The lack of leadership

[sigtech]

I don't know why Afghanistan, but in my opinion it really has nothing to do with nation-building. If Canada really had a serious inkling to "nation build", we'd send SNC Lavalin over there to construct a giant toll hi-way and contract Canadian Tire and Rona to supply home building materials. [crappy tire money in the 'Ghan- how's that for capitalist democracy?] Karzai needs cash, and he needs a few thousand western troops hanging around, but the "new" Canadian army is needed elsewhere. [assuming that a nuclear armed, cruise missile equipped Pakistan can be counted on to continue to hunt, [and not aid] the enemy- big assumption over the long term.]

If we want to use the armed forces to nation build by forcing peace and democracy, how about Iraq, Sudan or perhaps parts of the emerging Palestinian state and the list goes on?    

There's no shortage of brave Canadians willing to undertake the tasks, we seem to have a shortgage of funds and leadership to take them where they could be of most value.

You guys are right, we need an explanation.

Why Afghanistan ? As a member of Canada's ararmedorces we are told to go. Will a full explanation allow us to do our job better? I believe if you want explanations get into politics and discuss the whys in the House, as a soldier we just do like we are told to, as our fathers/mothers and there fathers and there fathers fathers did. Canada says go and we go.

Are more funds needed and better equipment need to allow Canada's solders to complete there task at hand , you know it.

It would be nice for the reasons of making war or intodays speak making peace to be as clear and clean as it was for my family members that served in WWI and WWII. The unfortunate fact is we go into areas to allow ececonomic growth of North American company's reasons are reasons what the bottom line is we do what we are told. We kiss our loved ones goodbye and we go.ccrappy for them but in most situations they know what they are getting into when they married someone that is a soldier.

As far as the leadership goes if you are talking the prime minister and other political postions that is up to all citizens of canada to vote in the correct people. Now the officer cadra well is there any way to breed good leadership there ?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Why Afghanistan ? As a member of Canada's ararmedorces we are told to go. Will a full explanation allow us to do our job better? I believe if you want explanations get into politics and discuss the whys in the House, as a soldier we just do like we are told to, as our fathers/mothers and there fathers and there fathers fathers did. Canada says go and we go.

...

In over 35 years of service I remained amazed at the fact â “ and I firmly believe it is a fact â “ that soldiers do better when they understand what and why.

I remember being admonished as a junior officer (as were many of my mates) for not explaining 'why' often enough or in enough detail.  The longer I served the more I came to understand.  I remember, more recently, admonishing junior officers and NCOs (many of them) for not explaining 'why' often enough or in enough detail.  I expect that those folks will have learned and I am confident that they, now, are admonishing junior officers.

We, the Western armies, have long believed that soldiers need to reason why and the older I get the more I, too, understand why.

 

[sigtech]

My job is not to ask the question why my job is but to do and die

 

[Michael Dorosh]

In over 35 years of service I remained amazed at the fact â “ and I firmly believe it is a fact â “ that soldiers do better when they understand what and why.

I remember being admonished as a junior officer (as were many of my mates) for not explaining 'why' often enough or in enough detail.   The longer I served the more I came to understand.   I remember, more recently, admonishing junior officers and NCOs (many of them) for not explaining 'why' often enough or in enough detail.   I expect that those folks will have learned and I am confident that they, now, are admonishing junior officers.

We, the Western armies, have long believed that soldiers need to reason why and the older I get the more I, too, understand why.

This is true; I think Arthur Currie started the trend in WW I, right?  Platoon commanders getting marked maps issued was probably unheard of before the Canadian Corps started doing it.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is true; I think Arthur Currie started the trend in WW I, right?   Platoon commanders getting marked maps issued was probably unheard of before the Canadian Corps started doing it.

That's certainly one aspect of the 'why' - in terms of 'why do it this way?'

There is another, going back, e.g. to about 218 BCE when Hannibal said, to his troops: " Long enough, in pursuing cattle among the desert mountains of Lusitania and Celtiberia, you have seen no emolument from so many toils and dangers; it is time to make rich and profitable campaigns, and to gain the great reward of your labours, after having accomplished such a length of journey over so many mountains and rivers, and so many nations in arms. Here fortune has granted you the termination of your labours; here she will bestow a reward worthy of the service you have undergone. Nor, in proportion as the war is great in name, ought you to consider that the victory will be difficult. A despised enemy has often maintained a sanguinary contest, and renowned States and kings have been conquered by a very slight effort."  This was a pretty mercenary 'why' but it appears to have had the desired effect.

