• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

National Interests

Well I don't want to make it too simple but, If there is a fire at your neighbours house , you would try to help put it out wouldn't you, even if you don't really get along with them? If only to make sure that your own house doesn't burn too.
Now lets expand this, Can we afford to let a house wild fire run amuck 10 or even 20 houses away, for the very same reason? So someone we might not even knows house could in principal again burn down our house also.

So to answer your question, Yes we must be our brothers keeper. Or protect the Sheep all over the world, or the wolves will sooner or later get around to discussing Canadian Sheep for supper.
 
Young KH and EXNovie,

I agree with you, protecting the sheep and all that. As long as we're doing it for that reason (I don't think the politicians bother with that though.) OK the opposition would care ,just to give the Gov. a hard time.

We became peacekeepers just because the Gov. and Army had to find a way to justify the number of troops in the CF at the time (1960's?????).

Now, if we all believe in protecting the sheep and whatnot, I'm waiting for a huge budget increase and other commitments. There is a lot of needful countries...
 
delavan said:
Young KH and EXNovie,

I agree with you, protecting the sheep and all that. As long as we're doing it for that reason (I don't think the politicians bother with that though.) OK the opposition would care ,just to give the Gov. a hard time.

We became peacekeepers just because the Gov. and Army had to find a way to justify the number of troops in the CF at the time (1960's?????).

Now, if we all believe in protecting the sheep and whatnot, I'm waiting for a huge budget increase and other commitments. There is a lot of needful countries...

Point (1) That's is the job Of Oppositions, in fact that is what Opposition means.
Point (2) In the 60's we had Approx. 129,000 troops and now Approx 60,000 so I guess the justifying  didn't work.
Point (3) No one in NATO consideres the Canadian Armed Forces as over populated or as too many.
Point (4) Because there is going to be an election soon and the general public doesn't like to spend money, I for one doubt it.

The Country's needs and what they want are almost never the same thing. Canada needs to at least get back up to 1960 numbers, or start to abandon its UN and NATO obligations.

 
delavan said:
Young KH and EXNovie,

We became peacekeepers just because the Gov. and Army had to find a way to justify the number of troops in the CF at the time (1960's?????).

Oh almost forgot, We became pacekeepers in the 60's because of the Suez conflict and to prevent WW 3 because the big boys wouldn't back down and had forgotten how to play nice.
I know that this sounds corny but that one act (UN Peacekeeping) may have saved millions of lives.
Canada started the UN Peace keeping forces and in doing so saved countless lives of not only our own soldiers but that of people all around the world. Read the history of it and BE PROUD.
 
With all respect, keeping the peace by inserting lightly armed tripwire forces - from relatively powerful nations - in between warring factions has enjoyed on and off popularity for about 2,000 years.  Canadian peacekeeping, in the Pearsonian tradition might be traced to the Russian expedition of 1919.

The first UN peacekeeping mission (UNMOGIP) was mounted in 1949, and it is still running.  That was long before Lester Pearson 'invented' peacekeeping.

If anyone 'invented' modern UN peacekeeping it was Sir Brian Urquhart.

In 1956 the Brits, the French and the Israelis tried a bit of imperialistic bullying which infuriated President Eisenhower and threatened the foundations of the emerging liberal; democratic Western consensus.  Several senior officials, including Mike Pearson, from several countries - all working under Urquhart's general guidance - developed the idea of a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF), a step up from UNMOGIP and, arguably, a step back in time.  The key players, including Eisenhower, Eden and St. Laurent, for Canada, agreed the basic thrust of the thing: a way to save Anglo-French face while giving Nasser what he had just stolen, fair and square as Teddy Roosevelt said of the Panama Canal.

There was one huge obstacle: the UN General Assembly; many, many (maybe even most) members, led by the USSR, wanted the Brits and French to be left dangling and to be punished, diplomatically, at least, for their effrontery.  A resolution had to be crafted and sold, country-by-country, while the hard-liners were kept in the dark.  Mike Pearson was one of the most accomplished diplomats in the room: a hard nosed and skillful negotiator who was widely admired and trusted for his integrity and skill.  He wrote the key resolution and then shepherded it through the General Assembly until he had a working majority.

