Soldiers kicked out of military

[geo]

OT... sure, you can have it, AFTER we get back from deployment.
In the meantime, keep your gunpowder dry & your a$$ down.

 

[Haggis]

I firmly believe a reservist who has agreed to serve full time for an indefinite period should be treated the same way as a Reg and be subject to predeployment training AND deployment, should there be a need for him & his trade.

In theory, this is the case.  

As you are doubtless aware a Reservist on full time service is required to sign the Statement of Understanding (SOU) found at A-PM-245-001/FP-001 Chapter 19, Annex D.  

For those who are unaware, para 2b. of said document reads:

"b. during my period of service, I may be required to perform service anywhere in or outside Canada. Service outside Canada is active service in accordance with National Defence Act Section 31(1) and as provided by Order in Council PC 1989-583 (6 April 1989) and such other Orders in Council as may be passed from time to time. I acknowledge that being on active service means:

(1) I am subject to the Code of Service Discipline (CSD) at all times and may be subject to increased punishments should I be convicted of offences under the CSD; and
(2) I may be retained on continuous full time service for up to one year after my period of active service;

However, in practise, this isn't done as employing units do not want to lose the capability that they hiired that Reservist to fill.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Its my understanding (unless it has changed) that reservists are asked if they want to go overseas, complete the work up training etc.  It would appear to me those reservists would know by now what is in store for them.  Now it is conceivable that situations will arise that will prevent reservists (or regs for that matter) from not fulfilling their commitment, but deciding that you don't agree with war or the mission after you said you wanted to go is asinine and grounds for dismissal.  That said I don't think I would want to go over with someone who was told to suck it up and go, I'd rather be over there with people that want to go.

 

[RHFC_piper]

By definition, as stated before, a contentious objector is one who opposes war and armed conflict in general...  Why are they in the forces; who knows.  Should they be in the forces; No.  Simple.

When I recruit people for my unit, I don't lie, I don't fill them with false information and I don't hold back... I'm sure at some point this will backfire on me, but that's what they get for making me the unit recruiter.    When a potential applicant asks what we do in the infantry, I give them our roll.  When they ask about the risks, I tell them about my short tour.  All recruiters should do this.  I've seen some who try to sell the forces as a good way to get education paid for, or a good way to get into a police force.... and I've had people ask if there were any less dangerous trades... there are, I don't lie to them... it's when they ask about trades that don't involve killing or combat.  The only answer I have for them is; Every trade in the CF is involved, either directly or indirectly, in combat. Weather it's the combat arms in the front fighting, or the CSS trades in the back supplying and supporting them... All trades are force multipliers for combat; remove one and our combat effectiveness drops.  So, in essence, everyone in the CF is fighting.
This is the job, this is the lifestyle... Objectors need not apply.

For the OT's and transfers before tour;  There were a few in my Coy, who, due to family issues and the such, did not want to deploy on that particular mission... They had deployed before, and they wanted to deploy again, just not right then.  The solution was a transfer to a Coy which was not deploying.  The CoC was accommodating, to an extent... the members knew they could be called upon anyway, as they were now in the 10% pool.  Some deployed, some didn't.  They were not objecting to the fight, circumstances were just not in their favour.
There were also some who were OTing anyway, and the course for their OT trade was starting before the tours end.  Same solution as above.  Why screw a soldiers career goals for deployment, especially when there are enough people willing to take their place. Again, not an objector, just someone who wants to change their career path.

There were even some reservists who were facing the choice of not deploying after getting their offer (before going up to the Reg F unit), due to Family as well as civilian careers.  Some members were faced with the choice of going over seas, taking a huge pay cut and coming back to unemployment, or not deploying at all... some of us took option 1... I quit my civi job which was paying me a bit more than deployment (I didn't like the job much anyway... but that doesn't matter)... needless to say, my old job wouldn't have been waiting for me if I didn't quit. 