Nelson did it, more than once: told his sailors that they fought for more than just a few meagre pennies and the lash.  Nelson's own comments about his own personal loyalty to king and country were intended to inspire his captains and to be passed through the fleet.

Even Wellingtons' famous remarks about the low social quality of his troops (" People talk of their enlisting from their fine military feeling - all stuff - no such thing. Some of our men enlist from having got bastard children -- some for minor offences -- many more for drink.") was a backhanded compliment and an acknowledgement that his men did more than just "do or die".

 

[sigtech]

wasn't vietnam a good example of asking the question why causeing issues with the troops. People drafted then started the question why am I here , why am i doing this? These questions led to deaths of troops due to the why askers failing to compleat the task given to them

 

[Michael Dorosh]

wasn't vietnam a good example of asking the question why causeing issues with the troops. People drafted then started the question why am I here , why am i doing this? These questions led to deaths of troops due to the why askers failing to compleat the task given to them

And your argument is that the US should have been in Vietnam in the first place?  If you have a clear imperative, then tell your troops about it.  If you don't, then get your troops the hell out of whereever you just sent them. 

 

[paracowboy]

I have always made it a point to know "why". I have always made it a point to tell my troops "why". They are not robots or idiots. You get better results from informed troops.

 

[Bartok5]

I have always made it a point to know "why". I have always made it a point to tell my troops "why". They are not robots or idiots. You get better results from informed troops.

`

Paracowboy...  Abosolutely true, and as a serving officer (and former NCO) I wouldn't want it any other way.  Why Afghanistan at this particular point in time?  Well, there are many theories regarding our original post-9/11 commitment, our subsequent national political desire to avoid the Iraq situation, etc, etc.  At the end of the day, right or wrong we have elected to commit our available combat power to the Afghan theatre.  So, in for a penny, in for a pound.  Let's make it frigging count for something.

I have no heart-ache with what we are currently doing.  Will "3-D" work?  Watch and shoot.  Is it any less a potentially valid prospect than a purely military approach?  In my humble view (having orchestrated the 6 km  K'har "bubble" of "carrot and stick" back in 2002), it is as good an approach as any.  We Canucks are pretty darned good at winning hearts and minds with positive incentives foremost - albeit with the "stick" lurking in the background.  The local Afghans living around K'har Airfield seemed to cotton on to that approach back in 2002.  Call me a fool, but I would tend to think that the same approach could/would work again. 

At the same time as we were winning over the local villages, there were "bad people" operating in limited terrorist cells who were launching rockets against KAF, planting fresh mines on our patrol tracks, laying IEDs and bridge demolitions on the main route into K'har city, etc.  So what?  Find them out, actively target them, kill them, and problem solved.  It ain't frigging rocket-science.  Those scum-bags need to die, and for every local that you bring on-side with a new well, school, etc - the chances of catching the undesirebles increases exponentially.  The locals know when an "outsider" comes to town.  And if you have earned their loyalty (the Afghan culture is huge on "quid pro quo"), you will know that there are "bad guys" floating around.  It is admittedly one thing to know that they are there and active, and quite another thing to catch them in the act and kill them.  But having won over the local populace?  Killing "bad guys" is not impossible.  Indeed, my experience was that the vast majority of villages were quite happy to have us close with and destroy - assuming that they got a new water well and/or a school out of the deal....

Sorry to digress from the orignal point.  As an "officer" do I want informed soldiers?  You bet your ass I do.  Because those soldiers are the ones doing the face-to-face business.  And if they don't know what is going on and cannot directly contribute to the political/military effort?  Well, then those very same soldiers are an uninformed liability.  It behooves me as a leader to educate my subordinates and tell them in no uncertain terms what their role is, what they need to spread amongst the civilian populace in terms of info-ops messages, etc, etc.  That is just plain common sense.  The soldiers on the ground are our "coal-face".  If we pooch that direct interface through a lack of institutional communication, then we have abysmally failed.  I really hope that we are not currently making a series of newfound mistakes, because when it comes to the Afghan theatre such idiocy is not a viable option.  We already know better.  We learned those very same lessons 3 years ago, and if we make stupid mistakes this time around we will have nobody to blame but ourselves for not having learned from previous experience. 