It may not seem very exciting but, for days and days the tensions in New York (and Washington, Moscow, London, Paris, Cairo and Ottawa, too) were high - dangerously high.  Nuclear forces were on heightened alert.  Pearson worked tirelessly, day and night, mostly in the shadows, persuading, begging and cajoling and modifying the proposal (which may, in it original form, have owed more to Louis St. Laurent than to any one other person) until the UNEF, which deployed in 56, was developed.  One of the key elements in achieving success was Pearson's ability to offer Canadian troops, Canadian leadership and Canadian money to the project.  St. Laurent's cabinet had given Pearson a virtual catre blanche - more than almost any foreign minister has ever carried into negotiations.

Pearson earned all the accolades and the Nobel Prize, too.  But neither he, nor Canada, 'invented' peacekeeping.

(I was told, years later, by someone who was very near the Egyptian centre that Nasser was furious; he felt Pearson had cheated him our of a chance to humiliate the Anglo-French leadership and, by so doing, to add immensely to his prestige and power in the new non-aligned movement.  That's why he objected, at the last minute, to the Canadian infantry battalion: from The Queens Own Rifles of Canada - because they were 'too British.'  It was designed to rob Pearson of some of his 'glory.')

As a couple of by-the-bys:

"¢ The first handbooks for UNEF were two little, hip-pocket sized, pre WWII British War Office pamphlets (sh!t house readers, we used to call them) called Keeping the Peace, Part I and Part II -= they were, later and over and over, expanded and republished until they became great thick (and, consequently useless) Canadian volumes;

"¢ LGen (Ret'd) ELM "tommyâ ? Burns (who had commander 1 CDN Corps in WWII) was hauled out of retirement to be the first UNEF Commander and he vindicated old MGen Middleton by being concerned, first and last, with full dress and feathers;

"¢ The decision to replace the QORofC battalion with 'housekeeping' troops set the Canadian Forces on a destructive path in which combat support and combat service support troops were badly depleted to meet successive UN mission requirements and then combat arms units were required to cough up 'volunteers' to refill e.g. Signals.


 
Exporting our diplomatic skills and the Canadian contribution (at least militarily) to modern peace keeping is something to be proud of. However in a summary of his novel Who Killed the Canadian Military?  Dr. Jack Granatstein states:

Lester Pearson's only fault was that, as foreign minister to 1957, he did his job too well. His understanding of international affairs and responsible leadership led to the successful interposition of Canadian troops and the defusing of the Suez Crisis in 1956. He won the Nobel Peace Prize, making him the model statesman and envy of politicians. He established the Pearsonian peacekeeping myth that continues, today to hurt the military (peaceful intervention leads to the faulty deduction that there is no need to acquire arms for the military). Succeeding Liberal leaders have tried to emulate Pearson by sending Canadian Forces on a myriad of "peacekeeping" missions. The peacekeeping myth, along with the reluctance to arm Canada's military, has dealt the military a mortal blow. Mike Pearson killed the military.

I insert this to emphasis the difference between a soldier's perspective and that of the public they defend and why it is necessary that SOLDIERS/SAILORS/AIR PERS think about what Canadian Interests should be and so helping to guide public opinion. After all if left to a misinformed population, it is too easily forgotten that, as the CDS recently stated
"We're not the public service of Canada, we're not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people."

The CDS already has ONE job in advising the government on feasibility of operations abroad. However, without a clear and specific statement as to what our interests are how can anyone logically prioritize those operations and provide sound advise? Perhaps domestic ops should take priority.

Admittedly, occupying/securing/rebuilding failed states of the world is admirable and I think we have identified as being a interest shared by CF mbrs...I'm just pushing for more comments. How about sovereignty protection in the high Arctic?


 
I think we are past the time of blaming who killed the Canadian military because it doesn't matter.
History is exactly that History.
What we need now is a present that works and a future that has a chance to improve the situation.

What we all need to know is who is going to fix it.
Increase the Military, the equipment and the training. Beef up the Coast Guard, increase the reserves and make Canadians proud of Canada again.

I don't think that we have to stop doing the right thing but we do have to have enough Military to also take care of problems at home.