So, there are many reasons not to deploy when you are called upon, and most can be dealt with by case.  Of course, a member who never deploys siting these reasons might as well look elsewhere for employment, but for the most part, these cases are not black and white.

The case of these Objectors, on the other hand, is pretty cut and dry;  out



But with all this said; I am still baffled by the reservists.  By now, every reserve unit in Canada should have deployed at least one member.  Especially combat arms units.  These "objectors" should have known long before volunteering what they were getting into. No excuse.
But why would they jump through all the hoops?!? 

 

[the 48th regulator]

Maybe we should implement a way that since these objectors are signing a contract, that if they do not uphold their end they owe the Government the monetary value of the training that they have received.

Let's then see how many objectors there will be.

dileas

tess

 

[Korporaal]

Gentleman;

I`m a little confused here, maybe I can be enlightened as to the true situation regarding Reservists service in the Canadian Forces and deployment.

I`ve applied to the Reserves  but before I made this decision (had to get the OK from the wife, which was granted on condition that I dont volunteer for deployment) I made substantial enquiries about depoloyment to Afghanistan and the possibilities thereof.
I was told repeatetdly by the recruiters of 2 different regiments that this is voluntary for Reservists and that the only time you will be called up by the government for deployment to a war zone is if there is a general state of war declared, at which time all bets are off and everybody, civilians as well, will be required to do there duty...this I accept...have been there and have got the T-shirt.

Here is the question...can a Reservist be sent off to Afghanistan against his will,  e.g I`m a 1 man professional business person, if I dont work my family does not eat, our mortgage is not paid, and there is no money in the bank account...can the DND send me off the Afghanistan in spite of these circumstances or is it purely voluntary.

I was led to believe that competition for deployment training is very stiff and that you must be able to commit at least 1 year to training. I cannot see the average "married with kids Reservist", being able to make this time commitment. 

This might be the reason why the Reservist who was mentioned in the newspaper article was not able to deploy.

Whats your opinion

 

[Snaketnk]

Korporal, what you said is entirely true, but the way I read the article, it seems like the reservist in question volunteered to deploy, did the pre-deployment training, and then claimed to be a conscientious objector. That is why he was released.

Going overseas, except in an all-out war (as you mentioned) is completely voluntary for reservists. Volunteering, costing the government many thousands of dollars in pre-deployment training, and then saying "Oh yeah, War is bad, so I won't go" is, in my opinion, intolerable. This sounds like a perfect situation for the 48th regulator's proposal.

 

[Haggis]

By definition, as stated before, a contentious objector is one who opposes war and armed conflict in general... 

So, there are many reasons not to deploy when you are called upon, and most can be dealt with by case.  Of course, a member who never deploys siting these reasons might as well look elsewhere for employment, but for the most part, these cases are not black and white.

There is a huge difference between a legitimate conscientious objector and someone who DAGs RED for every deployment (I see them here at NDHQ.  Every unit has them.)

Given the universality of service requirement, a conscientous objector cannot, IAW their beliefs, be deployed on any operation where combat is a remote possibility.  They may as well be given a 4c release, with the thanks of the Canadian public for thier service to date.

On the other hand, the member who is perpetually DAGging RED, but goes on every high speed course, makes every sports day, mess dinner and parade should be looked at in a much harsher light.

Here is the question...can a Reservist be sent off to Afghanistan against his will,  e.g I`m a 1 man professional business person, if I dont work my family does not eat, our mortgage is not paid, and there is no money in the bank account...can the DND send me off the Afghanistan in spite of these circumstances or is it purely voluntary.

The short answer is "no".  Unless an Order in Council is passed placing you on active service (which hasn't been done in over sixty years) you must volunteer.

 

[Korporaal]

Gents...thank you, that makes sense to me.

I was starting to get worried reading all the posts.