I'm not the least bit convinced that our new-found and purpose-trained "HUMINT Operators" and "CIMIC Dets" are the end all and be all.  The cynic in me suggests that they will be largely counter-productive in the Afghan sense, as that society views only combat-capable soldiers as worthy of interaction and anyone else as a waste of rations.  But hey - what do I know?  Perhaps our purpose-trained CIMIC and HUMINT types will gain the trust of the locals.  Best of luck to them.  Let's hope that they don't simply end up as fodder for hostage negotiations....

As for the rest of the PBI (Poor Bloody Infantry) headed over to Kandahar?  Best of luck.  One would assume that the immediate leadership wouldl have the requisite training and respect to speak to their subordinate soldiers on a truthful basis.  That said, they ought to be able to discuss with their soldiers the very real risks and rewards of their daily duties.  If they can, then all is well.  If they seemingly can't, then by all means the troops ought to righfully demand that they do so.  Our soldiers are owed no less, full-stop.

As usual, just my thoughts/observations.  FWIW.

 

[sigtech]

Being informed on what the job is and why we are there is to different things. Ya I want to know what I am suppose to be doing and why that needs to be done.
Now Why are we there, how does this help a Soldeir be more effective. In my experance this usally leads to well that isn't a good reason to be here so why am I here. I would rather be at home with my wife and kids etc etc.
Is it really our place to question why we are somewhere? If you want to question why we are there mabey the army isn't the place for that person. We are sent all over the place for some good reasons and for some really crappy reasons. When you get down to it, no matter were we are sent a job needs to be done. Sitting around and going over and over why are we here helps not.

I am not a robot but I did sign on the line to serve Canada and that I will do no matter where I am sent and the reasons behind it. The information I want is what needs to be done when we get there , hand out food , gaurd a camp etc etc. That is the information is needed.

 

[paracowboy]

Being informed on what the job is and why we are there is to different things. Ya I want to know what I am suppose to be doing and why that needs to be done.
Now Why are we there, how does this help a Soldeir be more effective. In my experance this usally leads to well that isn't a good reason to be here so why am I here. I would rather be at home with my wife and kids etc etc.

knowing why we are there is knowing what the job is. Infantrymen respond much better knowing why they are in place. We need that information, or we can't patrol effectively. If we don't understand the socio-political background, and the Comd's Intent (all the way to the PM's Office), we can't dig for the Int needed, etc. We're just driving/walking around.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Somehow the original question sideslipped into how the mission is sold to the soldiers.  Again, and with feeling:

"Canada's politicians have failed in their duty to tell Canadians and the military why we're in Afghanistan"

Forget the CDS.  Think rather of Paul Martin.  What has he told the citizens of Canada that makes you coming home on a slab and a flag for your mother or wife worthwhile?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Somehow the original question sideslipped into how the mission is sold to the soldiers.   Again, and with feeling:

"Canada's politicians have failed in their duty to tell Canadians and the military why we're in Afghanistan"

Forget the CDS.   Think rather of Paul Martin.   What has he told the citizens of Canada that makes you coming home on a slab and a flag for your mother or wife worthwhile?

Absolutley.

That is Senator Kenny's message and I endorse it.

The CDS and most commanders, I am sure, are doing their part but they need the government's rationale and so do ordinary Canadains.  That's Paul Martin's part.

 

[Pikache]

Being informed on what the job is and why we are there is to different things. Ya I want to know what I am suppose to be doing and why that needs to be done.
Now Why are we there, how does this help a Soldeir be more effective. In my experance this usally leads to well that isn't a good reason to be here so why am I here. I would rather be at home with my wife and kids etc etc.
Is it really our place to question why we are somewhere? If you want to question why we are there mabey the army isn't the place for that person. We are sent all over the place for some good reasons and for some really crappy reasons. When you get down to it, no matter were we are sent a job needs to be done. Sitting around and going over and over why are we here helps not.

I am not a robot but I did sign on the line to serve Canada and that I will do no matter where I am sent and the reasons behind it. The information I want is what needs to be done when we get there , hand out food , gaurd a camp etc etc. That is the information is needed.

Blind loyalty can be a tool used by bad leaders to commit bad acts. Is Canada free of such people? Almost. There are always few bad apples in every barrel.

