fit me.........I would say your are incorrect....

PS...francophones make up 27% of the military

Edited July 19, 2007 by M.Dancer

[fellowtraveller]

Canada is not a country as you imagine it, and the word "national" has a different meaning.

After reading your stuff for a couple of years, I would agree that Canada is not the country you imagine it to be. In particular, your usual condescending comments on how the ROC perceives Quebec and Quebecois culture are frequently completely wrong and -ironically- provincial.

Canada's soldiers traditionally come from the Maritimes and Newfoundland, not Quebec

Note that times have changed. At one time, much of the military came in the form of Western farm boys. The 'traditon' was that the pooerst segments of our nation contributed the most soldiers, and that distinction of being poorest has rotated through the country over the decades, with perhaps only Ontario never contributing a proportionate share.

Being poor and needing a job won't get you into todays military though. You need education, desire, maybe some experience and language helps. They have more quality applicants than they can handle much of the time. Dumb does not cut it anymore, many military jobs work with advanced technology that requires both intelligence and the ability to learn.

[bush_cheney2004]

You will soon see Quebec's reaction to Afghanistan and I think that it will be similar to the US reaction - without the kneejerk support for Bush Jnr.

Why would Quebec ever have "kneejerk" support for "Bush Jnr"????