My wife has told me in no uncertain terms that she would leave me if I volunteered. She says that I`ve done my bit for Western civilization against the communist Peoples Liberation Army of Namibia, Cuban, Russians and East Germans in South West Africa/Angola in 81 and 82., but she does undertand that I`m more comfortable with the military than civilians generally.

Conscientious objectors..had them in South Africa...I have no time or respect for a "man" who lives under a soldiers protection then criticises how the protection is given.

 

[McG]

Scott Taylor, a former soldier who now publishes Esprit de Corps magazine, said  "There was a long time when unless you were in the infantry, you wouldn't be doing any front-line stuff where there might be some danger," he said.

Really?  I know Scott's time in the CF was short, but has he really forgotten all the other arms that were always around?  or that Infantry were not the only Combat Arm?  What time is he thinking of?

I remember reading something about a reserve officer becoming a contentious objector a while back... he wasn't even set to deploy... I wonder what ever happened to him?

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/50044.0.html

 

[iwasthere]

RHFC_Piper,

We were on the same rotation if Im not mistaken, and there was a reservist who pulled pin due to family reasons... I believe anyways. I could be wrong. This have anything to do with him? He pulled out in/around Wainwright.

 

[aesop081]

 Anyone in the CF, esp land elements, who refuses to go to war, should be at clothing half an hour later turning in their kit, and then half an hour later walking out the main gate in civvies.

The air force doesnt need those people either. When an infantryman shoots a bullet, he/she kills one person.  I drop a  torpedo, a sub explodes and 100 people drown. If our recruiting comercials weren;t so damned PC , people would know what they are getting into.

 

[RHFC_piper]

RHFC_Piper,

We were on the same rotation if Im not mistaken, and there was a reservist who pulled pin due to family reasons... I believe anyways. I could be wrong. This have anything to do with him? He pulled out in/around Wainwright.

Well... that kind of anchors my point that deployment isn't for everyone, and lots of factors contribute to troops pulling out.  But, this thread is about soldiers who have decided that they are contentious objectors to the conflict while on work up training for deployment, and site this reason to pull out of the tour... and their subsequent, and deserved, release from the forces.

There were people from TF3-06 who didn't deploy for various reasons, but I don't remember anyone coming out as a contentious objector. 

My main argument, and source of confusion, is in regards to the reservists who have taken the "objector" route and bailed from their tour...  it's just baffling.

 

[iwasthere]

Fair enough, just checking.

 

[geo]

People drop out OR are dropped for a variety of reasons... I will limit myself to the Reservists - though Regs are in the same / similar boat:
Good ones:
- Dagged RED
- Poor appraisal - needs more experience
- Poor appraisal - lousy performance / zero teamwork
- Family reasons - Death / disease in the family, gotta look after the family / family business / Wife & or kids have gone balistic...

Lousy ones
- Feels he needs more experience - though NCOs & Offrs don't
- Wants to take his QL5 or PLQ ...
- Got a call for a civy job - after 8mths of leadup training
- Got a call for a military job (class B) - after 8 mths of leadup training
- "Personal" reasons - withouth specifying

 

[Future Pensioner]

Naval Cadet Michael McWhinnie, spokesman for the chief of military personnel, said National Defence policy

Since when did "Naval Cadet's" become spokesmen for the Military?????

 

[geo]

Naval Cadet Michael McWhinnie, spokesman for the chief of military personnel, said National Defence policy

Since when did "Naval Cadet's" become spokesmen for the Military?????

well.... I did look him up and there he is, as big as life on the DIN
NCdt in public affairs -  function = "OJT"

have a feeling that someone is going to be talking to him about this.

 

[vonGarvin]

Steve Staples, director of the Rideau Institute, said some are enticed by flashy ads, the prospect of steady employment or the chance to help out fellow Canadians in emergencies. He believes the Canadian Forces should find other roles for those who don't want to fight in Afghanistan.

"They thought they were signing up to help Canada, not fight someone else's war in the Middle East," he said.