 

[a_majoor]

A reader replied to David Frum's Canada Day collumn with this:

AUG. 12, 2005: A READER WRITES

... about my Canada Day post on Canada's national military record. As edited:

"The sheer guts, determination, mental toughness and self-confident professionalism of our citizen soldiers, sailors and airmen in the two world wars (especially the later years) never ceases to amaze me. I wonder sometimes if that spirit is gone. I guess we won't know till we find we really need it again some day. In 1939 Hitler seemed to think that the West were too decadent to pose a threat. He might have been right about some, but not all. Perhaps it takes a real threat to bring it out in us. Luckily for us, we have been able to stand on the sidelines during the present war on terror. It does not seem to amount to much of a threat to the average Canadian and in truth Canada has not been seriously attacked in this war. My guess is we have the Americans to thank for that.

"My two grandfathers served in the Great War: [One] in the Royal Engineers and [the other] in the 49th Battalion CEF. [My maternal grandfather] was one of those 45,000 casualties suffered by the Canadian Corps in the last 100 days of the war recounted by Mr. Schreiber. He served again in the next war as a Halifax-based military doctor. He died in his fifties. [My paternal grandfather] died in the 1930's. Probably the health of both was broken by their military service. I never know either of them. But I haven't forgotten them or their comrades either. Neither has the rest of our family.

"My father served in the Second World War. My brother is a lieutenant-colonel. Naturally he swears up and down that the regular combat arms troops he trained with were generally excellent. I was in the Reserves in Toronto for a few of my high school years and trained a couple of times with the regulars whom I always found to be frighteningly efficient. Certainly in the 1970s it seemed to me that the 'self-confident professionalism' bit was very much alive. We reservists were of course a different matter. But were we all that different from the militias and recruits of 1914 or 1939?

"Many think we could not recreate the wartime spirit that proved so essential to victory, especially people who seem to think the younger generation isn't any good for anything. But I am fairly (although not entirely) confident that somewhere deep inside modern Canadians that same tough bloody-mindedness still survives, like the spark of courage in Tolkien's fattest hobbits, well-buried under the physical and mental softness of modern life.

"People aren't stupid and would, I believe, wake up to a real threat if it were more self-evidently threatening to Canada itself and if the leaders of the day properly laid it all out to them. I fear however that such a change of attitude might take more time than the threat permitted, and that we would be defeated before we were truly ready, something like France in 1940. That's why I thank God for the Americans, for right now they are holding the fort for the rest of us and they are buying us time to get ready to meet whatever dangers the future may hold, some of which could quite easily pose such a threat that even the sleepiest Canadian would have to wake up."

 

[sigtech]

Blind loyalty can be a tool used by bad leaders to commit bad acts. Is Canada free of such people? Almost. There are always few bad apples in every barrel.

Bad apples in every barrel huh, so here is the question for you, your told you are to go overseas and don't agree with the why do you go?
I see both sides of the story and can deffently see why people are saying they want to know. now being called a bad apple because I chose to serve without question that is compleatly uncalled for. I have found to many in todays forces that treat this as a 9-5 job. while working in recruting I was told to tell people that wanted to join the reserves that they wouldn't have to go if there was ever a need and it would be there choice. You make your choice when you sign on the line. That isn't blind I sign with my eyes wide open.like it or not we are Canada's tool to enforce there will.That is all members of the forces from the techs that keep the machine running to the grunts that have to do the hard stuff the front line patroling and dieing if need be.

 

[Edward Campbell]

... your told you are to go overseas and don't agree with the why do you go?

Although ethics ought not to be situational, one's ethical response can be.

Consider:

"¢ You are a professional regular soldier;

"¢ You are ordered overseas - into operations; and

"¢ You believe, quite firmly, that the government-of-the-day has made a blunder.  The operation to which you are assigned is bad foreign policy, bad defence policy, ill considered and, possibly, poorly planned, at the political level.

Q:  What to do?
A:  Suck it up; pack your bags; b!tch to your friends, relatives, comrades-in-arms, etc; vote for some other rascals, next time.  Come home safely, we all hope.

But, consider:

"¢ You are a professional regular soldier;

"¢ You are ordered overseas - into operations; and

"¢ You believe, quite firmly, that the government-of-the-day has made a serious moral error.  The war aims are unjust.  Participating in the operation may well put you at odds with international law and will, without fail, conflict with your own high ethical standards.