The "National Interest" should at least have the interest of the HOME nation as an equal to that of "Foreign Interests".
 
Young KH, I agree putting the present and future first are the priority while being mindful of the past. With regards to your last comment
...make Canadians proud of Canada again.
I agree further agree so this open a short aside from main thread.

So open for general discussion, what are the things that Canadians are ashamed of, and make us less proud? I have never heard of someone who wished they weren't Canadian, but at the same time I rarely see glowing hearts. Is it a lack of national unity; are their too many hyphenated nationalities? If there are I think its because immigrants coming into our country only have a vague idea of what being "Canadian" is...so naturally until they are sure of what they are embracing they should never be asked to break from nationality identifier. I know who I am as an individual, but within a group, if I did not have the CF to define group ethos for me I would be at a loss...luckily I can project those CF ethos as being "National Ethos" as well. But what is it that defines being a Canadian...please do not say it is our charter of Rights and Freedoms, because as I have alluded to in other post, I'm waiting for someone (hell maybe it will be me) to write the first Canadian Charter of Duties and Responsibilities, before we even start talking about "rights"

Now looping back....Perhaps if we knew what we were united behind it would be easier get behind it.  I am adamant that Canadians on the whole do not know what they want. Sure, their are broad generalizations like, a strong economy and good health care...these are all worn out clichés, that a news reporter would get from a streeter interview. Where do Canadians really want the country to go...to a "soft power?" Personally I would find it hard to be proud of being a member of a soft power nation. How about an Assertive and Vigilant Nation? Sound better? What kind of a country would make Canadians proud? The average Canadian WANTS to be led..., once they put someone in power they need to be guided as to how they should be living their life, and to what end they are living it. Without strong, level headed, DECISIVE leadership , we will just continue to sleep walk through the decades to come. 


 
Er...forgot to say what I wanted to say. So doing what we are doing right now, is something that every Canadian should be doing too at the very least in their own mind. Then that is what they base their WELL INFORMED vote on, as to whether a candidate will support their concept of national interests. I realize it sounds like a no-brainer, but why do we hear so much about voter apathy? Lack of direction, lack of leadership, lack of goals, lack of desire to vote it is ALL connected.  In my opinion even the ones who do vote are at a higher risk of marking a name based on cheap talk, heresay, and what the TV says making little effort to think about what that vote really means, and the effort that should be put into casting it.

EXNovie
 
Apathy:  Well I will try tell it the way I see it.

If you put out a tender for a job, let's say a road serfacing job for 10 miles of road two lane wide and  inches thick but no specs.
The best offer in your view was a Company that offered to do the job for X number of Dollars and that the thickness was to be 6 inches and 44 feet wide for the two lanes.
But when you went to the work site there was only 3 inches of Black top and the it was only 40 ft wide. That contractor would be fired and not paid. Am I correct so far.

Well I believe that an Election is in fact the Canadian people putting out a tender for running the country. We have many parties (companies) that run around the country and tell the people just what they will get for their money. Then we elect one company (Party) and when we get out there the job is not being done to the specs that we agreed to. But are stuck with the costs and company for 5 years anyway.

The Parties know this and lets face it all of then know that once they are elected they will never have to keep any of the promices that they made. And they also know that if they tell us the truth, then they won't be elected.

Nothing that is promiced during an election campaign needs to be done for them to keep their job, once the people have spoken. Apathy is due to this single fact. If no one has to tell the truth and history shows us that not many ever do, then what's the point of voting in one lier over another.

 
Thoughts on protecting Canadian Interests? Well, those interests are determined by our political masters, not us.  Soldiers jobs are not to determine National interests, but rather go out and do whats been told to us exactly what our National interests are.
 
  Soldiers jobs are not to determine National interests, but rather go out and do what's been told to us exactly what our National interests are. 
     


No one is disputing that this is the stance every soldier should take on the job but consider this: General Hillier is a soldier, and based on the advise which he gives to the MND and PM it is quite likely that as an expert, his opinion will influence certain areas of policy whether foreign or domestic. Further, a chain of command exists, and though by times selective, if a private has a brilliant thought, is his platoon commander going to tell him to shut his yap "cause its not his job?" I think not.     
 
Back
Top