OK, I'm coming to this thread a bit late; however, I must reply to "Mr." Staples.  His bias shows when he says They thought they were signing up to help Canada, not fight someone else's war in the Middle East.  If you're not deployable, and if you "don't want to fight" in Afghanistan, well, then, we DO have other roles for them to fill.  It's called CSLI (Civvie Street Light Infantry).  In other words: get out.  We need every person we have to do whatever job we tell them to do.  This is a volunteer army, and if they don't like it, that's too bad.  Just as the army doesn't get to choose which wars to fight, neither do the soldiers get that right of choice. 

Scott Taylor, a former soldier who now publishes Esprit de Corps magazine, said some resist deployment because they aren't psychologically or physically ready for combat or because they get cold feet.
Many signed up to learn a trade or because they thought it would be an adventurous career path -- not to fight a war.
"There was a long time when unless you were in the infantry, you wouldn't be doing any front-line stuff where there might be some danger," he said. "So it was kind of like a lifetime of training for a war you never thought was going to happen."

I don't know where to begin.  First of all, joining the ARMED forces for a trade (which is fine) but then being surprised that there may be danger involved?  PUTZ!  Why then did even postal clerks get weapons training?  I mean, really....

As for that BS line that "only the infantry" are in the front line stuff, I suggest to "Mr." Taylor that he reach back, WAAAAY back into his memory and recall those around him during his brief tenure in the military.  Those tanks weren't manned by infantrymen: they were manned by crewmen.  The FOO?  Artillery officer, if you could imagine that!  The echelon?  Armourers, vehicle techs, maintainers of all stripes!  All in the A1 ech, which was, even back in Germany, a mere "tactical bound" behind them fightin' troops in the infantry!  And lets not forget the Admin Clerk who doubled as the company clerk!  Oh, and I suppose that the then Private Taylor never ate anything while in the field.  For if it were hard rats, then some supply tech somewhere did something about that, and if it were fresh, then we're talking cooks!

I recall a recruiting pamphlet from the 1970's.  On the cover was a sergeant from The RCR, standing alone in a field ("You stand alone").  Opening up the pamphlet that same sergeant (in the same pose) was now surrounded by everything from tanks to techs ("But you're never alone").  Even in that era, the focus was on WARFIGHTING.  Yes, the cold war was on, but the message was clear:  you may join for trades training, but in the end, you are a SOLDIER, part of a team.


Sorry for my rant.  I'm off to have a coffee....

EDIT: just to say that I've had my meds (coffee and smoke) and to add this "inspirational photo"

 

[geo]

Good rant Rockpainter +1
Experts?  Peshaw!

 

[Haggis]

well.... I did look him up and there he is, as big as life on the DIN
NCdt in public affairs -  function = "OJT"
have a feeling that someone is going to be talking to him about this.

Why... for telling the truth?  Whomever "talks to" this NCdt should probably say "well done, lad." Do you think for a minute that CMP doesn't see things the same way?  Our current CMP is an Infantry officer who is doubtless well aware of the personnel challenges facing all deployed operations.

I recall a recruiting pamphlet from the 1970's.  On the cover was a sergeant from The RCR, standing alone in a field ("You stand alone").  Opening up the pamphlet that same sergeant (in the same pose) was now surrounded by everything from tanks to techs ("But you're never alone").

I remember that pamphlet clearly.  As a cadet I kept one taped to my door until I was old enough to join the CF.

Even in that era, the focus was on WARFIGHTING.  Yes, the cold war was on, but the message was clear:  you may join for trades training, but in the end, you are a SOLDIER, part of a team.

There's pages and pages of discussion on this board as to how and when we "lost our way".  I believe it started when our name was castrated from "Canadian Armed Forces" to "Canadian Forces".

Nonetheless, given the almost obsessive and constant media coverage of our mission in Afghanistan, anyone who now joins the CF and who doesn't have a pretty clear understanding of who we are and what we do is, quite probably, going to be found to be in violation of the CF Drug Use Policy.