On Casualties...

[TCBF]

Be prepared to be offended by what I tell you:

There is a good chance that Robert Pickton has allegedly killed more Canadians than the Taliban have.

Offended yet? 

Perhaps instead of yelling "Bring Our Soldiers Home From Afghanistan!" Canadians should be yelling "Bring Our Hookers Home From Vancouver!"

So, some comparisons:  it is too easy to say that we lose thirty Canadians a year in canoeing accidents, so lets start with the military "Butcher's Bill":

1.  From the Dieppe Canadian Cemetery:  807 dead on the raid, 100 of the wounded would die later in England or Germany. 

Next example please...

Oh,. and kindly ignore the "What if it was your son or daughter?" trolls.  That argument isn't good enough to lock up murderers for life, so it won't wash here.

 

[geo]

TCBF...
There are waaaay more deaths from Impaired driving... maybe we should join MADD and wage war on the Drunks, the Bars, Distilleries & Breweries.

There are waaaay more deaths from Lung Cancer....... maybe we should join a group and wage war on the convenience stores and the Tobaco manufacturers.

While any death is a steep price, should we not be looking at the whole package of what we are doing in Afghanistan add up all the cons AND the PROS.  Methinks we are accomplishing more than what the media wants us to prove to the Canadian public.

 

[FascistLibertarian]

Black Watch 1944 July 25th

Hong Kong Dec 1941 
Hong Kong and Japan Jan 1941-VJ Day

 

[TCBF]

Geo:  Righto.  Just because we are taking casualties doesn't mean we are not winning.

FL:  Provide numbers please.  The idea is to show people what heavy casualties really are in our historical context.

 

[Haggis]

Tom:
(Troll Hat On)
The government didn't send those victims to meet with or confront Robert Pickton.  They did so of thier own free will.  They CHOSE to go with him and paid with their lives.

The government sent Canadian soldiers to Afghanistan without giving them a choice in the matter. They did what their government ordered them to do, under pain of punishment through Canadian Law.  They, too, paid with their lives.
(Troll Hat Off)

Now, that being said, Robert Pickton was never elected into a position of political power where he could influence the lives of young Canadians.  Stephen Harper was.  Facts notwithstanding, the media continually reports that a Conservative government is sending (note the use of the present tense) Canadian soldiers to Afghanistan, and that is the ONLY reason why the Liberal leaning Canadian media will not buy into your comparison.  

While any death is a steep price, should we not be looking at the whole package of what we are doing in Afghanistan add up all the cons AND the PROS.  Methinks we are accomplishing more than what the media wants us to prove to the Canadian public.

Geo:  

The mission's CONS sell papers.  The PROS don't.  Sales equals advertising revenue.  Revenue equals paycheques for editors, publishers and "journalists" who contribute to the cause of selling papers by printing the CONS.  If you want to read about the good work being done in Afghanistan, read the "Maple Leaf".

But that's all just propoganda.....

The idea is to show people what heavy casualties really are in our historical context.

The numbers don't matter.  What matters is how and in what context those numbers are presented in the media.  So we lose one soldier and kill 75 insurgents, save a village from being sacked and build a school.  What matters is how that one Canadian death is presented to the VOTERS.

 

[Old and Tired]

Battle of Ortona - 1,374

 

[Roy Harding]

...
The government sent Canadian soldiers to Afghanistan without giving them a choice in the matter. They did what their government ordered them to do, under pain of punishment through Canadian Law.  They, too, paid with their lives.
...

Haggis:

I disagree.  Ours is an all volunteer military.  Everybody has a choice to join, or to release at will.  And as I recall, some did "release at will" during Gulf War I, and when the Afghanistan missions ramped up.

Roy

 

[geo]

Everybody has a choice to join, or to release at will.  And as I recall, some did "release at will" during Gulf War I, and when the Afghanistan missions ramped up.
Roy

Had to do a "staff check" recently.  Turns out that, there is / was a grand total of 1 person from the CF (in my area) who has gone on record as asking to be released for conscientions reasons.  This since 2001.

 

[Old and Tired]

In keeping with the idea of giving it some historical context, we can look at the BIG PICTURE of WWII and Canada's involvement.  Approx 43,500 (CON) in almost exactly 6 years.  Liberation of Europe from the Nazi's and Asia from Imperial Japan (PRO).

The idea of using lives lost as a means of measuring success or failure, gain or loss, is an attention grabber for the media and those that are on the extremes of the political spectrum.  Be the Liberal, NDP, or Conservative.  For me, the measure of our success, is whether at the End of Today Our small part of the world where we have influence, at home or overseas, is better off than it was and the end of yesterday.  Then We strive to ensure that at the end of the Day tomorrow, the place is better off than it was today.

 

[zanshin]

Umm... there's a hockey-sock of us reservists over here.  We volunteered...  ;D

Mark

 

[Gunner98]

Vimy Ridge - 2 days: 3,598 dead out of 10,602 Canadian casualties. 4 VCs.

