- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Halifax Herald 7 Jan 2002
Proper hierarchy
Dear Editor:
I take serious issue with Brian A. Blaney‘s letter Dec. 26 lamenting the general staff of the Canadian Forces for their supposed inability to stand up to their political masters.
In Mr. Blaney‘s opinion, it is a direct result of the curriculum of the Canadian Forces‘ senior command and staff courses which teaches generals and future generals to "heel, sit, remain in the corner and speak only when told to" when dealing with their political masters.
Mr. Blaney, in his intellectual frustration, seems to ignore the broader democratic and constitutional issues that will inevitably arise should his advocacy of political licence among our military leadership become a reality.
In a sense, Mr. Blaney is correct when he asserts that senior officer training in the Canadian Forces, by design or implication, does not encourage our military leadership to become politically active. The reality is that senior officer training encourages, and indeed insists, on leadership, resolve, and an ability to think through difficult situations.
However, this training is by and large confined to operational problems which clearly fall into the military‘s domain. Mr. Blaney is right in asserting that our military leadership is not taught to lobby, embarrass, or criticize our political masters.
Why? Because in a democracy, the military and security arm must always remain subservient to the elected representatives of the people, regardless of how informed, or uninformed they may be be of military affairs. It is up to voters like myself, who are aware of the need for a strong military, to lobby our politicians to pay more regard to the needs of the Forces. It would be a dangerous deriliction of democracy to leave such initiative up to the generals. Recent world history is full of examples where a country‘s military leadership at various times showed strong resolve in forcing democratically elected governments to address issues which the military regarded as important and in the public interest. The military leadership of Argentina, Chile, Uganda, Iraq, and the Congo all historically have good track records in this area.
I sincerely believe that none of the above countries have anything to teach Canada when it comes to peace, order and good government. Furthermore, I do not believe that any of our military leadership would prefer to serve in any of the countries mentioned above.
Robert Smol, Halifax
Proper hierarchy
Dear Editor:
I take serious issue with Brian A. Blaney‘s letter Dec. 26 lamenting the general staff of the Canadian Forces for their supposed inability to stand up to their political masters.
In Mr. Blaney‘s opinion, it is a direct result of the curriculum of the Canadian Forces‘ senior command and staff courses which teaches generals and future generals to "heel, sit, remain in the corner and speak only when told to" when dealing with their political masters.
Mr. Blaney, in his intellectual frustration, seems to ignore the broader democratic and constitutional issues that will inevitably arise should his advocacy of political licence among our military leadership become a reality.
In a sense, Mr. Blaney is correct when he asserts that senior officer training in the Canadian Forces, by design or implication, does not encourage our military leadership to become politically active. The reality is that senior officer training encourages, and indeed insists, on leadership, resolve, and an ability to think through difficult situations.
However, this training is by and large confined to operational problems which clearly fall into the military‘s domain. Mr. Blaney is right in asserting that our military leadership is not taught to lobby, embarrass, or criticize our political masters.
Why? Because in a democracy, the military and security arm must always remain subservient to the elected representatives of the people, regardless of how informed, or uninformed they may be be of military affairs. It is up to voters like myself, who are aware of the need for a strong military, to lobby our politicians to pay more regard to the needs of the Forces. It would be a dangerous deriliction of democracy to leave such initiative up to the generals. Recent world history is full of examples where a country‘s military leadership at various times showed strong resolve in forcing democratically elected governments to address issues which the military regarded as important and in the public interest. The military leadership of Argentina, Chile, Uganda, Iraq, and the Congo all historically have good track records in this area.
I sincerely believe that none of the above countries have anything to teach Canada when it comes to peace, order and good government. Furthermore, I do not believe that any of our military leadership would prefer to serve in any of the countries mentioned above.
Robert Smol, Halifax