Q:  What to do?
A:  March to the CO's office.  Tell him, loudly and clearly: "Sir, I cannot and will not go."  After a period during which you are invited to reflect and reconsider and then during which you are summarily tried and convicted, you serve your sentence, accept your involuntary release and go on about your life.

You always have options.  No soldier should be forced to violate his own ethical standards; (s)he may have to spend the 'duration of hostilities' doing some combination of penal servitude and good works.  If, on the other hand, the soldier's objections are, for example, to poor equipment, lack of training, a lousy team of leaders, etc, etc ad infinitum then (s)he needs to fall in at the end of e very, very long queue (going back 2,500 years or more) and soldier on.

 

[Cloud Cover]

• But, consider:
  
  "¢ You are a professional regular soldier;
  
  "¢ You are ordered overseas - into operations; and
  
  "¢ You believe, quite firmly, that the government-of-the-day has made a serious moral error.   The war aims are unjust.   Participating in the operation may well put you at odds with international law and will, without fail, conflict with your own high ethical standards.
  
  Q:   What to do?
  A:   March to the CO's office.   Tell him, loudly and clearly: "Sir, I cannot and will not go."   After a period during which you are invited to reflect and reconsider and then during which you are summarily tried and convicted, you serve your sentence, accept your involuntary release and go on about your life.
  
  You always have options.   No soldier should be forced to violate his own ethical standards; (s)he may have to spend the 'duration of hostilities' doing some combination of penal servitude and good works.   If, on the other hand, the soldier's objections are, for example, to poor equipment, lack of training, a lousy team of leaders, etc, etc ad infinitum then (s)he needs to fall in at the end of e very, very long queue (going back 2,500 years or more) and soldier on.

  
  I agree, but I would would hope that a CO would respond to such a soldier by pointing out that
  • the war aims must not merely be unjust, but they must be so obviously unjust that no other explanation is possible, failing already having been found to be unjust by a competent authority over the soldier [i.e.Parliament];
  Even then, I don't think a finding of 'unjust war aims' is enough to refuse to go to war when ordered- I think the war or the operation itself must be illegal in international law, or an open, gross defiance of Parliament or both;
  • the operation must go beyond being at odds with international law, there must be an actual, demonstrable breach or intended breach of recognized   international law, and such a breach must also be one that Canada recognizes [perhaps we recognize all of them, I really don't know];
  
  Both circumstances must be so firmly established by facts that even the least morally challenged soldier could refuse to deploy, rather than actually deploying and then refusing to commit or participate in the commission of the illegal act at the site of the operations.
  
  Anything else leaves too much room for subjectivity-which weakens the power of the state over the soldier.
  
  My 0.02.

[/list]

 

[Edward Campbell]

I puzzled, a wee bit, over: "No soldier should be forced to violate his own ethical standards ..."  I was tempted to write that "no soldier can be forced ..." because I believe each of us has the right to refuse an order so long as we are ready and willing to accept the consequences - which might be prison.  On reflection I decided that some people can be forced, or coerced or persuaded - perhaps their ethical standards were not, after all, fixed and firm and reasonable or, perhaps, they have high standards but weak constitutions.

I agree that men and women who refuse an order should be able to demonstrate the righteousness of their position but I also believe that there is room for honest men to disagree on moral issues - witness e.g. abortion and capital punishment.  I believe that few things are absolute and the list of those which might be gets shorter as I get older.

 

[pbi]

wasn't vietnam a good example of asking the question why causeing issues with the troops. People drafted then started the question why am I here , why am i doing this? These questions led to deaths of troops due to the why askers failing to compleat the task given to them

Really? After 30-plus years in (and having read a b it of military history into the bargain...) I'd say that IMHO almost all troops (and certainly their leaders) at some time have doubts, uncertainties, or just need to know "why". This is probably much more prominent today, but I don't think it's new. If you agree with that premise, then I don't see how you could agree with the statement that "why askers" caused people to get killed in Vietnam or any other war. Perhaps those who fail to do their duty may have caused this (although you offer absolutely no proof, not even anecdotal...) but more likely soldiers died in Vietnam from the causes that have killed us since Julius Caesar's day: the enemy's actions, disease and accidents.

I might even go so far as to say that a few more "why askers" in the right places might have avoided ineffectual bloodbaths such as the Somme, Hong Kong and Dieppe.

Cheers.