Ortona was 9 days.

Roy - not exactly 'release at will', perhaps 'do not deploy on a whim'.

 

[Haggis]

Haggis:

I disagree.  Ours is an all volunteer military.  Everybody has a choice to join, or to release at will.  And as I recall, some did "release at will" during Gulf War I, and when the Afghanistan missions ramped up.

Roy

True, but if they want to stay gainfully empolyed in our volunteer military, they cannot choose which missions to deploy on or which orders to obey.  Secondly, a member cannot release "at will".    NDA Section 30(1) states;

(Except during an emergency, an officer or non-commissioned member who is not on active service is entitled to be released at the expiration of the term of service for which the officer or non-commissioned member is enrolled or re-engaged.

Section 31 of the NDA defines this further (with emphasis added for ISAF):

(1) The Governor in Council may place the Canadian Forces or any component, unit or other element thereof or any officer or non-commissioned member thereof on active service anywhere in or beyond Canada at any time when it appears advisable to do so

(a) by reason of an emergency, for the defence of Canada;

(b) in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the United Nations Charter; or

(c) in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the North Atlantic Treaty, the North American Aerospace Defence Command Agreement or any other similar instrument to which Canada is a party.

However, in practise "Release as of Right" is allowed as the CF really doesn't want to deploy a member who objects so strenuously to being deployed that he is willing to sacrifice his livelihood.  As Geo said, it is extremely rare.

A hooker can choose their client, their "specialty" and the venue where s/he will deliver their "product".  A soldier cannot.

 

[Cloud Cover]

HMCS Athabaskan sunk on April 29, 1944 with a loss of 110,
HMCS Guysborough sunk on March 17, 1945 with a loss of 51,
HMCS Louisburg sunk on February 6, 1943 with a loss of 38,
HMCS Margaree sunk on October 22, 1944 with a loss of 142,
HMCS Skeena sunk on October 24, 1944 with a loss of 15,
HMCS Shawinigan sunk on November 25, 1944 with a loss of 91,
HMCS Spikenard sunk on February 11, 1942 with a loss of 77,
HMCS Weyburn sunk on February 22, 1943 with a loss of 5.

 

[Gunner98]

The final question during the pre-deployment social work screening is:

"Is there any reason for which you do not feel you should deploy?"  Insert own whim, wish or whine.

 

[Roy Harding]

Haggis:

Fair enough - I just wanted the fact out there.  And you're right regarding the "Right to Release".  But as you have pointed out, it's extremely rare for someone who objects to get through the DAG process.

During the ramp up for APOLLO (the Army portion of it), I am personally aware of three soldiers who "pulled the pin" rather than be deployed.  I have no idea what they might have said on their release paperwork - so whether they'd show up on a staff check, I don't know.


Roy

 

[GAP]

Why has the flavour of this thread taken on the issue of "poor soldiers - they don't have a choice"?

If you want to talk about casualties, talk about casualties in relation to other operations/countries/etc. Don't mix your political stripe/wishes with the issue of casualties.

 

[Haggis]

Umm... there's a hockey-sock of us reservists over here.  We volunteered...   ;D

Yes, you did,  And kudos to you for doing so.  However, once you signed your contract, you're in for the duration.  See CANFORGEN 089/06.

In any case the approach to the press regarding casualties can be paralleled to the approach of the anti-gun lobby.  fotr example, try this imaginary poll question:

"If (select one statement) pulling Canada out of Afghanistan/banning guns in Canada saves one life, is it worth it?"

How many lives have Canadian troops saved in Afghanistan?  How many lives have been saved through lawful use of a firearm?

How many times have either of these numbers gotten air time???

 

[midget-boyd91]

IMO the amount of casualties isn't going to be the main target for those who oppose the mission. There is an uproar in Germany telling the government to leave Afghanistan now (much for the same reasons as here, ie: Bush's war, and other garble), and German soldiers are not taking nearly the amount of casualties as the US, UK and Canada are.
It all falls back into the same reasons as always: Most people in those countries don't like Bush, they listen to too much opposition from other parties (who get too much media attention) and have forgotten why we are there. 90% were in favour of military action after 9/11, but due to lack of coverage then , people forgot about Afghanistan. There was a relocation to Kandahar which put it back on the front pages again, and it never left the front pages...support has dropped drastically.

 

[3rd Herd]

Tom,
just checked CP Stacey's Six years of War, in the appendices there is a break down of rates by six month period and geographical campaign area both Officer and OR but not by unit. But if you look by individual battle, the highest rates for Canadian individual units aside of Dieppe was the Black Watch in the Opening of Antwerp. Whitaker has complied some interesting figures in this regard unit by unit. I will keep my eyes open for a more complete brake down but I suspect that Bomber Command had the highest rates.

 

[hugh19]

While not Canadian the U-bootewaffe took the highest losses in WW2, With a 75% casualty rate.